Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Priesthood Superpower


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Sorry. I guess I'm having a hard time understanding what you are looking for.

You are trying to come up with a way to explain the priesthood, which we believe entails the ability to act in the name of God, in a way that excludes the ability to act in the name of God, at least insofar as it pertains to anything 'supernatural,' and you simultaneously want this explanation to be deeper / more meaningful than our current understanding? Good luck with that.

 

Honestly if you're more on the orthodox/literal believer spectrum, it probably sounds like I'm speaking another language all together.  Sorry... 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I have never thought of it as superpowers.  Because the power doesn't reside in the mortal man.
It is authority to act in the name of God.  It functions only according to the faith of the priesthood bearer and the recipient of the blessing.
And it functions based on correct principle, not any kind of magic.

Priesthood allows those called to serve as God's representatives to pronounce God's blessings according to God's spirit, which blessings are filled by God's power.
Because God respects those he gives authority to that are living up to it.

A wise man once reminded me that when giving a priesthood blessing you do it "in the name of Jesus Christ" and by authority of the "holy Melchizedek Priesthood" (priesthood after the order of the son of God/Jesus Christ).
It has nothing to do with our power at all.  It's Christ's authority, Christ's name, and Christ's blessing.  But not everyone has the legal authority to act in God's name.  That is why priesthood still matters. We want God and Christ to recognize the act as authorized.  Otherwise they have no obligation to deem it valid.

Thanks.  Yes, I realize all this, I probably didn't describe my OP sufficiently to express that I understand the traditional theological narrative for how authority works.  

I'm more asking for a metaphorical way to look at priesthood, rather than a literal way to look at it.  I don't personally believe in literal priesthood powers of God in the way contemporary correlated Mormonism describes.  I do find value in metaphor and myth to describe what is real, and I believe it is real (has an effect on the lives of people), just not necessarily literal.  This can get confusing for more traditional believers, and I'm not sure how to bridge that gap.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes.  The description and expectation expressed here seems to have more to do with the powers of a mighty warlock or magician than they do with priesthood.  The power of the priesthood has more to do with blessing and performing ordinances within the household of faith than in the P. T. Barnum circus stuff some have been suggesting.  The exercise of priesthood power needs to be dignified and held within proper bounds, not become outlandish and superheroic.  God needs calm and abiding strength of character in his priesthood, not spectacular Hollywood action scenes.  God needs to have his men providing a firm handshake and the exercise of responsibility, rather than loud cries of Shazzam!

How to tell the difference?  By the whisperings of the the Holy Spirit.

Ok, this makes some sense, thanks Robert.  So it sounds like this is getting back to an emphasis that this special authority should motivate priesthood holders to show respect and honor this authority, as well as exercise strength of character.  I do like the strength of character piece, especially if we look to D&C 121 for principles of how authority figures should administer their authority.  

I'm still struggling to find a metaphorically compelling narrative to express priesthood though.  What is inspiring about being granted exclusive and special responsibility and authorit?.  I wonder, maybe in as much as this is part of the heroes journey, that there is an aspect of learning that happens when people have special authority, that can't really be learned without it.  Unfortunately, this exclusive authority is limited to so few people, and people of only one gender, that there are some big problems for me, not just in who this authority is given to, but in how it is perceived in our culture about what roles of people are qualified for this authority.  In essence, which people God has favored to be eligible for this authority, is not a faith promoting message about the fairness of God.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

You are not a high priest are you? 

Hebrews 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.

That is a fairly sobering responsibility - To be worthy to offer a gift such as healing. Thinking of performing ordinances should not be thought of as wielding one's superpower like Superman - for if one does it this way, and thinks of the power as his own doing, it will not be given him. One needs to recognize that any gift of healing given them is done so only as a gift from God. We are only acting on His behalf to His glory - not our own. To be worthy of representing God, we must humble ourselves even as little children - then may God act through us.

Yes, I'm a high priest.  I'm not sure there is that big of difference between believing this power has been granted to a priesthood holder, or that this power is still God's power, and that the priesthood holder is just an instrument.  Because of the teaching that blessings are contingent on both the faith of the person receiving the blessing and the faith of the person giving it.  I think this muddies the water and makes that distinction not as clear or important.  

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Being set apart by God is special, but not in the way thought of by man. It is not for our sake that we are given gifts such as the gift of healing, but so that we may perform His work - not our own. Not all have every gift of God. All high priests are authorized to wield them, but not all are given them. Simply being ordained an Elder or an High Priest does not give one the gift of healing - contrary to popular belief. We are authorized to impart that gift from God, should He so choose. Thus, it is really nothing like a superpower or being superman. It is more like being humble enough to receive any gift should God so choose, and so honoring God in the process. Any honor you try to receive of yourself, will come to naught, but lead to the condemnation of God.

