Talk:Aaronic priesthood (Latter Day Saints)

Paragraph moved to Talk

Significance of the Aaronic priesthood in mainstream Christianity

The Jewish priesthood of the Temple period is, for most Christians, primarily of historical interest. In the book of Exodus, God ordained Aaron and his sons Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar to be priests for the Lord. According to the Law, only descendants of Aaron, or Aaronites, could be priests. The priest's role was to intercede before God on behalf of the nation of Israel. Within many Christian traditions and beliefs, the new covenant established by Jesus, and later the destruction of the temple, brought this period to an end.

The priesthood also has been invested with metaphorical significance in Christianity. Jesus is considered to be the culmination of the High Priesthood. The Jewish priesthood has therefore been seen as a type for the priesthood of Christ, as the Jewish sacrifice was of Christ's sacrifice. By his sacrifice as Priest he reconciles God to men, fulfilling the old law. Cross, F.L. (1974). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 1122–1123. ISBN 0-19-211545-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

 In ictu oculi (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aaronic priesthood (Latter Day Saints). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310161728/http://josephsmithpapers.org/topic?name=Aaronic+Priesthood to http://josephsmithpapers.org/topic?name=Aaronic+Priesthood

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Deacon (Latter Day Saints)

Proposed merge with Teacher (Latter Day Saints)

Deacon and Teacher are short, poorly-sourced articles, and unlikely to be much more than that. Since they are two degrees of the Aaronic preisthood, which isn't particularly long either, a merge seems appropriate. pbp 20:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Presiding Bishop as an office of the Aaronic priesthood

@Jgstokes: Do you have a reliable source that says Presiding Bishop is an "office" of the Aaronic priesthood? Otherwise, having those items on the page would not follow WP:RS. Presiding Bishop could instead be considered a leadership calling. (The same goes for several instances on the Presiding Bishop (LDS Church) and Presiding bishop pages, another on Bishop (Latter Day Saints), as well as calling the Presiding Bishopric a "quorum" on the Quorum (Latter Day Saints) page. These claims all lack reliable sources.) Altanner1991 (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I have a couple of sources that might be helpful: this one describes the duties of the Presiding Bishopric, and this one goes into more detail about the worldwide role of the Presiding Bishopric. The first four or five paragraphs in the latter source may prove very illuminating. And pertinent scriptural verses (Doctrine and Covenants 107:15 & 68) provide additional insight. I'd also recommend the entry for "presiding bishop" in the Church's guide to the scriptures. Please feel free to post any additional questions here if none of that information is satisfactory. Thanks for your good-faith efforts on this issue. They are greatly appreciated. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes but we would need specific mentions of Presiding Bishop as another "office", and not just another leadership position, or it is original research (WP:OR). Altanner1991 (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jgstokes: Are there explicit sources for the two points in question. Here are my thoughts on the two issues?

1. Presiding Bishop as an "office" - I think the correct understanding would be this is a calling and not an office. There are offices that are also callings, eg patriarch and bishop, but there are also callings that are not, eg stake president and stake high councilor. I base this off of this page on the Church website that says that all members in the Presiding Bishopric hold the office of bishop.
2. Presiding Bishopric as a quorum - both the previous link and this page describe the Presiding Bishopric as a council and not a quorum. The Church website appears to be fairly consist with identifying which groups are quorums. My guess is this is more akin to a presidency which, with the exception of the First Presidency, is not a quorum.

Thoughts? --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This page seems to contradict Jgstokes' edits: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-14-priesthood-organization?lang=eng&msclkid=dba27fd8c0e211ec8ef2b357f2bb28ed Altanner1991 (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Bushman source

Leaving this in the article per NPOV but would like to know other opinions. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Have you actually had a chance to read the full source in question. I removed it because my reading of the source showed that this was a cherrypicked quote from the Bushman source. The edit in question extrapolates (SYNTH) from a single quote from Bushman to "some scholars". Also, this is not an argument that Bushman is making when you actually look at the paragraph in question. Bushman is listing several hypotheticals for why the differences and separation in time between Cowdery's and Smith's accounts. Bushman also suggests other reasons, so why not mention those? Why cherrypick this one quote. If anything, Bushman assertion is found at the end of that paragraph - that it was "more like a refurbished memory than a triumphant announcement" so I argue that this is a misrepresentation of Bushman's statement.

Given this, I am reverting to the prior version before the anon editor's recent edit. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed it had been cherrypicked—thanks. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)