"Priesthood Holder" (A Unique "Mormonism"?)

[Moon Quaker]

Just the other day (at my place of employment [in Utah, obviously]) a lady came to the desk inquiring if there were any priesthood holders on-duty who might be able to give a blessing. In my department at that very moment, it was just me (a Mormon-turned-atheist) and two other women (one being a TBM [about to go on a mission] and the other, a non-Mormon.) Naturally, the TBM woman who took the matter into her hands to locate someone who could give a priesthood blessing.

Knowing that I've "done the whole nine yards" (in fact, I'm the only RM in our department) she has come to me with questions about the logistics of going through the temple for the first time and going on a mission. But she's fully aware that I'm an "apostate." So I joked that it was a shame that I was "unworthy," otherwise I could take care of the matter (eventually she located someone [a recent RM] working in another department.)

Anyway, at this point, the non-Mormon girl's curiosity became apparent (I'm pretty sure she wasn't even familiar with the concept of "laying on of hands," so this was entirely new to her.)

"Is it like magic?" she asked.

I just smiled and let the TBM girl do all the explaining.

"A priesthood holder is someone ..."

"... priesthood holder [this] ... priesthood holder [that] ..."

etc.

The TBM was clearly explaining things to the non-Mormon girl as if she were a Mormon or understood all-things Mormon. In watching it all unfold, I could tell that the non-Mormon girl wasn't really taking it in as the TBM was intending her to (i.e., she [the non-Mormon] had said she thought it was neat; giving the vibe that it was Harry Potter magic-neat or Use the Force-neat, NOT I'm very intrigued, please tell me more and please send the missionaries to my house-neat.)

---

But I got to thinking, outside of Mormonism, the term "priesthood holder" doesn't make much sense. Outside of Mormonism, "priesthood" is merely a collective body of priests, akin to "brotherhood" (i.e., a person is not a "brotherhood holder." Instead, a person simply belongs to a brotherhood.) It seems safe to say that:

• What Mormons call a "priesthood holder," non-Mormons would simply call a "priest" (just Google "priesthood holder;" all hits are LDS-related.)
  
• What Mormons generally call a "quorum," non-Mormons refer to as "priesthood."
  
• What Mormons call "priesthood," non-Mormons would simply refer to as "God's power/authority" that accompanies belonging to the priesthood.
  

Anyway, I'm just wondering if anyone knows the linguistic history behind the LDS church's use of [the word] "priesthood" and how/why it has come to mean what it does.

[thesometimesaint]

Moon Quaker:

Long time no see. Good to see you back.

Priesthood isn't particularly Mormoncentic. It is specific to the Bible.

[zerinus]

Anyway, I'm just wondering if anyone knows the linguistic history behind the LDS church's use of [the word] "priesthood" and how/why it has come to mean what it does.

The origin of it is actually scripture. Take a look at this search result for "priesthood" in the standard works.

[Moon Quaker]

What I should really be asking is if anyone knows why non-Mormon Christians and Mormons use the word "priesthood" differently.

:-)

[mapman]

Interesting question. The first definition in the Oxford English Dictionary is "The office or function of a priest; the condition or status of being a priest; the order of priest" which is kind of similar to how it is used by Mormons. The second definition is "Priests collectively; a body of priests. Also fig.", which is what you describe as being the common usage. The 1828 dictionary defines it as "The office or character of a priest; The order of men set apart for sacred offices; the order composed of priests." I'd guess that the Mormon definition evolved out of the first definition due to revelations about the priesthood.

Edited June 18, 2012 by mapman

[zerinus]

What I should really be asking is if anyone knows why non-Mormon Christians and Mormons use the word "priesthood" differently.

:-)

The answer is still the same. It is in the scriptures, especially the modern scriptures of the Church. If you studied carefully all the references I gave, you will realise that that peculiar Mormon understanding of the priesthood is derived from them.

