Talk:Priesthood (Latter Day Saints)

Untitled

See Archive for Priesthood offices, patriarchal priesthood, Hierarchy, Org Structure

Major Generic Changes

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)

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)

I created a Priesthood (Latter-day Saint) page, and moved the LDS-specific material there.COGDEN 00:27, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Recombining the (Mormonism) article with the (Latter-day Saint) article

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)

And/Or

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)

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)

Church Leadership, Quorum Organization and Filling Vacant Callings

Not sure I quite get the intent of the latest rewrite -- always a good idea to fill in the edit summary by way of giving at least a hint. (I'm also very puzzled by it being flagged as a 'minor' edit.) Isn't the total of 15 apostles rather more than "typical"? I'd have thought it was, at least, of "traditional" standing, and perhaps one might be more specific still. Not that I any deep-rooted objections to the new content as such... Alai 20:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the minor edit - I accidentally clicked it after I hit the submit button - I also know I need to do a better job of summaries - As for your question, there have been times in Mormon history when there were more than two dozen men ordained to the office of Apostle at the same time. Even today, there are strongly-supported rumor of some 70 holding the office of Apostle. The difference is that only twelve are set apart as member of teh Quorum of the twelve. Only three men (only one of which needs to be an apostle) are in the first presidency, so "typically" there are 15, but there has been as few at 13 and as many as 26. Typical is better word than traditional, as it has fluctuated to 16 as recently as the early 80's, and as low as 14 in the late 40s.

Easily done. Thanks for the clarification. Interesting extra information there, but I suppose more than is necessary for this particular article. Alai 22:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the most senior member of the group (in years served as an apostle)

Isn't that seniority since (first) joining the Qot12A, according to earlier discussion, rather since ordination as an apostle? Alai 22:28, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chart

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)

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)

Hmmm. That explanation makes the arrows even more confusing, as all bishops are "called" by the First Presidency (much the same as a EQP is called by the Stake president after a "recommendation" from the bishop). I'd recommend doing reporting structure. In regard to how the stakes report into the twelve/70, think of the 70 as the high counsel to the stake presidency. The Stake President looks to the advice and counsel of the 70 assigned to him who acts for the twelve, in exacly the same way that the EQP looks to the high council assigned to him, although he reports to the stake president. The High Council and the 70 have no true jurisdiction over the presidencies named. So show the 70 in the same as you show the High Council. Still not sure on Branches. -Visorstuff 22:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) ...... stuff moved to Archive I'd still remove temple jurisdiction stuff - not relevant to "Priesthood" (mormonsim) unless you start discussing patriarchal priesthood, which is only brushed upon in the article.

-Visorstuff 00:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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)

Impressive-looking stuff, though waaaaay over my head. I agree that one needs to be both careful about where the 'arrows' go, and as explicit as possible as to what they represent. If it represents the 'in practice' reality of who makes appointments 'for all intents and purposes', rather than the doctrinal position of who is called by whom, or whose formal approval is required, say so as clearly as possible. Alai 00:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Priesthood (Mormonism) Chart

I made a new chart that I tried to create based on D&C 107 without regard to the way the revelation has been implemented at any of the Latter Day Saint movement churches. BTW - I left the First Presidency, the Quorum of Twelve both as HP in the chart because they are described as the three Presiding High Priests - and councilors to the presiding High Priests - but think they should probably be in a different color and listed as Apostles. Ditto Seventys. Though it is unclear from 107 only if the First Presidency must also be apostles. Comments? Trödel|talk 04:52, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just checked out the chart. I think that there should be (at least) two charts; church-wide and stake-wide. Also, in the existing chart, the Teachers Quorum is limited to twenty-four members per quorum. Also, I think that the bottom ellipse was meant to be a Deacons Quorum which is limited to twelve members per quorum.

