Talk:Priesthood (Mormonism)/Archive

Priesthood offices

Someone erroneously added Apostle, Patriarch, Seventy and Bishop to offices of the Priesthood. These are not offices; they are callings. B 15:39, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You are ordained to the office of an Elder, High Priest, 70 or apostle. However, you are called to be a elder's quorum president or a bishop or a particular portfolioed 70 or a prophet. -Anonymous.

No, anonymous, you are incorrect. Seventies and Apostles hold the office of High Priest and are called to be Seventies and Apostles. When their earthly missions are complete, they will still be High Priests, but will not always have their other callings as Seventies and Apostles. A High Priest IS the highest office of the priesthood. "portfolioed 70"?, huh? Too much green jello and carrot sticks after fast day, today or something? B 02:58, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Apostle, Patriarch, Seventy are offices of the Melchizedek Priesthood (see Mormon Doctrine, p.595 PRIESTHOOD OFFICES; Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.3, p.105; Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.1, CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, THE and Vol.3, PRIESTHOOD).

A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p.353 says: "There are in the Melchizedek Priesthood five ordained offices: elder, seventy, high priest, patriarch, and apostle. In the Aaronic Priesthood there are four ordained offices: deacon, teacher, priest, and bishop. Holders of each of these offices (except patriarchs) are organized into quorums, which are self-governing organizations having their own presiding officers who are appointed to counsel, teach, and guide the destinies of those over whom they preside.")

Bishop is the highest office in the Aaronic Priesthood (see Doctrine and Covenants 68:18-19) and belongs to the Priest's quorum. The above mentioned scripture states in part: "But, as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices he may officiate in the office of bishop ... provided he is called and set apart and ordained unto this power...."). A Bishop is actually ordained to the office of a Bishop after he is ordained to the office of a High Priest and set apart for a specific responsibility (such as for a Ward or welfare assignment). A literal descendant of Aaron would not need to be an ordained high priest.

To gain exaltation according to Mormon theology, one must hold the office of an Elder. One does not need to hold the office of Apostle or Seventy.

The information I added a few weeks back to the tables, that were deleted will be re-added in the coming week, unless further dialogue commences. User:Visorstuff

Visorstuff, thanks for your patience. I hope to respond to your points soon. This needs further discussion and agreement before we make those changes. B 17:02, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If I may interject an additional editorial suggestion: It would appear from my personal experience that Seventy used to be organized in quorums on a more local (I think Stake) level, instead of (or perhaps in addition to) the General Quorums. I do not have references or details on dates, but I think the change occurred sometime during the 70's. My information comes from my Young Men's President when I was a Priest. He was (he claimed) an ordained Seventy (as an office in the Priesthood, not a calling). He said that it used to be the case that there was a local quorum of Seventies, but that an organizational change occurred after he was ordained which made the quorums general, and thereafter no local quorums of Seventy have been organized. He would of course, still be a Seventy after that. Since there is no local quorum, each Sunday he meets with the Elder's quorum. There are, apparently, a few others in his situation scattered about. I have met, in another Stake, one other man who also said he was ordained to the office of Seventy before they became strictly General Authorities.

Maybe someone could research this and find out when the change occurred (if indeed it did). I should do it since I brought it up, but I don't have time today. It might be too much information to be included in the Wikipedia, but a note explaining this particular wrinkle could be in order.

In any case, I can add the foregoing anecdotal evidence from my personal experience that Seventy is, in fact, an office in the Priesthood. JL Oct. 22, 2003

You are correct. -Visorstuff 24 October 2003

First off, Visorstuff has the patience of a saint because I told him about two months ago that I'd respond to him "soon" and I still haven't got back to him. And I still am not prepared to give a detailed response, but I'll give at least a basic response now. I need to clarify my original response above because it has caused confusion--"Seventies and Apostles hold the office of High Priest and are called to be Seventies and Apostles." I did not mean to suggest that Seventies and Apostles are not offices...they clearly are. What I was trying to suggest was that there are offices and then there are offices; that is, some offices are permanent and others less so. We all agree, I am sure, that, for example, the office of an Elder or High Priest are basic, permanent offices. I think where we may disagree is the permanency of offices of seventy, apostle, bishop and/or prophet. I am familar with the references cited by Visorstuff, and from the various references on this matter I've concluded that the offices of seventy, apostle, bishop, prophet, &c are temporary offices...this is why I referred to them as callings and gave the explanation that followed. (My more detailed response would explain how I get to that conclusion.) All of these calling-like offices also require some office of the Melchizedek priesthood, like high priest (bishop excepted, of course). So what I was trying to demonstrate in my two original charts was a distinction between those permanent-like offices that are necessary to hold the priesthood in general and those calling-like offices which give heirarchical structure or organization to the priesthood. This is why objected to Visorstuff's edit because it had, for example, bishop listed in both charts and it confused the distinction I was trying to make. But even more: How dare you mess up my chart! LOL. But seriously...Visorstuff (or whoever else), if you have a better idea for presenting the various offices, or you think I'm just dead wrong, I'm all ears.