[selek1]

What I should really be asking is if anyone knows why non-Mormon Christians and Mormons use the word "priesthood" differently.

:-)

Probably because most religions (unlike Mormonism) hold the Priesthood (clergy) as a separate, specific class separate and apart from the laity. In that environment, only two terms ("us" and "them" is accurate, but potenitally inflammatory ) are really needed.

When every (worthy) male in the Church holds some degree of Priesthood authority, "clergy" becomes outmoded, awkward, and cumbersome. We refer to "priesthood holders" because we have no clergy, as such- but the ordinances in question need to be performed by someone holding the authority to do so.

[Robert F. Smith]

Probably because most religions (unlike Mormonism) hold the Priesthood (clergy) as a separate, specific class separate and apart from the laity. In that environment, only two terms ("us" and "them" is accurate, but potenitally inflammatory ) are really needed.

When every (worthy) male in the Church holds some degree of Priesthood authority, "clergy" becomes outmoded, awkward, and cumbersome. We refer to "priesthood holders" because we have no clergy, as such- but the ordinances in question need to be performed by someone holding the authority to do so.

You are correct, except that the term "priesthood holders" does not occur in Scripture, and it is not entirely true that the LDS have no clergy.

The term "clergy" comes from "cleric," referring to the fact that centuries ago all those being educated in colleges took holy orders (priesthood), and you can still see that in the robes worn by college graduates to this very day. If you could read and write, you were likely a college graduate, and therefore a member of the priesthood.

Today the notion of a full-time paid clergy applies only to LDS General Authorities, religion instructors paid by CES, and LDS chaplains with the Armed Forces, all of whom might be defined as a special class of priesthood. However, the volunteer nature of most of the esoteric ordinance work done in LDS temples, might lead to expansion of that to another special class of priesthood: Ordinance Workers. Still another class of volunteers are the various types of full time missionaries, older adult and younger, male and female, who serve on proselytizing as well as temple missions (not to mention welfare missions). Most of these are full-time assignments for around 2 to 3 years. All probably ought to be regarded as a special type of priesthood assignment or category, i.e., full-time LDS missionaries receive an official document declaring them to be ministers of the Gospel.

Unlike Roman Catholic and most Protestant denominations, this does not include any formal theological seminary training.

All this aside from the formal place within LDS theology of the lineal priesthood of Aaron -- within Judaism (D&C 68:15-20, 107:13-87), even though it does not play an active part in LDS practice currently.

[selek1]

Today the notion of a full-time paid clergy applies only to LDS General Authorities, religion instructors paid by CES, and LDS chaplains with the Armed Forces, all of whom might be defined as a special class of priesthood.

You will find a very active level of disagreement and argument on this point.

There are very few LDS who would agree with this categorization without proviso or qualification.

[Cobalt-70]

The LDS Scriptures refer to "holding" keys and rights. There are also a few references to "holding" a priesthood "power" ((D&C 113:8, 132:7). But saying that we "hold the priesthood" is something rather different. Saying that you hold keys, rights, or powers, is a statement that you have been delegated these things from God, in a somewhat legal or covenantal sense. "Holding the priesthood" is a little bit more magical. Instead of owning rights within the priesthood, you own the priesthood itself. You, rather than God, are the supernatural force.

[selek1]

But saying that we "hold the priesthood" is something rather different. Saying that you hold keys, rights, or powers, is a statement that you have been delegated these things from God, in a somewhat legal or covenantal sense. "Holding the priesthood" is a little bit more magical. Instead of owning rights within the priesthood, you own the priesthood itself. You, rather than God, are the supernatural force.

Imputing such a position to a faithful LDS priesthood holder is ludicrous beyond laughable- it is a deliberate perversion of the English language and an act of blatant demagoguery.

An office-holder does not own the office- he is elected by and remains accountable to the people.

