Talk:Melchizedek priesthood (Latter Day Saints)

Dubious

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Apostles seemed to have been in order of age, should have a source for these things. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

See this Church webpage, in particular: "The President of the Church is always the senior Apostle—the person who has served as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for the longest time." which imo indicates the "of earlier appointment or admission, as to an office, status, or rank" definition of "senior". I'm sure there have been examples of Presidents that were not the oldest by age in the recent past, but I don't know off the top of my head without reviewing the history. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok that's great! Thank you for finding the link... the tags can obviously be removed. Altanner1991 (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Two brief informational things to note on this inquiry/issue: 1) in the earliest days of the church, it's true, seniority was determined by age. This was changed by Brigham Young. 2) A very recent example is when Thomas S. Monson (born 1927) became church president, with three other apostles that were actually older than him in age: L. Tom Perry (1922), Boyd K. Packer (1924), and Russell M. Nelson (1924). That is overall among the 15 apostles, with a related aspect being that Packer was the president of the Twelve, even though Perry (and even Nelson, by one day) was of course older than him there as well. ChristensenMJ (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Very informative reply, thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, aside from the current apostles being listed by seniority (ordination date) rather than age, it's worth noting that when multiple apostles are called, age is not always the determining factor for seniority. The last 3 times more than one apostle was called at the same time illustrate that.

In 1984, Russell M. Nelson and Dallin H. Oaks were called, sustained, and ordained in that order, and were ordained one month apart (because Oaks had judicial obligations that needed to be met before he could fully assume his role in the apostleship.

21 years later, L. Tom Perry, Boyd K. Packer, and Richard G. Scott all died between May and September 2015. In October, Ronald A. Rasband, Gary E. Stevenson, and Dale G. Renlund were called, sustained, and ordained in that order, even though Stevenson is younger than Renlund. That situation was similar to the 1906 calls of 3 apostles, which did not happen by age either.

Then in 2017, Robert D. Hales died, and with Thomas S. Monson not being actively involved in the day-to-day business of the Church due to his own ill health and decline, that vacancy went unfilled for almost 6 months, by which time Monson had died as well. Gerrit W. Gong and Ulisses Soares were called, sustained, and ordained in that same order, which was also in order of age. So the order in which apostles are called, sustained, and ordained is the key determining factor, not age. Hope these additional insights are helpful --Jgstokes (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

That is wonderfully informative, thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hierarchy summary chart should not omit information just because crossovers exist between ranks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@ChristensenMJ: An example of this is with the First Presidency: counselors may be from other quorums but we still show both separately and just assume that crossovers can occur. This is why I think area presidencies should be specified just like any other rank. Wanting to emphasize that "area" presidencies can be "general" authorities is not more an excuse. Let me know any thoughts... Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the thoughts. I think you have misread what I am saying - it's not that it should be omitted, nor is there an associated excuse involved. As the edit summary noted, perhaps area presidencies should be moved up into the general authorities space, since that is who is primarily serving there, rather than being associated with area seventies. The almost overwhelming norm of having general authority seventy be the area presidency roles would make it natural to include it there...they actually aren't really "local" leaders anyway, so it would seem natural to include it higher on the hierarchy table. Additionally, I am not sure the intent of the parallel, but the First Presidency is not an equivalent example. There is no quorum crossover...even if the "theoretical" idea is that one only need be a high priest to serve as a counselor and it "could" cross over, that's just not reality or practical. Even in some of the historical exceptions, such as J. Reuben Clark, even though he was called directly into the First Presidency, he was still then ordained an apostle. ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok but wouldn't it be simple and consistent to just have those titles there too like everywhere else? Either way they have to go somewhere, or it is misleading. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes they are not general authorities. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by keeping it simple and consistent in just having the titles there - where is "there"? Is it with the area seventies? That's not a good place. Yes, sometimes they are not general authorities, but that is the rare exception....I wonder if we are just talking past each other and saying similar things, or what the circumstance is here....it continues to seem you feel I am not in favor of including the information, which is not the case. ChristensenMJ (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, the area presidencies are made of general authorities so they can be considered in the above section. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I think another challenge here is that we are trying to creating an organizational-type chart in an HTML table. It is just woefully inadequate for the task. I thought about trying to use Template:Chart but it is not much better. What is needed is something like an Euler diagram probably made with an external software and uploaded to Commons. I might try a hand at it this next week. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the language is unfortunately a bit awkward given the current limitations of the chart. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Church Historian and Recorder

