Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nofear

Women, Men, and Priesthood

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

That is not a primary choice.

You said: "I saw their attitude as a departure from what I'd learned and trusted in the church, to embrace the gender roles first as the primary step. There was no primary alternative then, and neither is there in the proclamation."

Now you are referencing a "primary choice."  I don't understand where you are going with this.

What is a "primary alternative," anyway?

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

It is a secondary choice made necessary by disability, death, or other circumstances.

I don't know what this means.  The Proclamation sets out a general principle regarding the roles of husbands and wives, and then also includes a broadly-worded caveat for that general principle.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

So do you have an idea of how gender-based roles *prescribed by the church* are consistent with equality? Please go ahead and share.

Why the italics?  

I edited the post before I saw yours perhaps it changes your objections.

On the other hand, you have obviously avoided answering my question because you know you cannot show how that is "unequal"

I wash the dishes, you wash the car.  I am primarily responsible for dishes, you are primarily responsible for washing the car. 

Sometimes I wash the car and you do the dishes.   It really doesn't matter.   Individual circumstances can make that necessary

How is that "unequal"?

When men can have babies and nurse them perhaps you would have a case, but until then for all practical purposes it is like washing the car vs washing the dishes.

You have one job, I have another- that says nothing about equality or inequality.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, smac97 said:

You said: "I saw their attitude as a departure from what I'd learned and trusted in the church, to embrace the gender roles first as the primary step. There was no primary alternative then, and neither is there in the proclamation."

Now you are referencing a "primary choice."  I don't understand where you are going with this.

What is a "primary alternative," anyway?

I don't know what this means.  The Proclamation sets out a general principle regarding the roles of husbands and wives, and then also includes a broadly-worded caveat for that general principle.

Thanks,

-Smac

I will give an example of primary versus alternative choices: offer your children red popsicles, but have yellow ones in case they don't like red. Yellow is not a primary choice, it is an alternative. However if you offer both red and yellow as equally acceptable choices, they have two primary choices.

Edited: edited out self-depracating attempt at humour that is confusing.

 

Edited by Meadowchik

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, mfbukowski said:

Why the italics?  

I edited the post before I saw yours perhaps it changes your objections.

On the other hand, you have obviously avoided answering my question because you know you cannot show how that is "unequal"

I wash the dishes, you wash the car.  I am primarily responsible for dishes, you are primarily responsible for washing the car. 

Sometimes I wash the car and you do the dishes.   It really doesn't matter.   Individual circumstances can make that necessary

How is that "unequal"?

When men can have babies and nurse them perhaps you would have a case, but until then for all practical purposes it is like washing the car vs washing the dishes.

You have one job, I have another- that says nothing about equality or inequality.

 

Please don't presume to know what I'm thinking, okay? Can you agree to that, please?

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Please don't presume to know what I'm thinking, okay? Can you agree to that, please?

Oh trust me, I have no clue what you are thinking. How did I do that?

Would you please address the issue so I am less clueless? :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Rain said:

You may have missed my questions here so I am asking again because I'd really like to know. I talked with my husband about it last night and he was under the same understandings as I was (that only the bishop, EQP, teacher's quorem president and deacon's quorem president have keys in the ward) (and he couldn't think of anywhere that stated you need to be ordained to be given keys), so:

Where do you find that the counselors have keys?

Where does it say one needs to be ordained to be given keys?

An interesting question. I searched for keys at LDS.org, took their list, and looked up the references identifying the person(s) receiving keys and what those keys consisted of. My comments are italicized in brackets. I conclude that one must be ordained to be given keys. A discussion of how those keys were conveyed to others after Joseph Smith's death is another thing.

Is this helpful to you? I share this with anyone who is interested. 

Quote
  • give unto thee [Peter, an ordained apostle] the keys of the kingdom, Matt. 16:19.

  • there appeared unto them [Jesus, Peter, James, John, ordained apostlesMoses and Elias [...those same apostles received certain priesthood keys of the kingdom of God, which they utilized during their mortal ministries (HC 3:387)... Moses and Elijah, who were also on the Mount of Transfiguration, also conferred priesthood keys to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple on April 3, 1836 (D&C 110:11-16).Matt. 17:3].

  • the holy one, the true one [Jesus], who has the key of David, Rev. 3:7.

  • reveal unto you [Joseph Smith] the Priesthood, by the hand of ElijahD&C 2:1(JS—H 1:33). [Moses and Elijah, who were also on the Mount of Transfiguration, also conferred priesthood keys to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple on April 3, 1836 (D&C 110:11-16).Matt. 17:3].]

