The Rise Of Humanism

[mfbukowski]

I think often we get confused by mixing "language games" about God being "eternal" and have to realize in some cases what is really happening is a semantic disagreement.

The idea that God is God from all eternity appears incosistent with the King Follette discourse for example- which says that God was "once a man"; and yet it is not, in my most humble opinion.

The difference between the two statements can just be seen in terms of different ways of looking at the same "reality" - from the top of a mountain, one must travel "down" to a town in the valley, but if one is at sea level perhaps one must travel "up" to get to the valley. The town did not move- our point of view simply shifted.

Similarly, there are two ways of looking at "eternity": one is from our particular mortal time reference- perhaps in a sense "eternity" starts with space/time in the Big Bang- that really was the beginning of time in our time reference.

But what happened "before" time- "before" the Big Bang? On one level such a question makes no sense- there can be nothing "before" time. Yet of course scientists discuss the possibility of an existent singularity which "then" exploded into the Big Bang- which means that the singularity did in fact exist "before" our time reference.

Similarly, even for people who belief in ex nihilo creation- we have the problem of what God was "doing before" he created time.

Mormons can answer questions- albeit with logical problems like these- others don't even dare to ask.

But I think the answer is clear- there are just two ways of talking about "eternity", or more correctly two standpoints for viewing eternity, one from outside our present time reference - thereby including the Big Bang within the definition of eternity- which would also include a view of God as being in some sense "eternal" even "before" our time reference, and the other standpoint- from inside our time reference which would make speaking about something "before" the Big Bang total, literal, nonsense.

Long story short- I am saying we should not get hung up on the semantic definition of "eternity"!

Edited January 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

Actually, the idea that God is progressing (or as you put it "moving on") is not something that is taught by the LDS Church. In fact, it is considered a heresy.

I don't many Mormons would consider anything Joseph Smith taught to be heretical. Heterodox by today's standards, maybe, but not heretical. Smith said, for example:

"And not only that, but to contemplate the saying that they will be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit and enjoy the same glory, powers, and exaltation until you ascend a throne of eternal power, and arrive at the station of a God, the same as those who have gone before....When I get my kingdom, I will give it to the Father and it will add to and exalt His glory.

He will take a higher exaltation and I will take His place

and I am also exalted, so that he obtains kingdom rolling upon kingdom." (King Follett sermon, Larsen amalgamation)

It would be a strange situation for a religion to call its founder a heretic. Joseph Fielding Smith, for example, who is not generally regarded as heterodox by 20th century standards, was happy to agree with Joseph on this point, noting in his Doctrines of Salvation book after quoting the above passage that, "Do you not see that it is in this manner that our Eternal Father is progressing?" (vol. 1, p. 7).The only point on which Joseph Fielding Smith disagreed with the leaders who came before him is on the issue of whether God's progression includes an increase of knowledge. He thought God only progressed in his glory and dominion. However, Wilford Woodruff and George Q. Cannon, at least, and maybe others, are on record as saying that God's knowledge (and, according to Woodruff, power) progresses as well. This is a reasonable reading of Joseph Smith's teachings, given that Smith taught that the glory of God forever increases (King Follett sermon), and that the "glory of God is intelligence." (D&C 93:36). Therefore, by simple logical deduction, intelligence forever increases.

This is a distinction without a difference. Without authority, the priesthood has no power.

CFR. Also, how do you explain the fact that in the 19th century, Mormon women, some of whom had not even been to the temple, were encouraged to give priesthood blessings of healing despite their lack of any priesthood authority or office? Also, you did not say, and cannot say, the converse, that without priesthood power, there is no authority, because that hypothesis, at least, is excluded by scripture. See D&C 121:34-36. Thus, priesthood authority and power are not the same thing.

Actually, this argument ignores the fundamental fact that Joseph (and the Church) teach that there was never a time when God was not God.

Your reasoning is predicated on a false assumption- and a repetition of your earlier error: God was never "just a man".

That's like saying that there was never a time that Joseph Smith was not Joseph Smith. Yes, Smith was always himself. But he was not, for example, always a mortal. Likewise, God was God--he was always himself--but he was not always a god, except in the sense that we all are gods. Joseph Smith taught that "He once was a man like one of us,....[and] once dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did in the flesh and like us." (King Follett sermon, Larsen amalgamation).