No faithful (and sane) priesthood holder would pretend, presume, or claim to own the Priesthood. We know all too well that all Priesthood authority is delegated. The efficacy of any blessing or ordinance is predicated on the Lord's will and the faith of the recipient.

The proof in the pudding is in the wording of the ordinances themselves: everything we do through the Priesthood is done as as directed by the Holy Spirit, and/or in the name of either Heaven Father or Jesus Christ.

Our ordinances and pracies do not (and cannot) arrogate power or authority to ourselves, but rather cite the source of that power and authority.

To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

To genuinely believe otherwise represents a stunning and fatal (to your argument) lack of familiarity with LDS theology, belief, culture, and practice.

Edited June 19, 2012 by selek1

[Robert F. Smith]

You will find a very active level of disagreement and argument on this point.

There are very few LDS who would agree with this categorization without proviso or qualification.

That may well be true, but public opinion has little to do with the existence of large numbers of CES religion teachers who often make a career of teaching in the Church seminary, institute, and college system, along with LDS military officers who make a career of the chaplaincy. People in or out of the Church may give little thought to the reality of such clergy, and will generally speak of any such career person as a "layman."

However, this may differ little from the notion of the "priesthood of the believer" in evangelicalism, in that when everyone is a priesthood holder the egalitarian nature of the matter makes it seem very much like there is nothing but a lay priesthood in the LDS Church -- even though there are LDS men who commit there lives to that permanent job and get paid for it. No one will suggest, I hope, that BYU Professor Robert Millett is a layman, or that the very cordial debates he has with evangelical ministers is of the "Aw shucks" variety. And before him it was Professor Stephen Robinson. These guys didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday afternoon.

I'd like to see a sociological analysis of that entire phenomenon, including a look at the difference between Roman Catholic parish priests and the great Roman Catholic scholars who also happen to be members of holy orders (especially the Jesuits).

[selek1]

That may well be true, but public opinion has little to do with the existence of large numbers of CES religion teachers who often make a career of teaching in the Church seminary, institute, and college system, along with LDS military officers who make a career of the chaplaincy.

Nor is "public opinion" necessarily the yardstick by which truth is measured.

I would submit that in the case of CES religion teachers and LDS chaplains, their Priesthood qualification (while admittedly a necessary qualification for the career paths they have chosen) is necessarily secondary to their other qualifications. A CES teacher, in my opinion, is a teacher first, and a Priesthood holder second. Likewise an LDS chaplain in military service is a chaplain (and military officer) first, a Priesthood holder, second. The fact that they hold the Priesthood is incidental to their day-to-day duties and responsibilities.

In neither case do they qualify as "clergy" under the conventional definition and usage of the term- though the line is substantially blurred vis-a-vis a military Chaplain.

In neither case are they being paid specifically for their specific, sectarian religious function.

People in or out of the Church may give little thought to the reality of such clergy, and will generally speak of any such career person as a "layman."

And they would be correct to do so. The LDS do not have a separate "priestly" class or caste.

However, this may differ little from the notion of the "priesthood of the believer" in evangelicalism, in that when everyone is a priesthood holder the egalitarian nature of the matter makes it seem very much like there is nothing but a lay priesthood in the LDS Church -- even though there are LDS men who commit there lives to that permanent job and get paid for it.

There are a number of issues here that need to be addressed.

First and foremost, there is a distinct difference between the LDS lay priesthood (to which one must be ordained through proper authority) and the "priesthood of the believer" in which negateds the very notion of "proper authority".

In the most basic terms, LDS thought on the matter can be summed up (with some qualifier) as " whosoever will thrust in his sickle and reap (ie, covenant with the Lord and receive the appropriate ordinations) , the same is called of God".

The "priesthood of all believers", on the other hand is predicated on the idea that no call is necessary or forthcoming. He who calls himself is called of God.

No one will suggest, I hope, that BYU Professor Robert Millett is a layman, or that the very cordial debates he has with evangelical ministers is of the "Aw shucks" variety.

