Jump to content

Talk:Priesthood of Melchizedek

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interpretation of the Melchizedek priesthood

[edit]

I've placed the TotallyDisputed-section tag because of its treatment of various Christian views. I doubt that you can find much of any traditional Bible-believing Christians who believe that Christ has returned already. Amillennialist Protestants generally believe that Christ hasn't returned yet: the idea is that there's not a significant time between the return of Christ and the end of the world. Historically, all Presbyterians have adhered to the Westminster Confession of Faith (view the first 111 pages of this document, the paragraphs on the left side of the page, for the WCF; the most relevant section is the last chapter, beginning page 109), which teaches that Christ's return will come at the end of time.

The section is also POV: claiming that the Christ-has-already-returned position (which sounds like the position of the Jehovah's Witnesses, a group significantly out of the mainstream) is better. Regardless of the proper biblical interpretation, the article shouldn't claim that either one is closer to original Christian ideals. While the second part of this paragraph links it with the view that Christ is the æternal priest, this is the belief of mainstream evangelical Christians — quite unlike the second part of the paragraph. Nyttend 02:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement has no warrant from the Catechism:

"Catholics find the roots of their priesthood in the tradition of Melchizedek". If a proof cannot be given for this from catechism then this could be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rencin (talk • contribs) 12:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rencin -- I refer you to CCC 1544 [[1]]; I will update the article to reflect that source. Innocent76 (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

checkY This issue seems to have been dealt with. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifications for Priesthood office of Apostle

[edit]

I am starting this topic to query the listed WP qualifications for the office of apostle. WP's description defines such qualifications as "married holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood." But that's not strictly true. Elder Richard G. Scott of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is currently single, his wife having died in 1995, and has not remarried. But he still holds and functions in the office of apostle, so for that reason, the WP definition may not be accurate. Any suggestions how to resolve this problem? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that he was married when called to the apostleship. He has been sealed to his spouse in the temple, so in the Church's eyes, he is married. Death of a spouse does not disqualify one for the position of apostle once someone is already an apostle. VectorPosse (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with your clarification as being an accurate description of the Church's definition of an apostle. However, WP seems reluctant to align itself with the viewpoints of any one religion, so for the WP definition of "apostle," we might need to clarify. Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. I see what you mean. I think, though, since you are referring to the section specifically addressing the LDS view, there should be no problem altering that definition to conform with the official LDS position. When you say, "WP seems reluctant," are you talking about a specific incident? VectorPosse (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know for sure there have been issues in the past regarding WP's content on temples, as well as a few instances where material helpful to familiarize others with the Church has been altered or eliminated to conform to WP policy. So, based on my experience, I would say that yes, there have been instances where WP seems reluctant to include/exclude material based on the Church's definition of such material. I don't know how to explain it any better than that. Perhaps I could refer you to some of the other LDS related articles that have been edited to conform with WP policy and you'll see what I mean. Just about any LDS article has had issues conforming with WP policy while still maintaining the dignity, sacred nature, and content of the material. I'll invite you to do some study of any LDS WP articles for clarification of this point. For this issue, though, I agree with you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The table says "Minimum requirement to be ordained to office", not "Minimum requirement to hold office". Apostles are only ordained as apostles once, at which point they must be married to a living wife. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification. I understand. I feel like an idiot now. I never noticed that before. Please pardon my stupidity. The issue can be closed with honor as far as I'm concerned. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
checkY This issue seems to have been dealt with: it is not part of the current article. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahronic priesthood

[edit]

May i suggest a more detailed par. on the ahronic priesthood?--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

checkY This issue seems to have been dealt with. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol vs. True Presence

[edit]

I changed the last statement in the "Christianity" subsection. The former referred to the bread and wine as symbols of Christ's body and blood. From the early days of the Church, the bread and wine were considered much more than a symbol. They were (and still are) considered the true presence of Christ's body and blood. (See 1 Cor 10:16 - "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?")

And I reverted the change, since you failed to explain it in the edit summary field. I don't feel this change is appropriate. Which version of the Bible are you using? In the LDS KJV, the word "communion" replaces the word "participation." The footnote by the word communion indicates that a better Greek equivalent of the word in question is "aid, fellowship, partnership." With that translation in mind, I would be very opposed to stating in the article that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. They are symbols, pure and simple. No more, no less. And the scripture in question cannot be considered a WP:RS, as there are so many translations out there. Now, a quote from a biblical scholar categorically stating that the bread and wine are the body and blood would be a reliable source. Change reverted until a reliable source is presented. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, most Christian churches DO NOT view the bread and wine as the body and blood. All churches in the Latter Day Saint movement view them as symbols or tokens, as do many of the other churches that belong to the mainstream Christianity movement. So that claim is false. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
☒N I have revised the text so that, hopefully, it is more NPOV by mentioning both symbol and sacrament; in any case, the point of the original sentence seems a little tortured: it seems to be about what is the nature of the bread or wine that Melchizedek offered (did it have the Real Presence or whatever) which seems speculative. In the rest of the article, bread and symbols are not really mentioned.
(By the way, the argument above about "most churches" seems to beg the question: I am not sure that a two-hundred-year-old church with, say, 1000 living members should be counted as equivalent to a church with, say, 1 billion living members and 1 or 2 thousand year history...) I have added citation needed.

Which is the stable version?

[edit]

sorry, who is reverting whom here? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Priesthood of Melchizedek. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Priesthood_of_Melchizedek&oldid=1217549655"