I like the emphasis on not getting too prideful about having the priesthood.  At the same time, I hear all the messages of exclusivity and specialness that I've heard throughout my life ringing in the back of my head.  So there is a definite tension here in a church that emphasizes its exclusivity so frequently.  

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It might be a good thing for some of us, depends on where people are with respect to their personal faith paradigm.   As society continues to gain greater understanding about how natural processes work, people everywhere just naturally believe less and less in supernatural phenomena.  Just look at the difference in early Mormon beliefs and beliefs today.  People really don't believe in seer stones, divining rods, handkerchiefs staffs, curses and talismans. 

Honestly I'm not sure how many people really believe that the Priesthood can actually heal people today from physical ailments.  In the 19th century many Mormons believed that they didn't need to see doctors because the Priesthood was that effective at healing people.  Today, you can't find a church leader that would tell you to forgo a doctor in preference of using the Priesthood.  I think all of this progress is just natural and I don't think it needs to be promoted as policy changes as its just naturally happening over time.  

I’ve seen it happen several times. In two of these instances very aggressive, supposedly incurable cancers left surgeons in a state of extreme perplexity, totally unable to explain why there was no cancer to be found after giving the most bleak diagnoses imaginable.

With all due respect, I’m trying to understand why people who reject most of the faith claims of the LDS Church want to have anything to do with it? For example, if such people don’t even believe in the physical resurrection of the dead, one of the most critically important and indispensable doctrines of the Church, what is the draw of the religion, habit? And while such people are in this state of near total unbelief, how in the world do they think they’re going to be able to successfully intigrate their children into the Church as testimony bearing members? 

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I like the emphasis on not getting too prideful about having the priesthood.  At the same time, I hear all the messages of exclusivity and specialness that I've heard throughout my life ringing in the back of my head.  So there is a definite tension here in a church that emphasizes its exclusivity so frequently.  

The message of exclusiveness is a true message. It's an exclusive responsibility only available to members of this Church. Now God may choose to heal those in other churches for various reasons esp their own faith, but they do not wield any priesthood from God nor the authority to act in His name. However, if people are getting the idea that they should join in order to get some superpower, they are getting the wrong idea. If you have the ability or authority to help someone through a gift of God should you or shouldn't you use it?

Edited by RevTestament
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm having a hard time thinking of any positives from teaching my son that he's going to have a special superpower to heal people and that he's a chosen special person that is favored by God.  I think those are all pretty negative ideas to teach a child.  I think teaching a child they are loved by family and friends.  That they have great potential to do good in the world and opportunities within an amazingly free society with all the wonderful modern advances that they can do great things.  Focusing on potential is a value I like to instill, and hard work and effort and the sense of feeling we get from serving others and defining success internally by measuring the efforts we put into things and the progress we make, rather than external measures of success.  

There are many values I can find useful in promoting, they just don't tie back to this idea that God is omniscient and powerful deity that heals individuals through the priesthood, and that he will have access to this power now, I can't find a lot of positive in that idea.  

We teach kids that when they obey certain principles and become 'worthy' that they can receive a diploma that grants unto them special privileges that those without a diploma don't get.  Do you see that as a negative thing to teach kids?

I don't think i can be much help on the OP questions because I sincerely don't see what is negative about teaching a child that if they obey certain principles and are worthy that they can receive the ability to act in the name of God and with HIs authority.

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm more asking for a metaphorical way to look at priesthood, rather than a literal way to look at it.  I don't personally believe in literal priesthood powers of God in the way contemporary correlated Mormonism describes.

Why not?  Do you believe in a literal God of some kind?
If so, do you believe that literal God can influence aspects of our existence?  Heal us, bless us, curse us, whatever.
Priesthood power is simply God's action at our authorized request.

Quote

  I do find value in metaphor and myth to describe what is real, and I believe it is real (has an effect on the lives of people), just not necessarily literal.  This can get confusing for more traditional believers, and I'm not sure how to bridge that gap.  

So do you believe in the literal existence of a God and does that God take action in our lives?
Or is God merely a metaphor too?

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I’ve seen it happen several times. In two of these instances very aggressive, supposedly incurable cancers left surgeons in a state of extreme perplexity, totally unable to explain why there was no cancer to be found after giving the most bleak diagnoses imaginable.

