Acting In the Name Of the Lord

[Cold Steel]

One of the great blessings of the gospel in the latter days is the Lord's gracious gift of the priesthood, both Aaronic and Melchizedek. And the priesthood, defined, is the authority to act in God's name. But when it comes to using the higher priesthood, I've always wondered if it's always required to state the authority of the priesthood and if so, why? We hear stories from earlier times of the ancient church and our own early church where people just used the name of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith never once (except in ordinations, I suppose) ever spoke by virtue of the priesthood that I've been able to tell. 

The thing about authority is that we know we have it, the Lord knows we have it; why do we have to state it? 

This isn't to question the church. If it wants us to do it, they've got it. But I'm just wondering why it would be necessary? 

In the event one is casting a devil out of a person, but not using oil, is invoking the priesthood counseled? In fact, if one is in such a position, is there anything even published about such things. When I was on my mission, a woman plainly had an evil spirit in her. She was an inactive member of the church and ostensibly we were there to teach her husband (at his request). But during the meal she began acting very strange. She laughed inappropriately, made inappropriate statements, laughed during the prayers and all the while her husband looked at her as though she had three heads! There also was a peculiar "spirit" there that frankly scared the daylights out of all of us, except her. I had only been a member of the church a little more than a year and my partner didn't know what to do. We finally excused ourselves and left, and we were surprised when the woman's husband walked us to our car. He told us she had recently become involved in some strange books and friends and that she had changed over a matter of weeks. He'd become so spooked that he'd asked for some elders to come tell him about the church, hoping they would pick up on the strange behavior of his wife.

So we squared our shoulders and did what we should have done in the first place...we took it to the bishop! (We weren't going back!)

The bishop subsequently told us that when he entered the home the hair on the back of his head went up. He refused to tell me what had happened (at the woman's request), but he took the teaching of her husband out of our hands and gave it to two of the Seventy to handle. (We later saw both the woman and her husband at church and she couldn't have been nicer. Her husband didn't tell us what happened, either, but said the problem was resolved and he was happy to have his wife back. He later was baptized.) 

Well, I kind of got a bit off, but I don't know that such a situation would call for a blessing of the sick or a sharp rebuke. Many protestants use the name of Christ presumptively, without authority, and sometime in an offensive way. People get upset at us when we teach a man must have authority to baptize and maintain the kingdom of God; however, the key that Joseph Smith left us with is that if we follow the majority of the Twelve and the records of the church, we can never go astray. 

So what are your thoughts?

 

Edited March 17, 2016 by Cold Steel

[Cold Steel]

Any thoughts at all??

 

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, Cold Steel said:

Any thoughts at all??

 

Your OP is kinda long, and, as you say, goes off on tangents.  What part of it are you asking for thoughts on?

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Cold Steel said:

One of the great blessings of the gospel in the latter days is the Lord's gracious gift of the priesthood, both Aaronic and Melchizedek. And the priesthood, defined, is the authority to act in God's name. But when it comes to using the higher priesthood, I've always wondered if it's always required to state the authority of the priesthood and if so, why? We hear stories from earlier times of the ancient church and our own early church where people just used the name of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith never once (except in ordinations, I suppose) ever spoke by virtue of the priesthood that I've been able to tell. 

The thing about authority is that we know we have it, the Lord knows we have it; why do we have to state it? 

This isn't to question the church. If it wants us to do it, they've got it. But I'm just wondering why it would be necessary? 

In the event one is casting a devil out of a person, but not using oil, is invoking the priesthood counseled? In fact, if one is in such a position, is there anything even published about such things. When I was on my mission, a woman plainly had an evil spirit in her. She was an inactive member of the church and ostensibly we were there to teach her husband (at his request). But during the meal she began acting very strange. She laughed inappropriately, made inappropriate statements, laughed during the prayers and all the while her husband looked at her as though she had three heads! There also was a peculiar "spirit" there that frankly scared the daylights out of all of us, except her. I had only been a member of the church a little more than a year and my partner didn't know what to do. We finally excused ourselves and left, and we were surprised when the woman's husband walked us to our car. He told us she had recently become involved in some strange books and friends and that she had changed over a matter of weeks. He'd become so spooked that he'd asked for some elders to come tell him about the church, hoping they would pick up on the strange behavior of his wife.

So we squared our shoulders and did what we should have done in the first place...we took it to the bishop! (We weren't going back!)