Sorry about the Teachers and Deacons - it was getting late - a copy and paste issue. Trödel|talk 23:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the ward hierarchy, hometeachers should be included. But as far as I know, hometeachers have some responsibility for the families they are assigned to visit. With the responsibility comes the ability to receive revelation within the scope of ones responsibilities. This would presumably only be relevant if (and only if) revelation had been (or tried to be) given to the head of the household. Following the line of responsibility up, assuming that it was important enough and there was time enough, the EQP could receive revelation, etc.

The ward chart should also show the auxiliary organizations too, but that would be in a different article. Val42 05:15, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking this chart should only show relative assignments and quorums, etc - see below. Trödel|talk 23:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Your reading of D&C 107 is slightly different than mine - plus it ignores other revelations such as D&C 20, 88, 84, 68, 110, 128, 10 and many others, including specific instructions in the History of The Church by Smith about revelations he recieved that were not recorded that discuss hierarchy. I believe your other chart was much closer. Let's work on the previous version, rather than address the problems with this one.

I know re 20... thought I would have time last night to read them, but didn't and threw the chart up as is. Basically what I did is read 107 and draw - trying to ignore what my preconceived ideas and undestanding. Like you I am less happy with it than the first one; however, I think it shows more clearly how there could be some confusion on whether the twelve was the proper body to lead the church after Joseph Smith died resulting in the Succession Crisis. I have an account on some web-meeting software - perhaps we could use that to do some of the design work real time while on the phone - it would be faster I think. Trödel|talk 23:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The First Presidency does not need to all be apostles - on the presiding high priest needs to also be an apostle, holding all keys. His counselors may be any high priest from the church. Remember that Bishops and Elders are appendages to the High Priesthood (D&C 107), so once you are a high priest, you always are a high priest - this is why patriarchs and bishops are part of the high priest's quorum, although they are also other offices in the priesthood. Once a high priest always a high priest - they hold two priesthood offices at once. So the apostles are also high priests and apostles. Same with 70. This was all part of the discussion above (perhaps not so irrelevant after all). Let's fix the other chart in reference to Mormonism since it is closer. Also, due to the scholarly debates over the meaning of "equal in authority" we should not include that - too hard to explain the different sides of the debate.

BTW - see the Archive re our discussion above. I do think we should put the wording in maybe quoting with some * or something the verses - we could mention the debate as to what it means in the text - Trödel|talk 23:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On another note, Val42 - home teachers 'should' fit under the duties of a teacher in the aaronic priesthood and therefore are already included in the hierarchy under that office (D&C 20). No need to include them twice, but your point should be emphasized - it is a good one. Again, I think we take the offices and responsibiliites of the AP too lightly in The CoJCoLDS.

Agreed re taking aaronic priesthood responsibilities too lightly. Trödel|talk 23:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Trodel - you may want to see if you can pick up a copy of 'Priesthood and Church Government' by John A. Widstoe. This is the best "Latter Day Saint" work on the priesthood organization, and then discusses how it is practiced in the post-Smith Church. Another resource from excerpts of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism can be found at http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/organization/index.htm

My biggest worry is that the original chart (and clarifying it based on the Encylopedia of Mormonism and Widstoe's work) is just too CJCoLDS - I know some about other Latter Day Saint churches and they vary from the LDS Church in how they implement the 70s, elders, and aaronic priesthood, as well as in the relative importance/authority of the First Presidency and Twelve (such as the current continuation of the First Presidency sans its president continuing as the leading body in the Community of Christ). Plus the pre-1844 Church treated what we call Stake High Councils differently and there was some debate on how they related to each other and the traveling High Council. I am thinking this now:

1. Start with a general Quorums and offices and relationship picture chart that is here - add adjustments according to sections other than 107.
2. Have another picture that includes the administrative quorums and the full org as used in CJCoLDS, and I could do Community of Christ too I think - I picked up some info about them when I was in Independence summer 2001.
3. Have a chart for Auxillaries/Boards that goes with the Heirarchy chart above
4. Have a picture for a Stake/Ward Organization with showing more detail about the auxillaries and how they are organized in relation to the priesthood - as well as more detail on Stake/Ward reporting - EQ Pres/HP Group leader get direction from the Bishop, etc.