  • unto you three [Peter James and John]  I will give … the keys of this ministry, D&C 7:7.

  • Upon you [Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery] my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, D&C 13 (84:26).

  • Unto whom [Joseph Smith] I have committed the keys of my kingdom, D&C 27:5--. [The keys of:  the record of the stick of Ephraim, Moroni; the restoration of all things, Elias; the Aaronic priesthood, John the Baptist; turning the hearts of the fathers to the children and hearts of the children of the fathers, Elijah; the promises of Abraham, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac, and Michael; the keys of the ministry and witness of the apostles and the dispensation of the gospel for the last times, Peter, James, and John].

  • I have given him [Joseph Smith] the keys of the mysteries, D&C 28:7.

  • by the keys which I have given shall they [Israel] be led and no more be confounded at all, D&C 35:25.

  • the kingdom, or in other words, the keys of the church have been given [to twelve elders of the Church], D&C 42:69.

  • keys of the mysteries of the kingdom are committed unto man shall not be taken from my servant Joseph Smith, D&C 64:5.

  • keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth, D&C 65:2-5.

  • presidency over this priesthood, and the keys or authority [of a literal descendant of Aaron] of the same, D&C 68:17.

  • I have given the keys of the kingdom [to Joseph Smith], which belong always unto the Presidency [of the High Priesthood], D&C 81:2.

  • greater priesthood … holdeth the key of the mysteries, D&C 84:19 (84:19–22).

  • thou art blessed [Joseph Smith and later Sidney Rigdon and Fredrick G. Williams, members of the First Presidency]… that bear the keys of the kingdom, and the keys of the school of the prophets, D&C 90:2 and 7.

  • keys of this kingdom shall never be taken [from Joseph Smith neither in this world nor the next], D&C 90:3.

  • keys of which kingdom have been conferred upon you [Joseph Smith], D&C 97:14.

  • bishopric is the presdidency of this [the lesser] priesthood, and holds the keys or authority, D&C 107:15.

  • the power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the Church, D&C 107:18.

  • a literal descendant of Aaron has a legal right … to the keys of this ministry [the bishopric], D&C 107:76.

  • Moses committed unto us [Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery] the keys of the gathering of Israel, Elias the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, Elijah, turning the hearts of the fathers, etc., [all of which constitute the keys of this dispensation], D&C 110:11–16.

  • keys of this dispensation are committed into your [Joseph and Oliver] hands, D&C 110:16 (110:1–16).

  • keys which I have given unto him [Joseph], and also to youward [Thomas Marsh] … shall not be taken from him till I come, D&C 112:15.

  • thou art the man [Thomas Marsh, president of the Quorum of the Twelve] whom I have chosen to hold the keys … as pertaining to the Twelve, D&C 112:16.

  • the keys of the dispensation, which ye [Thomas Marsh]have received, have come down from the fathers, and last of all, being sent down from heaven unto you, D&C 112:32.

  • descendant of Jesse, as well as of Joseph, [Joseph Smith ???] unto whom rightly belongs the priesthood, and the keys of the kingdomD&C 113:6.

  • unto him [Joseph Smith] have I given the keys of this kingdom and ministryD&C 115:19.

  • therein [the temple] are the keys of the holy priesthood ordained [for baptism of the dead], D&C 124:34.

  • give unto you the officers belonging to my Priesthood that ye may hold the keys thereof, even the Priesthood which is after the order of Melchizedek, this is after the order of mine Only Begotten SonD&C 124:123. [delegation of keys]

  • keys of the kingdom [the sealing and binding power of the temple], in one sense of the word,  consist in the key of knowledge, D&C 128:14.

  • Peter, James, and John … declaring themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom and of the dispensation of the fulness of timesD&C 128:20.

  • Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Michael or Adam and divers angels … all declaring their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their majesty and glory, and the power of their priesthood, D&C 128:21.

  • never but one … on whom … the keys of this priesthood [are conferred [Joseph Smith], D&C 132:7.

  • I have appointed this power and the keys of this...power...and priesthood [the new and everlasting covenant]D&C 132:19.

  • by Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power [plurality of wives]D&C 132:39.

  • I have conferred upon you [Joseph Smith] the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I restore all things, and make known unto you all things in due timeD&C 132:45 (132:59).

 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

An interesting question. I searched for keys at LDS.org, took their list, and looked up the references identifying the person(s) receiving keys and what those keys consisted of. My comments are italicized in brackets. I draw the conclusion that one must be ordained to be given keys. A discussion of how those keys were conveyed to others after Joseph Smith's death is another thing.

Is this sufficient for you? I share this with anyone who is interested. 

 

I think you are right in that, as far as the keys we have right now, one must be ordained to hold them.