The bishop subsequently told us that when he entered the home the hair on the back of his head went up. He refused to tell me what had happened (at the woman's request), but he took the teaching of her husband out of our hands and gave it to two of the Seventy to handle. (We later saw both the woman and her husband at church and she couldn't have been nicer. Her husband didn't tell us what happened, either, but said the problem was resolved and he was happy to have his wife back. He later was baptized.) 

Well, I kind of got a bit off, but I don't know that such a situation would call for a blessing of the sick or a sharp rebuke. Many protestants use the name of Christ presumptively, without authority, and sometime in an offensive way. People get upset at us when we teach a man must have authority to baptize and maintain the kingdom of God; however, the key that Joseph Smith left us with is that if we follow the majority of the Twelve and the records of the church, we can never go astray. 

So what are your thoughts?

I can't speak as to the particulars of why we must verbally invoke the priesthood we hold and the name of Christ.  I am familiar with the general principle, but when we really drill down to the "but why?" of it, I don't know.  And I'm rather okay with not knowing.  We can likewise act "Why do we need to get baptized?  Isn't just thinking about making a covenant sufficient?"  Or "Why did we need to come to earth at all?  Why didn't God just create our spirits and then clothe us in perfect physical bodies?"  Or "Why do we need physical bodies at all?  Why aren't spirit bodies sufficient?"  And so on.

There are many particulars we don't know.  And I think we need to be content with not knowing all of the particulars.  Such knowledge will come in due time.  "Therefore it {the Spirit} is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment."  (Moses 6:61) (emphasis added)

Until then, I think we should be guided by Moses 5:4-7 (emphasis added):

Quote

 4 And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from hispresence.

 5 And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer thefirstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord.

 6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.

 7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is asimilitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Cold Steel]

I'm really asking whether, in every instance, a person should state one's priesthood authority before using it? When Moses rebuked Satan at the time of his calling, he only rebuked him by the authority of the Messiah. In early church history, Joseph Smith frequently took people by the hand and healed them in Jesus' name. Lorenzo Snow brought his granddaughter back from the dead  by commanding her in the name of Jesus to "come back." 

So I'm looking for a reference in a church handbook that would shed light  on the use of the priesthood in conjunction with the name of Christ? 

I found this inspirational story in which the invocation of the priesthood was a dead giveaway:

Quote

 

During World War II, in the early part of 1944, an experience involving the priesthood took place as United States marines were taking Kwajalein Atoll, part of the Marshall Islands and located in the Pacific Ocean about midway between Australia and Hawaii. What took place in this regard was related by a correspondent—not a member of the Church—who worked for a newspaper in Hawaii. In the 1944 newspaper article he wrote following the experience, he explained that he and other correspondents were in the second wave behind the marines at Kwajalein Atoll. As they advanced, they noticed a young marine floating facedown in the water, obviously badly wounded. The shallow water around him was red with his blood. And then they noticed another marine moving toward his wounded comrade. The second marine was also wounded, with his left arm hanging helplessly by his side. He lifted up the head of the one who was floating in the water in order to keep him from drowning. In a panicky voice he called for help. The correspondents looked again at the boy he was supporting and called back, “Son, there is nothing anyone can do for this boy.”

“Then,” wrote the correspondent, “I saw something that I had never seen before. This boy, badly wounded himself, made his way to the shore with the seemingly lifeless body of his fellow marine. He put the head of his companion on his knee. What a picture that was—these two mortally wounded boys—both...clean, wonderful-looking young men, even in their distressing situation. And the one boy bowed his head over the other and said, ‘I command you, in the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the priesthood, to remain alive until I can get medical help.’ ” The correspondent concluded his article: “The three of us, [the two marines and I], are here in the hospital. The doctors don’t know...[how they made it alive], but I know.” (Ernest Eberhard Jr., “Giving Our Young Men the Proper Priesthood Perspective,” July 19, 1971).

 

It's a good story and shows how the modern latter-day saints give blessings. Me, I have absolutely no problem with how the church wants it. I just wondered if it was in print? 

 

 

[cdowis]

17 hours ago, Cold Steel said:

In the event one is casting a devil out of a person, but not using oil, is invoking the priesthood counseled? In fact, if one is in such a  a position, is there anything even published about such things. When I was on my mission, a woman plainly had an evil spirit in her......

So what are your thoughts?

