A New Way to Look at the Priesthood

[bluebell]

I ran across this article on Facebook and it opened my eyes to looking at the priesthood in a different way than I previously had.  (Please read the entire article because it would be difficult to discuss her points without reading them in context.)

The article begins with her personal experience feeling God intervene, because of the power that she had as a mother, in a court case with the child's father.  Then she goes on to talk about Pres. Nelson's and Oak's teachings during the last few conferences on the priesthood and how it applies to sisters in the church, especially endowed sisters.  Then she talks about the scripture verses that discuss the priesthood and (this is where I had my lightbulb moment) how the scriptures seem to teach about two different types of priersthood:  priesthood of families and administrative priesthood.  

Quote

 

The priesthood of families in scripture

Sections 84 and 107 in the Doctrine and Covenants are generally considered the main “priesthood” sections of modern scripture. Most of the text in these revelations has to do with very specific instructions about how the priesthood of the restored church should be organized. But both sections also include extensive discussions of the lineage of the priesthood from the time of Adam and Eve down to Moses (10 verses in 84 and 13 verses in 107). These asides emphasize a family-oriented priesthood that was transferred from father to son, right in the middle of instructions for setting up a priesthood hierarchy that is explicitly not handed from father to son. 

I would suggest that these parentheticals are included in the revelations precisely to emphasize that the current priesthood structure is not the only possible way to do it. 

God did not start the earth project with bishops and stake presidents. He gave the priesthood authority to Adam and it was passed down genealogically from father to son. (D&C 107:41). President Ezra Taft Benson clarified the nature of that first priesthood organization in an essay on the temple. He said that the patriarchal order of Adam was “an order of family government where a man and woman enter into a covenant with God—just as did Adam and Eve—to be sealed for eternity, to have posterity, and to do the will and work of God throughout their mortality.” That is, he suggests that the true form of  priesthood organization does not consist of individual men serving in callings, but of husbands and wives leading covenant families. 

It’s also worth noting that section 107 describes these various hierarchical offices of presidents and presidencies as being “of necessity” (verse 21). This phrase “of necessity” implies that the priesthood of individual presidents with counselors is not the ideal organization, but rather the one that is needed for this dispensation. 

Finally, we should notice that Doctrine and Covenants 133:2 specifically describes the temple sealing as the “order of the priesthood” that distinguishes the Celestial Kingdom from the lower kingdoms of heaven. Now, as far as the church organization of callings and offices is concerned, the temple sealing does nothing. There is no particular calling a person has to have before they can get sealed, marriage doesn’t move men into a different priesthood office or make them “eligible” for higher callings, and nobody has to be released from a calling when they get married, or anything like that.[1] And yet, the “order of the priesthood” we have to enter for Celestial glory isn’t “being a General Authority” or even “held priesthood keys at some point”—but the order of temple marriage sealing.

 

Specifically I thought it was interesting that the scriptures talk about the hierarchal offices of the priesthood to be 'of necessity.'  I hadn't picked up on that before.  

The author then goes on to further focus on how the priesthood of families is not hierarchal and that is one reason that when a man presides in the home, he is not the president of the home.  He presides while being an equal partner with his wife.

Quote

 

The priesthood of families in modern revelation 

In the Church, we have leaders and presidents forming a hierarchy, of necessity. But the family is not a hierarchy. Husbands and wives are equal partners. As President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “In the marriage companionship there is neither inferiority nor superiority…They walk side by side as a son and daughter of God on an eternal journey.”         

President Howard W. Hunter said “A man who holds the priesthood accepts his wife as a partner in the leadership of the home and family with full knowledge of and full participation in all decisions relating thereto. … The Lord intended that the wife be a helpmeet for man (meet means equal)—that is, a companion equal and necessary in full partnership”.

In contrast, throughout the organizations of the church, presidencies consist of a single president assisted by councilors—a clear and intentional hierarchy, not an equality of partners. There is no place in the church where important decisions are made by two equal partners. That organization is only found in the family, and in the initial priesthood family of Adam and Eve.