I don't believe that one necessarily follows the other.

Professor Millet is highly respected theologian and educator, well-educated, and extraordinarily well-spoken: but he is not a member of a separate or exclusive "priestly" class- he is therefore "laity", rather than "clergy" in the conventional sense.

As to the "aw shucks" monicker, I would submit that Gordon B. Hinckley epitomized that approach- but no one would question his qualifications or effectiveness.

These guys didn't just fall off the turnip truck yesterday afternoon.

No they did not- but "laity" does not automagically imply ineptitude, folksy-demenaor, or ad hoc reasoning (we have these boards to fill that niche )

C.S. Lewis was a lay theologian- and is considered by many to be one of the premier religious thinkers of the 20th century.

"Laity" does not (as you seem to imply) automagically conflate to "novice" or "amatuer".

I'd like to see a sociological analysis of that entire phenomenon, including a look at the difference between Roman Catholic parish priests and the great Roman Catholic scholars who also happen to be members of holy orders (especially the Jesuits).

I agree that such an analysis would be a fascinating read, but submit that it would not (and could not be) definitive for the very reasons that you pointed out earlier: Up until the late 17th or 18th century, the "educated" classes were (almost by default) the clergy.

[Pahoran]

The LDS Scriptures refer to "holding" keys and rights. There are also a few references to "holding" a priesthood "power" ((D&C 113:8, 132:7). But saying that we "hold the priesthood" is something rather different. Saying that you hold keys, rights, or powers, is a statement that you have been delegated these things from God, in a somewhat legal or covenantal sense. "Holding the priesthood" is a little bit more magical. Instead of owning rights within the priesthood, you own the priesthood itself. You, rather than God, are the supernatural force.

You've never actually met a Latter-day Saint, have you Cobalt?

Regards,

Pahoran

[volgadon]

You've never actually met a Latter-day Saint, have you Cobalt?

Regards,

Pahoran

It sometimes reads like that.

[Cobalt-70]

An office-holder does not own the office- he is elected by and remains accountable to the people.

If we said the "an office holder in the priesthood," that would be different. Holding an office within a priesthood is different from holding a priesthood itself.

No faithful (and sane) priesthood holder would pretend, presume, or claim to own the Priesthood. We know all too well that all Priesthood authority is delegated. The efficacy of any blessing or ordinance is predicated on the Lord's will and the faith of the recipient.

I'm not saying the "priesthood holder" does not believe his power is delegated from God. I'm saying that the "priesthood holder" believes that because of this delegation, he is thereby acting in God's stead, in place of God. "[The priesthood is veritably the power of the Almighty given to man to act in His name and in His stead." Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Oct. 1988, p. 71. This is quite different from believing that a priest acts to request or invoke the acts of God. If you are merely asking for God's power, you are at most a mediator between God and the physical world. If you are acting in God's stead, you are the power, and God is absent. You cannot act in somebody's stead unless they are absent.

And don't get me wrong: I'm not saying I disagree with Hinckley. Quite to the contrary, I think that the "priesthood holder" innovation is quite consistent with the magical view of priesthood that Joseph Smith was getting at. It is a subtle difference between religion and magic. Mormon magic is good, and it is one of the things that helps make us different from other faiths where priests are merely mediators.

The proof in the pudding is in the wording of the ordinances themselves: everything we do through the Priesthood is done as as directed by the Holy Spirit, and/or in the name of either Heaven Father or Jesus Christ.

We usually say that we are performing the blessings "by the power of the Melchizedek priesthood which we hold." We also say that we do it "in the name of Jesus Christ." But we don't say "by the power of Jesus Christ." Also, while we might say that we give blessings as directed by the Spirit, we do not say that the blessing is done by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Melchizedek priesthood is a separate and distinct mystical power.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[volgadon]

We usually say that we are performing the blessings "by the power of the Melchizedek priesthood which we hold." We also say that we do it "in the name of Jesus Christ." But we don't say "by the power of Jesus Christ."