As to JL's comments: yes the change did indeed occur around 1983, '84 or something...I was a young teenager at the time...and it is prob worth mentioning. It is also prob worth making at least a color coded distinction in the charts between General, Area and local authorities. As it looks now, it appears that some Area Authorities are also either General Authorities or local authorities. It is true that Seventies of the first and second quorums are GAs, but not all area-authority seventies belong to ##1 & 2 quorums.

And finally as to a recent edit by 12.144.5.2 regarding the chart's description of the quorum of the twelve apostles, 12.144.5.2 stated:"(clarification (First Presidency members not numbered among Twelve!))" When I first made that chart it took quite a bit of time, I wasn't paying attention and I mistakenly added a "first and second counselor" of the quorum of the twelve. This was not meant to indicate that the first presidency was part of the twelve especially since it merely said "president" not "first presidency" in that section. At any rate, thx for fixing the error.

Ok, i'm tired of typing with one hand for now (my broken left wrist is still healing). So I hope I've explained my view well enough. --B 15:39, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. My only thought is to list the offices by what it would say on the holders most recent ordination certificate - mine is that of an Elder, my father's read's High Priest, Elder Oaks would read Apostle, Elder Featherstone's would say Seventy (even if he is emeritus). I know this will take some time to work through, so it is not a rush, however, the proper offices should be reflected in the article in my opinion. Oh and by the way - sorry I messed up the chart :-)

Hey there :-) Do you agree that men who are ordained to leadership offices continue to hold their regular Priesthood office...that is: an Apostle is both an Apostle and High Priest; a Seventy is both a Seventy and a High Priest; etc.? OR another way of phrasing my question is, is not High Priest the highest office of the Priesthood and the other offices like Apostle, Seventy, etc more like keys of that highest office? OR another way of phrasing my question is, is not being ordained from Elder to High Priest more like a step up, while being ordained a Seventy, Bishop, etc is not like going a step up but more like adding an additional office? OR using your certificate example, wouldn't both of Elder Oaks' Apostle and High Priest certificates be in force, while his Elder's, Priest's, Teacher's and Deacon's certificates would have each been replaced in turn as he was ordained to a higher Priesthood office?

I've made a bunch of little changes to the article but mostly I tried to focus on consistenly referring to Priesthood Leadership Offices rather than callings. —B 17:05, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I don't totally agree with that. Men are only ordained to offices within the priesthood, which are deacon, teacher, priest, bishop, elder, high priest, seventy, patriarch and apostle. All other leadership positions they are set apart for (even as a Elder's quorum president, I am not ordained, but set apart and given keys; same as a high councilor - am set apart, but not ordained).

Agreed: ordained to office w/i Priesthood; set apart (with keys) to calling. —B 20:37, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

Agreed as to the all your comments in para above, except I think the offices of bishop, seventy, patriarch and apostle are of a different nature than the other offices you named: D,T,Pr,E&HP are what I'd call regular offices, while B,S,Pa&A are what I'd call leadership offices to which someone is ordained in addition to a regular office. Or at least that has been the framework from which I was working. See my comments a lil further below.

Seventy is a sticky situation, because John Taylor recieved a revelation that put them on the stake level (I think it actually reads something like 'set in order') and under the direction of presiding high priest (below the high priest quorum). So I am unsure if General Authorities and Area Authories that are called to be seventies are ordained to the office of Seventy or set apart to officiate in that office. (General Authorities recieve the sealing power as well, area authories do not). I can check with some folks I have in SLC about that. My father (and I believe my brother) were ordianed seventy years ago when they were on the stake level. The ordination certificate states that at that time they held the office of seventy in the M. priesthood. Both have since been ordained and are now high priests.

So, back to your question, Apostle is the highest office in the M. priesthood (although some have argued that the presiding patriarch should stand next to the first presidency - however the quorum of the twelve would be binding for the church). A partiarch is not a high priest, but a patriarch. An Apostle is an Apostle, not a high priest. An Elder is an Elder not a High Priest. A High Priest is that.

Ok, this seems to be the focal point of our diff point of view. I was sure tha there was a D&Csection that stated High Priest was the highest office in the MP, but I've no luck trying to find any such thing. You see, I see an ambiguity in stating that A is the highest office (there are all kinds of sources that state A is the highest) b/c if A is an office of a diff type than the office of HP (i.e. leadership office vs regular office), then to say that both are the highest office is true assuming that means that they are the highest office of their type. So under my POV, an Elder would not be an Elder and a High Priest too (Nor would a High Priest be an Elder and a High Priest) because they are of the same type....but, under my POV a patriarch, apostle or seventy could also be a high priest because they are of different types of office (one leadership, the other regular) But if there is no distinction in types (leadership vs regular), as I've thought, then you're right. Here is what will settle the matter for me now: is there not a section in D&C that says High Priest is highest office in M Priesthood? And if so, how do you read that? Also If you are correct, the prophet--whose office is Apostle and whose ordination as High Priest would apparently be dormant--is still the "Presiding High Priest of the Church" (D&C 107:65-66)...but if his ordination to the high priest is dormant, how is he "Presiding High Priest of the Church"?... as I understand it neither the prophet nor his counselors are set apart to their positions in the first presidency but hold those positions merely by common consent of the Church and in the case of the president is qualified for the position by virtue of his being the presiding high priest... ugh, i'm rambling... —B 22:22, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