As far as Rain's full question goes though, bishopric counselors do not have any priesthood keys, and can still preside in a meeting.  They can even preside in a meeting where someone who does hold priesthood keys is in attendance.  So holding keys is not necessary to preside in a meeting, which means that a woman could theoretically do it.  

Whether or not she could do it in a sacrament meeting, where an ordinance is being performed, would be up for debate.  I'm thinking probably not without further revelation anyway.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Rain said:

That's really hard to know since it has never been denied of men while always been available to women. 

I agree, but I do think that one can desire to be the voice because one was spiritually led to do it. 

The scriptures say "I will go and do what the Lord commandeth". I can have a great desire to go do what the Lord wants without being prideful  

You can think that.

Why?

Have you looked upon their hearts? Have you been there with their prayers? Have you sat with them as they searched the scriptures and fasted? Have you asked God to help you understand where they are coming from? 

But then again - this isn't about individuals desiring to pray in general conference. This is about half of the population desiring to fulfill everything God wants them to do, to fill the support from God and leaders in accomplishing their missions on earth. 

If all you see is pride then you are missing nearly everything going on in our hearts.

I have never met an individual that was desperate to be a leader, to be in front of people that was humble. I question their motivations because they should be questioned.  

During my mission and after my mission, I met several individuals that were highly motivated to be called as leaders. I remember one guy who moved to Utah because he thought he should be called as a general authority and decided that was where he needed to be. These folks are not feeling like they are called of God, these folks want the adulation of humans. Their eye is not more single to the glory of God than....insert anyone or anything that is really all about self and not about serving.

Those that are called of God are diametrically opposed in nature to those that seek the calling. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, bluebell said:

Absolutely we do. It represented a shift in thinking, namely that approaching God and speaking, on behalf of a gathering of saints was not something a woman was capable of. 

Its a big deal for women, young and old, to understand that a daughter in God’s kingdom is capable of offering both an invocation and benediction (and I use the formal terms purposefully so that we can remember the amazing things being done when someone prays in a church meeting. “Saying the prayer” doesn’t do the act justice.)

Is it a big deal to have the privilege to pray in a meeting?  To be a group of people’s mouthpiece to plead for help or guidance and offer thanks?

Its absolutely a big deal. 😊

I think that everyone that seeks it, should have it and continue to have it until they understand being in front of folks is about self and not about serving. Those who want to be bishop should be bishop and run into the ground. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think that everyone that seeks it, should have it and continue to have it until they understand being in front of folks is about self and not about serving. Those who want to be bishop should be bishop and run into the ground. 

If someone was seeking it to 'be in front of folks' then I agree.  That hasn't been my experience though.  Not even close.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think you are right in that, as far as the keys we have right now, one must be ordained to hold them.

What other keys are there?

Quote

As far as Rain's full question goes though, bishopric counselors do not have any priesthood keys, and can still preside in a meeting.  They can even preside in a meeting where someone who does hold priesthood keys is in attendance.  So holding keys is not necessary to preside in a meeting, which means that a woman could theoretically do it.  

Whether or not she could do it in a sacrament meeting, where an ordinance is being performed, would be up for debate.  I'm thinking probably not without further revelation anyway.

Stake presidency and bishopric counselors and EQ presidents preside only under the authority of the president‘s or bishop’s keys when the latter are absent. One Sunday our bishopric and EQ president were absent. A member of the stake Presidency was sent to preside. One can lead a meeting without presiding. Presiding requires keys given by ordination. I think it is more than semantics.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I have not attempted any pot shots.But I do very deliberately choose to be dismissive of products of patriarchy because there is a point in it: what if Mother is not silent at all? Maybe caution and reverence would compel one to be skeptical of claims that she's not been revealed and to be mindful of the plausibility that female spokespeople would be more likely to hear Her, especially when male spokespeople for the Hims are so prolific?

Thanks for the clarification. Indeed your responses to substantial comments have been dismissive potshots, but now I understand your motivation.

Quote

Who said so? I'll give you a hint....

 

 

 

 

 

Men.

Quote

Yup. I hear there's a Mother, and I know there are human beings who yearn for Her voice.

Apparently you don’t wish to discuss this in good faith. I will respect your wishes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I think that everyone that seeks it, should have it and continue to have it until they understand being in front of folks is about self and not about serving. Those who want to be bishop should be bishop and run into the ground. 

Being allowed to participate in offering a public prayer is about show for you? Hm. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

An interesting question. I searched for keys at LDS.org, took their list, and looked up the references identifying the person(s) receiving keys and what those keys consisted of. My comments are italicized in brackets. I conclude that one must be ordained to be given keys. A discussion of how those keys were conveyed to others after Joseph Smith's death is another thing.

