LDS Freedom Forum

My Bishop taught our priesthood on Sunday and gave us some questions on a sheet of paper and one of the questions was 'who has more authority a Bishop or High Priest?' I though if anything they are equal due to both being High Priests, but we went with Bishop, the answer was wrong and it was High Priest, but why? Does any one have any more insight to this? Bishop holds keys, is president of aaronic priesthood, is a Bishop and a High Priest. High Priest without any calling , holds more authority?

Bishop is a calling of the church, High Priest an order of the "holy Priesthood" and can function without the church...get my drift?

Truth will Prevail wrote:Bishop holds keys, is president of aaronic priesthood, is a Bishop and a High Priest. High Priest without any calling , holds more authority?

I'll make an attempt at some general answers. If you want more specifics, let me know and I'll go into more detail. The answers to all these questions can be found in Doctrine & Covenants 107.

The office of bishop is not only a calling, it is an office. The office of bishop is not an office of the Melchizedek priesthood (the higher priesthood), it is an office in the Aaronic priesthood (the lesser priesthood). A bishop is not necessarily a High Priest - a bishop is only a high priest when there is no literal descendant of Aaron found. The office of bishop is concerned with the administration of temporal things, while the office of high priest is concerned with the administration of spiritual things.

jnjnelson wrote:

Truth will Prevail wrote:Bishop holds keys, is president of aaronic priesthood, is a Bishop and a High Priest. High Priest without any calling , holds more authority?

I'll make an attempt at some general answers. If you want more specifics, let me know and I'll go into more detail. The answers to all these questions can be found in Doctrine & Covenants 107.

The office of bishop is not only a calling, it is an office. The office of bishop is not an office of the Melchizedek priesthood (the higher priesthood), it is an office in the Aaronic priesthood (the lesser priesthood). A bishop is not necessarily a High Priest - a bishop is only a high priest when there is no literal descendant of Aaron found. The office of bishop is concerned with the administration of temporal things, while the office of high priest is concerned with the administration of spiritual things.

So are you saying that a Bishop conditionally has less authority than a High Priest if he is a literal descendant of Aaron and not a High Priest?

I've never know of a literal descendant of Aaron in our dispensation. Anyone else?

Joseph of Egypt, who was sold by his brethren married the daughter of the High Priest in Egypt. Upon reading the account most assume he married the daughter of some high Egyptian religious official, whatever religion Egypt was practicing at the time.

It's been my opinion for sometime that Joseph married the daughter of what we would call the Stake President of his day. It's my opinion that the true church had pretty much the same organization in Joseph's day as we do today. The church had its leaders and followers in every city and country.

Our Stake President is our high priest, leaving no doubt to the answer of the question.

Bob

Who is the president of the priest quorum? The 1st assistant to the priest quorum? Wrong! The Bishop.

Who is the president of the high priest group? The high priest group leader? Wrong! The stake president

ktg wrote:So are you saying that a Bishop conditionally has less authority than a High Priest if he is a literal descendant of Aaron and not a High Priest?

Yes. I'm also saying that if a bishop is a high priest, the highest authority he has is in the office of high priest, not in the office of bishop.

When a bishop is a high priest, he is the presiding high priest and the president of the priest's quorum in the ward. When a bishop is not a high priest, he is the president of the priest's quorum in the ward and not a member of the high priest's quorum of the stake.

The office of bishop is an Aaronic priesthood office, and high priest is a Melchizedek priesthood office.

Another interesting tidbit is that a high priest group leader does not hold priesthood keys, but all quorum presidents do hold priesthood keys, including the stake president, the elder's quorum president, the bishop, the teacher's quorum president, and the deacon's quorum president.

ktg wrote:I've never know of a literal descendant of Aaron in our dispensation. Anyone else?

Not personally, but I have been told there are some - I can't verify that for anyone, though.

Cowell wrote:Who is the president of the high priest group? The high priest group leader? Wrong! The stake president

There is no president of the high priest group. The stake president is the president of the high priest's quorum. High priest groups in the wards are merely sub-sets of the high priest's quorum of the stake.

jnjnelson wrote:

Cowell wrote:Who is the president of the high priest group? The high priest group leader? Wrong! The stake president

There is no president of the high priest group. The stake president is the president of the high priest's quorum. High priest groups in the wards are merely sub-sets of the high priest's quorum of the stake.

But if the stake president is the president of the high priest quorum, isn't he by implication also president of the high priest groups that are subsets? Yes.