President Oaks also pointed out a distinction between the priesthood structure of the church and of the family: “The principle that priesthood authority can be exercised only under the direction of the one who holds the keys for that function is fundamental in the Church but does not apply to the exercise of priesthood authority in the family.” (emphasis added) 

Within the family, a husband and wife do not need to be set apart as parents, or get any special permissions, in order to counsel together and receive inspired direction for their family, or for the father to pronounce priesthood blessings. The priesthood that governs eternal families is separate, and different, from the administrative order of the priesthood in the church. 

Moreover, other prophets have clarified that there can be priesthood in the home of a righteous woman even if no priesthood-holder is there. Neil L. Andersen described a woman whose husband forbade her to attend church: “Sister Parrella read the scriptures with her sons and daughters, taught them the gospel, and prayed with them. Their humble home was filled with the rich blessings of priesthood power.” She did not have authority from a calling or an office, and yet she filled her home with the priesthood.

President Russell M. Nelson in this last conference spoke emphatically along the same lines: “If you are endowed, but not currently married to a man who bears the priesthood and someone says to you, ‘I’m sorry you don’t have the priesthood in your home’, please understand that statement is incorrect.” A woman’s own obedience to her temple covenants brings the priesthood power into her home, independent of the presence of a male priesthood-holder.

These statements can be puzzling in the context of a church where women do not officiate in any ordinances or hold any priesthood offices. Some women see this as a problem. I see it as yet another indication that the priesthood power and authority of God work one way in the temporal structure of the church, and another way in the eternal order of the family.

 

I hadn't really ever considered that the priesthood and authority of God can work two different ways, but that idea resonates with me.

She concludes-

Quote

 

When I called upon the powers of heaven to save my daughter in that bleak courthouse all those years ago, I did so by divine right as her mother. I am in no position to proclaim with certainty that it was priesthood power I used. But when Elder Oaks remarked, about whether or not women have priesthood authority in their callings, “What other authority can it be?” my heart resonated. Of my own experience I can merely ask, “What other power can it have been?”

My heart rang again in this last conference as President Nelson spoke to the women of the church about their power, both as guardians of morality and as endowed with priesthood power in the temple. Our world grows ever more confusing, ever more dangerous, and in response, our leaders have reduced the importance of the administrative church and magnified parents and families. I think it no accident that it is in our homes and families that we as women have the greatest access to the priesthood powers granted us in the temple. 

Our prophet promised, “Sisters, dear sisters, you have the right to draw liberally on the Savior’s power to help your family.” I hope that we will take up President Nelson’s challenge and learn more about this power and how we can wield it. It is time to worry less about our place in the church’s administrative hierarchy, and worry more about how we can harness the power we are given as women to bless our families and the struggling world. 

 

I did not copy and paste the entire article so again, please go read it for yourself in it's entirety.  It's not very long.  

Other than asking for general thoughts on the article, I specifically wanted to ask about her parting statement.  Do you think that it's time for members of the church to worry less about women's place in the church's administrative hierarchy and worry more about women learning to harness the power they have been given to bless their families and the world, or do you think that there only way for women to gain full equality in the church is to have a place in the administrative priesthood as well?

Edited November 12, 2019 by bluebell

[Metis_LDS]

40 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you think that it's time for members of the church to worry less about women's place in the church's administrative hierarchy and worry more about women learning to harness the power they have been given to bless their families and the world, or do you think that there only way for women to gain full equality in the church is to have a place in the administrative priesthood as well?

Wow, as a man I cannot see providing any answer to the above where I would feel safe in doing so.  I have a sense of adventure but I still do not think of myself as stupid!

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Do you think that it's time for members of the church to worry less about women's place in the church's administrative hierarchy and worry more about women learning to harness the power they have been given to bless their families and the world,

Yes, if not past that time.