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is called a calling and an "office" of the Melchizedek priesthood, stemming from the revelations of Joseph Smith. Not sure if that counts with the other Melchizedek priesthood offices, or where the calling would rank. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

My guess is this is strictly a calling. Possibly this is a conflation of two meanings of the word "office" - a position of duty versus an administrative unit. What sources are you seeing that suggests this is a priesthood office? Are these primary or secondary sources? --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Church Historians are not "ordained", nor is Church Historian an "office" of the priesthood. Rather it is a doctrinally-defined calling. Some apostles and Church Presidents have taken on the role of Church Historians during their apostolic tenure, but no Church Historians and Recorders have been "ordained" as such. The main offices of the priesthood are deacon, teacher, priest, bishop, elder, high priest, seventy, apostle, and prophet, and each of those offices do require ordination.

Church Historians and Recorders have mostly been General Authorities of the Church, but insofar as I am aware, there is no doctrinal mandate or requirement stipulating that the Church Historian and Recorder must be a General Authority of the Church. On the subject of Church Historians and Recorders, though, it should also be noted that the Church will likely announce a new one this year, since LeGrand R. Curtis Jr. will turn 70 on August 1 of this year. --Jgstokes (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Well put - indeed it is a calling but not a "leadership calling". Altanner1991 (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Confusing edit summary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@FyzixFighter I am having trouble understanding your recent edit. The Area Seventy Presidencies seem to be equivalent to Temple Presidents or Stake High Councilors. I think they are supposed to be included in the chart of priesthood quorum hierarchy. You said that This conflates area presidencies with quorum presidencies - the Presidency of the Seventy presides over all Seventy; Area presidencies are a part of the Church administrative hierarchy, but not the priesthood quorum hierarchy, and do not hold keys but I do not see how they do not hold keys especially as they are to oversee a jurisdiction, which goes exactly with the definition of keys. Furthermore, area presidencies are, in fact, presidencies of quorums, so I do not see how that is a "conflation", as you said. Regards, Altanner1991 (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

They are not presidencies of quorums in the sense that they do not preside of priesthood quorums. The wording that I had removed indicated that they presided over the 3rd+ quorums, which is not the case. All quorums of the seventy are presided over by the Presidency of the Seventy. Areas are more an administrative organization within the Church and not a priesthood quorum. All area presidency members come from one of the quorum of seventy, but their jurisdiction is not over a quorum of the seventy (there are more area presidencies than there are quorums of seventy). In that sense areas are akin to stakes which are geographic administrative units of the Church. However, unlike stakes, the area presidencies do not fulfill a role similar to a stake president who is also the presiding high priest in the stake. The stake president has both administrative responsibilities for the stake but also directs the use of the priesthood within the stake (eg, priesthood ordinances), the latter of which requires keys. See this explanation for when priesthood keys are necessary and who holds them. I have found no sources that would indicate area presidencies are given or require keys.

Here are some additional links that might be helpful:

• Area Seventies
• General Authority Seventies
• Area Presidency

--FyzixFighter (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Well you have found a significant change to make for the article. Thank you, what I found most poignant from your last reply was this statement: "The wording that I had removed indicated that they presided over the 3rd+ quorums, which is not the case. All quorums of the seventy are presided over by the Presidency of the Seventy. Areas are more an administrative organization within the Church and not a priesthood quorum." and so your good edit is matched by a good explanation. With great appreciation, Altanner1991 (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Stake High Councilors might also need to be removed because their article likewise says that they did not receive priesthood keys in early Church history. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I would also recommend reorganizing the section headings and purposes to be about the priesthood quorum organization separate from Church hierarchy. IMO Church hierarchy is technically a parallel structure supported by the priesthood - in some cases the hierarchal structure does overlap as in the case of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, but not so much at the local level. The stake high council members are members of the high priest quorum, but the high priest quorum also includes other callings (bishoprics for example). The stake president has both an administrative role presiding over the stake and also a role as a quorum president. At the local level, quorums are more classrooms, service units, and brotherhoods for those in the quorum than administrative units. I might try a stab at some reorganization in the morning. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that makes things confusing. It is currently very organized. Hopefully it stays easy for people to understand. I don't see any issues with the article at this point. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Another user reverted Stake High Councilors back into the article: what are your comments on this? Altanner1991 (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jgstokes Not sure if you were aware of the discussion but Stake High Councilors do not seem to hold priesthood keys and so are like the Area Seventy Presidencies. Do you have a source that says otherwise? Altanner1991 (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