I ramble too. :) I agree that this is the difference in our viewpoints. For a direct answer to the above, the Prophet is the presiding high priest the same way the apostles are still called "Elder [name], even though they are Apostles (In the old days they would say Apostle Grant rather than Elder Grant). Once you hold an office in the priesthood, you still hold that authority, in addition to the authority of another office (like priests still pass the sacrament and do the duties of T&D - you know all this...). Christ is called a high priest, but holds a higher office (some brethren in the journal of discourses used to speculate that a 'god' is actually an office in the priesthood -- and who knows if that is true, it has not been revealed). When the priesthood was conferred upon Joseph he was ordained to the office of Apostle. In Section 20 he was called the presiding Elder and later the presiding High Priest of the church, but always an Apostle. So in the same way you cannot be an elder and a high priest, you cannot be a high priest and Apostle, yet you are still always an elder and high priest (wow, i'm dizzy!).

A high priest (or presiding priest) does not need to be a M. priesthood holder - during the time of Israel, the high (translate: presiding) priest was an Aaronic priesthood function. Not so in our dispensation. That was a special case which we can discuss another time.

J. Ruben Clark iss a good, recent example of the distinction in offices - he was never ordained an apostle, but was in the first presidency as a high priest. At the time of his calling as a second counselor, after he was release as the first counselor he discussed this in a general conference.

Also, I think some of the confusion may take place when you look at the Elders and High priests are 'standing ministers' (meaning they do not travel) and the Seventy, Apostles and Patriarchs are 'traveling ministers.'

I think the D&C passages you are referring to are in Section 107 or 68. Unfortunately, not all of JS revelations about the priesthood has been written and their is hardly anything on the office of Patriarch (setion 124) in the cannonized revelations. I've included some excerpts that i think you were referring to from 107 below:

D&C 107:10-17: High priests after the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood have a right to officiate in their own standing, under the direction of the presidency, in administering spiritual things, and also in the office of an elder, priest (of the Levitical order), teacher, deacon, and member… But as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices, he may officiate in the office of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found, provided he is called and set apart and ordained unto this power by the hands of the Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

D&C 107:65-66: Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood [I'd like to add the Melchizedek Priesthood] to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church; Or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church.

BTW - President Hinkley was set apart by the Council of the Twelve, with Elder Monson acting as voice. President Hinckley then set apart his counselors. The action is sanctioned by the twelve by a sustaining vote, the seventy and they were sustained by the church as a whole, which also differs from your statement above.

Lemme know what you think. I know this is confusing (and some rather long entries), perhaps there are others out there that could help us to clarify besides the anonymous user that added in things similar to my original additions? I believe that even Gospel Principles lays out the offices in the M. Priesthood as the five I named (E, HP, S, P, A) -Visorstuff 24 October 2003

In a search of the scriptures on Gospelink, I found no reference stating anything like the idea that High Priest is the highest office in the M Priesthood. I'm persuaded that I'm wrong on that point and also on the distinction I was trying to draw about there being two types of offices. The charts and surrounding entries will need some reworking. I may get at it tomorrow unless someone else beats me to it. Thanks for engaging me on the matter, Visorstuff. —B 04:26, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

I've enjoyed this - thanks - and no rush on the changes. I'm sure we'll be in touch soon enough. I'm pretty busy lately, but let me know if you'd like help. Visorstuff 27 October 2003

There are some instances during the administration of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young that someone would be ordained to the office of high priest, and later ordained to that of an elder, and then later back to high priest - or such - much more moving around in offices, but did not happen often.

Right.—B 22:22, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

The person who hold keys for the high priests would be a stake president, who is also set apart as president of the high priesthood (high priests quorum) in his stake and given keys for that. The reason I state this in answer to your question, is that you can tell a priesthood office is an office because aside from the office of patriarch, each belongs to its own quorum. The quorum of the twelve, a quorum of seventy, a quorum of High priests, a quorum of Elders, a quorum of priests (headed by a bisop, who is president of that quorum) and so forth. A lengthy discussion of these offices and how they differ from callings and leadership callings can be found in Widstoe's Priesthood and Church Government book. Thus only 91 men in this dispensation have held the office of Apostle in the quorum of the twelve. A man may be ordained to the office of apostle and not belong to the quorum of twelve, but again this is not frequent. JFS was ordained at 11 years I beleive, and the three witnesses formed a quorum of apostles, as well as others who have been ordained. I bring this up to illustrate that not all ordained apostles hold keys.

Agreed. —B 22:22, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

So, Elder Oaks' certificate would say Apostle, and the office he held as high priest, teacher or deacon would be dormant. -Visorstuff 24 October 2003

If what you say is correct, that Apostle is highest office etc from discussion above, then I agree. —B 22:22, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

Hope you hand heals well. Visorstuff 23 October 2003

Thanks. I broke my wrist in mid-July at Stake Youth Conference at a nearby reservoir.