Quote

or do you think that there only way for women to gain full equality in the church is to have a place in the administrative priesthood as well?

full equality in the Church?  what are you talking about?  what position or office in the priesthood would or could a woman receive which would give her full equality with a man who has that same position or office?  are you suggesting that wives be called as well as their husbands to an office and that both the man and woman preside as presidents in a calling?  And wives of counselors to presidents get called along with their husbands to serve as counselors to presidents?  Men and women in every calling as equal partners together, rather than a single solitary man or woman as a president or a counselor.  Relief Society Presidents having husbands who serve with them as equal partners of the Relief Society, too?  I don't think any of that is necessary but I suppose our Father could make some changes in Church structure if he wanted to.

 

I think it's important to realize too that the administrative priesthood, as you call it, is necessary for a man and woman to be sealed together as husband and wife.  It's not like one priesthood type can do without the other.  To be sealed together as husband and wife, or potential husband and wife, the man and woman need approval from their administrative priesthood leaders to be able to go into the temple, with a temple recommend, to receive those ordinances, as well as approval for every other ordinance that is necessary for salvation.  Like when it is time for their children to be baptized, or to be ordained to an office in the priesthood.  The power of the administrative priesthood is what actually forms families as coequal partnerships, creating eternal husbands and wives as co equal partners from what before that time were only single individuals not sealed and bound together as husband and wife.  The patriarchal priesthood, as it is called, then functions only in the individual families, with the administrative priesthood governing all of the families and the other individuals who are not married.

Edited November 12, 2019 by Ahab

[Duncan]

I think the Church is in flux and, which is great, I think too that "old school" members are going to have to reshapen their beliefs about these concepts (especially with women and priesthood) that they have held for years and it's good, we all should be like that. I have found the more rigid we hold to things the more testimony brittle we can become. It's like that in life too, with jobs etc.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Other than asking for general thoughts on the article, I specifically wanted to ask about her parting statement.  Do you think that it's time for members of the church to worry less about women's place in the church's administrative hierarchy and worry more about women learning to harness the power they have been given to bless their families and the world, or do you think that there only way for women to gain full equality in the church is to have a place in the administrative priesthood as well?

The earthly kingdom will give way to the Church of the Firstborn, so I think it is best to focus on one's relationship with Him and the power therein (priesthood being the power of God), and not on offices and administration -- which are very different from participation and righteous influence which can always be exemplified and encouraged irrespective of gender and office. Building unity in both the family and Church settings are expressions of the power of God.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

 

full equality in the Church?  what are you talking about?  what position or office in the priesthood would or could a woman receive which would give her full equality with a man who has that same position or office?  are you suggesting that wives be called as well as their husbands to an office and that both the man and woman preside as presidents in a calling?  And wives of counselors to presidents get called along with their husbands to serve as counselors to presidents?  Men and women in every calling as equal partners together, rather than a single solitary man or woman as a president or a counselor.  Relief Society Presidents having husbands who serve with them as equal partners of the Relief Society, too?  I don't think any of that is necessary but I suppose our Father could make some changes in Church structure if he wanted to.

I'm speaking of the belief, that some hold, that women cannot be equal to men in the church unless they are ordained to the priesthood. 

Quote

I think it's important to realize too that the administrative priesthood, as you call it, is necessary for a man and woman to be sealed together as husband and wife.  It's not like one priesthood type can do without the other.  To be sealed together as husband and wife, or potential husband and wife, the man and woman need approval from their administrative priesthood leaders to be able to go into the temple, with a temple recommend, to receive those ordinances, as well as approval for every other ordinance that is necessary for salvation.  Like when it is time for their children to be baptized, or to be ordained to an office in the priesthood.  The power of the administrative priesthood is what actually forms families as coequal partnerships, creating eternal husbands and wives as co equal partners from what before that time were only single individuals not sealed and bound together as husband and wife.  The patriarchal priesthood, as it is called, then functions only in the individual families, with the administrative priesthood governing all of the families and the other individuals who are not married.

I don't know that the bold is true, as the administrative priesthood (as the author understands it) was not in operation when Adam and Eve were sealed by God in the new and everlasting covenant.  Right now, in this dispensation, the administrative priesthood is necessary, but as the scriptures show, that has not always been the case.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I................................