 

Missionaries are not to cast out devils, and they are not to shake off the dust of their feet.  These are not priesthood functions for us to attend to.

For example, I have heard that missionaries in Brazil were often talking about their experiences with evil spirits, and the mission president counseled to leave such things alone.

Edited March 17, 2016 by cdowis

[Cold Steel]

I think that's very good advice. Missionaries are too young and inexperienced to handle such matters. That's why we took it to the bishop and let him handle it. 

My previous bishop here is a friend, and he told me the harrowing story of a woman who had a similar problem in our Ward. He and two others knelt by the woman's bed and anointed her and blessed her. She put up a fearful resistance and, he said, she levitated several inches above the mattress. He also said her strength was far above that of any woman he'd ever seen. As soon as they blessed her and commanded the devils to come out of her, she immediately fell back onto her bed. Her strength left her and she slipped into a fitful sleep. And when she awoke, she was a completely different person. He said he wonders how many people are getting medicated by anti-depression and anti-anxiety specialists in this country who might be plagued with devils. 

This requires a certain amount of maturity, though, and as a 16-year old kid can't be expected to handle a hot rod, missionaries have the tools, but most often lack the experience and maturity to make them work. And they're certainly no match for such evil, experienced and stubborn 😣 intelligence. 

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

Missionaries are not to cast out devils, and they are not to shake off the dust of their feet.  These are not priesthood functions for us to attend to.

For example, I have heard that missionaries in Brazil were often talking about their experiences with evil spirits, and the mission president counseled to leave such things alone.

Actually our Mission President counseled us to be prepared for devil instances to shoot up in the area (new temple). He advised us to contact him if it was feasible but if not to go by the Spirit and that we do have the authority to cast them out. I have done it since my mission too. Am I supposed to be talking to Priesthood leaders first?

As to using the authority speaking it fortifies us and on top of that words have power. Why do we have some set prayers and blessings? Something about speaking accesses Priesthood power.

[salgare]

(close to topic I hope)  What I find strange is that those who are suppose to speak to the Church/World for the Lord will NEVER end a talk/testimony with "I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ".  Yet most every member of the Church always does.

 

[Ahab]

Technicalities.  Order. Rules. Laws.

Our Father and our Lord are in favor of those.

Sticklers for details.

I think to see if we will do all that our Father and our Lord want us to do, even when we have the same power and authority they do.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Cold Steel said:

I'm really asking whether, in every instance, a person should state one's priesthood authority before using it? When Moses rebuked Satan at the time of his calling, he only rebuked him by the authority of the Messiah. In early church history, Joseph Smith frequently took people by the hand and healed them in Jesus' name. Lorenzo Snow brought his granddaughter back from the dead  by commanding her in the name of Jesus to "come back." 

So I'm looking for a reference in a church handbook that would shed light  on the use of the priesthood in conjunction with the name of Christ? 

I found this inspirational story in which the invocation of the priesthood was a dead giveaway:

It's a good story and shows how the modern latter-day saints give blessings. Me, I have absolutely no problem with how the church wants it. I just wondered if it was in print? 

Here is something in print: https://www.lds.org/manual/family-guidebook/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng

Note how many times the word "should" is used for instruction of  procedure and personal behavior. The more humble or the more observant one is, the more he will intend or be willing to follow the "shoulds," but the Lord's grace covers the pure in heart and intent; sometimes the circumstances are such that we just don't remember or think as clearly as we might otherwise (the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak).

[Cold Steel]

Yes, my question is motivated only by curiosity, not defiance. In the days of Moses the Lord was perfectly willing to give his people the higher priesthood, but they rejected Him and He left them with the lesser priesthood...and their sacred cows. Perhaps the reason He wants us to use the priesthood reference is to make sure people understand the importance of having the priesthood to act in God's name. If the ancient prophets used it, it isn't mentioned and though Alma wrote extensively concerning it (Chapter 13), the Nephites don't even seem to be aware of it except as it applied to Moses and the Levites. And though there may have been some Levites who came here with the Mulikites, they didn't seem to have brought any scriptures with them and they were undoubtedly grafted into the Israelites who were here. Besides, there was probably no need for the lesser priesthood in the New World. And if they needed it, the Lord could have given it to them, and it needn't have been limited to the Levites. 

 

[salgare]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

even when we have the same power and authority they do.