Is this helpful to you? I share this with anyone who is interested. 

 

I really appreciate the work you have gone through with this.  I haven't yet read through them all (the list was long enough I figured I would stop and then just read them as I was answering), but so far I am not finding the answer there.  As I answer, I hope it comes across as letting you know WHY I don't see the answer rather that I am disagreeing with you.  Hopefully by the time I get through them all I will feel I have found that answer. 

Quote
  • give unto thee [Peter, an ordained apostle] the keys of the kingdom, Matt. 16:19.

  • This only says the keys were given to Peter.  It doesn't say that he had to be ordained to the priesthood to get them and it doesn't say that all who get keys must be ordained.  It doesn't say anything about the connection of the ordination with the keys. 
  • there appeared unto them [Jesus, Peter, James, John, ordained apostlesMoses and Elias [...those same apostles received certain priesthood keys of the kingdom of God, which they utilized during their mortal ministries (HC 3:387)... Moses and Elijah, who were also on the Mount of Transfiguration, also conferred priesthood keys to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple on April 3, 1836 (D&C 110:11-16).Matt. 17:3].

  • This only says the keys were given to them.  It doesn't say that they had to be ordained to the priesthood to get them and it doesn't say that all who get keys must be ordained.  It doesn't say anything about the connection of the ordination with the keys. 

  • the holy one, the true one [Jesus], who has the key of David, Rev. 3:7.

  • This only says He had the key.  It doesn't say that he had to be ordained to the priesthood to get them and it doesn't say that all who get keys must be ordained.  It doesn't say anything about the connection of the ordination with the keys. 

  • reveal unto you [Joseph Smith] the Priesthood, by the hand of ElijahD&C 2:1(JS—H 1:33). [Moses and Elijah, who were also on the Mount of Transfiguration, also conferred priesthood keys to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple on April 3, 1836 (D&C 110:11-16).Matt. 17:3].]

  • This only says the keys were conferred to them.  It doesn't say that they had to be ordained to get them and it doesn't say that all who get keys must be ordained.  It doesn't say anything about the connection of the ordination with the keys. 

  • unto you three [Peter James and John]  I will give … the keys of this ministry, D&C 7:7.

  • This only says the keys were given to them.  It doesn't say that they had to be ordained to get them and it doesn't say that all who get keys must be ordained.  It doesn't say anything about the connection of the ordination with the keys. 

  • Upon you [Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery] my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, D&C 13 (84:26).

  • OK, this one is closer.  He confers the Aaronic priesthood "which holds" some of the "keys" God has.  Something else was going on here  besides them being ordained to the priesthood though right? Because both Joseph and Oliver were ordained and given keys, but as far as I know no one else has been ordained to the Aaronic priesthood  and given keys at the same time.  Has there been anyone? So it seems to me there must be 2 separate things going on - ordination and the giving of keys?

  • And either way, It doesn't say that they had to be ordained to get them and it doesn't say that all who get keys must be ordained.  

  • It just says the priesthood "holds" the keys.  What does "hold" mean?  And I'm not asking for your interpretation of that.  I asking to know where we find what it means.

  • Unto whom [Joseph Smith] I have committed the keys of my kingdom, D&C 27:5--. [The keys of:  the record of the stick of Ephraim, Moroni; the restoration of all things, Elias; the Aaronic priesthood, John the Baptist; turning the hearts of the fathers to the children and hearts of the children of the fathers, Elijah; the promises of Abraham, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac, and Michael; the keys of the ministry and witness of the apostles and the dispensation of the gospel for the last times, Peter, James, and John].

  • Now chapter 27 as a whole does go back and forth between some ordinations and some keys so there is some connection  at least in time and place there, but I'm not seeing anything that  they had to be ordained to get them and it doesn't say that all who get keys must be ordained. 

  • I have given him [Joseph Smith] the keys of the mysteries, D&C 28:7.

  • This only says the keys were given to him.  It doesn't say that he had to be ordained to get them and it doesn't say that all who get keys must be ordained.  It doesn't say anything about the connection of the ordination with the keys. 

  • by the keys which I have given shall they [Israel] be led and no more be confounded at all, D&C 35:25.

  • This doesn't talk about who was given the keys.  The Lord may be talking about the keys given to Joseph.  It may also be talking about all the keys given to everyone who has them, or just some people as far as I can see so we really don't have a connection with ordination on this one.  This only says the keys were given to them.  It doesn't say that they had to be ordained to get them and it doesn't say that all who get keys must be ordained.  It doesn't say anything about the connection of the ordination with the keys. It only talks about Israel being led by the keys.  