With all due respect, I’m trying to understand why people who reject most of the faith claims of the LDS Church want to have anything to do with it? For example, if such people don’t even believe in the physical resurrection of the dead, one of the most critically important and indispensable doctrines of the Church, what is the draw of the religion, habit? And while such people are in this state of near total unbelief, how in the world do they think they’re going to be able to successfully intigrate their children into the Church as testimony bearing members? 

For now, with a disease like cancer that we don't fully understand how to effectively treat, there will be unexplained recoveries, statistically speaking this is to be expected.  I wonder though with those situations if the person diagnosed with cancer would forgo medical treatment in favor of just a priesthood blessing.  I personally haven't seen that kind of behavior espoused in the modern church.  

I don't really want to get into detail about why I'm still engaged in the church, that would sidetrack from this topic, and since it is a very complicated answer, it might be difficult to explain.  Suffice it to say, I'm still here and involved.  

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The message of exclusiveness is a true message. It's an exclusive responsibility only available to members of this Church. Now God may choose to heal those in other churches for various reasons esp their own faith, but they do not wield any priesthood from God nor the authority to act in His name. However, if people are getting the idea that they should join in order to get some superpower, they are getting the wrong idea. If you have the ability or authority to help someone through a gift of God should you or shouldn't you use it?

But the message of exclusiveness is not true for me.  I can accept its true for some people, like yourself, but I don't find it inspirational or valuable or true.  

I do think we all have unique abilities to help others and should use them.  I still give blessings when requested, and perform rituals, but the way I look at them is very different, and I expect the people who are receiving the blessing are looking at it very differently than I am.  I'm not sure that matters because the power of the blessing is in the mind of the person receiving it (thats the way I look at it, not trying to be offensive, just honest with my perspective.)  

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Why not?  Do you believe in a literal God of some kind?
If so, do you believe that literal God can influence aspects of our existence?  Heal us, bless us, curse us, whatever.
Priesthood power is simply God's action at our authorized request.

So do you believe in the literal existence of a God and does that God take action in our lives?
Or is God merely a metaphor too?

I don't believe in a literal God, no.  I identify as more agnostic, but open to possibilities.  I don't by any means believe I have life or the universe completely figured out, I have a lot to learn.  

I choose the metaphorical path, as an exercise of faith and hope and desire to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  I see many good things in the religion I was raised with and it served me well in many ways for nearly 40 years of my life.  I also see many large flaws in the tradition, so I'm definitely a cafeteria Mormon in that I pick and choose those things that I find valuable. 

To go a little further with the cafeteria metaphor, I feel like since my paradigm about religion has changed so drastically in the past few years, I feel like I'm testing every piece of food all over again, trying it out to see if it tastes good, or to see if its bitter and should be set aside.  I try to set things aside and not discard them completely, so I try to come back to them with fresh taste buds again in the future, in case I can get something different out of them after a period of rest.  

Link to comment
1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

But the message of exclusiveness is not true for me.  I can accept its true for some people, like yourself, but I don't find it inspirational or valuable or true.  

I do think we all have unique abilities to help others and should use them.  I still give blessings when requested, and perform rituals, but the way I look at them is very different, and I expect the people who are receiving the blessing are looking at it very differently than I am.  I'm not sure that matters because the power of the blessing is in the mind of the person receiving it (thats the way I look at it, not trying to be offensive, just honest with my perspective.)  

I've enjoyed this thread and have been reading along, oh and I did offer a post or two, I think.  Anyway, I think you have outlined the big separator between the divergent views.  I too struggle with the exclusivity claims and culture of the Church.  It, to me, is one of the uglier aspects of what is our Church today.  But I notice how many people find pride in it and love it.  I see the ideal church and what would be priesthood (I guess I'm really far afield from how most in the Church view it) as nothing but meekly serving others.  The Church is most often Facebook, pushy, and in your face proud.  The idea of raising boys to think they have special powers that others don't have, bringing back the dead, well, that just plain disturbs me.  Church to me should be far less about magic and far more about loving and embracing each other.  

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't believe in a literal God, no. 

Which then causes a ripple effect making every aspect of religion metaphorical, and no aspect of religion literal.
And you have every right to believe that way.

Quote

 I see many good things in the religion .

If it's all metaphorical, and none of it is actually real then why bother with it?
You kind find those same good things outside of religion.  For example, religion teaches the importance of family.  So do many other ideologies, many of which are not religious.
What benefit is served by religion that cannot be gotten elsewhere if that religion is not seen as literal?  There is no purpose in the religion.

 

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We teach kids that when they obey certain principles and become 'worthy' that they can receive a diploma that grants unto them special privileges that those without a diploma don't get.  Do you see that as a negative thing to teach kids?