Have you thought this out? Acts 4:7.

[Robert F. Smith]

I would submit that in the case of CES religion teachers and LDS chaplains, their Priesthood qualification (while admittedly a necessary qualification for the career paths they have chosen) is necessarily secondary to their other qualifications. A CES teacher, in my opinion, is a teacher first, and a Priesthood holder second. Likewise an LDS chaplain in military service is a chaplain (and military officer) first, a Priesthood holder, second. The fact that they hold the Priesthood is incidental to their day-to-day duties and responsibilities.

Chaplains are not required to hold priesthood. That all depends on the denomination (most Protestant pastors, rabbis and imams are not explicit "priests")

I was thinking more of the professional religious training in their assigned areas as the thing which separates them from the untrained and unpaid clergy. This is what one usually understands as the difference between laity and clergy in normative christianity, be it Protestant or Roman Catholic, high church or low. It is true that Mormons are not primed to think in that fashion, but that is the way the world measures such things. So next time you tell someone that we have no paid, full-time clergy, you are not quite being forthcoming. Yes, the bishops, stake presidents, and their counselors are definitely not full-time paid clergy. They are indeed a lay priesthood. However, what sort of gyrations are you going to engage in to obfuscate the fact that we do indeed have full-time paid clergy in certain posiitons? And that that is unavoidable in the modern church?

That you think that one can distinguish between the chaplain and priesthood function is the readiest indication that you're not making a direct comparison with non-Mormon understanding of these functions, which is the whole point of this conversation. In like manner, the CES instructor has to have special qualifications before he is allowed to teach religion, in the same way that pastors and priests in other faiths. Even a rabbi within Judaism (who is not a priest) is actually ordained. You need to ask yourself what the full range of functions is, and then do a little comparing and contrasting.

In neither case do they qualify as "clergy" under the conventional definition and usage of the term- though the line is substantially blurred vis-a-vis a military Chaplain..

Precisely.

In neither case are they being paid specifically for their specific, sectarian religious function.

So? That is the job for all full-time clergymen.

The full panoply of functions of a non-Mormon clergyman includes everything from counseling, and hearing confession, to saying mass (or serving communion) or qaddish. I like the scene in "Shoes of the Fisherman" in which the Pope says qaddish in Hebrew for a Jew who is in extremis

The LDS do not have a separate "priestly" class or caste.

First and foremost, there is a distinct difference between the LDS lay priesthood (to which one must be ordained through proper authority) and the "priesthood of the believer" in which negateds the very notion of "proper authority".

In the most basic terms, LDS thought on the matter can be summed up (with some qualifier) as " whosoever will thrust in his sickle and reap (ie, covenant with the Lord and receive the appropriate ordinations) , the same is called of God".

The "priesthood of all believers", on the other hand is predicated on the idea that no call is necessary or forthcoming. He who calls himself is called of God.

Not so.

Most evangelicals speak of being called by the Spirit. For them this is a real priesthood call, and they do not necessarily require that one have seminary training (although, if you are going to be a pastor or missionary, even Calvary Chapel will make sure you get the formal seminary training once the call has come). In this case, even though they have full-time paid clergy (such as Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California), they still believe in the "priesthood of the believer" and have nothing like the high church liturgy and ordinances which one can find in RC, Anglican, or LDS contexts.

Professor Millet is highly respected theologian and educator, well-educated, and extraordinarily well-spoken: but he is not a member of a separate or exclusive "priestly" class- he is therefore "laity", rather than "clergy" in the conventional sense.

As to the "aw shucks" monicker, I would submit that Gordon B. Hinckley epitomized that approach- but no one would question his qualifications or effectiveness.