Quote

These statements can be puzzling in the context of a church where women do not officiate in any ordinances

This comment from the article is plainly false:  Women regularly perform holy ordinances in the temple.  Pres Oaks has repeatedly asked:  If that isn't priesthood power, what is it?

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

.......................................

Other than asking for general thoughts on the article, I specifically wanted to ask about her parting statement.  Do you think that it's time for members of the church to worry less about women's place in the church's administrative hierarchy and worry more about women learning to harness the power they have been given to bless their families and the world, or do you think that there only way for women to gain full equality in the church is to have a place in the administrative priesthood as well?

In some dispensations, we find women exercising great leadership power over Israel -- as warlords and prophets -- yet at other times more limited functions, as with the Relief Society under Emma Smith, which are much greater than those functions now performed by women.  It is not always clear why this might be the case.

The men themselves have a variety of different functions, as the article points out.  Among the Jews, for example, one does not have to be a Levite to perform certain priesthood acts.  Lehi was not a Levite, yet immediately built an altar and made an offering when he arrived at his first Red Sea encampment (1 Ne 2:7; 5:9, 7:22)..  Turns out that there is more than one kind of priesthood:  Richley Crapo, “Lehi, Joseph, and the Kingdom of Israel,” Interpreter, 33 (2019): 289-304, online at  https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/lehi-joseph-and-the-kingdom-of-israel/ .

[Ahab]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm speaking of the belief, that some hold, that women cannot be equal to men in the church unless they are ordained to the priesthood. 

Okay.  FYI, I do not have that belief.

Quote

I don't know that the bold is true, as the administrative priesthood (as the author understands it) was not in operation when Adam and Eve were sealed by God in the new and everlasting covenant.  Right now, in this dispensation, the administrative priesthood is necessary, but as the scriptures show, that has not always been the case.

I think of the administrative priesthood as what is  necessary when the man and woman can not do something for themselves.  In that case they could not seal themselves together as husband and wife, which is why they needed God to do that for them.  Our Father then acting in his capacity as someone with the administrative priesthood, the order of priesthood our Lord has which men are ordained to when they are ordained to an office in the administrative priesthood.  Think of the endowment you received in the temple.  Adam and Eve were looking for more information from our Father in heaven, and who did our Father send?  Men who had been ordained to an office in the administrative priesthood. I think something similar happened when Joseph Smith was looking for more guidance from our Father, and what did that bring about?  The restoration, or in other words the formation, once again, of our Lord's true Church on this Earth, complete with the power to ordain other men to the administrative priesthood that is necessary for others to receive to be able to carry on the work of our Father in heaven.

So I see Adam going from simply being a man to then becoming a husband, through the power of the administrative priesthood which wed him to Eve as his wife, to then becoming a father ordained to an office in the administrative priesthood whereby he could then baptize his children and ordain them to an office in the administrative priesthood, otherwise his patriarchal priesthood would limit him to what he could do for his family, since no father with only patriarchal priesthood is authorized to baptize his children unless he has been ordained to an office of the administrative priesthood and his administrative leaders have authorized him to baptize his children.

Edited November 12, 2019 by Ahab

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This comment from the article is plainly false:  Women regularly perform holy ordinances in the temple.  Pres Oaks has repeatedly asked:  If that isn't priesthood power, what is it?

Yes, I think it is clear that she is speaking about women's duties outside of the temple in that statement.  

 

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Specifically I thought it was interesting that the scriptures talk about the hierarchal offices of the priesthood to be 'of necessity.'  I hadn't picked up on that before.

I always kind of assumed that the hierarchical church is largely a matter of limitations which exist in mortality. From what we know about the Celestial kingdom, we won't be organized into branches, wards, stakes, etc. That is all just something that serves a practical purpose here on earth, where everyone isn't living a Celestial law. 

 

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Do you think that it's time for members of the church to worry less about women's place in the church's administrative hierarchy and worry more about women learning to harness the power they have been given to bless their families and the world, or do you think that there only way for women to gain full equality in the church is to have a place in the administrative priesthood as well?