  • the kingdom, or in other words, the keys of the church have been given [to twelve elders of the Church], D&C 42:69.

  • Ahh, now this gets interesting.  I don't think I have ever caught this before.  If you go back in to the start of the chapter you get verse 11 and 12: 

  • Quote

    Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.

    12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.

    And yet now we have sister missionaries going forth to preach the gospel who haven't been ordained, though through President Oaks we know they have authority. 

  • So if you go down to verse 69 it doesn't say anything about having to be ordained to get the keys, but it can be connected in time and place like chapter 27 then if sisters can preach the gospel  without ordination does that then leave open the question of whether they can have keys without ordination?  I don't know.  As a whole it doesn't say either way, but it does give me a lot more questions.  

  • keys of the mysteries of the kingdom are committed unto man shall not be taken from my servant Joseph Smith, D&C 64:5.

  • This only says the keys were given to him.  It doesn't say that he had to be ordained to get them and it doesn't say that all who get keys must be ordained.  It doesn't say anything about the connection of the ordination with the keys. 

  • keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth, D&C 65:2-5.

  • This only says the keys were given to him.  It doesn't say that he had to be ordained to get them and it doesn't say that all who get keys must be ordained.  It doesn't say anything about the connection of the ordination with the keys. 

  • presidency over this priesthood, and the keys or authority [of a literal descendant of Aaron] of the same, D&C 68:17.

  • So this is talking about the literal sons of Aaron.  That they have a legal right to the bishopric.  Questions: Do sons of Aaron need to be ordained?  If they become a bishop do they need to be ordained to be one?  

  • Whether or not he needs to be ordained this only says they either hold the right to the keys or hold the keys (not sure which)  It doesn't say that they had to be ordained to get them and it doesn't say that all who get keys must be ordained.  It doesn't say anything about the connection of the ordination with the keys.  It does have some interesting connection between the priesthood and the keys that I need to read over and ponder more.  

  • I have given the keys of the kingdom [to Joseph Smith], which belong always unto the Presidency [of the High Priesthood], D&C 81:2.

  • This is talking about the keys only given to the first presidency.  This only says the keys were given to him.  It doesn't say that he had to be ordained to get them and it doesn't say that all who get keys must be ordained.  It doesn't say anything about the connection of the ordination with the keys. 

  • greater priesthood … holdeth the key of the mysteries, D&C 84:19 (84:19–22).

  • OK so this talks about the lineage of the priesthood, Enoch, Noah etc. 

  • Again what does "holdeth" mean?

  • This talks about 2 specific keys, not all of them.  It also talks about ordinances, but doesn't specify ordination. 

  • So generally we are back at - it doesn't say that he had to be ordained to get them and it doesn't say that all who get keys must be ordained.  It doesn't say anything about the connection of the ordination with the keys. 

  • thou art blessed [Joseph Smith and later Sidney Rigdon and Fredrick G. Williams, members of the First Presidency]… that bear the keys of the kingdom, and the keys of the school of the prophets, D&C 90:2 and 7.

  • It doesn't say that they had to be ordained to get them and it doesn't say that all who get keys must be ordained.  It doesn't say anything about the connection of the ordination with the keys.  From this point on I am going to just say "ditto" if this is the same basic thought I have here. 

  • keys of this kingdom shall never be taken [from Joseph Smith neither in this world nor the next], D&C 90:3.

  • Ditto. 
  • keys of which kingdom have been conferred upon you [Joseph Smith], D&C 97:14.

  • Ditto. 

  • bishopric is the presdidency of this [the lesser] priesthood, and holds the keys or authority, D&C 107:15.

  • Ditto. 

  • the power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the Church, D&C 107:18.

  • Ditto.  Again question about hold.

  • a literal descendant of Aaron has a legal right … to the keys of this ministry [the bishopric], D&C 107:76.

  • Ditto. 

  • Moses committed unto us [Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery] the keys of the gathering of Israel, Elias the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, Elijah, turning the hearts of the fathers, etc., [all of which constitute the keys of this dispensation], D&C 110:11–16.

  • Ditto. 

  • keys of this dispensation are committed into your [Joseph and Oliver] hands, D&C 110:16 (110:1–16).

  • Ditto.

  • keys which I have given unto him [Joseph], and also to youward [Thomas Marsh] … shall not be taken from him till I come, D&C 112:15.

  • Ditto.

  • thou art the man [Thomas Marsh, president of the Quorum of the Twelve] whom I have chosen to hold the keys … as pertaining to the Twelve, D&C 112:16.