Similarly, Smith stated, "You have got to learn how to make yourselves Gods in order to save yourselves and be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done--by going from a small capacity to a great capacity." (Id.) If all gods have "started small," merely as kings and priests to another god, as Smith suggests, and then they learn how to make themselves gods, then God was not always a god.

And yet even the most righteous Temple-goer, with the gift of revelation at his side, has neither power nor authority on his own.

No man (or woman, for that matter) can access that awesome power unless God delegates that authority to him.

Again, if you are proposing that nobody can have priesthood power unless they have been delegated authority through some office of the priesthood, then how do you explain 19th century priesthood blessings by endowed (and even unendowed) women?

Edited January 20, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[mfbukowski]

Again, if you are proposing that nobody can have priesthood power unless they have been delegated authority through some office of the priesthood, then how do you explain 19th century priesthood blessings by endowed (and even unendowed) women?

There's no simple answer to that one. "All" it takes to heal or be healed is faith.

Women who are endowed are delegated priesthood authority routinely, even if unmarried, and after a sealing they participate with their husbands in the priesthood.

If you are endowed, that should be clear.

Edited January 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

There's no simple answer to that one. "All" it takes to heal or be healed is faith.

There's no simple answer to that one. "All" it takes to heal or be healed is faith.

Women who are endowed are delegated priesthood authority routinely, even if unmarried, and after a sealing they participate with their husbands in the priesthood.

If you are endowed, that should be clear.

But the power by which the healing is accomplished is the power of priesthood. These women didn't pray that God would bless them with healing, they blessed the sick themselves, just as a Mormon male would do, sometimes even anointing with oil.

Moreover, women priestesses in the temple are "set apart," not ordained with priesthood authority. They already have the power to officiate in the ordinances of the Melchizedek priesthood because of the knowledge they have gained in their endowment, even though they have been delegated no priestly authority over other people.

Edited January 21, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism by Jonathan A. Stapley and Kristine Wright is an instructive read on this topic. Edited January 21, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[CV75]

priestly authority over other people.

Priesthood authority is never over other people. It is over doctrines, covenants, ordinances, service and invitations extended to other people.

[mfbukowski]

In the church, authority and service are two sides of the same coin. He who has more "authority" is the servent to more people. Ask any bishop about his "authority" over people.

Christ had ultimate authority, and he made the ultimate act of service.

[CV75]

In the church, authority and service are two sides of the same coin. He who has more "authority" is the servent to more people. Ask any bishop about his "authority" over people.

And it is easy to see that not getting this point has everything to do with putting human over divine values and concerns.

[mfbukowski]

And it is easy to see that not getting this point has everything to do with putting human over divine values and concerns.

Well it kind of does. Everyone wants to get the honor of a "high calling" but what they don't know is that "high callings" with "authority over people" come with phone calls at 3 AM that you MUST answer, and view that as a blessing.

And incidentally, while we are talking about women, every woman who is a mother knows exactly what I am talking about. It's the same thing. "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world". You want authority over people? Be a mom.

Edited January 21, 2012 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

Well it kind of does. Everyone wants to get the honor of a "high calling" but what they don't know is that "high callings" with "authority over people" come with phone calls at 3 AM that you MUST answer, and view that as a blessing.

And incidentally, while we are talking about women, every woman who is a mother knows exactly what I am talking about. It's the same thing. "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world". You want authority over people? Be a mom.

I agree--but a humanist-who-wants-alternate-doctrine-and-still-be-called-a-Mormon sees Mormon priesthood as having "authority over people", his version of the doctrine, if he sees it as having authroity over people, would likely not very much reflect D&C 121 and I wouldn't want to be in his subordinates' shoes.

I was avoiding talking about women! But I would still argue that there is a natural, inate authrority with comes with either gender's role, outside of what we recognize as conferred-upon priesthood, and even outside of personality (and outside of skill, ability, knowledge and interst) that comes with spousehood and parenthood. Still, I think the LDS view favors that this kind of authourity is a divine talent we are given and is also in the form of stewardship, that we are stewards of God's children that are born to us, and not their overseers. This I think fits with the point you made that the greatest is the servant of all.

