Priesthood (Mormonism)

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 BambooWeb, 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. 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

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)

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)