zerinus Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 When women or men participate in the temple liturgy, whether by being born in the covenant or being sealed in marriage or being initiated, they form a part of the "priesthood." The "endowment of power" of the June 1831 conference or the 1836 solemn assembly was filtered through this new priesthood network; consequently when participents (whther male or female, single or married) are "endowed" in the temple, they seek power within this newer (cosmological) priesthood.So the authority women exercise would be part of this "cosmological" priesthood, if I understand you correctly.This is a bit complex as the qualifications for those who administer these rituals appears to have shifted a bit, but generally, I think that is accurate.What you appear to be saying is that the mere act of participating in the endowment ceremony and sealing ceremony in the temple automatically confers a kind of "cosmological" priesthood on the participants (men or women). That does not appear to me to conform to the message conveyed by the endowment ceremony. At the beginning of the endowment, the participants are promised that a day will come when they will be called up and appointed "kings and priests, queens and priestesses" in the kingdom of God; but that the endowment ceremony by itself does not confer that privilege. Sisters can perform certain "priesthood" functions or duties for those of the same sex in the temple by a special delegation of authority from one holding the appropriate keys, without necessarily possessing the priesthood authority by which it is performed.
splendidsun Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 Zerinus, did you happen to read the link about my usage of the term "cosmological priesthood"?
LDSToronto Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 What I was trying to point out was that when "priesthood" or "priest" or "priestess" is used in the temple it is talking about something that is different than the older administrative priesthoods we are familiar with in the Church. CFR.
zerinus Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) Zerinus, did you happen to read the link about my usage of the term "cosmological priesthood"?I hadn't before, but now I have; and it hasn't altered anything from the point of view of my previous post. I am not really sure what it is that you are trying to convey with regard to the Church's current temple ordinances and ceremonies. Are you suggesting that they confer some kind of "priesthood" or not (call it "cosmic" or whatever you like)? If your answer is Yes, then my previous reply still applies. If your answer is No, then you need to give further explanation what it is that you are trying to say. Edited March 16, 2012 by zerinus
LDSToronto Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 I've read the paper by Stapley - this cosmological priesthood sounds like pure speculation to me. H.
Cobalt-70 Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) I think there is an important (even if it is only slight) difference between being given authority to preform a specific ordinance in the temple for members of the same sex, and holding / being ordained to the priesthood. Especially if you claim they are ordained to the melchezidic priesthoodA women who performs a temple ordinance is acting in a priestly role on behalf of god to perform symbolic acts that are bound in heaven. How could she do that if she had not been endowed with the priesthood? If what you bind on earth is bound in heaven, then by definition you have the priesthood. There is no theological reason why you have to be a priesthood officer in order to "have the priesthood." Edited March 16, 2012 by Cobalt-70
zerinus Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 I've read the paper by Stapley - this cosmological priesthood sounds like pure speculation to me.H.I have read the extract that he had linked to, and I confess that I am not really following it. In LDS scripture there are passages in which the priesthood is spoken of in a generic sense, as "the priesthood," or "high priest," without referring to a particular office or branch of that priesthood. That is nothing new, and inventing a new name for it like "cosmological priesthood" does not appear to be necessary to clarify the issue.
Saints Alive Posted March 16, 2012 Author Posted March 16, 2012 A women who performs a temple ordinance is acting in a priestly role on behalf of god to perform symbolic acts that are bound in heaven. How could she do that if she had not been endowed with the priesthood? If what you bind on earth is bound in heaven, then by definition you have the priesthood. There is no theological reason why you have to be a priesthood officer in order to "have the priesthood."women dont bind anything in the temple though, all they do is wash and anoint which they used to do for the sick without any priesthood authority but through their faith.
LDSToronto Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 I have read the extract that he had linked to, and I confess that I am not really following it. In LDS scripture there are passages in which the priesthood is spoken of in a generic sense, as "the priesthood," or "high priest," without referring to a particular office or branch of that priesthood. That is nothing new, and inventing a new name for it like "cosmological priesthood" does not appear to be necessary to clarify the issue.Agreed.
Cobalt-70 Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 If I may go out on a limb and speculate a bit...All, male, female, bond, and free are born with the priesthood and the ordination or appointment only gives one the authority or approval of God to use it. In other words being ordained or conferred a particular priesthood doesn't change the individual it just gives him the right to act in that office.I wouldn't go that far. I don't think Mormon canon and early Mormon theology supports it being universal. But there were many mechanisms recognized from which priesthood arises, including the endowment, lineage, foreordination (Alma 13:3), "a virtuous life & conversation & diligence in keeping the commandments" (J.S. Journal, 28 April 1842), the Second Anointing (which actually gave women priesthood keys of presidency and queenhood), and motherhood.
Saints Alive Posted March 16, 2012 Author Posted March 16, 2012 the Second Anointing (which actually gave women priesthood keys of presidency and queenhood), and motherhood.I wasn't going to bring that up, but given the promises of the endowment I would say there is a strong case to believe that women who have been through it do legitimately hold the priesthood.