[Damien the Leper]

I reject your dismissive mischaracterisation of my comments; but I stand by what I actually said. Your self-styled "Mormon humanists" define "Mormon" as "someone who identifies with the history, culture and future of the LDS way of life," and then spend the next three of their four points rejecting just about everything that defines anyone as a Latter-day Saint.

So it is apparent to me that their attempt to co-opt (or hijack) the term "Mormon" for themselves may serve some need of their own, but it doesn't actually communicate anything relevant to anyone else.

Regards,

Pahoran

Thank you for clarifying. I sincerely apologize for misunderstanding your post and intent.

[selek1]

I don't many Mormons would consider anything Joseph Smith taught to be heretical. Heterodox by today's standards, maybe, but not heretical. Smith said, for example:

"And not only that, but to contemplate the saying that they will be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit and enjoy the same glory, powers, and exaltation until you ascend a throne of eternal power, and arrive at the station of a God, the same as those who have gone before....When I get my kingdom, I will give it to the Father and it will add to and exalt His glory.

He will take a higher exaltation and I will take His place

and I am also exalted, so that he obtains kingdom rolling upon kingdom." (King Follett sermon, Larsen amalgamation)

The problem with this diatribe is that- as even you admit (courtesy of your citation)- is that these words are someone else's recollection of what Joseph said, imbued them with your own spin.

Or to put it more succinctly, the heresy involved belongs not to Joseph, but rather to Cobalt-70.

While many Mormons accept the King Follett discourse at face value (where it harmonizes with other teachings of the Church), there are simply no first-hand, authoritative statements made by Joseph himself which support your claim.

As a result, your sleight-of-hand fails (yet again) upon close examination by those familiar with actual Mormon thought.

CFR. Also, how do you explain the fact that in the 19th century, Mormon women, some of whom had not even been to the temple, were encouraged to give priesthood blessings of healing despite their lack of any priesthood authority or office?

Right back at ya- I am aware that Mormon women in the past (and occasionally in the present) are asked to give blessings of faith- but that is rather different than the power and authority of the priesthood.

Also, as you yourself admit, they were encouraged to give blessings of healing. By whom were they encouraged? By their priesthood leaders.

At worst, this could be described as delegation of a sort, but it was still accomplished through the power and authority of God. Had he not endorsed it, no healing would have taken place.

Also, you did not say, and cannot say, the converse, that without priesthood power, there is no authority, because that hypothesis, at least, is excluded by scripture. See D&C 121:34-36. Thus, priesthood authority and power are not the same thing.

These verses don't mean what you pretend, as is made clear by verse 37:

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

Priesthood power and authority can only be wielded in righteousness.

When sin- particularly pride and the lust for power- overtake a priesthood holder, his authority and power are withdrawn- to be restored only upon repentance. Repentance how? By forsaking the sin and confessing them before God and his appointed judges.

And, as you will note, verse 37 particularly references conferred authority. Conferred by whom? By God through the hands of his anointed.

That's like saying that there was never a time that Joseph Smith was not Joseph Smith. Yes, Smith was always himself. But he was not, for example, always a mortal. Likewise, God was God--he was always himself--but he was not always a god, except in the sense that we all are gods. Joseph Smith taught that "He once was a man like one of us,....[and] once dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did in the flesh and like us." (King Follett sermon, Larsen amalgamation).

Once again, you are putting words (and false theology) in Joseph Smith's mouth.

Your theology don't belong there- no matter how much you might attempt to twist Joseph's words to fit your itching ears.

Similarly, Smith stated, "You have got to learn how to make yourselves Gods in order to save yourselves and be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done--by going from a small capacity to a great capacity." (Id.) If all gods have "started small," merely as kings and priests to another god, as Smith suggests, and then they learn how to make themselves gods, then God was not always a god.

That is your interpretation of a third-hand account.

Here, on the other hand, are the authoritative words of an Apostle of the Lord:

There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is learning new truths.

This is false--utterly, totally, and completely. There is not one sliver of truth in it. It grows out of a wholly twisted and incorrect view of the King Follett Sermon and of what is meant by eternal progression.