True, but neither did he get back on his tractor and plow the south forty after a meeting with his counselors and the Twelve. He was not some hayseed, but (like the Pope) a very sophisticated and practical, spiritual leader of a vast, multifaceted church corporation. I am still in awe that, even at age 97, he went to work each day and, well, he worked harder than I did. I would never apply the "aw shucks" moniker to him. What are you thinking?

No they did not- but "laity" does not automagically imply ineptitude, folksy-demenaor, or ad hoc reasoning (we have these boards to fill that niche )

C.S. Lewis was a lay theologian- and is considered by many to be one of the premier religious thinkers of the 20th century.

"Laity" does not (as you seem to imply) automagically conflate to "novice" or "amatuer".

I agree that such an analysis would be a fascinating read, but submit that it would not (and could not be) definitive for the very reasons that you pointed out earlier: Up until the late 17th or 18th century, the "educated" classes were (almost by default) the clergy.

I think you're in denial here.

Sociologists are more interested in what people do than what they say or claim. Meaningless terms do not define reality, and you have not succeeded in refuting the fact that the LDS have a full-time paid clergy, albeit in limited areas. And that clergy performs most of the same functions that non-Mormon clergy do.

[selek1]

I think you're in denial here.

That's the second time in a single post you've tried to pop-psychoanalyze me. You were wrong on both counts.

I've dealt with military chaplains in a variety of circumstances. Every Protestant or Catholic chaplain with whom I dealt was an ordained priest or theologian- and by definition, a member of their denomination's "clergy". Rabbis are subject to varying degrees of ordination and qualification (it varies from denomination to denomination and sect) before they can assume the title. Imams are also, technically lay leaders- but both rabbis and imams are (generally) considered a separate priestly office different from the worshiper-on-the-street.

Mormonism has no such pretensions.

I've also dealt with Protestants, Catholics, other non-LDS Christians, Jews, and Muslims- I actually come from a Southern Baptist and Salvation Army background.

The people in those communities do not use the terms in the way you are bandying them about.

As to the rest, it is you who conflates laity with "hayseed"- I hold no such illusions.

Sociologists are more interested in what people do than what they say or claim. Meaningless terms do not define reality...

Yet even sociologists of conscience are forced to admit that words have meaning. "Laity" and "clergy" both have specific meanings, and apply as I have used them.

If you insist on using an arcane or esoteric definition in order to justify special pleading, then have at it- but acknowledge that we are at a cross-purpose.

and you have not succeeded in refuting the fact that the LDS have a full-time paid clergy, albeit in limited areas.

Nor have you demonstrated that the LDS do, in fact, have a "full-time, paid clergy".

As I have pointed out, CES teachers and military chaplains do not qualify because their primary functions are not explicitly sectarian/religious. CES teachers are hired to be teachers, not priests. Military chaplains are hired to perform non-denominational religious and counseling functions. Neither is part of a separate, specific "priestly" class.

The closest you might come to supporting your argument is to pretend that the meager living allowance that some General Authorities receive is equivalent to a salary.

That is a tired and trite argument that's been beaten to death on these boards time and time again- without resolution or even a point.

Most of our G.A.'s are either independently wealthy or at least comfortable (self-supporting). Any stipend they receive offsets the costs they might otherwise incur in the performance of their duties, but does not constitute a salary.

They are not "paid to minister", nor do they receive financial renumeration for their efforts. At worst, it can be argued that their costs are offset- but it can in no wise be argued (honestly or in good faith) that they perform their work for money.

Edited June 19, 2012 by selek1

[Cobalt-70]

Have you thought this out? Acts 4:7.

This tells us about Peter's practice, but says nothing about modern Mormon practice. No modern "priesthood holder" would begin a blessing with "By the power of Jesus Christ...." By the manuals, you have to say it is the power of the Melchizedek priesthood.

[selek1]

This tells us about Peter's practice, but says nothing about modern Mormon practice. No modern "priesthood holder" would begin a blessing with "By the power of Jesus Christ...." By the manuals, you have to say it is the power of the Melchizedek priesthood.