I don't think i can be much help on the OP questions because I sincerely don't see what is negative about teaching a child that if they obey certain principles and are worthy that they can receive the ability to act in the name of God and with HIs authority.

I see the value of teaching kids they can earn something through hard work, discipline, self mastery.  The reasons those are valuable principles to teach is because kids can use those skills throughout their adult lives.  Its not the diploma itself that is valuable, although there is some limited value in that item when it comes to resume building, but I think the more important values are the skills they learned in the process.  So the carrot at the end of the stick, if its this idea that they can now channel a superpower of sorts from God that they've earned through obedience, I guess I'm struggling to see how that is an important lesson.  

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since healing blessings are often given to work in tandem with medical treatment, presenting them as substitutes for treatment is inappropriate, imo.

I agree, I was merely pointing out how this kind of thinking is part of our Mormon past, but I don't see that kind of thinking very much today.  Although I do have close family members who are quite against going to the doctor and quite skeptical about medical science.  I wonder sometimes if those ideas aren't somewhat informed by the past history of Mormonism.  

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I've enjoyed this thread and have been reading along, oh and I did offer a post or two, I think.  Anyway, I think you have outlined the big separator between the divergent views.  I too struggle with the exclusivity claims and culture of the Church.  It, to me, is one of the uglier aspects of what is our Church today.  But I notice how many people find pride in it and love it.  I see the ideal church and what would be priesthood (I guess I'm really far afield from how most in the Church view it) as nothing but meekly serving others.  The Church is most often Facebook, pushy, and in your face proud.  The idea of raising boys to think they have special powers that others don't have, bringing back the dead, well, that just plain disturbs me.  Church to me should be far less about magic and far more about loving and embracing each other.  

I agree with you, and I actually think when it comes to how Mormons treat each other in day to day interactions, that they most often practice love, kindness and service towards others.  Then we show up on Sunday and the curriculum is so out of date, that we rehash all these old supernatural paradigms, and then when we get out of church we treat others with love and respect and caring all over again.  I've been thinking about this odd dichotomy lately. 

Its like when the lesson about Nephi killing Laban comes up in class.  Everyone nods their head and just accepts that God must have told Nephi to murder Laban and that this was somehow justified by God.  But how many people would actually act on such a prompting if they received it themselves.  I would argue that for 99% of members would dismiss that kind of prompting as madness and go get psychological help.  So we talk about how brave and wonderful Nephi was, but then in practice we treat people that have the Nephi experience as deranged individuals.  Its really quite fascinating to see how principles that are out of alignment with our values can be academically discussed at church, but then in practice people completely do the opposite.  I think this shows the power of cultural values trumping the strange theologically shallow discussions we often have on Sunday.  

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You kind find those same good things outside of religion.  For example, religion teaches the importance of family.  So do many other ideologies, many of which are not religious.
What benefit is served by religion that cannot be gotten elsewhere if that religion is not seen as literal?  There is no purpose in the religion.

Well, that gets back to the not throwing the baby out with the bathwater piece.  And while at times I've wanted to throw it all away out of some bitter resentment or when I find certain elements particularly off putting, I can't help this inner yearning to continue to find value in it.  Just the wrestle with it has made me a better person I believe.  I also see that there are cons to becoming a black and white atheist just like I see that there are cons to being a black and white orthodox member.  

I don't put religious teachings or ideals on any kind of pedestal anymore.  I try to evaluate them on equal footing with secular ideas.  Just because an idea is espoused in an ancient document, doesn't make it any better than an idea that is espoused today.  I try to apply the Alma 32 method to things, and I try to be pragmatic about my approach.  Still learning and experimenting along the way.  

Link to comment
5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

But how would I explain that without completely undermining the message.  The video presentation essentially characterizes this as a superpower from God, and the church teaches this pretty explicitly that we have the power of God to perform miracles.  I don't think that idea is necessarily a completely bad thing, but I'd like to know how to nuance this idea, so it doesn't have some of the negatives that I perceive go along with it.  

Teach him about how when you use the priesthood it's like you're praying from an answer from God. When you speak or act, you can only do so legitimately to the degree you're giving the answer God gives you. If you don't have that answer you can only give a general or vague blessing. If you try and use it for yourself, then it just doesn't work. Normally the scriptures to use for this are Hel 10 where God tells Nephi that he can do anything only because God trusts him to do what God would do in that circumstance. The second one I usually bring up is the famous D&C 121:41 where priesthood is largely a power that works by persuasion. That's how we work in leadership positions but also for miracles we're trying to persuade God that the miracle is appropriate in that circumstance. (Almost always it's not - although I've experienced a few)

A superpower is a power that's always operating (well unless there's kryptonite around) whereas Priesthood is the power to act in God's name which requires first knowing God's will and then having the faith and worthiness to draw on that power. So if Superman decided to be evil and start looking at women's locker rooms he could. If you tried to use Priesthood for something inappropriate it just wouldn't work.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, that gets back to the not throwing the baby out with the bathwater piece.  And while at times I've wanted to throw it all away out of some bitter resentment or when I find certain elements particularly off putting, I can't help this inner yearning to continue to find value in it.  Just the wrestle with it has made me a better person I believe.  I also see that there are cons to becoming a black and white atheist just like I see that there are cons to being a black and white orthodox member.  