God progresses in the sense that his kingdoms increase and his dominions multiply--not in the sense that he learns new truths and discovers new laws. God is not a student. He is not a laboratory technician. He is not postulating new theories on the basis of past experiences. He has indeed graduated to that state of exaltation that consists of knowing all things and having all power.

The life that God lives is named eternal life. His name, one of them, is "Eternal," using that word as a noun and not as an adjective, and he uses that name to identify the type of life that he lives. God's life is eternal life, and eternal life is God's life. They are one and the same. Eternal life is the reward we shall obtain if we believe and obey and walk uprightly before him. And eternal life consists of two things. It consists of life in the family unit, and, also, of inheriting, receiving, and possessing the fullness of the glory of the Father. Anyone who has each of these things is an inheritor and possessor of the greatest of all gifts of God, which is eternal life.

Eternal progression consists of living the kind of life God lives and of increasing in kingdoms and dominions everlastingly. Why anyone should suppose that an infinite and eternal being who has presided in our universe for almost 2,555,000,000 years, who made the sidereal heavens, whose creations are more numerous than the particles of the earth, and who is aware of the fall of every sparrow--why anyone would suppose that such a being has more to learn and new truths to discover in the laboratories of eternity is totally beyond my comprehension.

Will he one day learn something that will destroy the plan of salvation and turn man and the universe into an uncreated nothingness? Will he discover a better plan of salvation than the one he has already given to men in worlds without number?

The saving truth, as revealed to and taught, formally and officially, by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the Lectures on Faith is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He knows all things, he has all power, and he is everywhere present by the power of his Spirit. And unless we know and believe this doctrine we cannot gain faith unto life and salvation.

Joseph Smith also taught in the Lectures on Faith "that three things are necessary in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation." These he named as--

1. The idea that he actually exists;

2. A correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes; and

3. An actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing is according to the divine will.

The attributes of God are given as knowledge, faith or power, justice, judgment, mercy, and truth. The perfections of God are named as "the perfections which belong to all of the attributes of his nature," which is to say that God possesses and has all knowledge, all faith or power, all justice, all judgment, all mercy, and all truth. He is indeed the very embodiment and personification and source of all these attributes. Does anyone suppose that God can be more honest than he already is? Neither need any suppose there are truths he does not know or knowledge he does not possess.

Thus Joseph Smith taught, and these are his words:

Without the knowledge of all things, God would not be able to save any portion of his creatures; for it is by reason of the knowledge which he has of all things, from the beginning to the end, that enables him to give that understanding to his creatures by which they are made partakers of eternal life; and if it were not for the idea existing in the minds of men that God had all knowledge it would be impossible for them to exercise faith in him.

[As quoted by Bruce R. McConkie in Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), p.264]

Edited January 22, 2012 by selek1

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

(Every time someone quotes Mormon Doctrine as if its unauthorized expansions and unapproved hyperbole were, in fact, "Mormon Doctrine", I feel a rather desperate need to point out that its unauthorized expansions and unapproved hyperbole are actually, in point of fact, unauthorized expansions and unapproved hyperbole.)

(Cobalt won that round, by the way.)

[selek1]

(Every time someone quotes Mormon Doctrine as if its unauthorized expansions and unapproved hyperbole were, in fact, "Mormon Doctrine", I feel a rather desperate need to point out that its unauthorized expansions and unapproved hyperbole are actually, in point of fact, unauthorized expansions and unapproved hyperbole.)

Of course, if I were quoting the original version of Mormon Doctrine, you might have a point.

Those actually familiar with the subject matter, however will realize two things:

First, that the Seven Deadly Heresies talk was given nearly twenty years after the Mormon Doctrine controversy, and after McConkie's calling as an Apostle.

It was a stand-alone address given in 1980 (22 years after the initial publication of Mormon Doctrine and 14 years after the revised version was published)

The talk in question has never been questioned or refuted by those in authority within the Church, and in fact is recorded, cited, and referenced in the Church's official, correlated teaching materials.

Second, that despite the rocky road following the publication of the first edition of Mormon Doctrine, the second edition was published with the approval of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

Finally, it must be pointed out that McConkie was a faithful Apostle in good standing.

