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

[Cobalt-70]

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..

The "Holy Priesthood, after the Order of son of God" is not Jesus. It is the order of priests to which Jesus belongs. This idea originates from Hebrews 7, which compared the priesthood of Melchizedek to the priesthood of Jesus.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

This is my point. You believe that after you received it through the hands of whoever ordained you, you thereafter had the (magical) power and authority within you, and do not merely ask God to act on your behalf.

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.

A process server has within herself the power to effect service of process. She does not merely go to your house and then call the judge to effect service of process over the phone. She can act for herself in performing a legally binding act.

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

Once delegated, however, the power resides within the delegate.

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

Leading one's family in prayer and worship does not require a priesthood office. If a man wants to run his house as a patriarchy, and everyone else is okay with that and does not feel coerced, then that's fine. But lets not pretend that women and unordained men don't have an equal responsibility to lead their family in prayer and worship. If a woman delegates that responsibility solely to the man of the house, then that is a delegation from her, not from God.

[selek1]

The "Holy Priesthood, after the Order of son of God" is not Jesus. It is the order of priests to which Jesus belongs. This idea originates from Hebrews 7, which compared the priesthood of Melchizedek to the priesthood of Jesus.

Incorrect- and deliberately so. Hebrews 7 does not compare the priesthood of Melchizedek- it defines it. The Melchizedek Priesthood is not separate from the priesthood of Christ- it is means by which the power of Christ is made manifest.

The Melchizedek is the Priesthood- the power and authority of God- as set forth by God himself.

When we say, "by the power of the Mechizedek Priesthood", we are really saying, "by the power of God as delegated to us by Christ according to God's decree and plan".

This is my point. You believe that after you received it through the hands of whoever ordained you, you thereafter had the (magical) power and authority within you, and do not merely ask God to act on your behalf.

Not so.

As has been stated repeatedly (and you continue to desperately ignore), I am acting at his direction and per his will*, not the reverse. My authority is limited to what he authorizes.

The "power" remains solely his.

A process server has within herself the power to effect service of process. She does not merely go to your house and then call the judge to effect service of process over the phone. She can act for herself in performing a legally binding act.

But ONLY that specific act and ONLY at the judge's behest. She has no power or authority of her own- only that which is delegated to her by the court.

Once delegated, however, the power resides within the delegate.

False, as has been explained at least three times now.

Through priesthood ordination, I am given the authority to summon the powers of Heaven (as qualified above*) they do not reside within me.

Leading one's family in prayer and worship does not require a priesthood office. <Snip politically correct feminist baiting> But let's not pretend that women and unordained men don't have an equal responsibility to lead their family in prayer and worship.

This constitutes an admission against interest, so let me thank you for your inadvertent (and self-defeating) honesty.

You are correct in equating unordained men and women in these responsibilities- where there is no Priesthood, God will listen to any man (or woman, or child) who asks in faith and in supplication.

Yet where the priesthood does exist, it is the father's responsibility to lead his family in prayer and worship, and to serve his family through his priestly calling. Contrary to what you are implying, it is a call to serve, not reign- and a call to minister, not command.

If a woman delegates that responsibility solely to the man of the house, then that is a delegation from her, not from God.

Strawman alert- you and you alone are erecting this sexist chimera. No one here said or implied that responsibility belonged to the man alone. Edited June 21, 2012 by selek1

[Cobalt-70]

Through priesthood ordination, I am given the authority to summon the powers of Heaven (as qualified above*) they do not reside within me.

The "authority to summon" is the magical power that resides in you. The ability to summon or conjure heavenly powers (even under the condition that God agrees with you) is different from the mere ability to ask God to provide heavenly powers. Even Mormon women can do the latter.

[selek1]

The "authority to summon" is the magical power that resides in you. The ability to summon or conjure heavenly powers (even under the condition that God agrees with you) is different from the mere ability to ask God to provide heavenly powers. Even Mormon women can do the latter.

Setting aside the snarky discriptor "magical" (it is offensive, dismissive, and no faithful LDS member would describe it as such), you are simply wrong, and (again), deliberately so.

The authority is not resident in me- it is delegated, and is predicated upon my good conduct (keeping my covenants, obeying the Lord's commandments, and being attentive to the promptings of his Spirit.

Something inherent cannot be taken from you. It is derived (by default) by who and what you are.

Were the power inherent in me (as you pretend), then my authority could not be removed or revoked except at the Lord's explicit behest and command.

This is simply not the case.

Rather than inherent, my Priesthood authority is inescapably limited, finite, and conditional.

Also- the gender baiting is becoming especially tiresome, particularly when it is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Edited June 21, 2012 by selek1

[Aliwe]

The Melchizedek is the Priesthood- the power and authority of God- as set forth by Christ himself. It derives not from the order "to which Jesus belongs" but is, instead the order Jesus decreed.

When we say, "by the power of the Mechizedek Priesthood", we are really saying, "by the power of Christ as delegated to us by Christ according to his decree and plan".

You must know that Jesus decreed nothing. In John 8:28 he said, "I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."