I think it's certainly possible to become so fixated on the church's administrative hierarchy that it can become a distraction and prevent one from fully exploring (or learning to harness, as you put it) everything that one already does possess.

And I think that can be applied to anyone in the church in other ways as well. For example, if one aspires to be a Bishop, RS Pres, etc. because they believe those callings are given to the 'most righteous,' then one might become focused on trying to achieve some certain goal (status) at the expense of what God really cares about (progression). 

 

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

Do you think that it's time for members of the church to worry less about women's place in the church's administrative hierarchy and worry more about women learning to harness the power they have been given to bless their families and the world, or do you think that there only way for women to gain full equality in the church is to have a place in the administrative priesthood as well?

Yes, I think it is completely past time.  That is exactly the problem we've seen all along.

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

Then she talks about the scripture verses that discuss the priesthood and (this is where I had my lightbulb moment) how the scriptures seem to teach about two different types of priersthood:  priesthood of families and administrative priesthood.  

That's always been the way.  The temple priesthood (ironically known as the Patriarchal priesthood) has always been a family priesthood, and it's exactly what is given to both men and women in the temple when they are dressing in both the garment and the robes of the priesthood.  It is the whole premise of the initiatory and the sealing ordinances, the beginning and the end.

Quote

Specifically I thought it was interesting that the scriptures talk about the hierarchal offices of the priesthood to be 'of necessity.'  I hadn't picked up on that before.  

Yes, most Church priesthood offices are specific to the functioning of the Church and have no bearing on eternity.  In eternity family priesthood is as significant as the political ones, although there are both.  If you doubt that ask yourself what priesthood offices (plural) Jesus held.

All that being said, there are some things in the article I definitely don't think are correct.

Edited November 13, 2019 by JLHPROF

[2BizE]

7 hours ago, Duncan said:

I think the Church is in flux and, which is great, I think too that "old school" members are going to have to reshapen their beliefs about these concepts (especially with women and priesthood) that they have held for years and it's good, we all should be like that. I have found the more rigid we hold to things the more testimony brittle we can become. It's like that in life too, with jobs etc.

I couldn’t agree more with you Duncan.

[The Nehor]

As to their being two kinds of priesthood organization I have been taught that many times. The patriarchal order of passing priesthood down via family line is the ideal. The church structure is a temporary thing due to conditions here in mortality. Ideally my priesthood leadership flows to me through my parents and grandparents. When people are ordained to priesthood or receive saving ordinancesit is almost always done by the father if worthy or another family member. The first place to go for a blessing is a father, of possible. I know of several apostles and Seventies who have said that after they were ordained an apostle went to their father afterwards. When I thought I was going to receive a calling that would require I be ordained a High Priest I was ready to ask my father to come ordain me. I am a believer that even though we do not live in the patriarchal order we should respect it as much as we can.

A general attempt to answer the question of what it is:

https://askgramps.org/many-priesthoods/

And a collection of accounts of the talk in which Joseph taught about the different Priesthood Orders:

http://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/Talks/ThreeOrdersofPriesthood.HTML

Women in families as mothers function in the Priesthood independent of ordination and calling through the power of the saving ordinances they have received, particularly the ordinances of the temple. We talk in the church generally about revelation being limited to our sphere or responsibility. This is true but it also applies in the family organization. Both my father and mother can and have received revelation to pass on to me. It functions in a similar way under the provisos of section 121 (no coercion or exercising dominion in unrighteousness and all of those warnings) so anyone who uses this to be a tyrant at home or to try to compel obedience must repent or lose their authority entirely.

There is power in the family that the church organization cannot match but due to weakness and the failures of many parents we have the church organization for now and probably until the Millenium but nothing is stopping a family from getting many of those greater blessings now.

[bluebell]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, I think it is completely past time.  That is exactly the problem we've seen all along.

That's always been the way.  The temple priesthood (ironically known as the Patriarchal priesthood) has always been a family priesthood, and it's exactly what is given to both men and women in the temple when they are dressing in both the garment and the robes of the priesthood.  It is the whole premise of the initiatory and the sealing ordinances, the beginning and the end.