Oh yea, going back to changes in Seventies leadership or leadership offices in general...there also used to be an office called "Assistants to the Twelve"...that was changed by David O McKay, I think. —B 17:05, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

Correction, Pres Grant, just before McKay, instituted Assistants to the Twelve which continued until Pres Kimball changed it in 1976. Although considered as if Apostles, Assistants were then made part of the Seventies quorum at that time. —B 20:18, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

I know exactly what you are talking about - President Hinckley was an assistant to the twelve. This group was done away with the call of Seventies at the general authority level. They were general authorities and held the sealing authority, but did not hold keys. -Visorstuff 24 October 2003

Okay some additonal thoughts about the article (forgive my grammar, spelling and punctuation) - the changes to the first presidency are good - however, you may want to remove the 'two' counselors statement. The counselors in the first presidency are not limited to two counselors (although this is typically the norm) and do not have to hold the office of Apostle (although they are sustained as prophets, seers and revelators). Two examples of this in the 1900s are Gordon B. Hinkley as a third counselor to President Kimball (N. Eldon Tanner and Marion G. Romney were other counselors - David O McKay also had two counselors) and J. Reuben Clark, Jr. was a high priest, not an Apostle when he served as a member of the first presidency. In fact, Brigham Young had up to six counselors in the first presidency during part of his administration - however, two is the norm. According to the revelations, at least two counselors are usually required, but more may be called as needed. We may want to include information from the above paragraph as well in the article if you feel appropriate.

I think you meant "two" where you put "three"

I dont care how ppl write in talk page as long as it's readable and understandable.

Yea, Joseph, Brigham, McKay and Kimball had extra counselors or assistants and then the Twelve had Assistants over a 35 year period. Besides that it was pretty normative. There is, I think in D&C section 107, a section talking about adding other officers as needed from time to time. —B 20:18, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

As far as the ordination to the office of a Bishop and his setting apart - a high priest is still ordained to the office of a bishop in the Aaronic priesthood (and given the keys to be a common judge in Israel) and must be a high priest to be set apart as the presiding high priest of a ward organization. In this way he holds both offices simultaneously but the higher authority of the melchizedek priesthood is in force. One may say that in this way a High priest officiates in the office of a Bishop - which is what I think you have been referring to. A bishop does not ususally recieve an ordination certificate to the office of a bishop as an Elder, High Priest or Apostle would.

Yea, Presiding High Priest of [ward or stake or Church]. Mckay authorized ordaining Seventies as High Priests in 1961 so that they could preside in stake conferences. —B 20:18, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

Another thing that would be interesting to include is who besides Apostles hold keys of the priesthood and what that means. Thoughts? Visorstuff 24 October 2003

It would make sense to add a historical section on how the Priesthood organization differed from time to time and maybe a section (or article) on adminstration that covers Church Committees, Relief Society and other Auxilary Orgs. —B 20:18, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

Okay - quick update - I checked with some contacts in SLC - Seventy are ordained to the office of Seventy, and are not just High Priests officiating in the office. Also, same with Patriarchs. Patriarchs attend a high priest quorum, as there is no quorum of patriarchs specified by revelation. Released or Emeritus Seventy also attend a high priest quorum as there is no local seventies quorum.

Also, Seventy may serve in a variety of special assignments - as a delegate to the Boy Scouts, a Church historian, president of a univerisity, etc.

I hope I didn't mess up the table too much! -Visorstuff

patriarchal priesthood

"(3) the patriarchal priesthood, an obscure and controversial order of priesthood mentioned by Joseph Smith, Jr., but about which he provided little information."

I've never heard of this. Where did you get this information? —Noldoaran (Talk) 19:48, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

This is from several sources, including Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power. Smith's obscure teachings on the subject are a big deal among fundamentalist Mormon groups. There is a source in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith where Smith lists three "orders" of priesthood. In other contexts, the "patriarchal" order has also been called the "Abrahamic Priesthood". I intend to include some more material about this eventually. COGDEN 01:02, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Again, I disagree with some of Quinn's statements - the best and most reliable discussion about this comes from Section Six of the book Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (see page 322-323 or online at http://www.helpingmormons.org/teachings6.htm). Quinn extrapolates without much referencing what he thought may be related teachings to it. But this may help answer your question. It's the only reliable reference available and definitely points to the temple. Others have alluded to this priesthood, including James E Faust. (See my changes on Patriarchal Priesthood for additional information)

Hierarchy

This table has been something I've hated since it appeared (I won't discuss the "priesthood leadership callings one right now, but maybe I should - they could be combined into smaller more correct tables). The table is incorrect in practice. It is doctrinally incorrect. It is incorrect culturally. If a hierarchy needs to be demonstrated, then we need to follow "keys." The seventy are to stake presidents as a high council is to the elders quorum president.