I don't put religious teachings or ideals on any kind of pedestal anymore.  I try to evaluate them on equal footing with secular ideas.  Just because an idea is espoused in an ancient document, doesn't make it any better than an idea that is espoused today.  I try to apply the Alma 32 method to things, and I try to be pragmatic about my approach.  Still learning and experimenting along the way.  

Thank you for the explanations.

Given that you "don't personally believe in literal priesthood powers of God" I am not sure why Church teachings on priesthood matter to you.  I can appreciate wanting to explain priesthood to an 11 year old son, but from your perspective isn't that a bit like explaining  the tooth fairy or the Loch Ness Monster.  You are looking for an explanation for something you don't feel exists.
 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Thank you for the explanations.

Given that you "don't personally believe in literal priesthood powers of God" I am not sure why Church teachings on priesthood matter to you.  I can appreciate wanting to explain priesthood to an 11 year old son, but from your perspective isn't that a bit like explaining  the tooth fairy or the Loch Ness Monster.  You are looking for an explanation for something you don't feel exists.
 

The traditional literal description of priesthood is very much like the tooth fairy from my current perspective, that's why I'm asking for help on the metaphorical side of things, because the literal approaches to religion are often very much like fairy tales.  But fairy tales have morals and values and often can more clearly communicate messages than other forms of communication.    

Some of the most moving literature ever created isn't historical or literal, so I'm looking for how people that don't take the priesthood literally, might approach it from a more metaphorical perspective.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Teach him about how when you use the priesthood it's like you're praying from an answer from God. When you speak or act, you can only do so legitimately to the degree you're giving the answer God gives you. If you don't have that answer you can only give a general or vague blessing. If you try and use it for yourself, then it just doesn't work. Normally the scriptures to use for this are Hel 10 where God tells Nephi that he can do anything only because God trusts him to do what God would do in that circumstance. The second one I usually bring up is the famous D&C 121:41 where priesthood is largely a power that works by persuasion. That's how we work in leadership positions but also for miracles we're trying to persuade God that the miracle is appropriate in that circumstance. (Almost always it's not - although I've experienced a few)

A superpower is a power that's always operating (well unless there's kryptonite around) whereas Priesthood is the power to act in God's name which requires first knowing God's will and then having the faith and worthiness to draw on that power. So if Superman decided to be evil and start looking at women's locker rooms he could. If you tried to use Priesthood for something inappropriate it just wouldn't work.

Clark, I like your first two points.  The idea of trying to reflect as best as we can, what we believe is the will of God when administering in official priesthood business, I think this is a very helpful approach to putting priesthood to action.  Its also important to keep in mind that no matter how hard we try, or no matter how much we think a thought that we have in our mind is from God, we can never accurately reflect the mind and will of God directly, that all our thoughts are going to reflect our own ideas, culture, bias, to some degree.  This is an important thing to remember to keep us humble and teachable, lest people think that their internal self talk, is somehow the actual mind of deity.  

Your second point about persuasion is my favorite part, and I've not often thought about this persuasion in the sense that we're trying to persuade God, but that is one idea I'm going to have to consider at greater length, this is intriguing.  

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The traditional literal description of priesthood is very much like the tooth fairy from my current perspective, that's why I'm asking for help on the metaphorical side of things, because the literal approaches to religion are often very much like fairy tales.  But fairy tales have morals and values and often can more clearly communicate messages than other forms of communication.    

Some of the most moving literature ever created isn't historical or literal, so I'm looking for how people that don't take the priesthood literally, might approach it from a more metaphorical perspective. 

Under this kind of circumstance, I would wonder if the son Is a perceptive young man who’s already pretty much aware of the fact that his father doesn’t believe in literal (real) priesthood power because he doesn't believe the Church is literally true? Or is the boy operating under the false impression that his father is an actual believer in the Church and literal priesthood power? If the latter possibility turns out to be the case, I would wonder why the father is pretending to to be a believer? I would seriously wonder if the better path is simply to be honest and transparent with the boy?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...