Thoughts (sorry if comments seem harsh)? -Visorstuff 17:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

no offense taken - more thoughts? Trödel|talk 23:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can't believe it's been two weeks since Iw orked on this - should have some time this weekend. Trödel|talk 04:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I haven't been following this article for quite some time, and I like the idea of having a chart, but if we do this, I think we might need more than one chart. The church organization during the early church underwent a number of changes through the years. For example, in 1830, there were just Elders, Priests, and Teachers, with Smith being the First Elder. (And some have argued, controversially, that Elder was originally an Aaronic Priesthood office.) The chart should also reflect more prominently the office of Patriarch, which was a much more important and independent position when it was held by Hyrum Smith. Also, I have a problem with the hierarchical nature of the chart. The hierarchical relationships implied by the arrows are generally the contribution of Brigham Young, rather than Joseph Smith. COGDEN 18:23, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

notation

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)

Priesthood Chart

-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)

Merge with Mormonism

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)

Misc observations

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)

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)

Confusing faith

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)

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)

 First time comment on wikipedia. I was looking over the 'order of priesthood' section. and my first reaction was there is not three orders of priesthood only two. (The Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthoods. (Reading over the whole article also gives this impression as the 3rd order is not supported in the same way as the first two).  There are things is this article that are expressed as if there is some confusion which I do not have confusion (nor do I believe other members have confusion on these topics). I belong the the 'denomination' that is head quarters in salt lake city and has temple square in the middle of salt lake city.
 Also reading over the section of "Calling by faith and good works" I am concerned that someone who is learning about the church would think someone could do going works and call themselves to a calling which is not true. They need to be called by god through the priesthood authority already established.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.72.152.106 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC) 

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)

Merge proposal

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)
• Mild oppose — Merging would make a rather large article considering that you'd also (by the same logic) have to merge Priesthood (Community of Christ). This article has an overview, basically up until the Succession Crisis. Each of the other two articles (Priesthood (LDS Church) and Priesthood (Community of Christ)) provides details of this concept in each of these denominations. However, I could possibly be convinced otherwise. — Val42 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply - I see your point, and didn't know there was another article for the Community of Christ. By the same logic in my original proposal, I have added Priesthood (Community of Christ) to my proposal. I skimmed the Community of Christ article and I don't see how it is any different from the LDS movement article. I suspect that considerable consolidation could occur from the merge, and the resulting article won't be as long as you think it will be. That having been said - perhaps we can find some of the differences to highlight that might make a better argument for keeping the articles separate. I don't know much about the Priesthood in the Community of Christ myself so I don't know what they would be. --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support There is considerable overlap in all 3 articles which is extremely confusing for the general reader. Plus the Priesthood (Community of Christ) article is completely unreferenced, so I think the merger will create a better standard of article. Kristmace (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Overlap has never been a problem in similar articles. There is nothing wrong with having a hierarchy of general to specific articles about the same general subject matter. It's like the hierarchy conservatism --> neoconservatism --> Neoconservatism in the United States. COGDEN 17:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. Yes indeed time needs to be spent on this article - I agree - but simply because it is not adequately referenced or detailed at the moment is no reason to lump it together with the priesthood page of a completely separate organization & church. Obviously there will be overlap when considering the historical basis for all Latter Day Saint movement organizations, but frankly sticking it together in a catch-all is like sticking Catholics with Anglicans - sure they started as one organization, but the split is so intricate, and in the case of CofC, arguably 148 years of divergent ethos & thoughts on the subject of priesthood from their distant Utah cousins. There are certainly still similarities in the councils and structure, which comes from that 14 year genesis, but things kind of evolve out from there. I mean no disrespect in this comment, either. If I could sit here 24 hours a day, I'd work on the article. Best, A Sniper (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support. Clearly, the "Latter Day Saints" article could be significantly expanded to include the positions of other groups, which would then lead to a situation where the "LDS Church" article is entirely justified. However, we don't seem to be there yet and a merge could help reduce confusion until there's something more added on other denominations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. This generic article should be about the priesthood as it existed at various times during the life of Joseph Smith, Jr., and will eventually be a very substantive, meaty and long article. I don't want it to devolve into what it used to be a couple years ago: a mish-mash of different denomination-specific tables about different priesthood offices and their age and sex requirements, etc. The differences between the denominations are substantial, and a lot can be written about each denomination. COGDEN 17:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Rename from Priesthood (Latter Day Saint) to Priesthood (Mormonism)