Yes, most Church priesthood offices are specific to the functioning of the Church and have no bearing on eternity.  In eternity family priesthood is as significant as the political ones, although there are both.  If you doubt that ask yourself what priesthood offices (plural) Jesus held.

All that being said, there are some things in the article I definitely don't think are correct.

What things in the article do you disagree with?

[Ahab]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

As to their being two kinds of priesthood organization I have been taught that many times. The patriarchal order of passing priesthood down via family line is the ideal. The church structure is a temporary thing due to conditions here in mortality. Ideally my priesthood leadership flows to me through my parents and grandparents. When people are ordained to priesthood or receive saving ordinancesit is almost always done by the father if worthy or another family member. The first place to go for a blessing is a father, of possible. I know of several apostles and Seventies who have said that after they were ordained an apostle went to their father afterwards. When I thought I was going to receive a calling that would require I be ordained a High Priest I was ready to ask my father to come ordain me. I am a believer that even though we do not live in the patriarchal order we should respect it as much as we can.

A general attempt to answer the question of what it is:

https://askgramps.org/many-priesthoods/

And a collection of accounts of the talk in which Joseph taught about the different Priesthood Orders:

http://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/Talks/ThreeOrdersofPriesthood.HTML

Women in families as mothers function in the Priesthood independent of ordination and calling through the power of the saving ordinances they have received, particularly the ordinances of the temple. We talk in the church generally about revelation being limited to our sphere or responsibility. This is true but it also applies in the family organization. Both my father and mother can and have received revelation to pass on to me. It functions in a similar way under the provisos of section 121 (no coercion or exercising dominion in unrighteousness and all of those warnings) so anyone who uses this to be a tyrant at home or to try to compel obedience must repent or lose their authority entirely.

There is power in the family that the church organization cannot match but due to weakness and the failures of many parents we have the church organization for now and probably until the Millenium but nothing is stopping a family from getting many of those greater blessings now.

Think of your family becoming really huge, having millions if not billions of people.  As the father of your family are you really  going to want to do everything all by yourself, or are you going to want to ordain some of your sons to help you?  Not that you couldn't do it all by yourself, if you wanted to, but your sons may actually want to help you and they may learn something in the process.

I think the larger your family gets the more you are going to want some of your children to help you.  But maybe not.  I suppose you will see for yourself, someday.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Ahab

[longview]

Questions to ask:

1. Administrative Hierarchy:  Jesus organized His Church on this basis with the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb.  The Restoration in the Latter Days follows this model plus keys restored from previous dispensations.  Is the administrative model being used in the Last Judgment (Twelve Apostles of the Lamb will sit on their thrones, see Matt 19:28).  Many more examples can be found.
2. Patriarchal Order:  from father to son.  birthrights (only for sons, how did it operate if there were only daughters?).  It was the chief form of government from the time of Adam/Eve up to the Great Flood and appears to continue up to the time of Moses.  But Lehi appears to act as patriarchal leader over his clan (and over Zoram and the family of Ishmael).
3. Matriarchal Order:  Is there such a thing?  Are there certain rights passed from mother to daughter?  Could it only be manifested in Heaven?  Is there anything in the scriptures that point to this concept?
4. Marriage Temple Sealings:  both husband and wife qualify for covenantal partnership with God (both Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother?) when they have obtained their endowments.  Visualize a triangle with husband and wife at the lower corners and God on the top point.  When we strive to get closer to God, we become more united as husband and wife.  When we go the extra mile with our partners or practise greater meekness and charity, we become one with God.
5. Family Priesthood Power:  what a concept but NOT too surprising.  I look forward to searching and meditating further on this VERY important concept.  On my next pass through all the standard works (plus any teaching of prophets) I will try to be alert to the distinctions for all 5 categories.

[mfbukowski]

On 11/12/2019 at 9:38 AM, bluebell said:

 Do you think that it's time for members of the church to worry less about women's place in the church's administrative hierarchy and worry more about women learning to harness the power they have been given to bless their families and the world, or do you think that there only way for women to gain full equality in the church is to have a place in the administrative priesthood as well?

