CV75

Because suffering is only a step in the process. Whatever Christ did to fully experience it and then turn it inside out for the fulness of happiness is the end of the process. I think faith helps us see, feel and act upon this glorious future even though we are in the midst of the knowledge of a painful past and present.

I think a good relationship with God is developed by realizing what we (and the Father!) are asking of Him: personal, infinite and eternal suffering for the negative consequences of our choices so that we can be free to pursue the positive consequences as joint-heirs with Him and all the family of God. This brings about a broken heart and contrite spirit which renders any suffering worth keeping a covenant relationship with Him. His suffering was no easier to handle than it is be for us, plus He suffers the infinite and eternal consequences which we cannot begin to comprehend. But we do taste the liberation and glory when He extends mercy, grace, repentance and forgiveness. Regarding the use of the word “inflict,” the three Nephites, who presumably enjoyed an advanced relationship with Christ, still suffered pain and sorrow for the sins of the world (3 Nephi 28:38). Knowing how Christ suffered and still weeps for these which have been inflicted upon Him, this is a particularly severe kind of suffering; all other kinds pale in comparison. He asks of us only what He does. So, there is the blessing in walking the path of glory and infliction. This is what enhances a broken heart and a contrite spirit in unity with Christ, and the attendant joy is surpassing.

I think there are many causes of this confusion. Those who are confused will have to describe the disconnect between "Now, may I voice a concern? It is this: Too many of our brothers and sisters do not fully understand the concept of priesthood power and authority" and his examples by showing that the examples indeed demonstrate a full understanding.

That should not be an obstacle on a message board.

Because he stated his concern as a preface, I see his examples as making that case.

The unique item on your list is the priesthood ordinance of the naming and blessing of a child. The others are kinds of priesthood blessings. Both are conducted by priesthood authority (and ideally attendant priesthood power). Prayers can be offered by anyone. Women have priesthood authority by callings (not office) and priesthood power by faith. For this reason, they do not administer healing blessings by priesthood authority but do offer effective prayers with priesthood power for healing. A person who is blessed to be healed by priesthood authority and power may be equally healed by a woman praying with priesthood power or her spiritual gift to heal, so no difference there. However, healing facilitated by priesthood authority and power unifies and strengthens Zion through its connection through presiding priesthood councils to Christ. This is a common theme in the D&C revelations on priesthood and the kingdom on earth. Healing prayers do not accomplish this; they do not require keys for approval.

My interest is not a matter of need for you to agree but of understanding your point of view.

According to President Nelson a blessing and a prayer in the context of his talk are not the same thing. He made his case; I'm not seeing where you made yours. You can just point me to the post if you think you've made it already.

RE: #5 do you give a priesthood blessing to the child or offer a prayer asking for a blessing in their behalf? Do you interpret both as the same thing?

The young father did not give a blessing, he said a beautify prayer. As to whether he was guided by the Spirit in full or in part, in fits or in starts, does not matter as to President Nelson's concern that, in this talk, that "too many of our brothers and sisters do not fully understand the concept of priesthood power and authority... do not grasp the privileges that could be theirs ...do not understand what the priesthood is and what it enables them to do." The subject of being guided by the Spirit is not the topic of this particular talk, but I'm sure it is of other talks.

OK, but one last question: how do you administer the ordinance, and why do you do it that way? Do you think President Nelson would be concerned about it, and if so, why?

Is that your practice in administering the ordinance, only the first half of it?

Anything could have happened organically in the young father's head, but according to President Nelson he did not use the priesthood to bless the child. Can you explain how the young father used the priesthood and performed the ordinance (properly) to bless the child?

What do you see as the "scripted blessing" and how does the Handbook script it? I don't see that in the Instructions: Under the direction of the bishopric, Melchizedek Priesthood holders gather in a circle to name and bless a child. They place their hands under a baby, or they place their hands lightly on an older child’s head. Then the one acting as voice: Addresses Heavenly Father as in prayer. States that the blessing is being performed by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Gives the child a name. Addresses the child. Gives a blessing to the child as guided by the Spirit. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ. If the above is to be taken as a script that gets in the way of holiness, should the Melchizedek Priesthood holders be rightly allowed to gather in a square or diamond formation? Levitate the baby with helium balloons (do the gender reveal at the same time!) or lay her on the floor, balance her on one hand, or pass her around and take turns as voice? One hand under the baby and the other over the baby? Anything else that is spiritually organic (divinely inspired)?

I love you too bruh! (Sista? ). There is no scripted blessing during a baby blessing, but there is a proper way to perform the ordinance of naming and blessing a child.

