This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Priesthood (LDS Church) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Proposed merge: add info from Unrighteous dominion into this article.
Does there really need to be an article on "unrighteous dominion"? Seeing as how it is a teaching that instructs how the priesthood should not be used, it seems it could easily be inserted into this article under a heading near the end. – SESmith 09:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually trying to figure out how this topic is different from Priesthood (Latter Day Saints). (I am not LDS, just ran across both topics while doing some research on a related topic) I'm wondering if this article and that one can be merged and a redirect created. Of course, I could very well be wrong - please let me know if I am! Lcarscad 23:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I notice that there is no mention of either a deacon's quorum or teacher's quorum president. These are both leadership offices in the Priesthood. Both presidents hold keys. In particular, the deacon's quorum president must hold at least the keys of the ministering of angels, and the teacher's quorum president must hold at least the keys of preaching the gospel/exhorting the saints.
My reasoning for these claims is simple. (1) "Aaronic Priesthood quorum presidents are given the keys to administer the work of the quorums over which they preside." Doctrine and Duties
http://lds.org/pa/display/0,17884,5085-1,00.html. Retrieved 26 March 2011. {{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help) (2) According to the current table, deacons have the keys of the ministering of angels (which is correct, but I don't recall the scripture reference to support it), and from D&C 107, teachers are responsible to exhort the saints/preach the gospel. ==> Therefore, the presidents of these quorums must hold those keys. NOTE: it is impossible that every deacon holds the KEYS of the ministering of angels. Rather, it must be that the President of the Quorum holds that key and turns it in behalf of his fellow quorum members.
While this might seem a small matter to some, think about the impact this information might have on deacons, teachers, etc. How many 12-16 year olds understand the sheer extent of their priesthood? I believe that much of this underestimation is a result of not knowing/not being taught what power and authority they actually hold.
I don't know how to edit the cool tables, and don't want to step on any toes. N.B.Callor ( talk) 06:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to admit I don't really know where the Presiding Bishop falls in the " Hierarchy of leadership", but should he be somewhere? The Presiding Bishop is a LDS priesthood calling with church-wide authority, isn't he?--- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk) 21:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Great idea, ChristensenMJ! I third this recommendation. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 07:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The article has been updated to reflect the new elders quorum and discontinuance of the high priest group. So, while the article is now current, all historical information has been removed. I'm thinking a section on, or at least a reference to, the pre-2018 structure would be appropriate. Thoughts? Bahooka ( talk) 02:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
So nothing for women? Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
First, I added the 1849 Cowdery quote because the anon editor had recently added in several other Cowdery quotes implying a contradiction in the accounts. Imo, the editor was cherrypicking these quotes to put forth an original synthesis. BH Roberts suggests that 1849 direct quote resolves the apparent discrepancy and is more reliable than the 1848 second-hand account of Cowdery's word. So if Cowdery isn't reliable for these events, then we really should remove all the extra Cowdery quotes that the anon editor added in. Secondly, with respect to Bushman, this is OR and SYNTH. The edit in question extrapolates (SYNTH) from a single quote from Bushman to "some scholars". Also, this is not an argument that Bushman is making when you actually look at the paragraph in question. Bushman is listing several hypotheticals for why the differences and separation in time between Cowdery's and Smith's accounts. Bushman also suggests other reasons, so why not mention those? Why cherrypick this one quote. If anything, Bushman assertion is found at the end of that paragraph - that it was "more like a refurbished memory than a triumphant announcement" so I argue that this is a misrepresentation of Bushman's statement. Given this, I am reverting to the prior version before the anon editor's recent edit. - FyzixFighter ( talk) 02:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Priesthood (LDS Church) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Proposed merge: add info from Unrighteous dominion into this article.
Does there really need to be an article on "unrighteous dominion"? Seeing as how it is a teaching that instructs how the priesthood should not be used, it seems it could easily be inserted into this article under a heading near the end. – SESmith 09:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually trying to figure out how this topic is different from Priesthood (Latter Day Saints). (I am not LDS, just ran across both topics while doing some research on a related topic) I'm wondering if this article and that one can be merged and a redirect created. Of course, I could very well be wrong - please let me know if I am! Lcarscad 23:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I notice that there is no mention of either a deacon's quorum or teacher's quorum president. These are both leadership offices in the Priesthood. Both presidents hold keys. In particular, the deacon's quorum president must hold at least the keys of the ministering of angels, and the teacher's quorum president must hold at least the keys of preaching the gospel/exhorting the saints.
My reasoning for these claims is simple. (1) "Aaronic Priesthood quorum presidents are given the keys to administer the work of the quorums over which they preside." Doctrine and Duties
http://lds.org/pa/display/0,17884,5085-1,00.html. Retrieved 26 March 2011. {{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help) (2) According to the current table, deacons have the keys of the ministering of angels (which is correct, but I don't recall the scripture reference to support it), and from D&C 107, teachers are responsible to exhort the saints/preach the gospel. ==> Therefore, the presidents of these quorums must hold those keys. NOTE: it is impossible that every deacon holds the KEYS of the ministering of angels. Rather, it must be that the President of the Quorum holds that key and turns it in behalf of his fellow quorum members.
While this might seem a small matter to some, think about the impact this information might have on deacons, teachers, etc. How many 12-16 year olds understand the sheer extent of their priesthood? I believe that much of this underestimation is a result of not knowing/not being taught what power and authority they actually hold.
I don't know how to edit the cool tables, and don't want to step on any toes. N.B.Callor ( talk) 06:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to admit I don't really know where the Presiding Bishop falls in the " Hierarchy of leadership", but should he be somewhere? The Presiding Bishop is a LDS priesthood calling with church-wide authority, isn't he?--- ARTEST4ECHO ( talk) 21:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Great idea, ChristensenMJ! I third this recommendation. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 07:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The article has been updated to reflect the new elders quorum and discontinuance of the high priest group. So, while the article is now current, all historical information has been removed. I'm thinking a section on, or at least a reference to, the pre-2018 structure would be appropriate. Thoughts? Bahooka ( talk) 02:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
So nothing for women? Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
First, I added the 1849 Cowdery quote because the anon editor had recently added in several other Cowdery quotes implying a contradiction in the accounts. Imo, the editor was cherrypicking these quotes to put forth an original synthesis. BH Roberts suggests that 1849 direct quote resolves the apparent discrepancy and is more reliable than the 1848 second-hand account of Cowdery's word. So if Cowdery isn't reliable for these events, then we really should remove all the extra Cowdery quotes that the anon editor added in. Secondly, with respect to Bushman, this is OR and SYNTH. The edit in question extrapolates (SYNTH) from a single quote from Bushman to "some scholars". Also, this is not an argument that Bushman is making when you actually look at the paragraph in question. Bushman is listing several hypotheticals for why the differences and separation in time between Cowdery's and Smith's accounts. Bushman also suggests other reasons, so why not mention those? Why cherrypick this one quote. If anything, Bushman assertion is found at the end of that paragraph - that it was "more like a refurbished memory than a triumphant announcement" so I argue that this is a misrepresentation of Bushman's statement. Given this, I am reverting to the prior version before the anon editor's recent edit. - FyzixFighter ( talk) 02:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)