Yes, of course on the former.

If we want to go with the latter idea it will simply be a step to clarify what is already the case and has been.

I have been in the church now for 40 years and have understood that women hold the Priesthood in tandem with their husbands as a couple.  It simply follows from the notion that if a man exercises his priesthood to dominate, his priesthood no longer exists.  

His priesthood disappears the minute he does NOT use it in tandem with his wife.

And then we have the temple, where women lay their hands on each other and give the most sublime blessings God has to offer humanity.

Just by common sense how could both of these be true and then be taken to imply what women do NOT hold priesthood power and authority?

Not possible!  

Edited November 13, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, of course on the former.

If we want to go with the latter idea it will simply be a step to clarify what is already the case and has been.

I have been in the church now for 40 years and have understood that women hold the Priesthood in tandem with their husbands as a couple.  It simply follows from the notion that if a man exercises his priesthood to dominate, his priesthood no longer exists.  

His priesthood disappears the minute he does NOT use it in tandem with his wife.

And then we have the temple, where women lay their hands on each other and give the most sublime blessings God has to offer humanity.

Just by common sense how could both of these be true and then be taken to imply what women do NOT hold priesthood power and authority?

Not possible!  

I think something in D&C 121 gets overlooked sometimes because of the gender references, so it may be good to read it again while referring to the other gender:

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him her whom thou hast reproved, lest he she esteem thee to be his her enemy;

44 That he she may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men women, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

What things in the article do you disagree with?

I don't think I want to get into that.
But the attempt to redefine priesthood into some nebulous thing doesn't sit well with me.
And President Oaks statement is tricky.  It can be true or false depending how it is taken and applied.

Let's just leave it at that.

But as I said before family (patriarchal) priesthood is very real, is temple based, and is received by men and women. 

These quotes from Joseph Smith identify this priesthood that falls between Aaronic priesthood and the fullness of Melchizedek priesthood, and is specific to families.  But it's also important to remember that although it's listed as a third order of priesthood, ALL priesthood is Melchizedek.  So it's all really just Melchizedek.

• "The 2nd Priesthood is Patriarchal authority. Go to and finish the temple, and God will fill it with power, and you will then receive more knowledge concerning this priesthood."
• "2 Abrahams Patriarchal power which is the greatest yet experienced in this church"
• Abraham's preisthood was of greater power than Levi's and Melchizedeck's was of greater power than that of Abraham.
• Abraham's was a more exalted power or preisthood he could talk and walk with God

D&C 86:8 Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think I want to get into that.
But the attempt to redefine priesthood into some nebulous thing doesn't sit well with me.
And President Oaks statement is tricky.  It can be true or false depending how it is taken and applied.

Let's just leave it at that.

But as I said before family (patriarchal) priesthood is very real, is temple based, and is received by men and women. 

These quotes from Joseph Smith identify this priesthood that falls between Aaronic priesthood and the fullness of Melchizedek priesthood, and is specific to families.  But it's also important to remember that although it's listed as a third order of priesthood, ALL priesthood is Melchizedek.  So it's all really just Melchizedek.

• "The 2nd Priesthood is Patriarchal authority. Go to and finish the temple, and God will fill it with power, and you will then receive more knowledge concerning this priesthood."
• "2 Abrahams Patriarchal power which is the greatest yet experienced in this church"
• Abraham's preisthood was of greater power than Levi's and Melchizedeck's was of greater power than that of Abraham.
• Abraham's was a more exalted power or preisthood he could talk and walk with God

D&C 86:8 Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers

The part I highlighted might be something good to have a discussion about sometime. 

My bishop has more keys than I do but when he comes to my house I and my wife preside in our domain, and my bishop recognizes and appreciates that fact.  The same principle applies when our stake president goes over to my bishop's house, within his domain.

Officers in the administrative priesthood are like government officials, and husbands and wives have their own kingdoms where they alone preside.  Whether or not they seek assistance or interaction with government officials of the kingdom where they reside.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Ahab

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think I want to get into that.
But the attempt to redefine priesthood into some nebulous thing doesn't sit well with me.
And President Oaks statement is tricky.  It can be true or false depending how it is taken and applied.