FYI - I began work on a new Hierarchy table basically it has this structure:

First Presidency
Quorum of 12 Apostles
Quorum of Seventy				Presiding Bishopric
Stakes	Missions	Temples		Bishop Storehouses
Wards & Branches	Districts & Branches

I am working on how to show that the relationship between the 12 and the quorums of 70 and the difference between are and general authorities. Also, since the priesthood leader of Stake Presidents is the Quorum of 12 and the Quorum of Seventy is delegated assignments I am trying to think of a way to show that. I will use colors/objects to show offices and quorums. Trödel|talk 12:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about districts? I think that they're the equivalent in the hierarchy to stake but exist only under missions. Val42 03:08, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

You are correct Districts are analagous to Stakes and the District President is called by the Mission President. Trödel|talk 11:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Temple presidencies and mission presidencies have no place in the table. They are assignments. I would even argue that high priest "groups" are not to be added to the table. The office of Patriach is conspicuously missing, but again, they were left out because they don't hold priesthood leadership keys and don't belong to Quorums.

Should we break up the tables into smaller ones - of "general church hierarchy" and "local church heirarchy" or show the alignment through keys? Remember, it wasn't until revelation to President McKay that 70s could preside over stake conferences (general authority 70s at that time were also ordained high priests so they could do this). Thoughts? -Visorstuff 19:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree this table needs to be completely redone - although there is a High Priest Quorum at the stake level (composed of all the High Priests in the Stake) that is presided over by the Stake President, and they should have quorum meetings at least semi-annually according to the Handbook of Instructions. Additionally, in my mind it has never been really clear that "seventy" is an office of the priesthood - I don't know if the new members of the Quorum of Seventy are set apart as members of the quorum only or ordained to the office of Seventy. So that makes it hard for me to think through how it would be structured. Some have argued that the Seventy are Apostles (references: in, in, and out of Mormonism - since Apostle means missionary, and there is not a special meaning to its use outside of Mormonism, in that context Apostle may mean Missionary) - using support from the D&C that basically enumarates their duties so similarly except for "special witnesses" and "especial witnesses". Trödel|talk 21:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Trodel - you are correct abou the HPQ, but the table lists "group".

Yep - that is one of the many reasons that it needs to be completely redone Trödel|talk 12:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, today, high priests are ordained Seventy - may want to read a conversation between BoNoMoJo and myself above - In the old days (before the death of BY) men may be ordained to the office of an elder, and later ordained to the office of a Seventy and later ordained again to the office of an elder and then ordained to teh office of a High Priest, and then later ordained to the office of a Seventy- each office was viewed equal, but different roles. Currently in practice the office of high priest is superior to that of an Elder, and until the Seventy were removed from the stake level, HP were superior to Seventy. Now that things have been clarified by revelation to John Taylor, you don't have to be re-ordained to an office to function in its responsibilities. So, a High Priest, (which can preside over a stake conference as specified by revelation, but a 70 cannot) is ordained to the office of Seventy, but still retains the rights and office of a high priest, and is then set apart as a general authority (GAs receive sealing authority, where as area authority 70s do not). Therefore, the 70 is still an office in the priesthood, but is set apart for a specific function. The basic offices of the priesthood are: Deacon, Teacher, Priest, Bishop (no quorum of bishops, but presides over AP), Elder, High Priest, Seventy, Patriarch (no quorum) and Apostle (no quorum needed, but leading quorum is quorum of 12). This hierarchy could change at any time by revelation or policy change, and we could just as easily have Elders or High Priests functioning on the GA level instead of Seventy, however, the defined responsibility of 70 by revelation makes it easy (and makes sense) to include at the general authority and area authority level (you'd still need HP on the stake level to preside, and in practical terms for bishops to preside as the presiding HP and judge in israel, although you could have a bishop that isn't a HP). Clear as Mud? The "system" as it is set up, is as much a policy hierarchy as it is defined by revelation - different offices have different responsiblities, but only the office of Apostle hold all authority and if given, keys, so with the revelations, there is no "true" hierarchy aside from the office of apostle, when given keys, only differences in responsibilities.

I think quorums of seventy in the stakes (basically the current equivilent of Ward Missionaries) is difficult to understand in light of the D&C sections where it clearly states the body is to be "traveling". The concept of continuing revelation makes such changes understandable especially as The CJCoLDS tries to cope with management of its growth, and provide proper leadership. I just don't see it as being all that clear (and I should say that you probably can't make it clear - it will take time to see how the leadership transforms over our lives [and beyond]). After reading the D&C for the first time (as a young man) I remember talking to my Dad and asking him why we have Assistants to the Twelve instead of Quorums of Seventy under the First Council of Seventy and if he is a Seventy why is he not traveling to spread the gospel.