  • Ditto.

  • the keys of the dispensation, which ye [Thomas Marsh]have received, have come down from the fathers, and last of all, being sent down from heaven unto you, D&C 112:32.

  • Ditto.

  • descendant of Jesse, as well as of Joseph, [Joseph Smith ???] unto whom rightly belongs the priesthood, and the keys of the kingdomD&C 113:6.

  • unto him [Joseph Smith] have I given the keys of this kingdom and ministryD&C 115:19.

  • Ditto.

  • therein [the temple] are the keys of the holy priesthood ordained [for baptism of the dead], D&C 124:34.

  • OK, this is the first that really comes close to answering the question. This is a good one. And maybe this shows miscommunication on my part.  As I have read through all the prior verses and chapters so far I have seen that the priesthood and the keys were not necessarily connected.  We do know this as not every man who has the priesthood has keys.

  • So I have been thinking with my question all along that Smac was saying one must be ordained to the priesthood to get keys, but this and scriptures above sounds like you can get keys while being ordained to the priesthood and you can get get ordained to have keys when you already have both priesthoods, even though it doesn't say that ALL keys have to come through ordination.   

  • I just went back to see exactly what Smac said: " They would need to be ordained to the priesthood."

  • Which puts me back to square one, because while this says the keys of the priesthood are given through ordination in the temple(and other places)  it does not say one must be ordained to the priesthood.     

  • give unto you the officers belonging to my Priesthood that ye may hold the keys thereof, even the Priesthood which is after the order of Melchizedek, this is after the order of mine Only Begotten SonD&C 124:123. [delegation of keys]

  • This is a pretty good one as well.  I would say that in at least this case "belonging to my priesthood".  I'm good with the idea that they were ordained. They were given the priesthood that they "may hold the keys".  

  • So I guess my question is if women do their calling with priesthood authority do they "belong" to the priesthood? Or is that only for those ordained?  With that and the the not needing to ordain sister missionaries above this comes oh so close to the question, but not quite answering it.  

  • keys of the kingdom [the sealing and binding power of the temple], in one sense of the word,  consist in the key of knowledge, D&C 128:14.

  • Ditto.

  • Peter, James, and John … declaring themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom and of the dispensation of the fulness of timesD&C 128:20.

  • Ditto.

  • Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Michael or Adam and divers angels … all declaring their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their majesty and glory, and the power of their priesthood, D&C 128:21.

  • Ditto.

  • never but one … on whom … the keys of this priesthood [are conferred [Joseph Smith], D&C 132:7.

  • Ditto.

  • I have appointed this power and the keys of this...power...and priesthood [the new and everlasting covenant]D&C 132:19.

  • Ditto.

  • by Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power [plurality of wives]D&C 132:39.

  • Ditto.

  • I have conferred upon you [Joseph Smith] the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I restore all things, and make known unto you all things in due timeD&C 132:45 (132:59).

  • It says "keys and power". I will say I agree that "power" would mean or ordained, but again it doesn't say , but it doesn't say you must have been ordained  to have keys - I would agree that you would need to be ordained to "restore all things", but do you have to be ordained to have each key?

I can definitely see patterns.  I'm just not sure that given the exceptions I've talked about above etc that I can decisively say that you have to be ordained to the priesthood to hold keys.

Again, I don't mean to be argumentative.  This has become, I think, one of those questions that I will be researching for years, like I have a few times.  I really appreciate that you gave me these so I can start on that journey.    

 

Edited by Rain

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I have never met an individual that was desperate to be a leader, to be in front of people that was humble. I question their motivations because they should be questioned.  

During my mission and after my mission, I met several individuals that were highly motivated to be called as leaders. I remember one guy who moved to Utah because he thought he should be called as a general authority and decided that was where he needed to be. These folks are not feeling like they are called of God, these folks want the adulation of humans. Their eye is not more single to the glory of God than....insert anyone or anything that is really all about self and not about serving.

Those that are called of God are diametrically opposed in nature to those that seek the calling. 

I agree.  But this isn't at all what I have been talking about.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

What other keys are there?

Stake presidency and bishopric counselors and EQ presidents preside only under the authority of the president‘s or bishop’s keys when the latter are absent. One Sunday our bishopric and EQ president were absent. A member of the stake Presidency was sent to preside. One can lead a meeting without presiding. Presiding requires keys given by ordination. I think it is more than semantics.

There are keys for resurrection, right?  We don’t have them but we know they exist. In my view that’s a good example of why it seems shortsighted to think that the keys we have right now are all there are. 

For the bolder part, can you provide a reference for that?  Thanks. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There are keys for resurrection, right?  We don’t have them but we know they exist. In my view that’s a good example of why it seems shortsighted to think that the keys we have right now are all there are. 

