Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

A New Way to Look at the Priesthood


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Is the Aaronic priesthood Melchizedek then?

 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

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.

Nehor beat me to it.  ;)

3 parts, Aaronic, Patriarchal, and the Fullness of Melchizedek.  All part of the Melchizedek priesthood, or more precisely, the priesthood after the order of the Son of God.  Christ's authority.

Link to comment

The restoration of the priesthood keys is of utmost importance in this dispensation and needs to be emphasized. Without them we would not have baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the priesthood orders (office, temple covenants, etc.) and everything the Church offers. It is from the priesthood keys that the saving power of God is brought to humanity, although lesser and more universally distributed powers of God are evidenced throughout the laws and processes of nature and by the light of Christ in every person ever born.

I think some may have conflated the restored keys with ordination to office, failing to consider the endowment of women (for example), resulting in the incorrect assumption that priesthood is not to be found anywhere else.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

The restoration of the priesthood keys is of utmost importance in this dispensation and needs to be emphasized. Without them we would not have baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the priesthood orders (office, temple covenants, etc.) and everything the Church offers. It is from the priesthood keys that the saving power of God is brought to humanity, although lesser and more universally distributed powers of God are evidenced throughout the laws and processes of nature and by the light of Christ in every person ever born.

I think some may have conflated the restored keys with ordination to office, failing to consider the endowment of women (for example), resulting in the incorrect assumption that priesthood is not to be found anywhere else.

I think of a priesthood key as God's authorization to do something, whatever it is that God may authorize someone to do for him.  So his authorization is tied to the act itself that God is authorizing, which usually requires someone to do whatever he authorizes, which then gets us to the idea that there must be a person ordained to some office of the priesthood who is responsible for doing what God has authorized someone to do.  Whether they have one or many keys, each key is God's authorization to do something in the name of God.

Preaching the gospel, for example, is something God authorizes someone or some people to do, and there is a key that relates to it.  Some Christians have the mistaken idea that anybody can go out into the world and preach the gospel, but God must actually authorize someone or some people to do it, and when God authorizes it we refer to his authorization as the key to do that.  Imagine how different the world would be if only those with the key to preach the gospel were the only people doing it.  How much less confusion there would be about what the gospel is, and what the appendages to the gospel are.

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Imagine how different the world would be if only those with the key to preach the gospel were the only people doing it.  How much less confusion there would be about what the gospel is, and what the appendages to the gospel are.

Yes, and depending on how long ago this  hypothetical began, it would be as though the Great Apostasy never happened!

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, and depending on how long ago this  hypothetical began, it would be as though the Great Apostasy never happened!

I don't understand what you mean.  If we went all the way back to Adam and Eve, true, the Great Apostasy had never happened, yet.  At least not on this planet. It didn't take long for someone to start preaching false doctrine, though, and that was before the Great Apostasy had happened yet, too.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, CV75 said:

The restoration of the priesthood keys is of utmost importance in this dispensation and needs to be emphasized. Without them we would not have baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the priesthood orders (office, temple covenants, etc.) and everything the Church offers. It is from the priesthood keys that the saving power of God is brought to humanity, although lesser and more universally distributed powers of God are evidenced throughout the laws and processes of nature and by the light of Christ in every person ever born.

I think some may have conflated the restored keys with ordination to office, failing to consider the endowment of women (for example), resulting in the incorrect assumption that priesthood is not to be found anywhere else.

I think we need to be careful not venerating the "keys" above the offices, ordinations, and ordinances that bestow them.

Yes, without the keys we would not have Baptism.  But without the ordination to the Aaronic Priesthood and the office of a Priest (or higher offices) we wouldn't have the keys to have Baptism.
Without the sealing keys we wouldn't have eternal families.  But without the Melchizedek priesthood we wouldn't have the sealing keys to create eternal families.

Keys are great, but they are the result, not the source.