This brings me to another point you brought up earlier - that seventy are "equal in authority" to the twelve. The term equal in authority has never been clarified to what it precicely means. There are a number of popular theories about this - the cultural theory is that the 12 and the seventy have a check and balance type of relationship. But there are too many issues with this - as the bulk of the seventy don't hold keys and the twelve do. If the fifteen men who currntly hold all the keys die, no baptisms could be authorized. If this was the case, a bishop, who gets his keys from the SP, who gets his keys from the 12, who utilize their keys under the direction of the first presidency would not have the authority to use his keys to authorize a baptism. This is confusing, but realize that keys make up leadership, not the combined quorums or body of men. Another leading theory is that the 70 are equal in authority to those they oversee, just in the same way as the twelve to those they oversee. In other words, if the first presidency says we should paint our homes green, that is binding on us. If the twelve, as a body, say green homes and green sidewalks that is binding on those they oversee. If the seventy as a body say paint the trees green, then that is just as binding for those they have responsiblity over. If a bishop says to his ward, paint your car green, that is just as valid instruction and binding. Same with the EQP (therefore those who hold keys should realize and be cautious on the type of instruction they give as it is eternally binding to those they oversee). In this way, the instruction the 70 give is equal in authority to those they oversee as instruction the twelve gives to they oversee. In this way they are equal in authority. The other theory is that this revelation was altered by future revelation giving keys to the twelve, which they did not have before. There are other theories as well, but this is good for now. Hope you don't all have headaches. Just realize, that the cultural and policy-based structure that you take for granted is not as set in stone as you may think. A good book to read is Priesthood and Church Goverment by Widstoe. -Visorstuff 23:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Making these theories even more interesting (and resolving nothing) is that the High Councils of the Stakes form a quorum equal in authority. I think this is one of the reasons that it is difficult to write encyclopedic articles that are comprehensive - we just don't know some things. We do know others - the current leadership structure, Ward and Stake structures have been quite static - though with the recent passing of the ability to ordain Partriarchs being given to Stake Presidents - there are changes going on there as well. Trödel|talk 12:17, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW, although it isn't definative, MLS (Member and Leaders Services - the software application for tracking church membership) has no Office of Seventy in the Melchizedek priesthood. If I create a Melchizedek priesthood ordination certificate for a member it gives me the choice of ordaining them to either an Elder or a High Priest only (obviously I can't record an ordination to Apostle), but as the priesthood of the person performing the ordination the choices are Elder, High Priest, or Apostle - no choice for Seventy. So if a member of my ward becomes the next Stake President and is ordained a High Priest by the visiting GA (if that GA is in the Quorum of Seventy what am I supposed to do - my assumption is that they are either a High Priest or an Apostle - though this hasn't happened to me).

That is all given as support for my opinion here. There are Quorums of Seventy apostles (the 1st quorum - and maybe the second quorum) and there are Quorums of Seventy High Priests (the current 3rd through 6th quorums - though they could be apostles too - that doesn't change my analysis) and there have been Quorums of Seventy Elders (the quorums or seventy at the stake level who were mistakenly ordained to the office of Seventy prior to the mid-1970s). This would explain how the Quorum of Seventy at the stake level would be presided over by the Stake President (a High Priest), and how now the Quorums of Seventy High Priests (that we call Area Authorities) can preside over a Stake Conference since they have been given that assignment by the Twelve. Additionally prior to the mid-70s, from what I understand only Elders were called to be Seventies at the stake level, and once ordained a High Priest they would not return to the Quorum of Seventy - thus supporting my contention that they were a Quorum of Seventy elders. Although I have thought this for some time this is the first time I have organized the thoughts into writing - so I hope I am being clear. Trödel|talk 22:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clear yes, but not correct by policy/terminology. First, they have to be acting as a high priest to preside and ordain - not acting as a Seventy, so MLS wouldn't be giving you that choice in any case (remember 70 can't preside, but high priests can?). Second, your seventy aposltes - is incorrect thinking - sorry - realize that general authorities are set apart with certain authority, such as the sealing power, delegated to them. Most people think the revelation on 70 mean that the seventy must travel around. this is not the case. The prophets have taught that 70 are called to have "special assignments" - for example, my Father, when he was set apart as a 70, was told his special assignment was scouting. the travelling aspect came as it is a stake calling at the ward level (ward to ward) Whereas the high council is a stake calling for the stake. Make sense? Each Seventy is ordained to the office of a seventy. Period. it is not a calling. A high priest can officiate in the office of a teacher, or priest or elder, because the prophet who hold those keys has authorized that is the case. It has not always been that way in the Church. That is one reason why Later JS and BY had the pulpits show hierarchy. The Melch. Priesthood is not hierarchal in nature as the AP is, at least according to D&C 20. Just different responsibilities.

For all intents and purposes, a stake prez is like the prophet for his stake. If he needed (and it was authorized) he could call 70s in the stake. He has that authority (but is not authorized to use it), as he is the president of the melch priesthood in teh stake, and would thus oversee all other melch. preisthood holders in hsi stake. Someday I'd love to talk you through this, because it really is very plain, but hard to explain in writing for me. But it is all about keys, delegation of assignments and authority. Most poeple think that the bishop (who holds keys) needs to set apart a aaronic priesthood quorum president. He could delegate this to his counselor if he wanted. He would delegate the exersise of that key to him. A bigger example of this is that most of hte 70 hold no keys, yet they can ordain a bishop or stake president and give them keys. (think of Jesus healing the leaders son by word alone) they are authorized by those who holds keys to do so. The temple president is not allowed for in revelation. Only the pres of the church is to authorize and perform endowment/sealings, but by virtue of his keys he delegates that responsiblity to others. Hope this helps. --Visorstuff 23:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am glad we are writing it rather than talking in person - because althought it seems plain - it may not be all that plain and writing keeps the record of it. Well I am going to play with Visio this weekend and see if I can create a better graphic. I also got an email from a friend who is in the Sixth Quorum that supports some of your comments above - but it is really short and refers me to DC 107 - which I found funny since I had read it prior to sending him the question. Of course like all things I quickly assimulated it into small adjustments to my worldview rather than a full paradigm shift.

