Rain Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) My husband found a card that he had on his mission showing his priesthood ordination line. We thought it would be good to send the information to my son who is on mission. However, when I look at it then it isn't quite clear (Some of it is about being ordained a apostle and not with the Melchizedek priesthood etc) and I wonder if there is more information than he had back in 1987 and than I am finding now. Any suggestions on where to look for accuracy? The beginning of his line on the card: Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, William Law Oliver Cowdery, David Whitimer, Marin Harris - Feb 14, 1835 Brigham Young - Feb 14, 1835 Joseph F. Smith - July 1, 1866 Hyrum Mack Smith - Oct 24, 1901 Henry H Blood Mar 25, 1906 Sterling W Sill May 10, 1931 and then my father-in-law etc. Edited February 20, 2020 by Rain 1
bluebell Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 5 minutes ago, Rain said: My husband found a card that he had on his mission showing his priesthood ordination line. We thought it would be good to send the information to my son who is on mission. However, when I look at it then it isn't quite clear (Some of it is about being ordained a apostle and not with the Melchizedek priesthood etc) and I wonder if there is more information than he had back in 1987 and that I am finding now. Any suggestions on where to look for accuracy? The beginning of his line on the card: Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, William Law Oliver Cowdery, David Whitimer, Marin Harris - Feb 14, 1835 Brigham Young - Feb 14, 1835 Joseph F. Smith - July 1, 1866 Hyrum Mack Smith - Oct 24, 1901 Henry H Blood Mar 25, 1906 Sterling W Sill May 10, 1931 and then my father-in-law etc. You could request a copy of his line of authority from the church and see if it matches? 4
JAHS Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: 10 minutes ago, Rain said: My husband found a card that he had on his mission showing his priesthood ordination line. We thought it would be good to send the information to my son who is on mission. However, when I look at it then it isn't quite clear (Some of it is about being ordained a apostle and not with the Melchizedek priesthood etc) and I wonder if there is more information than he had back in 1987 and that I am finding now. Any suggestions on where to look for accuracy? The beginning of his line on the card: Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, William Law Oliver Cowdery, David Whitimer, Marin Harris - Feb 14, 1835 Brigham Young - Feb 14, 1835 Joseph F. Smith - July 1, 1866 Hyrum Mack Smith - Oct 24, 1901 Henry H Blood Mar 25, 1906 Sterling W Sill May 10, 1931 and then my father-in-law etc. You could request a copy of his line of authority from the church and see if it matches? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/help/support/request-a-priesthood-line-of-authority?lang=eng 3
pogi Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 15 minutes ago, Rain said: My husband found a card that he had on his mission showing his priesthood ordination line. We thought it would be good to send the information to my son who is on mission. However, when I look at it then it isn't quite clear (Some of it is about being ordained a apostle and not with the Melchizedek priesthood etc) and I wonder if there is more information than he had back in 1987 and that I am finding now. Any suggestions on where to look for accuracy? The beginning of his line on the card: Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, William Law Oliver Cowdery, David Whitimer, Marin Harris - Feb 14, 1835 Brigham Young - Feb 14, 1835 Joseph F. Smith - July 1, 1866 Hyrum Mack Smith - Oct 24, 1901 Henry H Blood Mar 25, 1906 Sterling W Sill May 10, 1931 and then my father-in-law etc. Don't forget to include Jesus Christ 1
Amulek Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 12 minutes ago, Rain said: Any suggestions on where to look for accuracy? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/help/support/request-a-priesthood-line-of-authority?lang=eng 2
Rain Posted February 20, 2020 Author Posted February 20, 2020 Thank you! It will be interesting to see how it changes. I didn't forget Jesus and the others! I just typed where I was questioning things. I'll have my husband send the form in.