Link to comment
On 11/12/2019 at 10:38 AM, 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 article is good. I think her mindset shows some of the big shifts that have already taken place in judt the last couple of years with how we think of priesthood. And i’ve been thinking similar things with the restructuring of the church...particularly with the last changes with witnessing. To me it felt very family-oriented as well as a decentralization of things to allow all people in the covenant path to actively be involved in priesthood power and actions. We’ve put so much emphasis on centralized and hierarchical power but i do believe zion as described is one where all people act in God’s name to do His work and represent the church ...not just a few.  

Beyond that though i’m not sure about her final conclusion. As the hierarchical structure still plays an important role today and is needed for the development of the saints into one people, my gut says that without certain voices in the process, we’ll be handicapped in doing so. They mention women being “gaurdians of morality” and “helpmeet” in the equal partnership sense. I was thinking what’s even meant by morality and who decides it (because I think that’s something that is also somewhat socially derived)?  But according to heb 8:10-11 I think it’s generally God’s law and direction. To me it seems limited to have women who hold such important roles not be more active and apart of major decisions for the body of the Church as a whole...which is largely what the hierarchical structure currently does. I don’t think that means same role and same call. But more co-partnership in the direction and said moral guardians. 
 

Still, i think this decentralization of power that i see occurring will be positive for women as the home becomes more pertinent and a focus, there will likely be more discussions of priesthood power and authority that women have and in more daily and flexible practices and actions. 
 

 

with luv, 

BD

Link to comment
On 11/13/2019 at 2:52 PM, The Nehor said:

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.

The AAph is said to be an "appendage " of the M ph.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I think we need to be careful not venerating the "keys" above the offices, ordinations, and ordinances that bestow them.

Yes, without the keys we would not have Baptism.  But without the ordination to the Aaronic Priesthood and the office of a Priest (or higher offices) we wouldn't have the keys to have Baptism.
Without the sealing keys we wouldn't have eternal families.  But without the Melchizedek priesthood we wouldn't have the sealing keys to create eternal families.

Keys are great, but they are the result, not the source.

If we are discussing which is more important instead of emphasizing the keys as being of utmost importance -- two different concepts -- I think that may be a chicken-and egg question. My point was not to conflate keys with office and place more attention to office, priesthood and office both being of utmost importance in delineating what can be done in the name of God. The saving power of God is brought to humanity through both. Priesthood without keys is useless; keys without priesthood is not possible; offices without either priesthood or keys are also useless.

From https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng:

"Ultimately, all keys of the priesthood are held by the Lord Jesus Christ, whose priesthood it is. He is the one who determines what keys are delegated to mortals and how those keys will be used."

"...even though [our] presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern [of two priesthoods and their respective offices, including saving ordinances performed thereby]."

So I think the flow is as follows: God > the power of God (priesthood) > keys of the priesthood. He confers a limited scope of power and delegates keys to the presiding high priests (the quorum of three presidents, D&C 107:29) who in turn follow His instructions to do the same in setting up the two priesthoods and their relative offices. Since in this scheme of things an office holder must be authorized and directed by his presiding authority by virtue of the directing keys to do anything related to salvation. At this level,  his exercise of keys is controlled by and subordinate to the exercise of another's keys, irrespective of his priesthood office.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, Ahab said:

I think of a priesthood key as God's authorization to do something, whatever it is that God may authorize someone to do for him.  So his authorization is tied to the act itself that God is authorizing, which usually requires someone to do whatever he authorizes, which then gets us to the idea that there must be a person ordained to some office of the priesthood who is responsible for doing what God has authorized someone to do.  Whether they have one or many keys, each key is God's authorization to do something in the name of God.

Preaching the gospel, for example, is something God authorizes someone or some people to do, and there is a key that relates to it.  Some Christians have the mistaken idea that anybody can go out into the world and preach the gospel, but God must actually authorize someone or some people to do it, and when God authorizes it we refer to his authorization as the key to do that.  Imagine how different the world would be if only those with the key to preach the gospel were the only people doing it.  How much less confusion there would be about what the gospel is, and what the appendages to the gospel are.