For the bolder part, can you provide a reference for that?  Thanks. 

 

To add to this - if keys are required to preside then what are RS, YW and Primary president doing, when someone with keys isn't with them? If they are just, say leading, what is the difference in presiding and leading in a group where you have authority delegated to you to lead?

To all the men.  These are not points we are making.  They are real questions.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

What other keys are there?

Stake presidency and bishopric counselors and EQ presidents preside only under the authority of the president‘s or bishop’s keys when the latter are absent. One Sunday our bishopric and EQ president were absent. A member of the stake Presidency was sent to preside. One can lead a meeting without presiding. Presiding requires keys given by ordination. I think it is more than semantics.

A member of the stake presidency?  Saying it that way it sounds like it was not the stake president himself - is this correct?   If it was one of the counselors, do the counselors have keys in the stake?  My understanding is that they don't have keys either.  

And thinking more about it - does the EQ have keys to preside in a ward?  How are those different, but the same than a bishop?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Rain said:

I agree.  But this isn't at all what I have been talking about.

Rain, the problem is that it comes so close to that thing. You seem to want to distinguish that because it is women, who have not prayed in conference before x time, that being able to pray somehow validates women more. That validation, imo, comes so very close to the individual, who happens to be male, that thrives on being called to leadership in the Church. It really does make me question an individual's motivation. 

At the end of the day, individuals are different....and yet the still the same. This is not a soap box for me, but it raises the suspicion and causes me to have a jaundiced eye about these types of things. A sister discussion is about the desire for power. Those that want it will be corrupted by having it. Humans so easily confuse power with authority within the spiritual realm. Just some thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Totally agree. 

I Also believe that some of how we operate, specifically with this issue, has more to do with human Will than Gods will. 

And, if so, in the eternal scheme of things, it will be only for a moment.  And you, me, and all those involved in the decisions and activities that are of concern to you will agree that God’s judgments with respect to those decisions and activities are just.

I’ve found that I’m far happier when I live and love than when I watch and wonder.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for the clarification. Indeed your responses to substantial comments have been dismissive potshots, but now I understand your motivation.

Apparently you don’t wish to discuss this in good faith. I will respect your wishes.

You are certainly being kind and generous.  I need to learn from your example.  

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Rain said:

To add to this - if keys are required to preside then what are RS, YW and Primary president doing, when someone with keys isn't with them? If they are just, say leading, what is the difference in presiding and leading in a group where you have authority delegated to you to lead?

To all the men.  These are not points we are making.  They are real questions.  

No difference whatsoever.

Even we almighty men ;) receive the "keys" from an authority who is "higher" than us in the pecking order.  

The only practical difference as I see it is that RS YW and Primary presidents must get approval from the bishop whereas the bishop needs no further approval from up the line.  But guess what?  The EQ president has to do the same also.  No difference.   And yet the EQ president is said to have "keys".

But practically that fact that the bishop heads the ward exists for two reasons: 1- Because he also has the ability to do personal interviews, he might know who is unworthy to be called whereas others will not know. 2- He knows the needs of other organizations and may judge perhaps that the YW president should become the RS president or otherwise, and of course this applies as well to priesthood callings.

But practically to me there is no magic in "keys", the authority simply resides on the level of an organizational chart showing who answers to whom, which everyone (supposedly) accepts and sustains and acts as if doing so is proper.

It has no relation to being female or male per se because the same authority chart applies to the EQ President for example being "subservient" to the bishop, the EQ counselors are picked by the EQ president because that is the way the chart is written.

It's not really about "patriarchy" as much as it is simply the way things are done which has been the accepted norm.

But the hierarchy exists as much for men as it does for women, except at the level of bishop and stake president etc.

There must just be one leader to avoid confusion, but "lower" than the top leadership, within the organization, or other unit, like the Stake or Ward, or even the Q of 12-  everyone actually gets their authority in the same way- by being "Called of God as was Aaron" by someone up the chart from them, presumably by revelation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Rain, the problem is that it comes so close to that thing. You seem to want to distinguish that because it is women, who have not prayed in conference before x time, that being able to pray somehow validates women more. That validation, imo, comes so very close to the individual, who happens to be male, that thrives on being called to leadership in the Church. It really does make me question an individual's motivation. 

At the end of the day, individuals are different....and yet the still the same. This is not a soap box for me, but it raises the suspicion and causes me to have a jaundiced eye about these types of things. A sister discussion is about the desire for power. Those that want it will be corrupted by having it. Humans so easily confuse power with authority within the spiritual realm. Just some thoughts.