It becomes increasingly clear that the Community of Christ is no longer part of Mormonism, and rather is simply an idiosyncratic part of Protestantism. Therefore, I think it becomes increasingly fictitious to pretend that the LDS Church and the Community of Christ share some common theology or ecclesiology. There is certainly a shared history, and there are a lot of similarities. For example, the two denominations have roughly the same offices, and believe in two orders of priesthood. However, the fundamental understanding of priesthood is different.

The Community of Christ, for example, maintains a rather charismatic Protestant view of priesthood, reflective of Mormonism as it existed in roughly the 1830s and in the Book of Mormon. The LDS Church, on the other hand, has a more hierarchical, successionistic view of priesthood probably more in common with Catholicism. I think there is a fundamental difference there that this article tries to ignore. So I don't think it makes sense any longer to have an article broader than Priesthood (Mormonism) that includes the Community of Christ. I'm sure that members of the Community of Christ would be quick to agree. Besides, both the LDS Church and the Community of Christ have their own specific Priesthood articles.

Therefore, I propose that we rename this article from Priesthood (Latter Day Saints) to Priesthood (Mormonism). We can simply cross-reference between the articles in the "see also" section. (Ultimately, I think we can incorporate material from the Priesthood (LDS Church) article into this article, and turn the former into a list article describing LDS priesthood offices, whereas this article would describe the meaning, history, and origin of priesthood within Mormonism.) COGDEN 22:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it could probably be argued that the CoC was never really a part of "Mormonism," per se; just call one a "Mormon," and you'll find out (I live in Independence, their HQ's, so I know!)!! Personally, I don't think "Priesthood (Mormonism)" would be the best title for this proposed article; furthermore, there are smaller factions that also believe more along the LDS lines of Priesthood, even if they differ from the Utah church in matters of doctrine, history, succession, etc. What might be best is instead of folding Priesthood (LDS Church) into this article, I would suggest folding most of the info in this article into that one, instead. Then leave this article named as it is, but instead of a detailed description of LDS, CoC, etc. priesthoods, it could be a simple summary, which providing "main article" links to LDS and CoC-specific priesthood articles (a CoC Priesthood article might have to be written; not sure if one even exists, but this could be done), with just a short summary in this one on each, plus maybe a bit on the smaller factions. In other words, don't get rid of this article, rather make it a summary article, and a point-of-departure in the case of LDS and CoC churches to larger, individual articles on each church's priesthood. But that's just my opinion, for whatever it may be worth. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting getting rid of this article at all. I'm saying just to focus this article on Mormonism rather than on some broader conception of priesthood shared by Mormons and the Community of Christ, which hasn't existed since the 1830s. There does exist Priesthood (Community of Christ), which covers their view. It is different enough from the subject matter of this article that all this article can do is briefly summarize the different CoC view in a small section at the end. Lets call this article "Mormonism", delete that section, and let the CoC article stand on its own.

Also, I think that moving this content to Priesthood (LDS Church) would be a mistake, given that Mormonism is the standard parenthetical expression for Mormon doctrinal issues, and the fact that the latter article is basically a list as it now stands, and its subject matter is more suitable to being a Wikipedia list. Really, the Priesthood (LDS Church) article should be renamed to something like List of Latter Day Saint priesthood offices, and expanded to include analogous office from more denominations than the LDS Church.COGDEN 01:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Power and Authority?

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)