To be perfectly blunt, the ritual cursing, feigned, urbane horror, and making of hex signs at the mere mention of McConkie's name do not disqualify him as an Apostle and Prophet of the Lord.

Despite the attempt to smear McConkie's name and memory, he was called to the Quorum of the Twelve in 1972- 15 years after the controversy, and was responsible for much of the Bible Dictionary in our current canon. That dictionary borrows heavily from the revised edition of Mormon Doctrine.

McConkie's mission to Australia and his later call as an Apostle by Presidents Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee are perfect witnesses to their trust and affection for the man.

In extending the call, President Lee is reported to have put his arms around McConkie and said, "The Lord and the Brethren have just called you to fill the vacancy in the Council of the Twelve."

Think hard on that before you throw stones at the man. The Lord and the Brethren (the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve) called him to that post.

All of these facts should finally put to rest the execrable speculation and malignant gossip about McConkie's "rogue" status or his alleged lack of fitness for the post to which he was called.

In point of fact, the only "unauthorized expansions and unapproved hyperbole" in this thread come from those seeking to dismiss a Prophet of God and twist Doctrine into something unrecognizable.

Lay your salt lines and shake your bone-rattles all you like, McConkie's words are those of an Apostle of Jesus Christ in good standing, who spoke with the authority and keys of the Priesthood.

Gnash your teeth, tear your hair, and wail at the Heavens- but McConkie's words are true, doctrinal, and binding upon the Church- and a more accurate reflection of true Mormon theology than those of anonymous apostates, ark-steadiers, and caferia-Mormons posting on a message board.

Given the facts on hand, I'm remarkably less than concerned about where those on the sidelines think the score stands than might otherwise be the case.

Edited January 22, 2012 by selek1

[mfbukowski]

Phew.

Wow dude, why don't you just come out and say what you mean?

[LDSToronto]

Um, Selek?

“As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.” ~Lorenzo Snow (found at lds.org )

“God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make Himself visible,—I say, if you were to see Him today, you would see Him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another. …

“… Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach Him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer. When we understand the character of God, and know how to come to Him, He begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to Him, He is ready to come to us.” - History of the Church, 6:303–5, 308; capitalization modernized; paragraph divisions altered; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on Apr. 7, 1844, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Wilford Woodruff, Willard Richards, Thomas Bullock, and William Clayton; see also the appendix in this book, page 562, item 3. (found at lds.org)

"He is our Father - the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being." -Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 7, p. 333.

“The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself.” - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 3, p. 93.

I was really cheering for you, Selek! Sorry!

H.

[selek1]

Um, Selek?

“As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.” ~Lorenzo Snow (found at lds.org )

“God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make Himself visible,—I say, if you were to see Him today, you would see Him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another. …

“… Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach Him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer. When we understand the character of God, and know how to come to Him, He begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to Him, He is ready to come to us.” - History of the Church, 6:303–5, 308; capitalization modernized; paragraph divisions altered; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on Apr. 7, 1844, in Nauvoo, Illinois; reported by Wilford Woodruff, Willard Richards, Thomas Bullock, and William Clayton; see also the appendix in this book, page 562, item 3. (found at lds.org)

"He is our Father - the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted being." -Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 7, p. 333.

“The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself.” - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 3, p. 93.

None of which contradict my point or the doctrinal evidence I presented.

[LDSToronto]

None of which contradict my point or the doctrinal evidence I presented.

Oh, I thought you were claiming the King Follet discourse was unreliable and the whole "man can become a God thing" was not a teaching of the Church, when clearly the church teaches it.

My bad.

H.

[Cobalt-70]

Priesthood authority is never over other people. It is over doctrines, covenants, ordinances, service and invitations extended to other people.

Authority is the right to "authorize." Thus, authority over "doctrines" means you may control what people may legitimately believe in order to remain in good standing in the church. For some people, it also means that you may authorize people to believe in particular things, or require them to cease teaching or believing in particular doctrines, as a condition of church standing. Authority over covenants and ordinances means that you may authorize people to participate in covenants and ordinances. Service is not an authority, nor is extending invitations, because anybody, regardless of their priesthood office, can do either of these things.