You have inferred that from what I've said, but that is not what I said or meant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Rain said:

I really appreciate the work you have gone through with this.  I haven't yet read through them all (the list was long enough I figured I would stop and then just read them as I was answering), but so far I am not finding the answer there.  As I answer, I hope it comes across as letting you know WHY I don't see the answer rather that I am disagreeing with you.  Hopefully by the time I get through them all I will feel I have found that answer. 

I can definitely see patterns.  I'm just not sure that given the exceptions I've talked about above etc that I can decisively say that you have to be ordained to the priesthood to hold keys.

Again, I don't mean to be argumentative.  This has become, I think, one of those questions that I will be researching for years, like I have a few times.  I really appreciate that you gave me these so I can start on that journey.    

 

Thanks for your thoughtful and detailed response. I don’t have time to respond to every comment, but it seems to me you want each mention of keys being given to also state that an ordination was also required. I think that issue is moot because in all cases the person receiving keys was already or in the process of being ordained to a position of presidency. 

It is strongly (if not definitively) implied that Priesthood keys cannot be held by unordained brothers or sisters, nor given by someone who does not possess them. Saying “It doesn't say that they had to be ordained to get them and it doesn't say that all who get keys must be ordained.  It doesn't say anything about the connection of the ordination with the keys” is missing the forest for the trees. I don’t think that is a valid concern. It seems self-evident to me. I don’t know of any examples when keys were given to unordaned men. Maybe there are some?

The pattern I see is that in all dispensations Brethren with positions to which they have been ordained (see Alma 13) are given keys for both specific and general functions. This is most obvious with Joseph Smith and the Restoration of keys by the ancient prophets who held them. All aspects of the Restoration - ordinances in and out of the temple, duties and functions of salvation, ordinations, the right to Presidency, etc. - are controlled by the keys that were given to him as an ordained Aaronic priest (by John the Baptist) and as an elder, apostle, and prophet of the Melchizedek Priesthood (ordained by Peter, James, and John) and by many other ancient prophets.

The strongest evidence for this is the modern practice of conferring keys when and only when one is ordained to specific presiding callings and the retraction of those same keys when a release is given. Apostles pass keys down to other levels of leaders by ordination. Fathers and mothers do not have keys.

The Great Apostasy was the result of losing the Priesthood keys because of the deaths of the original apostles who held them by ordination and passed by them to others. When they were gone, so were the keys of authority. Returning keys to the earth was the primary purpose of the Restoration.

The Church cannot function beyond one generation unless it has continually ordained apostles who hold the keys of Presidency. Keys are given at the time of their ordination, just as they are to a stake president, a bishop, an Elders Quorum president,  a mission or temple president, a deacons or a teachers Quorum president. The keys are the right to preside in Priesthood functionsPresidents of auxiliary organizations do not require keys because they are not Priesthood callings, so none are conferred on them .  

On the death of the prophet (the only man who holds all the keys on earth), they pass collectively into the Quorum of the Twelve. The senior apostle is then ordained President of the Church and all the keys now reside in him by ordination. I think this system is the great genius of the administration of God’s kingdom on earth..

To me the answer is crystal clear. Ordination to the Priesthood and conferred of keys where necessary are inseparable. I hope you find the answers you seek. I am glad I could do something small to help along the way.

 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Rain said:

A member of the stake presidency?  Saying it that way it sounds like it was not the stake president himself - is this correct?   If it was one of the counselors, do the counselors have keys in the stake?  My understanding is that they don't have keys either.  

And thinking more about it - does the EQ have keys to preside in a ward?  How are those different, but the same than a bishop?

They preside by delegation. When the stake president is not in attendance, the first counselor presides under the authority of the president who holds the keys. Same for bishoprics. Counselors are not given keys when they are set apart. They have this privilege as members of the presidency. A high councilman cannot preside. The EQP has the keys of presidency only over his Quorum, but because of this he can preside in a sacrament meeting. 

Quote

The bishop oversees ward meetings. He presides at these meetings unless a member of the stake presidency, an Area Seventy, or a General Authority attends. His counselors may conduct ward meetings and may preside if he is absent. Presiding authorities and visiting high councilors should be invited to sit on the stand. High councilors do not preside when attending ward meetings.
If the bishop and his counselors are all absent, the stake president designates who presides at sacrament meeting. Normally he designates the elders quorum president, but he could authorize another priesthood holder instead. 

The stake president oversees stake meetings. He presides at these meetings unless an Area Seventy or General Authority attends. His counselors may conduct stake meetings and may preside if he is absent. Handbook 18

 

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

×
×
  • Create New...