LDS Guy 1986 Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 As one of the speakers at the priesthood session of the conference noted, there are only four individuals in the ward who hold keys. He was referring specifically to the deacons quorum president, but the other three are the bishop, the teachers quorum president and the elders quorum president. Even the high priests group leader does not hold keys.She doesn't hold priesthood key because she is not ordained to the priesthood but she does hold the authority or keys that regard to here callings, just as a father has the keys for his family, and a ward missionary has been delegated the keys to teach the gospel from the mission president, through there calling. The reason why the HP Group Leader doesn't hold the keys is that those keys are held by the President of the High Priests quorum which is the Stake President (remember that all High Priests in a Stake constitute one quorum under the Stake President, which is why High Priest is called High Priests Group not High Priests Quorum), just like the Bishop hold the keys of the Priest Quorum.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Perhaps it was when President Uchtdorf said this:I was mainly thinking of the 3 W's to avoid.
mercyngrace Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 I was mainly thinking of the 3 W's to avoid.Ugh. I downloaded the PH session to listen to this afternoon while I worked in the yard but I kept bumping my mp3 player and restarting the session - LOL! I listened to the opening hymn and prayer many times.Guess I'll have to listen after the kids are in bed tonight...
zerinus Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 A councilor hold no keys, they offer advice not revelation only one who has the proper priesthood keys can receive revelation. For a members of the Bishopric they have the keys to receive revelation for every one that resides in there ward. A Relief Society President can only receive revelation about the Sister or non member women in the ward, and she definitely cannot receive revelation for the Bishop or Stake President. Now a Stake President can receive revelation for a Bishop in his ward, and a member of the Seventy or an Apostle can receive revelation for a Stake President, but the auxiliary presidencies can only offer advice to the leadership they cannot give them revelation because it is against Church doctrine. To state or imply this is to contradict the doctrine of the Church found in teh D&C, Joseph Smith specifically received revelations because members without the proper keys started making revelations that were dividing the membership of the Church. Like I said believe what you want personally, but do not try an take your personal beliefs and put them about the doctrine of the LDS Church.Strictly speaking, the counsellors to the bishop or stake president don't hold any keys either; but they are entitled to inspiration and revelation as they counsel with him in their meetings, in the discharge of their duties as counsellors. In a similar vein, the councillors in a ward or stake council may receive revelation to discharge their duties as councillors, when they act in that capacity in their council meetings, as they express their views on various subjects. They act as temporary counsellors to the presiding officers on those occasions, and like the ordained counsellors are entitled to the same privilege.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 She doesn't hold priesthood key because she is not ordained to the priesthood but she does hold the authority or keys that regard to here callings, just as a father has the keys for his family, and a ward missionary has been delegated the keys to teach the gospel from the mission president, through there calling. The reason why the HP Group Leader doesn't hold the keys is that those keys are held by the President of the High Priests quorum which is the Stake President (remember that all High Priests in a Stake constitute one quorum under the Stake President, which is why High Priest is called High Priests Group not High Priests Quorum), just like the Bishop hold the keys of the Priest Quorum.From the Church reference book True to the Faith under the entry "Priesthood":The President of the Church delegates priesthood keys to other priesthood leaders so they can preside in their areas of responsibility. Priesthood keys are bestowed on presidents of temples, missions, stakes and districts; bishops; branch presidents; and quorum presidents. A person who serves in one of these positions holds the keys only until he is released. Counselors do not receive keys, but they do receive authority and responsibility by calling and assignment.Keys is a concept pertaining strictly to the priesthood, and it is not correct to refer to a non-priesthood holder as possessing keys.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 I was mainly thinking of the 3 W's to avoid."Brethren, let us not pass through life immersed in the three dark Ws: wearied, worrying and whining."
mfbukowski Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 I don't think you can call this something news since the Church has been putting a strong emphasis this in there leadership training and Church administration manuals.Exactly.If there WAS a "watershed moment" it certainly wasn't here, it was with the publication of the new manuals.Of course no one ever reads those.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 4, 2011 Posted April 4, 2011 Exactly.If there WAS a "watershed moment" it certainly wasn't here, it was with the publication of the new manuals.Of course no one ever reads those.Again, priesthood-led councils with female members have been a part of Church administration long before the publication of the new manuals. This thread makes me think of the title of a famous Shakespeare comedy.
Hamba Tuhan Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 Either the church will back away from it and issue corrections and refinements (with or without a cough track), or this is a step in a very different direction from what has been taught at church for over a century.Which again makes me wonder why even bother with so potentially policy-altering a story unless he had a very good reason to do so.And again I'm left, Consiglieri, wondering what church exactly you've been attending for the past century or so. I've personally been attending ward or stake councils for nearly two decades now. This story merely illustrates the clear and established policy of the Church I belong to. I guess I don't know much about the one you seem to belong to....
mfbukowski Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 Again, priesthood-led councils with female members have been a part of Church administration long before the publication of the new manuals. This thread makes me think of the title of a famous Shakespeare comedy.Absolutely. And I have seen women hold the position of "Special Secretary to the Bishop" - a creatively inspired position from which she could do almost anything the Bishop felt inspired she should be doing, other than lead quorums or violate other handbook guidelines about who must hold the priesthood.