Do you mean "the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God."?

Because that is the power which we are delegated, by the authority and in the name of the Son of God..

[selek1]

This is quite different from believing that a priest acts to request or invoke the acts of God. If you are merely asking for God's power, you are at most a mediator between God and the physical world.

First and foremost, you are once again misrepresenting both LDS theology and my statements.

As a worthy Priesthood Holder (led by the Holy Spirit), I do not need to request or invoke the acts of God- I am already acting in response to his guidance and already have the necessary authority delegated to me.

And yes, I believe "mediator" works well in context- though "deputy" or "representative" would be more accurate.

If you are acting in God's stead, you are the power, and God is absent.

This is easily the most tendentious nonsense I've ever encountered (which is, in reality, quite an achievement).

A process server who serves a warrant, writ, summons, or subpeona is acting as an agent of the court in the place and stead of the Judge issuing the order. As such his power and authority are expressly limited.

He cannot pass judgement, issue sentence, hear pleas, or enter verdicts.

Only a fool or a charlatan would presume or pretend that the server somehow becomes the power or authority of the court which he is serving.

He is backed by the power of the court. It is not inherent within him.

In exactly the same fashion, LDS Priesthood authority is delegated, not inherent.

That I am ordained an Elder is meaningless in and of itself- unless I am righteous and have the Spirit of God with me to direct and/or ratify the ordinance or act I am performing.

My authority as a Priesthood Holder is finite, and wholly dependent upon God.

I can command mountains to be levelled or seas to be parted all day and all night- but unless I am acting in accordance with the will and wisdom of my Master, then I am deluding myself (and amusing any innocent bystanders who happen to witness the spectacle).

Save that I am on the Lord's errand and receptive to his will, I am nothing- and every faithful Priesthood holder understands that limitation.

You cannot act in somebody's stead unless they are absent.

This is silly beyond the point of absurdity.

As father and Priesthood representative in my home, it is my privilege and responsibility to lead my family in prayer and worship.

If I ask my son or daughter to say a prayer over the food at our dinner table, they are acting in my stead- even when I'm only two plates, three forks, and a water glass away from them.

We usually say that we are performing the blessings "by the power of the Melchizedek priesthood which we hold." We also say that we do it "in the name of Jesus Christ." But we don't say "by the power of Jesus Christ." Also, while we might say that we give blessings as directed by the Spirit, we do not say that the blessing is done by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Melchizedek priesthood is a separate and distinct mystical power.

Actually, it is not.

And if you were what you pretend to be, you'd know better than to try and foist off this sort of nonsense on the Saints.

Edited June 19, 2012 by selek1

[volgadon]

This tells us about Peter's practice, but says nothing about modern Mormon practice. No modern "priesthood holder" would begin a blessing with "By the power of Jesus Christ...." By the manuals, you have to say it is the power of the Melchizedek priesthood.

It tells you that the name and power are synonymous.

[Storm Rider]

It is so unfortunate when individuals try to force a specific interpretation of a manual on the rest of LDS members and the world at large. It is crystal clear that the LDS Church has very, very few prayers that need to be given verbatim. Blessings of the sick and blessings in general do not and never have fallen into this category. Why must someone then try to tell me that I need to do something specific. To declare one's authority can be done in a host of ways and all of them are acceptable. It has been said that, "A narrow mind and a wide mouth are common companions". Why do people speak as if gifted by God and yet have only ignorance as their foundation?

[saemo]

What I should really be asking is if anyone knows why non-Mormon Christians and Mormons use the word "priesthood" differently.

:-)

I can only guess it is because the view of the Priesthood in non-Mormon religions is that there is only one person who holds the priesthood, Jesus Christ. All others share in what is His alone. Whether you are discussing clergy or the priesthood of all believers, it is the same, we are sharing in the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ, not holding it.