Talk:Priesthood (Latter Day Saints)

message: Just did a quick read through of the changes in this page referenced on Talk:Melchizedek Priesthood. Overall, the information is good, but there are doctrinal issues/clarifications that need to be fixed. I'll work on as soon as I get a few minutes. I'm still not sure on the wisdom of having a separate Melchizedek Priesthood and Aaronic Priesthood pages, as other religious denominations also claim to have one or both of these authorities, and the article as it stands is too Mormonsim-centric for NPOV. See comments on Talk:Melchizedek Priesthood. Visorstuff 14:09, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood pages, I think there should be separate pages for each, but the pages that exist now should probably be moved to Aaronic Priesthood (Latter-day Saint) and Melchizedek Priesthood (Latter-day Saint), and made NPOV. There should also be separate Aaronic Priesthood (Mormonism) and Melchizedek Priesthood (Mormonism) with "generic Mormonism" information on each, including the history of their restoration and other pre-1844 history. COGDEN 07:43, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Generic Changes

message: Per the directive of the [Latter Day Saint movement project] regarding articles ending (Mormonism), (Latter-day Saint), (Community of Christ), (Strangite), etc., this article has been combined with the former Priesthood (Latter-day Saint) article. --John Hamer 05:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recombining the (Mormonism) article with the (Latter-day Saint) article

message: In the artcle it says "In Mormonism, priesthood is considered to be (1) a power, or (2) an authority." Shouldn't "or" be replaced with "and"? --Parlod 18:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should - I went ahead and made the change - almost all quotes I remember (and could find) say "power and authority to act in God's name". Are there any objections Trödel|talk 20:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  And/Or 

message: Very nice work, Trodel - however, I hope you kept the original file - it needs some minor doctrinal corrections - the presiding bishopric is not independant of the twelve - the arrow should go from the twelve and first presidency to them. Same with Auxilliary boards and committees (I'd put a solid line from 12 and dotted line from 70 to Auxiliaries)(also, if you do auxilliaries on the general level, you should on teh stake and ward level as well - as they are all auxilliary to the priesthood). Then the 70s need to have solid to 12 not First presidency - remember they are to work "under the direction of the twelve."
Under missions, I'd put "Elders Quorum, Melchizedek Pristhood Group Leader or Aaronic Priesthood Group Leader" (maybe an asterisk would suffice, but this is important distrintion in may developing areas of the Church - and actually my own ward). I'd do teh same under branch on the stake chart level.
Under Stake, I'd put a dotted line under bishop to both quorum/group leaders -- he is the presiding high priest, and in practice is typically much more involved with directing their work than the Stake presidency is (also should add in auxilliaries and Aaronic Priesthood, see below).
Lastly, due to the "Latter Day Saint (not CoJCoLDS) slant to these pages, we'll need to add in the Aaronic priesthood quorum leadership. In other denominations, these play a much bigger role, and typically the culture in the CoJCoLDS does not give them the respect they should get (mainly because of age). The Teacher's quorum president, not an elder, would preside over a ward meeting in absence of a bishop, EQP or delegated responsibility to a HP. He holds keys and as such is in the hierarchy, and will play a much larger role in the winding up scene than most Mormons believe (think big meeting with people who hold keys). But in practice instruggling areas (for example, Russia) the Aaronic Priesthood may take a much more prominent role in the leadership of a Branch than in the established places like the United States.
The arrows could also be confusing - the green is to signify that the calling must be apprvoed by the 1st presidency - however, their direct reports are not in green. Also, I'm not sure that a Branch President needs 1st presidency apprvoal - a number of missionaries have served as this - not sure if the - does anyone know? For some reason, I'm not sure if this is correct....
This is an excellent chart - only focuses on CoJCoLDS perspective and cultural interpretations, rather than doctrinal interpretations (which is pretty common) - would like to see similar ones for other confusing tables in our pages. Let me know if you can still make the changes -Visorstuff 18:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments - I considered this a first pass and was planning on making adjustments. I used the arrows for who "calls" whom - rather than reporting relationships. Though often they are same thing. Also the stakes are directed by the Quorum of 12 but the seventy often receive assignments to do things and actually diret stakes when on those assignments. I am not sure how to show this on the chart. I was unsure about Branch Presidents but since they were analogous to Bishops I put the arrows in green - I know that missionaries serve as Branch presidents and that is not approved by anyone but the Mission president though I would guess the decision to use missionaries in that role would hvae to be approved by the First Presidency. Thoughts? Trödel|talk 19:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I was assuming that this Heirarchy was specific to CJCoLDS because it is under that section of the document (rather than higher in the article under general Mormonism stuff). So I am putting together a different chart for the priesthood organization as it applies to Mormonism in general - and will move it higher in the article. I think there is a need for more than one chart in the different Mormonism articles. So I will keep this one as is for adjustment and placement in an org structure for the LDS Church - note that it is very LDS centric with the inclusion of the structure and how it parallels the 3-fold mission of the Church - inclusion of 6 Quorums of Seventy, etc. Trödel|talk 01:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart

message: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prefers that notation.  "Latter Day Saint", "Latter-Day Saint", etc, is incorrect.  The correct notation is "Latter-day Saint".
:The article is not just about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but Mormons in general.  As such, "Latter-day Saints" is generally incorrect usage here.  The Jade Knight 07:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  notation 

message: -I noticed in the chart, under Deacons Quorum, it says "(12 Teachers)" instead of "12 Deacons", a blatant typo perhaps? --Lord Spade 01:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Priesthood Chart 

message: Merge with Mormonism
Only Mormons seem to deem themselfs worthy of a Temple page and a Priesthood page.
Where is the Cathedral (Catholic) or the Priesthood (Catholic) or other religions.
I think this page can live on the main page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Impending (talk • contribs) 
I have removed the merge tag per WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. There are plenty of precedents for articles on the clergy of various religions and Mormonism is no exception. Kafziel Talk 16:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Mormonism 

message: I am posting these here prior to making any edits in order to get feedback from prior editors of the page.
1. In the first part of the article I feel a bit of a cynical tone.  Over use of phrases such as "...is considered to be...", excessive use of quotation marks around terminology, along with repeated use of the phrase "...ritual ceremony..." make me feel a cynical slant.
2. In various places the phrases "There is some disagreement..." and "Many Latter Day Saints believe..." implies that there is debate or significant disagreement within established Latter Day Saint denominations.  While there is disagreement among denominations, I think within any given denomination there is little or no disagreement on most (not all) of these matters.  I think these statement should be reworded a bit to indicate disagreement between denominations of Latter Day Saints.
3. In some places the term "Latter Day Saints" is used, in others the term "Mormons" is used.  Is there some shade of meaning to 'Mormons' that is different from "Latter Day Saints"?
74s181 00:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with first two obs. for point 3, Mormons typically refer to a couple different groups. Those who self-identify as Mormons (LDS, FLDS, Strangite, others); the shared culture, hisotry and doctrines associated with those who came from Joseph Smith's teachings (ie, although CoC don't identify as Mormons, they have many Mormon history commonalities, and their earlier publications embrace them, and they still own some mormon items, sites, etc); and those latter day saints who are of the Brighamite or Strangite traditions. See also Latter Day Saint and Mormon Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 22:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc observations 

message: Why does this faith confuse me so much?
----- Osi Osi Osi  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.214.107.212 (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are attempting to convey the beliefs of this faith the best that we can on this and related pages.  There are several different branches, what you may call denominations, in the Latter Day Saint movement.  This talk page is meant for the discussion of the improvement of this article.  Perhaps you could read this and related articles, and give us specific information about what you don't understand and we could use this information to improve this article. — Val42 16:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If you think this is confusing, you should try reading Summa Theologica sometime. One potential issue is that the article seems to generally be written with the assumption that the reader will have at least a passing familiarity with many terms that are either unique to the various Book of Mormon-using sects, or are used by them in an idiosyncratic way. This isn't necessarily "bad", but it does render portions of the text rather murky if you don't have such a familiarity. Two specific contrasting examples may help illustrate the issue: while "quorum" is defined in its first appearance (in the first paragraph of the article), "keys" is eventually defined ... sort of, mostly by implication ... about halfway through the article, after being used multiple times. The casual reader might reach the impression that some kind of physical master key is being referred to.Ptorquemada (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing faith

message: I don't see why these two pages are separate (Priesthood (Latter Day Saints) and Priesthood (LDS Church)).  There appears to be significant duplication of information, and I percieve that it is confusing for non-LDS to get why there are two articles on apparently the same subject.  Why not put them into one article, and where differences between denominations exist, they can be spelled out in the article itself.
*Merge --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Should the be a small section detailing the different between power and authority?  For instance the apostles have the same power in the priesthood as the prophet, but the prophet only has the authority and keys to use them all.  Likewise, an Elder may have authority to confirm the holy ghost, but through transgression no longer has the power.
Thanks Superbuttons (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power and Authority?