Maybe we should take this off the talk page here - as this is going far afield. Trödel|talk 23:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(RE:section 107: - remember elder and bishop are "appendages to the high priesthood" and that HP can officiate in those offices and those of the AP, but not in 70, apostles and patriarchs (each of which also currently belong to a hp quorum as well). In this case, they are officiating in two offices of the priesthood simultaneously - (presiding hp of the church is also the presiding apostle - both priesthood offices) Once a hp, always a hp. Would love to continue discussion, just name the place)... -Visorstuff 18:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Org Structure

[Copied bits and pieces from Chart discussion to continue overall org structure conversation here]

Simultaneous Priesthood

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. -Visorstuff 17:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BTW, although we didn't finish our discussion above, I have modified my "worldview" of how the offices go together some - as my Seventy friend said in his follow-up (see above): "I was ordained a Seventy and set apart as a member of the 5th Quorum of Seventy...I will return to the high priest group when I'm released."

So I understand better how the construct of holding two offices in the priesthood makes these scriptures make mroe sense etc. The one thing I still have a question on is whether an apostle who was a seventy holds 3 offices. Or if the office of Seventy is no longer held once one is an Apostle. And it seems to me that there is less of a difference between a Seventy and an Apostle than is generally believed in the Church - the callings are very similar "special witness" "especial witness", under direction of First Presidency, under direction of the Twelve. They seem to me to be more councilors to the Twelve and have an apostolic like calling. Trödel|talk 23:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no need for the Apostle to hold multiple offices, since an apostle holds all keys and functions of the priesthood - much like as an elder, you still may funtion in the office of a deacon or teacher. However, he still is considered a high priest, as he is a holder of the MP (D&C 107, Alma 13). incidentally, next time you read alma 13, read high priesthood as high priest rather than all holders of the MPriesthood - it will make more sense.

The seventy as "especial witnesses" have the primary responsibility to aid the twelve in missionary work (and other special assignments as directed). as an especial witness (set apart, above and beyond normal church members, specific to the person and quorum), they are called to bear testimony of Christ, not to have a special (additional, particular, primary, distinct, uncommon) witness. It is hard to explain the difference in today's terms, however, i've included a couple dictionary entries below that may hlep in teh distinction between the two. -Visorstuff 09:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Especial

  1. Of special importance or significance; exceptional: an occasion of especial joy.
  2. Relating to or directed toward a particular person, group, or purpose: called his father with especial birthday wishes; gave especial attention to the decorations. ("thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their callin")
  3. Peculiar to the individual; characteristic: She has an especial fondness for mushrooms.

Special:

  1. Surpassing what is common or usual; exceptional: a special occasion; a special treat.
  2. a. Distinct among others of a kind: a special type of paint; a special medication for arthritis.
     b. Primary: His special satisfaction comes from volunteer work.
  3. Peculiar to a specific person or thing; particular: my own special chair; the special features of a computer.
  4. a. Having a limited or specific function, application, or scope: a special role in the mission.
     b. Arranged for a particular occasion or purpose: a special visit from her daughter.
  5. Regarded with particular affection and admiration: a special friend.
  6. Additional; extra: a special holiday flight.

Chart of Callings

It is hard for me to figure out how to depict this. Although Bishps are "called" by the First Presidency, in practice when I was young they were interviewed and selected by the visiting General Authority, and now, selected by the Stake President with approval from the First Presidency. Sorry for confusing you - I was not following a general rule (as below from memory) but more following "the practical observations of Trodel" rule. So although Bishops are "called" by the First presidency I put them in Green from Stake President since that is their "Priesthood Leader", same for EQ Pres.

	Calling	Recommends	Approves	Issues Call	Sets Apart
	Bishop	Stake President	First Presidency	Stake President	Stake President
	Counselors	Bishop	Stake President	dont remember	Stake President or counselor
	EQ Pres	Bishop	Stake President	Stake President	Stake President
	etc

Well, anyway, I made the lines basically who interviews and "calls" and then tried to indicate that some callings are approved by the 1st Presidency.

