Talk:Melchizedek priesthood
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
| This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] Interpretation of the Melchizedek priesthood
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)
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)
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)
[edit] Qualifications for Priesthood office of Apostle
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)
- 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)
-
- 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)
-
-
- 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)
-
-
- 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)
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)
- 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)