pogi Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 This is an interesting bit of information I read on the link provided above: Quote A priesthood line of authority is determined by the priesthood office held by the officiator at the time the ordination took place. For example, if a father who is an elder ordains his son to the office of elder, the son’s line of authority is traced through the father’s elder ordination. If the father is a high priest at the time he ordains his son, the son’s line of authority is traced through the father’s high priest ordination. A priesthood holder with the office of seventy may be included in a member’s personal line of authority, but no separate line of authority is maintained for the office of seventy. Ordained bishops and patriarchs trace their priesthood line of authority through their high priest ordination. A priesthood line of authority is not recorded for Aaronic Priesthood conferral or ordinations. Why does the line of authority go through the office of the officiator? It seems like the line of authority should go through the person who originally conferred the Melchizedek priesthood on the officiator. The office of the officiator at the time of conferral doesn't really change the authority of the priesthood being conferred. It seems strange to me that a father and son could have totally different lines of authority if the father conferred the priesthood upon his son before being ordained to the office of high priest. Why does the line of authority change between the offices of Elder and High Priest, but not for the office of seventy or patriarch? 3
bluebell Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 3 minutes ago, pogi said: This is an interesting bit of information I read on the link provided above: Why does the line of authority go through the office of the officiator? It seems like the line of authority should go through the person who originally conferred the Melchizedek priesthood on the officiator. The office of the officiator at the time of conferral doesn't really change the authority of the priesthood being conferred. It seems strange to me that a father and son could have totally different lines of authority if the father conferred the priesthood upon his son before being ordained to the office of high priest. Why does the line of authority change between the offices of Elder and High Priest, but not for the office of seventy or patriarch? It is interesting. Perhaps it's because an elder has no authority to ordain someone a high priest, so having the line of authority follow the authority line of elder doesn't work. An elder has no authority to ordain a high priest. So the line of authority has to show that whoever ordained the person to that priesthood had the authority to do so. 3
pogi Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 27 minutes ago, bluebell said: It is interesting. Perhaps it's because an elder has no authority to ordain someone a high priest, so having the line of authority follow the authority line of elder doesn't work. It wouldn't work if the son was being ordained to the office of high priest, but he is not. Whether or not the son receives the priesthood from his father as elder or high priest doesn't really make a difference because he is not receiving the authority of the higher office of the officiator. It seems like we should be following the line of conferral of priesthood because offices change but the line you received the priesthood from stays the same. It makes more sense to me to have a line of conferral of priesthood and a line of ordination of office (because they are two different things), and I guess there technically probably is, it just isn't tracked that way. 27 minutes ago, bluebell said: An elder has no authority to ordain a high priest. So the line of authority has to show that whoever ordained the person to that priesthood had the authority to do so. It is also true that a high priest cannot ordain a 70 or patriarch, so if this is truly the reason why it is done this way, then why don't we track the line of authority through those offices? Edited February 20, 2020 by pogi
JAHS Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) Knowing your line of authority while interesting for historical purposes, is of course not really necessary. As long as your correct priesthood and office are recorded on your membership record, that's all that is really needed. Edited February 20, 2020 by JAHS 2
Ahab Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 2 minutes ago, JAHS said: Knowing your line of authority while interesting for historical purposes, is of course not really necessary. As long as your correct priesthood and office are recorded on your membership record, that's all that is really needed. That is true but at the same time that is absolutely and wonderfully awe-inspiring. To think that we who have the priesthood of God actually have the same priesthood that God has is... beyond words... wonderful and marvelous and many other good adjectives I can think of. 1
bluebell Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 14 minutes ago, pogi said: It wouldn't work if the son was being ordained to the office of high priest, but he is not. Whether or not the son receives the priesthood from his father as elder or high priest doesn't really make a difference because he is not receiving the authority of the higher office of the officiator. Not in that instance, but would it make sense to have different rules depending on the office someone was being ordained too. It seems like it would be simpler to have the same rules for everyone. Quote It seems like we should be following the line of conferral of priesthood because offices change but the line you received the priesthood from stays the same. It makes more sense to me to have a line of conferral of priesthood and a line of ordination of office (because they are two different things), and I guess there technically probably is, it just isn't tracked that way. It is also true that a high priest cannot ordain a 70 or patriarch, so if this is truly the reason why it is done this way, then why don't we track the line of authority through those offices? Good question. I don't know why it's done the way it is, I'm just offering some plausible explanations. But does the line you receive the priesthood from remain the same ? The priesthood comes from whatever office the man is holding when he confers it to another, doesn't it? So if a man, as an elder, ordains someone and then later ordains someone else as a high priest, those are two different lines of authority, aren't they? The first came through the aurthority of an elder and the second came through the authority of a high priest.