A priesthood key is a power delegated to man to direct the use of the Priesthood so you are off.

I have authority to baptize but I cannot do it unless the person with the keys authorizes it. I have the priesthood that can resurrect someone but unless someone with those keys directs me to do so I cannot resurrect anyone. Some ordinances I can do without permission (give blessings, bless the sick, dedicate home, etc.) but even there someone with the proper keys can tell me not to and I lose that privilege (this is rare outside of disfellowshipment or some form of probation).

Link to comment
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A priesthood key is a power delegated to man to direct the use of the Priesthood so you are off.

No, just a different way to think about it, but still true.

Quote

I have authority to baptize but I cannot do it unless the person with the keys authorizes it.

Which means you have God's authorization to do what another person with God's authorization authorizes you to do.  Not much if any authority of your own in that regard. Another way of thinking about that is that you have no authority to baptize unless someone with a key to baptism authorizes you to baptize, and until you are authorized by someone with that key then you can not baptize.  So it is the key that authorizes you to do what God wants you to do, and without that key, either held by yourself or someone else with that key, you are not authorized to baptize someone. 

Quote

I have the priesthood that can resurrect someone but unless someone with those keys directs me to do so I cannot resurrect anyone.

So another way of thinking about that is that you don't have any authorization from God to resurrect someone unless someone with God's authorization and a key for resurrection authorizes you to resurrect someone.

Quote

Some ordinances I can do without permission (give blessings, bless the sick, dedicate home, etc.) but even there someone with the proper keys can tell me not to and I lose that privilege (this is rare outside of disfellowshipment or some form of probation).

Yes,, I understand that, too.

Edited by Ahab
Link to comment
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Some ordinances I can do without permission (give blessings, bless the sick, dedicate home, etc.) 

I forget where we landed on home dedications in the recent discussion.  Priesthood ordinance or simply a prayer?

We had an Elder's teacher tell us he had his kid offer their last one.

Link to comment

We had our Young Women in Excellence program the other evening and the Bishop from each participating ward made a few remarks. One Bishop basically said that women are more spiritual than men and if women were allowed to be bishops there would be no more male bishops. The women would take over because they are so spiritual. So in his mind, this was a good reason for women not to be in such leadership positions. To me, it felt like he was placating and patronizing the young and not so young women there. I am tired of staying quiet when people say these kinds of things, but I don’t like confrontation. What do you do when people make remarks you don’t agree with at church either one on one or in a large group?

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It is definitely patronizing but that doesn't mean he's insincere.  Boys grow up these days being told the girls are more spiritual than they are.

Bottom line is spirituality is individual.  Gender is irrelevant to it.

I agree and I blame many priesthood holders/leaders for proposing such nonsense. I had a temple president that fostered such a position and it never made sense. Our young men have been degraded and put down for some time now. 

Link to comment
12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It is definitely patronizing but that doesn't mean he's insincere.  Boys grow up these days being told the girls are more spiritual than they are.

Bottom line is spirituality is individual.  Gender is irrelevant to it.

I think with the new higher, holier way of thinking, worshipping, and ministering we should let go of these old notions of gender-based spirituality. It will take all of us working together - men, women, youth, Primary to bring light to this darkening world. 

Link to comment

The administration of the Church has little to do with holiness. Holiness is personal and it is, or should be, the objective of each disciple of Christ. I expect as the divide between evil and righteousness continues to grow in world, we will see individuals of both genders exemplify and magnify spiritual gifts of prophecy, healing, and other signs of the Spirit. The administration of the Church will go on, but personal growth and union with God should be our focus. 

Link to comment
23 hours ago, Ahab said:

No, just a different way to think about it, but still true.

Which means you have God's authorization to do what another person with God's authorization authorizes you to do.  Not much if any authority of your own in that regard. Another way of thinking about that is that you have no authority to baptize unless someone with a key to baptism authorizes you to baptize, and until you are authorized by someone with that key then you can not baptize.  So it is the key that authorizes you to do what God wants you to do, and without that key, either held by yourself or someone else with that key, you are not authorized to baptize someone. 