Let's just leave it at that.

But as I said before family (patriarchal) priesthood is very real, is temple based, and is received by men and women. 

These quotes from Joseph Smith identify this priesthood that falls between Aaronic priesthood and the fullness of Melchizedek priesthood, and is specific to families.  But it's also important to remember that although it's listed as a third order of priesthood, ALL priesthood is Melchizedek.  So it's all really just Melchizedek.

• "The 2nd Priesthood is Patriarchal authority. Go to and finish the temple, and God will fill it with power, and you will then receive more knowledge concerning this priesthood."
• "2 Abrahams Patriarchal power which is the greatest yet experienced in this church"
• Abraham's preisthood was of greater power than Levi's and Melchizedeck's was of greater power than that of Abraham.
• Abraham's was a more exalted power or preisthood he could talk and walk with God

D&C 86:8 Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers

Is the Aaronic priesthood Melchizedek then?

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is the Aaronic priesthood Melchizedek then?

Yes, and here is an interesting talk I just pulled off of the internet: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Why_do_Mormons_use_the_Aaronic_Priesthood,_since_Hebrews_7_states_that_the_Aaronic/Levitical_Priesthood_was_"changed"_to_the_unique_priesthood_"after_the_order_of_Melchizedek"_held_by_Jesus_Christ%3F

YaY Google!

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is the Aaronic priesthood Melchizedek then?

Yes.

"All Priesthood is Melchizedek, but there are different portions or degrees of it" -Joseph Smith

The Aaronic is a preparatory portion of it designed to prepare the holder to hold it all.

[Storm Rider]

I think my understanding of the priesthood is focused on the union of man and wife - they both use its power to act as disciples of Jesus Christ. It may appear that only the man holds the priesthood, but I think that shortchanges and misunderstands what a Celestial marriage is and the meaning of being one. 

More importantly, this fad we call equality is strictly a philosophy of the modern day. I don't believe its context and/or objective has any role in the Gospel of Jesus Christ or in the Kingdom of God. Said another way, and bluntly, I think it is designed by Satan to distort the gospel and to remove the focus and purpose of the Gospel to ideas and concepts foreign to all that God is. Further, it's objective appears to be the further destruction of the family unit. This article highlights on the role of motherhood and yet, in the realm of equality, motherhood is shortchanged, undermined and considered less than almost anything and everything. 

 

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think my understanding of the priesthood is focused on the union of man and wife - they both use its power to act as disciples of Jesus Christ. It may appear that only the man holds the priesthood, but I think that shortchanges and misunderstands what a Celestial marriage is and the meaning of being one. 

More importantly, this fad we call equality is strictly a philosophy of the modern day. I don't believe its context and/or objective has any role in the Gospel of Jesus Christ or in the Kingdom of God. Said another way, and bluntly, I think it is designed by Satan to distort the gospel and to remove the focus and purpose of the Gospel to ideas and concepts foreign to all that God is. Further, it's objective appears to be the further destruction of the family unit. This article highlights on the role of motherhood and yet, in the realm of equality, motherhood is shortchanged, undermined and considered less than almost anything and everything. 

 

I think the only thing that should or even could be equal is a husband's and wife's love for each other, but even that is difficult to achieve. I tell my wife that I love her the mostest while she tells me that she loves me the mostest and it seems like we can never agree on which one of us loves the other the mostest, but it is still fun to keep trying, though.

Otherwise, heck, my part of parenthood is way way easier than my wife's part of the deal.  I can't imagine how we could ever be equal that way.

And I have short hair while my wife has long hair, so we aren't equal in our hair length, either.

And women are way more sexually attractive than men, in my opinion, so I don't see how we could ever be equal in that way, either.

So, like, what else is there?  Equally intelligent, maybe?  I'm looking forward to the day when I can see that together we know everything there is to know about everything. Right now she knows some things that I do not know, and vice versa for me.

We seem to work pretty good together as a couple, though.