Cowell wrote:But if the stake president is the president of the high priest quorum, isn't he by implication also president of the high priest groups that are subsets? Yes.

If you want to think of it that way, I suppose it might help from an organizational standpoint.

I don't think of it that way, though, for the same reason I don't think Utah has a president.

Sooooooo, QUESTION; 'Who has MORE authority, a Bishop (who happens to also be a high priest) or a High Priest?'

Isnt this like asking who has more authoruty a high priest or a high priest??????

Truth will Prevail wrote:Isnt this like asking who has more authoruty a high priest or a high priest??????

In most cases, yes.

jnjnelson wrote:

Truth will Prevail wrote:Isnt this like asking who has more authoruty a high priest or a high priest??????

In most cases, yes.

It's a question of keys!

Bob

kind of surprised this is an issue

A bishop is a bishop, which is aaronic authority. If he also is a high priest of the high priesthood than he has 2 seperate offices.

It is like Joseph Smith Jr being president of the priesthood and at the same time being president of the stake in Zion.

A high priest obviously has more authority than a bishop. So when a bishop is also a high priest he holds 2 offices at the same time.

Today we are used to a man holding one office at a time usually, but a man can hold more than one office at a time.

jnjnelson wrote:

Cowell wrote:But if the stake president is the president of the high priest quorum, isn't he by implication also president of the high priest groups that are subsets? Yes.

If you want to think of it that way, I suppose it might help from an organizational standpoint.

I don't think of it that way, though, for the same reason I don't think Utah has a president.

I only wish Utah didn't have a president!

Good post, as this has bothered me for years, but whatever, I can get along with whatever is wanted.

Every Sunday, the bishop stands and conducts "Priesthood", whereas in fact it should be the High Priest group leader, in the absence of the Stake President, who conducts. Sacrament is the bishops meeting, Priesthood is the priesthoods, not the bishops. This is a nice check and balance, but on that is not observed any longer. The net effect is small, but it is, in my opinion, a deviation from the standard that has been set out in the standard works.

BTW, where are the bishops who are literal descendents of Aaron? Do we have any? If not, why not, are they not "gathered" yet? Anyone ever know of one?

Interesting discussion Brethren. I was made a high priest 18 months ago and I was conducting quorum and i referred to the group leader as president. A member of the high council called me on it and said he wasnt president. Your input here has cleared that issue up for me and now i understand why hes not a president.

The Bishop is the presiding High Priest in the ward (unless a levite can be found), so he is the highest authority in the ward. The Bishop's duties are to be in charge of temporal things...like meetings (Sacrament, baptisms, etc.) They get the prayers, speakers, sacrament, they judge people, etc. It is very much a service leadership office. The Aaronic priesthood does temporal things in the church, like baptize, pass sacrament, hometeach, etc. So the answer is "it depends". If in a ward setting, Bishop has more authority. Otherwise, High Priest does, outside a ward setting.

haddomr wrote:If in a ward setting, Bishop has more authority. Otherwise, High Priest does, outside a ward setting.

Now we are talking about priesthood keys. The Bishop holds priesthood keys for his ward that no other member of the priesthood holds, including a high priest (or a seventy for that matter.)

jnjnelson wrote:The Bishop holds priesthood keys for his ward that no other member of the priesthood holds, including a high priest (or a seventy for that matter.)

It's true that the Bishop holds the keys but it's interesting to note that a visiting seventy presides.

shadow wrote:It's true that the Bishop holds the keys but it's interesting to note that a visiting seventy presides.

Exactly. Herein is the difference between priesthood authority and priesthood keys.

jnjnelson wrote:

haddomr wrote:If in a ward setting, Bishop has more authority. Otherwise, High Priest does, outside a ward setting.

Now we are talking about priesthood keys. The Bishop holds priesthood keys for his ward that no other member of the priesthood holds, including a high priest (or a seventy for that matter.)

But the keys he holds are aaronic, not melchizedek. Consider that a literal descendent of Aaron may serve as bishop perpetually, and need not be ordained a high priest, all he needs is to be a literal descendant of aaron. Ruminate on that, and you will soon arrive at an understanding of where the office of bishop fits in, which is not exactly what we have today.

We say Bishop when referring to the person who is:
1. Bishop (An Aaronic Priesthood office) AND
2. Presiding High Priest in the Ward (a Melchizedek Priesthood calling) AND
3. Common Judge in Israel.
All holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood have equal authority but different keys. The Melchizedek priesthood has more authority than the Aaronic priesthood. (Compare D&C 107:18-19 with v 20) The question would be more meaningful if it was expanded to say more authority to do do what,

ktg wrote:

jnjnelson wrote:

Truth will Prevail wrote:Bishop holds keys, is president of aaronic priesthood, is a Bishop and a High Priest. High Priest without any calling , holds more authority?