mercyngrace Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 This thread makes me think of the title of a famous Shakespeare comedy.The Taming of the Shrews ?j/k
dirtius maximus Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 First, it completely undermined the tropes we have heard for years about revelation being appropriate solely for those people over whom one has stewardship. Under this view, only the bishop (or possibly elder's quorum president) would have authority to receive revelation for reactivating priesthood holders. The relief society president was completely out of line in the revelation she received under this view and should have been reprimanded accordingly.Any thoughts?All the Best!--ConsiglieriDid she have revelation? Or did as Elder Cook stated how the sisters in the Church help facilitate revelation. Also, a kind hearted person need not spend too much time getting know people to understand their concerns, fears, misgivings. The woman mentioned seemed to know many of the men personally. This is not a watershed moment. It is simply a moment when someone when a correlation/welfare meeting (whatever meeting it was) worked as it was intended, the spirit was there to guide the group.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 The Taming of the Shrews ?j/klol!Actually, I was thinking of "Much Ado about Nothing."
Pahoran Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 And you don't think counsel is revelation? However, her revelation is within her stewardship so she can counsel with the stake leader on her revelation but his purview is the stake and so only he has the authority to enact what he perceives as good counsel. Her revelation caused her to counsel with the leader and his revelation was to accept the counsel as something that would benefit the stake. Semantics.What Consig doesn't seem to realise is that a person's stewardship is equal to the scope of their calling. Thus, if a person's calling includes them being a member of a council -- or if they are, because of their calling, invited to a meeting in which there is open discussion and opinions are sought -- then offering counsel, advice and opinions to the presiding officer is part of their stewardship.What that wise RS President did is what women leaders in the Church have done in similar meetings for as long as the Church has been holding them. Furthermore, she did not strike out on her own or attempt to usurp authority, but communicated her thoughts to the presiding officer, who took them on board and acted on them. Everything was done through the proper Priesthood channels.I'm not saying "Move along, nothing to see here." In my view, there is something wonderful to see here: Church councils functioning just exactly as they were always supposed to, and great blessings flowing therefrom.Regards,Pahoran
bookofmormontruth Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 And again I'm left, Consiglieri, wondering what church exactly you've been attending for the past century or so. I've personally been attending ward or stake councils for nearly two decades now. This story merely illustrates the clear and established policy of the Church I belong to. I guess I don't know much about the one you seem to belong to....I am what they consider a "newbie" so please correct me if I am wrong or tell me I am not following the rules, again.From the topics I have seen, I don't believe he is LDS which I have see this countless times on other forums. Unless, he just enjoys seeing his topics debated and seeing members go back and forth on a pointless "theory" for he has been proven wrong, yet the thread grows and he continues to propagate a failed theory.
mercyngrace Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 lol!Actually, I was thinking of "Much Ado about Nothing."Yeah - if you click the j/k (just kidding) it links to the wiki page for Much Ado about Nothing.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 lol!Actually, I was thinking of "Much Ado about Nothing."OK, let us make a bit of sport here. [To the board:]Of which Shakespeare title does this thread remind you?
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 Yeah - if you click the j/k (just kidding) it links to the wiki page for Much Ado about Nothing. Ah. Got it.
Pahoran Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 The Taming of the Shrews ?j/kAFAICT, the female participants in this thread haven't been at all "shrewish" about anything; I've only seen good sense from them. It's one of the males who wants to be the champion of live (and presumably dumb) Mormon women.Your URL points to the play I thought Scott had in mind, so I gather you were thinking the same thing.Post-preview: I see that Scott already confirmed that.Regards,Pahoran
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 Yeah - if you click the j/k (just kidding) it links to the wiki page for Much Ado about Nothing. Ah. Got it.
mercyngrace Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 AFAICT, the female participants in this thread haven't been at all "shrewish" about anything; I've only seen good sense from them. It's one of the males who wants to be the champion of live (and presumably dumb) Mormon women.Your URL points to the play I thought Scott had in mind, so I gather you were thinking the same thing.Post-preview: I see that Scott already confirmed that.Regards,PahoranIt was a joke, Pahoran, because the thread is about women and their role in relation to male leaders in the church. And yes, I got Scott's joke.
TAO Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 Consliglieri... some women already hold the priesthood... you can talk to Lehi more about it.Also, women can receive revelation, as MnG said. That's why they do such an awesome job at being great wives. =)Best Wishes,TAO
mercyngrace Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 OK, let us make a bit of sport here. [To the board:]To which Shakespeare title does this thread remind you? I would say Comedy of Errors but I reserve that description for threads with more red ink.(P.S. I meant red comments by moderators. What did you think I meant???)
Scott Lloyd Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 It was a joke, Pahoran, because the thread is about women and their role in relation to male leaders in the church. That's how I took it. Hence the "lol".
Hamba Tuhan Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 I don't believe he is LDS....No, Consiglieri is very much a member, but he does seem to attend a church completely outside the realm of personal experience for the rest of us.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.