So another way of thinking about that is that you don't have any authorization from God to resurrect someone unless someone with God's authorization and a key for resurrection authorizes you to resurrect someone.

Yes,, I understand that, too.

We have established several times that you have personal definitions for everything and then contend it means the same thing as the accepted definition if you stand on your head and squint hard enough.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I forget where we landed on home dedications in the recent discussion.  Priesthood ordinance or simply a prayer?

We had an Elder's teacher tell us he had his kid offer their last one.

I am just curious why you cited an "Elder's teacher" - as if that gives him more perceived authority?  Just curious. 

EVERYBODY is an "Elder's teacher" in the perspective that we teach each other through discussion.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am just curious why you cited an "Elder's teacher" - as if that gives him more perceived authority?  Just curious. 

EVERYBODY is an "Elder's teacher" in the perspective that we teach each other through discussion.

I assumed he was just saying that one of the teachers in Elders Quorum taught it. 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I am tired of staying quiet when people say these kinds of things, but I don’t like confrontation. What do you do when people make remarks you don’t agree with at church either one on one or in a large group?

Well you can stay quiet or face confrontation.

If you can't do either one, that IS a problem, but let me suggest as kindly as I can, it is something you have to deal with, not others.

In fact that is precisely what Bishops have to do daily and minute by minute.  Do you correct the person who takes too much time with his testimony?  Do you tell someone that in your opinion what she is paying is NOT an "honest tithe"?  

I would just suggest not being upset with the bishop because he can come out and deliver his opinion without worrying about disliking contradiction.   :)   Just saying what he said makes it clear that he stands up for his opinion and can deal with people who think otherwise.

 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I assumed he was just saying that one of the teachers in Elders Quorum taught it. 

So that makes it somehow authoritative?   I am just curious why he would mention the source instead of saying something like "Someone at church mentioned that he had his child dedicate his home...."

Obviously it is a trivial point but I am just trying to understand if people think that if it is taught in a class, the information is somehow more authoritative than just a random discussion.

I suppose the reason I am asking is because to me, if it is taught in class, that has no relation whatsoever to whether or not it is "authoritative".  To me everything is just some person giving their opinion.

I am really just trying to figure out if I am the weird one or in the majority.   And incidentally I appreciate your answering my posts and putting me in my place as needed, without snark.   That's also what my poor long suffering wife does as well.  ;)

 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Peacefully said:

We had our Young Women in Excellence program the other evening and the Bishop from each participating ward made a few remarks. One Bishop basically said that women are more spiritual than men and if women were allowed to be bishops there would be no more male bishops. The women would take over because they are so spiritual. So in his mind, this was a good reason for women not to be in such leadership positions. To me, it felt like he was placating and patronizing the young and not so young women there. I am tired of staying quiet when people say these kinds of things, but I don’t like confrontation. What do you do when people make remarks you don’t agree with at church either one on one or in a large group?

I think this is a misinterpreted phenomena. I am not sure whether it is an inbuilt biological tendency between genders or a socialization thing but it is my experience that women are more likely to actively reach out to help. Men are more likely to stand back and see active help as interfering because they sometimes see help as a borderline nuisance. Men see women more often doing good to help and attribute it to spirituality when it is more about behavior.

A while back I was driving in a car with the bishop to deal with a member’s financial crisis and the topic of women having the Priesthood some day came up and he did the jokey thing about the sooner the better as they would have it covered. I responded that no, the fact that we were in the car right now suggested that if needed we obviously would help because we were there. I do wonder if this current priesthood assignment to only one gender is intentional due to this weird cultural perception. I suspect the difference is more socialized than biological which is one reason I suspect the priesthood will one day be generalized.

In any case the comments are probably more hurtful than helpful. It makes men feel like they cannot measure up and makes women who struggle with spirituality wonder if something is wrong with them or, worse, is just patronizing. Then again it Is kind of corrective for our cultural expectations of gender:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85HT4Om6JT4

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

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