403 Forbidden

403 Forbidden

403 Forbidden

Nine Moons » Blog Archive : Is King a Priesthood Office? » Is King a Priesthood Office?

Is King a Priesthood Office?

Don - April 17, 2006

Which priesthood does the office of "King" come under?  Is it patriarchal?  Is it Melchezedek?  What about "Queen" or "Priestess"?

It is my understanding that we can be ordained to the office of "King", or ("Queen" for women), or "Priest" or ("Priestess" for women).  In the context it appears that the women’s ordainations are priesthood ordainations.  It also appears that the men’s ordainations are priesthood ordainations.  But are they offices in the priesthood?

Is King and Queen an ordaination like David of old?  Does it give us the authority to "rule" over whatever?  Does that mean it’s for ruling in a non-religious kingdom?  If so then when would I use it?  If it’s to rule in a religious kingdom then doesn’t that come under normal priesthood authority?  If so then wouldn’t it be a priesthood office?

I’ll quit rambling, I have more thoughts and questions on this, but maybe I’ll be enlightened by your help and won’t have to ask them.


  1. Good questions. There are two offices of King one can be ordained to in the Church. The first, in the Temple (King and Priest) is equated with “the fullness of the priesthood.” The second is as David of old – Prophet, Priest, and King. Here is a brief review of that office.

    Comment by J. Stapley — April 17, 2006 @ 2:09 pm

  2. J. I remember reading your other post and found it very interesting. Joseph was ordained King, but what about us, what is our kingdom that we are going to be ordained to?

    Comment by don — April 17, 2006 @ 2:48 pm

  3. Well, it depends on what sort of exaltation theology you accept. We can hope to recieve the fullness of the priesthood, in which case according to 19th century theology we become rulers in the Celestial Kingdom. Here is a post on a nineteenth century explication of this theology.

    I think that the hardest thing for people to accept this theology (in the modern Church, i.e.) is that all “Exaltation” is not equitable.

    Comment by J. Stapley — April 17, 2006 @ 3:23 pm

  4. What is the defining characteristic of an office?

    Note that in the temple we are anointed and ordained to become a King and Queen and are not anointed as such. (Not that you guys disagree – just thought I ought emphasize it)

    The distinction to add to what I think J. Stapley is getting at is the distinction between the Patriarchal Priesthood and the Highest Order of the Patriarchal Priesthood. Then there is the government on earth tied in some still controversial way to the council of Fifty.

    Then there is the sense of King as Jesus Christ, who is the only King here on earth.

    Comment by Clark Goble — April 17, 2006 @ 5:21 pm

  5. Joseph Smith Jr, Brigham Young, and John Taylor were all set apart as “Prophet, Seer, and King.”

    So yes, it seems to be one as much as Prophet is.

    Comment by a random John — April 17, 2006 @ 5:59 pm

  6. hmm…I am not sure that we can seperate that out like that, arJ. It would seem that there are three three offices that, say, John Taylor held:

    1. King and Priest
    2. Prophet, Priest and King
    3. Apostle (and as such a prophet, seer and revelator)

    Additionally, hey was the “President” of the church. The reality is that there is no office of “Prophet” in the church. The reference to the President of the Church as “the Prophet” is not referential to a specific office…it is simply a convention that has evolved over time.

    Comment by J. Stapley — April 17, 2006 @ 6:32 pm

  7. J,

    You are right in that I’ve screwed up the terminology. However the point remains that those three were made Kings in a way which hasn’t happened since. Is that completely separate from what Don is talking about? Is their ordination as King a fulfillment of the promise to become such? Or is it something else entirely?

    Comment by a random John — April 18, 2006 @ 2:08 am

  8. arJ, it is something else entirely. It is debatable that the Council of Fifty is even a priesthood organization (non-members can be in the council). Joseph Smith, to clarify the difference, talked about David of old being “king” but not having the fullness of the priesthood. The fullness of the priesthood ordinance is the fullfillment of the “promise to become such.”

    Comment by J. Stapley — April 18, 2006 @ 10:22 am

  9. Don,

    What most folks in the church overlooked after Joseph died was a very crucial speech he gave on August 27, 1843. In this speech he mentioned that there are really three priesthoods to be had in the church: 1) Aaronic, 2) Melchizedek, and 3) The Fullness of the Priesthood, as Stapley mentioned above. The latter of the three is what constitutes being a “king and priest,” with God as the most-high king. The speech in question is best read from Ehat & Cook’s Words of Joseph Smith.

    “the promise to become such

    J, you’re the best, man. I love it when people notice that from the endowment. The initial anointing is contingent and conditional. I remember after I learned about the Fullness, I went through an endowment, and right after they dim the lights, they talk about it!!!. I hope no one on the correlation committee is reading this, cuz they’ll figure it out and remove that part.

    Comment by David J — April 18, 2006 @ 10:53 pm

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.