I'll make an attempt at some general answers. If you want more specifics, let me know and I'll go into more detail. The answers to all these questions can be found in Doctrine & Covenants 107.

The office of bishop is not only a calling, it is an office. The office of bishop is not an office of the Melchizedek priesthood (the higher priesthood), it is an office in the Aaronic priesthood (the lesser priesthood). A bishop is not necessarily a High Priest - a bishop is only a high priest when there is no literal descendant of Aaron found. The office of bishop is concerned with the administration of temporal things, while the office of high priest is concerned with the administration of spiritual things.

So are you saying that a Bishop conditionally has less authority than a High Priest if he is a literal descendant of Aaron and not a High Priest?

I've never know of a literal descendant of Aaron in our dispensation. Anyone else?

Jews of the Last name Cohen are generally considered potential descendants of Aaron and Levitical priests as Cohen translates from Hebrew as priest. According to McConkie, an accepted literal descendant of Aaron is not the equivalent of a Bishop of a ward but is instead the equivalent of the Presiding Bishop in the Church and this is not simply by claim but is only by recognition of the prophet of the Church.

See -->AARON, -->AARONIC PRIESTHOOD, -->BISHOPS, -->GENERAL AUTHORITIES, -->PRIESTHOOD OFFICES. To "the firstborn among the sons of Aaron" belongs the legal right to serve as the President of the Aaronic Priesthood and the Presiding Bishop of the Church, "For the firstborn holds the right of the presidency over this priesthood, and the keys or authority of the same." This is the office which Aaron held anciently; the right to it is hereditary; it descends from worthy father to worthy son in the same way that the office of Patriarch to the Church does. But in the absence of a revelation to the President of the Church, designating the lineage and person to hold this high position of bishopric and Levitical presidency, the First Presidency chooses "a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood" to hold the office. In this event two counselors are also called to serve in the Presiding Bishopric. (D. & C. 68:14-21; 107:15-17, 68-78.)As a holder of the keys of presidency over the Aaronic Priesthood of the Church and thus over all other bishops, the Presiding Bishop is one of the General Authorities of the Church. He sits as a judge in Israel, is responsible for many of the temporal concerns of the kingdom (D. & C. 107:68-74), receives consecrations for the care of the Lord's poor (D. & C. 42:31-33; 51:5, 12-13), and is called to travel and preach as an aid to building up the kingdom. (D. & C. 84:112-116.)(Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966], 592.)

Thus it is a possibility that the person who taught the lesson and asked this question is laboring under the common mistaken notion that it is a Bishop in a Ward that is the position that is claimed by the heirs of Aaron, when this is not the case. Depending then on his perspective, where the Presiding Bishop is over all Bishops, then one could say that a Bishop is subject to the direction of a non-Melchizedek priesthood holder if he is a literal descendant of Aaron sitting in the office of Presiding Bishop. Such an heir also is not required to have 2 counselors, Only a Melchizedek Presiding Bishop is required to have the counselors. Still, I think it would be only in the exercise of duties belonging to the Aaronic priesthood that he would be in the possession of greater Keys. While any High Priest might still retain greater authority simply by priesthood standing. IT rather depends upon what perspective he is pushing as to the nature of his interpretation.

Clearly though, all High Priests in the church who are acting as Bishops would be subject to the authority of a sustained and recognized heir of Aaron functioning in the presiding Bishop position in all duties relating to the administration of the Aaronic priesthood. However, not in any duties relating to his role as the lead High Priest in his ward as that position is subject to the Presiding role of the Stake president who does not technically fall under the direction of the Presiding Bishopric. OR then again, depending on interpretation the Presiding Bishop could dictate through the Priesthood line of authority to the Stake presidents how Bishops were to function in their Aaronic duties, but then again as the Presiding Bishop is always subject to the First Presidency perhaps we would consider the direction to the Stake President as being routed from the First Presidency since they oversee and are in authority over the Presiding Bishop thus again the Aaronic can only dictate to the Melchizedk when it is one who is acting only in the duties of a bishop relative to his Aaronic responsibilities. It all depends on the perspective.

I think I would just hang with what position is being discussed and let the ensuing confusion over the role of presiding Bishop and the heirs of Aaron relative to Ward level Bishops run it's course and simply be slightly entertained at your cleverness.