Further, Hebrews 6:20 says Christ was made by his father a Melchizedek priest, he did not decree the priesthood. "Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec."

[selek1]

You must know that Jesus decreed nothing. In John 8:28 he said, "I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."

Further, Hebrews 6:20 says Christ was made by his father a Melchizedek priest, he did not decree the priesthood. "Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec."

You are correct. I have gone back and made the requisite corrections.

Nonetheless, my greater point remains: the Priesthood is the means by which the power of God is made manifest among men (mankind).

Any authority we hold is delegated, not inherent. The "power" lies not in the Priesthood Holder, but in the Master whom he serves.

Edited June 21, 2012 by selek1

[Pahoran]

The "authority to summon" is the magical power that resides in you. The ability to summon or conjure heavenly powers (even under the condition that God agrees with you) is different from the mere ability to ask God to provide heavenly powers. Even Mormon women can do the latter.

Cobalt,

Just FYI: those who discuss the Priesthood and its role in Mormonism can be divided into two distinct groups, between which there is no overlap. These are:

1. Those discussing it in good faith; and
   
2. Those who use such terms as "magic" to describe it.
   

The reason the term "magic" and its cognates never appears in serious discussions of the question, is that that term is mere mockery, a way for the speaker to parade his imagined superiority over those who actually believe that the Priesthood is anything relevant.

In anticipation of a CFR, I refer you to every single time you have used the term in this thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Sorry if I have offended you, but you seem to have a propensity for denying the obvious. For example, in the following quote, you unabashedly maintain that "both rabbis and imams are (generally) considered a separate priestly office different from the worshiper-on-the-street," thus doing precisely what you accuse me of doing, while denying the theologies of Judaism and Islam.

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.

You seem to think that an LDS chaplain cannot be defined as "clergy" while rabbis and imams can.

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.

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.

Wittgenstein made the excellent point that words mean what they are used to mean, e.g., Benjamin Huff recently contrasted laity with scholars, thus clearly differing with your stilted, traditional definition, saying: “ . . . including both scholars and many thoughtful laypeople.” (Times and Seasons, June 26, 2012, online at http://timesandseaso...studies-review/ ).

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.

I am attempting to apply a realistic, modern notion of "clergy" and "laity," and I believe that I have adequately demonstrated why incorrect, hidebound definitions serve no useful purpose.

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 LDS chaplains perform the very same religious functions as the other chaplains, as long as one understands the breadth of what clergy in other churches do.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "paid to minister," but I suspect that many a Catholic priest and many a Protestant minister took up their vocation out of love for those whom they serve and love for the Savior, rather than for filthy lucre -- most would be well advised to quit that vocation and go into another line of work if they wish to become wealthy.

My grandfather, as a Methodist minister, received even less remuneration than the poorest of the Brethren in our Church. He was provided a parsonage and some people would pay him in kind (offering a chicken or pie, or the like), but he owned nothing more than the clothes on his back and an automobile -- and his five children worked hard to help the family make a go of it, with their paper routes, and even selling soda pop along the old Arroyo Seco in South Pasadena, California.

At least the Brethren are decently cared for and their necessary expenses paid. Like the ancient Apostles, they have a full-time commitment to the Church at large, and the membership is more than willing to support them in any way that is necessary. They are clergy in the same way that Jesus and his Apostles and Disciples were clergy. Hey, you're the one who claims that rabbis are priestly, and scholars consider both Jesus and Paul to have been rabbis whose full-time commitment is not in question. Of course a prime function of a rabbi, as for any CES instructor, is to be a teacher of religion.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Cobalt-70]

Just FYI: those who discuss the Priesthood and its role in Mormonism can be divided into two distinct groups, between which there is no overlap. These are:

1. Those discussing it in good faith; and
   
2. Those who use such terms as "magic" to describe it.
   

The reason the term "magic" and its cognates never appears in serious discussions of the question, is that that term is mere mockery, a way for the speaker to parade his imagined superiority over those who actually believe that the Priesthood is anything relevant.

In anticipation of a CFR, I refer you to every single time you have used the term in this thread.

When I use the term "magic," I use the term in a loving way. For me, magic is one of the things that distinguishes Mormonism and makes it special. If you are interpreting what I say as mockery, then that must be your own anti-magical biases at work. Half of anti-Mormonism is anti-magic--that is, mockery of the very literal and materialistic powers of the Priesthood that Mormons believe are part of their faith, such as the power to create worlds, to cause resurrections, to protect our bodies from physical harm through symbolic fabric, or to allow us to see mystical things in the seer stones each of us will be duly issued in the Celestial kingdom--so maybe you have a bit of anti-Mormonism in you.

[David T]

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.

I always begin, "In the name of Jesus Christ, and with the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood..."

The instruction is not to invoke "power", it is to invoke authority to perform the ordinance, or ritual, a means or setting by which God is said to manifest His power. (D&C 84:20, " Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest"). What is actually said and done culturally, however, is often a different story.

Edited June 30, 2012 by David T