pogi Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, bluebell said: But does the line you receive the priesthood from remain the same ? The priesthood comes from whatever office the man is holding when he confers it to another, doesn't it? So if a man, as an elder, ordains someone and then later ordains someone else as a high priest, those are two different lines of authority, aren't they? The first came through the aurthority of an elder and the second came through the authority of a high priest. The way I understand it is that yes, the line you receive the priesthood (not office) from does stay the same. A person is only conferred the Melchizedek priesthood once in their life, that line of conferral never changes. If my dad gave me the priesthood, and my bishop later ordains me to the office of high priest, I still received the priesthood through my dad's line, and not my bishop's line. Authority within the priesthood can change based on office, which is why it is weird to me that we don't follow all lines of authority, including 70, patriarch, and apostle etc. That's why it makes sense to me to follow both lines of conferral (who gave you the priesthood), and ordination (who ordained you to an office). Edited February 20, 2020 by pogi
Ahab Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: Not in that instance, but would it make sense to have different rules depending on the office someone was being ordained too. It seems like it would be simpler to have the same rules for everyone. Good question. I don't know why it's done the way it is, I'm just offering some plausible explanations. But does the line you receive the priesthood from remain the same ? The priesthood comes from whatever office the man is holding when he confers it to another, doesn't it? So if a man, as an elder, ordains someone and then later ordains someone else as a high priest, those are two different lines of authority, aren't they? The first came through the aurthority of an elder and the second came through the authority of a high priest. There is a distinction between the priesthood and an office in the priesthood. When we receive our first ordination in the priesthood we then have received the priesthood, but that does't mean we have been ordained to every office in the priesthood. We are ordained into higher offices in the priesthood as the need arises, as we are appointed by higher officers in the priesthood who can appoint us to those higher offices. Only apostles can appoint other apostles or members of the First Presidency of the Church, for example.
Ahab Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 4 minutes ago, pogi said: The way I understand it is that yes, the line you receive the priesthood (not office) from does stay the same. A person is only conferred the Melchizedek priesthood once in their life, that line of conferral never changes. If my dad gave me the priesthood, and my bishop later ordains me to the office of high priest, I still received the priesthood through my dad. Authority within the priesthood can change based on office, which is why it is weird to me that we don't follow all lines of authority, including 70, patriarch, and apostle etc. That's why it makes sense to me to follow both lines of conferral (who gave you the priesthood), and ordination (who ordained you to an office). I agree with the exception of men who leave the Church and later come back to it and are then again ordained to the priesthood, again. If we're ever ordained to the office of an apostle, or a member of the 70, or some other higher office in the priesthood, we'll be able to appoint lower officers to higher offices as we are then qualified and authorized to do so. Just like Peter, James and John could appoint other apostles because they were apostles and authorized by our Lord to appoint other apostles, for example.
Rain Posted February 20, 2020 Author Posted February 20, 2020 23 minutes ago, JAHS said: Knowing your line of authority while interesting for historical purposes, is of course not really necessary. As long as your correct priesthood and office are recorded on your membership record, that's all that is really needed. The one time it made a difference for my husband was while he was on his mission when he was asked about it. Not a huge difference, but having it made a difference to the person he was teaching.
bluebell Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 6 minutes ago, Ahab said: There is a distinction between the priesthood and an office in the priesthood. When we receive our first ordination in the priesthood we then have received the priesthood, but that does't mean we have been ordained to every office in the priesthood. We are ordained into higher offices in the priesthood as the need arises, as we are appointed by higher officers in the priesthood who can appoint us to those higher offices. Only apostles can appoint other apostles or members of the First Presidency of the Church, for example. I realize that. It's interesting stuff.
pogi Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 6 minutes ago, Ahab said: I agree with the exception of men who leave the Church and later come back to it and are then again ordained to the priesthood, again. True. I was speaking in generalities as that exception was not really important to my point. 7 minutes ago, Ahab said: If we're ever ordained to the office of an apostle, or a member of the 70, or some other higher office in the priesthood, we'll be able to appoint lower officers to higher offices as we are then qualified and authorized to do so. Just like Peter, James and John could appoint other apostles because they were apostles and authorized by our Lord to appoint other apostles, for example. Did I say something to the contrary?