I understand how the twelve/70 relationship works but how to depict it is the question I have - especially because the topology is 2-D and space is limited. I thought about an Oval around them (like the Stake, mission boxes) off to the left of the Twelve like I did for high council, but it looked a little strange with the presidency and the 6 quorums off to the side. I'll see if I can get it to look less awkward - the structure is so flat compared to most large organizations. Any other thoughts before I start work on it later tonight woudl be appreciated Trödel|talk 23:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps two or three charts are needed. One General Authority, one local (possbily one with relationship between local and general). Do straight Heirarchy/leadership, no "calling lines" :^) so to speak. The table above you cite above, is not doctrinally sound. Does the D&C say who issues the calls? Again, I think we are going by LDS Church policy rather than the doctrines as found in revelation that is common to all Latter Day Saint sects. The revelations give the relationship to each other, not how they are called. That is strictly a fucntion of delegation is it not? Can a Bishop or EPQ function if all the twelve were killed? No. The keys of the twelve and FP are delegated to the rest of us, and if they are not authorized by a living servant to use those keys they cannot use them. -Visorstuff 00:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the above chart is not doctrinally sound - it is not part of the "principles" revealed in the D&C, it is, however, detail that guides local leaders in how they fulfill there duty, and, which, IMHO, details the policies of the church under the specific direction of the Twelve and the First Presidency and reflects the current understanding, if not revelation, of the way that the church should be administered - similar to General Conference in authority. Trödel|talk 23:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By not doctrinally sound, i am referring to disregarding other relationships of the offices. even your reading of hte revelation is different than mine perhaps i should do a point by point? thoughts? -Visorstuff 09:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keys

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. -Visorstuff 22:04, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am very curious abou this because I was not under the impression that the Teacher's Quorum president held any keys. Although I do remember some stuff about the "winding up scene" - care to elaborate some more. Trödel|talk 04:13, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In a typical full-funtioning ward, four individuals hold keys - the bishop, the elders quorum president, the teachers quorum president and the deacon's quorum presidnet. High priests have authority and keys by virtue of their office, but act under the direction of the president of the mp in their stake - and president of their quorum - the stake presidnet. they also act under the direction of the presiding high priest in their ward - the bishop. the priest presidency is the bishopric, so no keys are held by youth serviing as assistants. technically, these assistants are part of the bishopric, and could have additinoal authority delegated to them within thier aaronic priesthood office.

Within a stake two additional people hold keys - the stake president and the stake patriarch. the patriarch's keys are delegated and specific to his calling, rather than leadership keys to direct the affairs of the church (similar to how all pristhood holders hold specific keys that are dormant, or active depending upon how they are directed to use them - think "keys of the ministering of angels."

Each proper quorum president holds and excersizes keys - this is why in the church the word "presiding" is so important, as it shows the person who is exercising the highest keys delegated to him in a congregation. if a 70 comes, he is presiding as a hp under the direction and keys of the presidnecy of hte 70 or under the direction of the twelve, using their keys.

• president of the apostles/presiding apostle/first president/pres of church - holds and excersizes keys.
• presient of the twelve apostles - holds and excersizes keys. Most in teh churhc think all keys lie dormant in apostles until they become president o fht echurch, however, if this werw the case, the twelve would not have leadership and could not funtion as a quorum to direct certian aspects of the work. below are those who hold keys in the church to direct the affiars of the kingdom.
• stake presidnet - or president of the melchizedek preisthood
• seven presidnets of the 70 jointly hold keys for their quorum
• elders president
• Bishop - or presidnet of the aaronic priesthood/president of th epriests quorum
• teachers president
• deacons president

Only those listed hold priesthood authority keys. they alone can direct the church. all other organizaitons and committees and groups act under their direction (hence the word auxilliary). The church is a structure of priesthood, and generally speaking (over simplifying) if the quorums did their duty, there would be no need for auxilliary organizations. Some day those responsibilities will be rolled back into the quorums. Then keys that are delegated will be passed back to their authorizers, and given to adam who will deliver them to Jesus Christ (big meeting).

Let me also explain this in another way. I was called and served on my mission under president benson's administration as church president. As a missionary, I acted under HIS direction/authority. I am accountable to him for what happened on my mission, good and bad. I will have to account to him for that some day as he then delivers his "report" on his administration. THis becuase i acted under his keys. when i was an EQP, i held keys. I was responsible for all of the home teaching, assignements and teachings, as well as the families sprirituality and temporal well-being during that time. I will have to give an account to my stake presidnet who authorized the use of my keys, who will in turn give the report to the twelve, who will give their report to the president who will deliver them to JSmith, who will give them to those who authorized this dispensation, who will give them to adam, who will give them to christ. Your ward home teaching is discussed by the twelve. it is reported all the way back to them. most don't realize this, but it is regularly done. anyway, i'm starting to digress, but hopefully you see how keys work better. the trick is which keys are held by which person, and whcih have been revealed (for example sealing keys) and which haven't (an example given by pres kimball was resurrection keys). I believe that most bishops (for example the key of discernment) are much more aware of what keys they hold and the power that is found in those keys. A bishop who asks his congregation to do a lot of things each week like read such and such a chapter, and give your wife flowers, and teach this for FHE, does not realize that he is requesting such under his keys and likely doesn't understand the importance of how to use certain keys. A wiser bishop would teach the correct principles, let the ward act or tell each other what to do and occasionally give specific instructions such as - please read the book of mormon this year and report back every quarter where you are at. The second is a much better use of directing the people in his ward using keys, rather than a bunch of interspaced activities that have no accountability and is just encouragement rather that direction. hope this all makes sense -09:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)