On the question of stake high councils, I refer you to Chapter 6, subsection 5 of the new Church General Handbook. That section indicates that, when acting as representatives of the stake president, particularly in presenting changes in stake leadership, speaking to ward congregations,, or making decisions in disciplinary councils, they are exercising priesthood keys.

I don't know what you mean when you refer to "area seventy presidencies". If you mean area seventies, they have keys allowing them to officiate in temple sealings, and to fill assignments given to them by area presidencies, including serving on area coordinating councils, organizing stakes and reorganizing stake presidencies, training stake, district, ward and branch leaders, and filling other assignments as delegated by area presidencies.

And if you meant area presidencies, they preside over areas and share the same roles as area seventies, but at an area level instead of the local level. Both area seventies and area presidencies can also preside at groundbreaking ceremonies. More details on the keys of area seventies and area presidencies can be found in section 5.2 of the Handbook. You can post any follow-up questions here. Thanks. Jgstokes (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

We had just decided to remove Area Seventy Presidencies, that's why I removed Stake High Councilors. Either both should be there, or not, but we can't have one and not the other. Altanner1991 (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, there are no "Area Seventy Presidencies". There are "Area Seventies" and "Area Presidencies", but the Presidency of the Seventy presides over all General Authority Seventies and Area Seventies' Quorums. So your terminology is confusing to try and decipher. Were Area Presidencies removed, or was it Area Seventies that were removed? It can be one or the other, but not both. Thanks for any clarification you can offer. Jgstokes (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes the page had longstanding Area Seventy Presidencies Area Presidencies/Area Seventies with details about their structure, but we removed them because they are not considered Leadership Callings. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC); edited 22:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Keys can be used by anyone in the priesthood but it is a special "leadership" calling when these keys are specifically bestowed in the ordination ceremony. Altanner1991 (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

As President Nelson has reminded us, keys are also bestowed in some cases where individuals are called to a leadership position that requires such keys. For example, a Relief Society Presidency, duly set apart in their assignments by bishops or stake presidencies, are given the keys to oversee the work of Relief Society in their congregations. So priesthood ordination is not the only scenario in which keys are bestowed. Those set apart in certain callings that require priesthood keys have those keys betowed as part of the setting apart process. And no, that is not at all limited to those who hold the priesthood. See https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng as support on that question. Jgstokes (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I am confused as to why you include Stake High Councilors but not Church Historian and Recorder. The argument in the above discussion had indeed been that one is a leadership calling, and the other is just a regular calling. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I refer you to two other articles here on Wikipedia that can answer this question better than I can: High council (Latter Day Saints) and Church Historian and Recorder. The former explicitly states that the High Council is part of the hierarchical structure, while the latter states that it is a priesthood calling. Also, changes to the high council have to be ratified by sustaining vote of the members of a stake, whereas the last two or three Church Historians and Recorders did not need to be sustained. The doctrinal precedents for both should clarify why they are different. Jgstokes (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes that is a good argument; thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jgstokes Aside from Church Historian and Recorder, stake high councilors are still not sufficiently sourced, in my opinion, as leadership callings. I would like to also add temple presidencies and mission-related presidencies to this list of poorly-sourced inclusions, because all of the others have their own quorums. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I suppose stake high councils are more significant than area presidencies, and so we can just include them. I will now close this discussion, since it had been only my concern. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced inclusions in the hierarchy section

I would like to remove stake high councils from the page because all of the others have quorums. The previous discussion included items of this interest, but they were milded by the other discussion(s). If there are arguments against this change, please place them in this section. Thank you, Altanner1991 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jgstokes, I will restate and rebut your arguments.