[selek1]

Authority is the right to "authorize." Thus, authority over "doctrines" means you may control what people may legitimately believe in order to remain in good standing in the church. For some people, it also means that you may authorize people to believe in particular things, or require them to cease teaching or believing in particular doctrines, as a condition of church standing. Authority over covenants and ordinances means that you may authorize people to participate in covenants and ordinances. Service is not an authority, nor is extending invitations, because anybody, regardless of their priesthood office, can do either of these things.

From the Chapter of the Doctrine and Covenants you yourself cited above:

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—

[mfbukowski]

Authority is the right to "authorize."

And sleeping pills put you to sleep by their faculty to do so.

Unfortunately, this doesn't say much.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dormitive_principle

[selek1]

And sleeping pills put you to sleep by their faculty to do so.

Unfortunately, this doesn't say much.

http://en.wiktionary...itive_principle

You are correct- though I must admit that the intellectual and doctrinal rigor of certain factions in this thread is certainly putting me to sleep.

[CV75]

Authority is the right to "authorize." Thus, authority over "doctrines" means you may control what people may legitimately believe in order to remain in good standing in the church. For some people, it also means that you may authorize people to believe in particular things, or require them to cease teaching or believing in particular doctrines, as a condition of church standing. Authority over covenants and ordinances means that you may authorize people to participate in covenants and ordinances. Service is not an authority, nor is extending invitations, because anybody, regardless of their priesthood office, can do either of these things.

I think this mischaracterizes priesthood authority in the LDS Church, and so I disagree. No one can control what someone believes in order to remain in good standing in the Church--good standing depends entirely on what a member does with his belief, not what he believes. This is where authorizing members to receive covenants and ordinances comes into play. Priesthood authority allows a particular kind of service and invitation that not just any/everyone can do (temple work, extending callings).

Likewise, no member is authorized to believe anything. An member can believe what he wants, when, why and how he wants. Imposing on one’s agency is antithetical to proper priesthood authority and righteous dominion.

[Cobalt-70]

In the church, authority and service are two sides of the same coin. He who has more "authority" is the servent to more people. Ask any bishop about his "authority" over people.

Christ had ultimate authority, and he made the ultimate act of service.

Service is required and expected of all who are in authority within the LDS Church. However, service is not itself authority. The ultimate expression of direct authority in the LDS Church is the right of bishops and stake presidents to decide who can enter the temple, and the right of stake high councils to determine who should be excommunicated. Another example is the charismatic authority (see Max Weber, Theory of Social and Economic Organization) exercised by presidents of the LDS Church.

[Cobalt-70]

The problem with this diatribe is that- as even you admit (courtesy of your citation)- is that these words are someone else's recollection of what Joseph said, imbued them with your own spin.

...

While many Mormons accept the King Follett discourse at face value (where it harmonizes with other teachings of the Church), there are simply no first-hand, authoritative statements made by Joseph himself which support your claim.

Actually, no. These are the words of Joseph Smith, as written contemporaneously by four independent listeners. See https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=5321. The King Follett sermon is one of Smith's best-attested sermons, and Stan Larsen's amalgamation in BYU Studies is the best available reconstruction of that sermon.

Right back at ya- I am aware that Mormon women in the past (and occasionally in the present) are asked to give blessings of faith- but that is rather different than the power and authority of the priesthood.

Also, as you yourself admit, they were encouraged to give blessings of healing. By whom were they encouraged? By their priesthood leaders.

And also by their Relief Society leaders. Yet more importantly is the description by these leaders of where this power comes from: either the endowment, or apparently as an innate power of motherhood. These women did not need permission from a male priesthood leader to perform these blessings.

Priesthood power and authority can only be wielded in righteousness.

When sin- particularly pride and the lust for power- overtake a priesthood holder, his authority and power are withdrawn- to be restored only upon repentance. Repentance how? By forsaking the sin and confessing them before God and his appointed judges.

And, as you will note, verse 37 particularly references conferred authority. Conferred by whom? By God through the hands of his anointed.

Priesthood authority can be wielded in unrighteousness. However, priesthood power cannot, which is the point of D&C 121. D&C 121:36 says that you may be conferred priesthood authority, but unless you are righteous, you have no power. Priesthood power and authority are separate things, and come from separate sources.