It sounds like he was asking the Father to bless the child with things that came to mind (health, faith, etc.). Nothing wrong with that, except he had just told the Father he was going to give the child a name and a blessing (presumably stating by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood) and then did not, and then presumably ended in the name of Jesus Christ without doing what he said he was going to do (bless). If he did not address his daughter, that would be a further mistake. And if he did and continued praying to God, that is a mistake. The naming part was done properly enough to get her name on the records of the Church. I guess he could ask his bishop for a do-over for the blessing part, but that would be between them. I think President Nelson's specific concern was: "Now, may I voice a concern? It is this: Too many of our brothers and sisters do not fully understand the concept of priesthood power and authority. They act as though they would rather satisfy their own selfish desires and appetites than use the power of God to bless His children. "I fear that too many of our brothers and sisters do not grasp the privileges that could be theirs. Some of our brethren, for example, act like they do not understand what the priesthood is and what it enables them to do. Let me give you some specific examples." In the OP specific example of misunderstanding the concept of priesthood power and authority, not grasping its privileges, and misunderstanding what the priesthood is and what it enables us to do, the young father did not know the difference between a prayer and a priesthood blessing and as a result did not bless his daughter. That said, he can, after having heard this talk 7 years ago, or reading it today, can go to the Lord for mercy and grace and find healing from causing and suffering this lost opportunity in other ways.

Is a scripted liturgy (as in the temple) inherently disruptive of a "spiritually organic" process? Is the "proper way" to perform priesthood ordinances (as in the handbook) inherently disruptive of a "spiritually organic" process? When it comes to semantics, isn't "spiritually organic" an oxymoron? Putting my open-mind cap on, "spiritually organic" might refer to the life of a connected spirit and body of a soul on the way to Judgement. But then, what priesthood ordinance properly involves only an individually-performing soul? I think you would agree proper priesthood administration involves God (two out of three being a Soul and the third accompanying the other two Souls or striving to accompany any other souls involved), priesthood keys (the presiding authorities of which are souls who delegate them to young fathers), and all other souls present and participating in the flesh.

Technically, the receiver of the prayer is God, and the person on whose behalf the request or admonition is petitioned in prayer is the intended beneficiary. Both the receiver of the priesthood blessing and its beneficiary are that person upon whose head the hands are laid. What is a "priesthood prayer," recognizing that those ordinances which address Heavenly Father as in prayer are not?

Priesthood blessings that are inspired by the Spirit are not inspired prayers, ordinances, counsel, etc. They are inspired priesthood ordinances. Regarding the young father, President Nelson is talking about the priesthood ordinance, “naming and blessing” (a child). See the handbook, 18.6. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/18-priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng#title_number8 I would say when a young father gives a well-intended prayer, instruction, admonition or even counsel, while supposing he is giving a blessing, is giving simply what President Nelson said it was: a missed opportunity to bless. The causes for this disconnect are numerous and virtually all preventable. A lack of inspiration is not necessarily one of them, and is probably the rarest of all means of prevention.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/04/ministering-with-the-power-and-authority-of-god?lang=eng "Let me cite some other examples. We know of brethren who set sisters apart as Primary, Young Women, or Relief Society leaders and teachers but fail to bless them—to bless them with the power to fulfill their callings. They give only admonitions and instructions. We see a worthy father who fails to give his wife and his children priesthood blessings when that is exactly what they need. Priesthood power has been restored to this earth, and yet far too many brothers and sisters go through terrible trials in life without ever receiving a true priesthood blessing. What a tragedy! That’s a tragedy that we can eliminate."

I wouldn't call it going astray or being off course, but I think we have to take President Nelson's conclusion at face value, "That dear elder did not know the difference between a prayer and a priesthood blessing." I see it as "[an unfortunate] missed opportunity!" If someone gives a prayer when a blessing is called for, to me that means they do not in that moment know, remember or appreciate the difference. The correct practice might come back to them later (oops!) or someone with them might give them a nudge. This lapse in knowledge might go under the radar or get self-corrected if the person reviews the Handbook beforehand. Others might just be too nervous.

I would say a blessing is a communication of the Spirit to the person being blessed, while a prayer is a communion with God, often seeking blessings but also rightly including thanks and praise. A priesthood blessing is given by a priesthood holder. The sacrament prayers are offered by priesthood holders to bless and sanctify the emblems unto those who partake. This and other ordinances begin with addressing Heavenly Father as in prayer (e.g. naming a child, consecrating oil, dedicating a grave, home or temple). When someone sneezes, the blessing may or may not involve a communication of the Spirit, may be said by anyone, and should not be given by priesthood authority. The Handbook provides the instructions and formats, but it seems that under extenuating circumstances such as the Prophet blessing the people at the end of General Conference, not stating the authority by which he is acting. Perhaps it can go unsaid since he authorized the conference and presides over it anyway.

While I can't say which or both aims Joseph Smith had, his translation seems to be a more concise way of saying what Jesus said in John 17: “Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.” (verse 7) And in verses 24 - 26, “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.” John 1:14, “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” And John 5:30, “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” In many other scriptures and contexts we see that Jesus is also God.

At the very least, receiving a body and at the most, being perfected and sanctified by Christ's grace.

RE: this part of your post: The one section here in Abraham 3:26 that really illustrates this is this statement: "and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate." There is an implication here that those who don't keep their first estate receive a kingdom of glory - and yet we know that those who receive perdition don't receive a kingdom of glory from the earlier D&C 88 - verse 24 states: "he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory." The implication I get is that "the same kingdom" is the mortal kingdom or estate, and the "glory" mortals find here is most fundamentally a physical body and the attendant quickening and enlightening light of Christ, which the devils shall not have. D&C 88 I think is in another context. PS verse 28 informed my response here Posted 17 hours ago though I did not cite it specifically, and it is understood not everyone reads every post.