• the High Council is part of the hierarchical structure: This needs a source, and would still be only dubious language that can, for example, be applied to area presidencies.
• changes to the high council have to be ratified by sustaining vote of the members of a stake: The process of sustaining is normal in the church and may be used for relatively administrative roles.

Altanner1991 (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jgstokes Do you have references as to what leadership positions are formally sustained by a vote? This would be the only means, as of now, of supporting the inclusion of high councilors on the page. Altanner1991 (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Altanner1991, there is a difference. There are several key scriptures in the Doctrine and Covenants setting forth the importance of a high council at both the general level (Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) and at the stake level. While one could argue with validity that there is no scriptural basis for area presidencies, and that, as a subset duty of General Authority Seventies (or in some cases Area Seventies), area presidencies canot be included in the hierarchical structure, that is not true of stake high councils, for which there are several scriptural mentions and precedents.https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/high-council?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/high-council?lang=eng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID=311587B8115DB347-75EE0F1C15EF16A2%7CMCORGID=66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg%7CTS=1662270935 One could also argue the point that, as Bruce R. McConkie phrased it, "The practice of the Church constitutes the interpretation of the scripture." https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie/relationship-lord/ Above and beyond that, I thought that I remembered seeing a chart of the Church hierarchy somewhere. While I wasn't able to find that, a source independent of the Church provided a similar chart a decade ago. Although the source in question refers to the Church as "the Mormon Church", the hierarcical structure chart featured in the article does appear to be a somewhat accurate interpreation of what is considered as part of the Church hierarchy, which includes high councils: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2012/11/lds_leadership_chart_how_the_mormon_hierarchy_is_organized.html Of course, even if that is not enough to convince you, it is technically against o established Wikipedia policy for any individual editor to revert changes to which another editor has objected until the outcome of that objection is determined by consensuw (which requires agreement by a majorityi of participants). Sine we have been the only two weighing in here, until more users weigh in, the hierarchy list should remain as it was when I first challenged your edit. That is consistent with Wikipedia policy. Jgstokes (talk) 06:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes of course; the high council is still on the page (no reverts).
The fact that high councils are mentioned in the Doctrine and Covenants is a good argument, however further examples might be given whereby roles are in the scriptures and yet are clearly not valid for being the article. We must maintain a strict approach to defining "leadership calling", "calling", and "office". The high council is at the level of Young Men's leadership, or Area Presidencies.
I should note also that this article is only for the hierarchy of the Melchizedek priesthood, and not the church as a whole as in the Slate article. I did leave a message on your talk page about how it would be good to have a page on overall church callings, and this could obviously include the hierarchy as a whole, per your source(s). Altanner1991 (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The church's website about priesthood keys lists every item on our wiki chart except for high councilors. Therefore, high councilors are indeed supposed to be removed. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jgstokes and Altanner1991: I think that this is significantly hampered by the reorganization of subheadings that was done a couple of months ago. The problem, in my view, is that Church administrative hierarchy only overlaps with Melchizedek priesthood quorums only at the highest levels, that is the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. Yes the Church is governed and directed by those with priesthood keys, and leadership callings in the Church that themselves don't have keys but operate under the authority of those with keys, eg stake high councils, but there isn't a 1:1 corresponds with priesthood quorums. I think that the subheading "Hierarchy" should be replaced with "Offices", which would include the table and any special cases/histories (I'm thinking summarizing the changing usage of the Seventy office (my dad was a stake seventy back in the day, but then just a high priest when they discontinued the office at the stake level)); "Quorums and quorum organization", which would cover the existing quorum grouping and special cases like no quorum currently for the office of patriarch and also an explanation of quorum presidencies; and "Other leadership callings", which would include a discussion of leadership callings that require certain offices in the priesthood or that pull from specific quorums. Thoughts? --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I would encourage you to make the edits to the page, that way things could be discussed more easily. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

References

For the average person, D&C means Dilation and curettage

Only when I search books to I find Doctrine & Covenants. But there are a lot of sources with a name like that. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)