Cobalt-70 Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) What you appear to be saying is that the mere act of participating in the endowment ceremony and sealing ceremony in the temple automatically confers a kind of "cosmological" priesthood on the participants (men or women). That does not appear to me to conform to the message conveyed by the endowment ceremony. At the beginning of the endowment, the participants are promised that a day will come when they will be called up and appointed "kings and priests, queens and priestesses" in the kingdom of God; but that the endowment ceremony by itself does not confer that privilege. Sisters can perform certain "priesthood" functions or duties for those of the same sex in the temple by a special delegation of authority from one holding the appropriate keys, without necessarily possessing the priesthood authority by which it is performed.In the endowment, women receive the priesthood, but not necessarily any priesthood keys. In the 19th century, women automatically received the keys to give priesthood blessings to women and children, a set of keys that has apparently been revoked. Those women who participate in the Second Anointing are actually given the keys of queenhood and priestesshood. Also, those who are set apart as temple workers are given very specific priesthood keys to perform a specific ordinance. Women are given a car and a driver's license, but aren't allowed to touch the keys. Edited March 16, 2012 by Cobalt-70 1
splendidsun Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 I guess you can call it whatever you want. But I think that presentist readings of the Nauvoo era sources is folly. My attempt to approach the sources and the "priesthood" language surrounding the temple quorum is going to seem incongruous with the modern temple discourse, because we don't talk that way anymore.
KevinG Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 I guess you can call it whatever you want. But I think that presentist readings of the Nauvoo era sources is folly. My attempt to approach the sources and the "priesthood" language surrounding the temple quorum is going to seem incongruous with the modern temple discourse, because we don't talk that way anymore.Thou doest not kid!
zerinus Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 I guess you can call it whatever you want. But I think that presentist readings of the Nauvoo era sources is folly. My attempt to approach the sources and the "priesthood" language surrounding the temple quorum is going to seem incongruous with the modern temple discourse, because we don't talk that way anymore.That language is also found in the Book of Mormon (e.g. Alma 13:1-20), which Mormons read all the time. How much "presentist" do you want it to be?
splendidsun Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 Zerinus, I think perhaps that I am reffering to different sources than you are.
Cobalt-70 Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 That language is also found in the Book of Mormon (e.g. Alma 13:1-20), which Mormons read all the time. How much "presentist" do you want it to be?Mormons read Alma 13:1-20, but they don't read it closely enough, or take it seriously. Alma 13 states that some people are foreordained. That is, they are called and ordained to the the Holy order of (Melchizedek) priesthood before they were born, as a result of their exceeding faith and good works. They are not, in other words, ordained through the laying on of hands. Rather, their priesthood is foreordained (as a result of God's foreknowledge) and is without beginning or end.
mfbukowski Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 What you appear to be saying is that the mere act of participating in the endowment ceremony and sealing ceremony in the temple automatically confers a kind of "cosmological" priesthood on the participants (men or women). That does not appear to me to conform to the message conveyed by the endowment ceremony. At the beginning of the endowment, the participants are promised that a day will come when they will be called up and appointed "kings and priests, queens and priestesses" in the kingdom of God; but that the endowment ceremony by itself does not confer that privilege. Sisters can perform certain "priesthood" functions or duties for those of the same sex in the temple by a special delegation of authority from one holding the appropriate keys, without necessarily possessing the priesthood authority by which it is performed.But what you are not taking into account is that the "day that will come" can be during this life- not necessarily in the next.
mfbukowski Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 women dont bind anything in the temple though, all they do is wash and anoint which they used to do for the sick without any priesthood authority but through their faith.Not so. They seal annointings and other blessings which have eternal consequences for the recipients.
Saints Alive Posted March 16, 2012 Author Posted March 16, 2012 My understand of Christ saying "what soever you bind..." is that he was referring to eternal marriage, the sealing of generations and not sealing blessings / anointings. Not saying you are nessisarily wrong thought.
mfbukowski Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 Thou doest not kid!NO no no no- get it right for Pete's sake!It's "Thou Kiddeth Not!"Cheesh!
mfbukowski Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 My understand of Christ saying "what soever you bind..." is that he was referring to eternal marriage, the sealing of generations and not sealing blessings / anointings. Not saying you are nessisarily wrong thought.Are initiatories required before one can be sealed in an eternal marriage? Isn't the sealing ordinance actually part of "the endowment"? Isn't there a portion of the the endowment which must be repeated before one is sealed if the sister to be sealed has already been endowed? Doesn't the endowment as presently done refer to previous ordinances making the initiatories also part of the endowment? Isn't the whole endowment really one huge symphony of ordinances beginning with initiatories and ending with sealings? 1
Saints Alive Posted March 16, 2012 Author Posted March 16, 2012 Are initiatories required before one can be sealed in an eternal marriage? Isn't the sealing ordinance actually part of "the endowment"? Isn't there a portion of the the endowment which must be repeated before one is sealed if the sister to be sealed has already been endowed? Doesn't the endowment as presently done refer to previous ordinances making the initiatories also part of the endowment? Isn't the whole endowment really one huge symphony of ordinances beginning with initiatories and ending with sealings?I don't think so, by that logic baptism and ordination to the priesthood would also be apart of the endowment. The sealing is related to the endowment but I would never say it is a part of it. I do believe men were sealed to multiple women before they were endowed but I could be wrong on that.
mfbukowski Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 I think I'm going with splendidsun on this one. I might not use the term "cosmological priesthood" but I think there is clearly an office-less portion to the priesthood since there are two separate steps now used in conferring the priesthood- the first is the conferral and the second is the ordaining to an office.Clearly you can have one without the other. Also remember 1 Peter- "chosen generation," "holy people"- admittedly that is not conclusive, but I think there must be something to it. Combine that with the second annointing and sisters performing priesthood ordinances- I don't know how you can conclude that women do not share in the priesthood.
mfbukowski Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 I don't think so, by that logic baptism and ordination to the priesthood would also be apart of the endowment. The sealing is related to the endowment but I would never say it is a part of it. I do believe men were sealed to multiple women before they were endowed but I could be wrong on that.Strongly disagree. No sense arguing about it.
Recommended Posts