Ahab Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 2 minutes ago, pogi said: Did I say something to the contrary? Just say you agree with me when you think you do.
Rain Posted February 20, 2020 Author Posted February 20, 2020 1 hour ago, pogi said: This is an interesting bit of information I read on the link provided above: Why does the line of authority go through the office of the officiator? It seems like the line of authority should go through the person who originally conferred the Melchizedek priesthood on the officiator. The office of the officiator at the time of conferral doesn't really change the authority of the priesthood being conferred. It seems strange to me that a father and son could have totally different lines of authority if the father conferred the priesthood upon his son before being ordained to the office of high priest. Why does the line of authority change between the offices of Elder and High Priest, but not for the office of seventy or patriarch? I didn't catch that. I was just assuming that it would be the same for my son. If I understand it right though it would go: My father-in-law HP My husband Elder But my son would be: My father-in-law HP My brother-in-law HP My husband HP My son elder And now I am wondering if further back the lines are even more changed because my brother-in-law is 7 years older than my husband. It's possible my father-in-law was an elder when he ordained my BIL and in between the 2 ordinations was ordained a HP.
Ahab Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 9 minutes ago, bluebell said: I realize that. It's interesting stuff. I think so too.
Rain Posted February 20, 2020 Author Posted February 20, 2020 19 minutes ago, pogi said: The way I understand it is that yes, the line you receive the priesthood (not office) from does stay the same. A person is only conferred the Melchizedek priesthood once in their life, that line of conferral never changes. If my dad gave me the priesthood, and my bishop later ordains me to the office of high priest, I still received the priesthood through my dad's line, and not my bishop's line. Authority within the priesthood can change based on office, which is why it is weird to me that we don't follow all lines of authority, including 70, patriarch, and apostle etc. That's why it makes sense to me to follow both lines of conferral (who gave you the priesthood), and ordination (who ordained you to an office). So if you have a son does he go through your dad or bishop?
pogi Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 6 minutes ago, Ahab said: Just say you agree with me when you think you do. It was just unrelated to what I was saying, so I was confused.
pogi Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 6 minutes ago, Rain said: So if you have a son does he go through your dad or bishop? His line of authority (as tracked by the church) would change from dad who conferred the priesthood and ordained to office of Elder, to bishop who ordained to office of high priest. Does that make sense? A line of authority will change based on office, and is tracked through the highest office of the person officiating.
mfbukowski Posted February 20, 2020 Posted February 20, 2020 29 minutes ago, bluebell said: Not in that instance, but would it make sense to have different rules depending on the office someone was being ordained too. It seems like it would be simpler to have the same rules for everyone. Good question. I don't know why it's done the way it is, I'm just offering some plausible explanations. But does the line you receive the priesthood from remain the same ? The priesthood comes from whatever office the man is holding when he confers it to another, doesn't it? So if a man, as an elder, ordains someone and then later ordains someone else as a high priest, those are two different lines of authority, aren't they? The first came through the aurthority of an elder and the second came through the authority of a high priest. Yep. That's it I have been ordained an Elder, a Seventy, a High Priest and a bishop, with all lines different. I think the purpose of the whole thing is to make us just more aware that our Authority comes directly from the Lord and is passed through other Brethren to us. It's not really necessary to know even who those brethren were. I suppose though as a convert it is quite different than it is for someone who has been in the church there entire life, showing family connections. The only people I know in my priesthood lineage is is the person who actually ordained me.
Recommended Posts