Wow

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Cold Steel said:

Yes, my question is motivated only by curiosity, not defiance. In the days of Moses the Lord was perfectly willing to give his people the higher priesthood, but they rejected Him and He left them with the lesser priesthood...and their sacred cows. Perhaps the reason He wants us to use the priesthood reference is to make sure people understand the importance of having the priesthood to act in God's name. If the ancient prophets used it, it isn't mentioned and though Alma wrote extensively concerning it (Chapter 13), the Nephites don't even seem to be aware of it except as it applied to Moses and the Levites. And though there may have been some Levites who came here with the Mulikites, they didn't seem to have brought any scriptures with them and they were undoubtedly grafted into the Israelites who were here. Besides, there was probably no need for the lesser priesthood in the New World. And if they needed it, the Lord could have given it to them, and it needn't have been limited to the Levites. 

Another or related thought is that the High Priests of the Lord are given the kingdom and power (keys) pertaining to their respective dispensations, and everyone else acts under and not independently of their authority as a “kingdom of priests” and “a royal priesthood, an holy nation.” In our dispensation, the house of order has been set up by those with the keys to do so.

[salgare]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Another or related thought is that the High Priests of the Lord are given the kingdom and power (keys) pertaining to their respective dispensations, and everyone else acts under and not independently of their authority as a “kingdom of priests” and “a royal priesthood, an holy nation.” In our dispensation, the house of order has been set up by those with the keys to do so.

Funny those keys did not exist during the Reign Of the Kings eras of the BoM

[CV75]

2 hours ago, salgare said:

Funny those keys did not exist during the Reign Of the Kings eras of the BoM

That was a different dispensation than ours, and the keys would have suited the Lord's requirements of His people in that day and place and operated accordingly. They certainly had keys t least according to the following definition and principles: “Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood [holders] to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth… “Those who have priesthood keys … literally make it possible for all who serve faithfully under their direction to exercise priesthood authority and have access to priesthood power.”  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Alma was such a high priest (Alma 5:3); see also Mosiah 18: 17-29 and 23:16-18 where his father acted in this same capacity.

[Jeanne]

May be a little off topic but I am curious.  I have heard from several male LDS return missionaries that those "devils" are more prevalent in Asian Countries.  A few went to China and encountered many strange situations.  Would there be a reason for this?  They were scared and went to Mission Presidents or higher ups and never returned to those places.

[cdowis]

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 we do have the authority to cast them out.

Did he give you a reference on the suggested words to use.  The church had a guide for suggested wording on various phd ordinances, but I don't remember that "casting out devils" was included in those instructions.

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, salgare said:

Funny those keys did not exist during the Reign Of the Kings eras of the BoM

How do you know that?

[salgare]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

How do you know that?

There was no ecclesiastical Church, only the Holy Order, i.e. the Patriarchal Priesthood.

And how, might I ask, do you know that there are any such keys today and why they might be held and passed down by the Leadership of the LDS Church?

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, salgare said:

There was no ecclesiastical Church, only the Holy Order, i.e. the Patriarchal Priesthood.

And how, might I ask, do you know that there are any such keys today and why they might be held and passed down by the Leadership of the LDS Church?

Cannot priesthood keys exist even if there is no "ecclesiastical Church" as we would know it organized?

The knowledge that priesthood keys exist today and are held by the President of the Church comes through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and obedience to his commandments. 

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, salgare said:

There was no ecclesiastical Church, only the Holy Order, i.e. the Patriarchal Priesthood.

And how, might I ask, do you know that there are any such keys today and why they might be held and passed down by the Leadership of the LDS Church?

There are more examples than just the ones in the references I provided above that make mention of an ecclesiastical church. And they met in synagogues and "houses of worship":

Alma 32: 1-3, 5, 9-10, 12

Alma 21: 4-5, 11, 16, 20

Alma 31: 12-13

Hel. 3: 9, 14

2 Ne. 26: 26

Alma 16: 13

Alma 23: 2

Alma 26: 29

Alma 33: 2

[salgare]

46 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The knowledge that priesthood keys exist today and are held by the President of the Church comes through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and obedience to his commandments. 

One can not argue with that.  In trying to follow the restoration of the Melchizedek "keys" there is not much else left but that.

[salgare]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There are more examples than just the ones in the references I provided above that make mention of an ecclesiastical church. And they met in synagogues and "houses of worship":

Alma 32: 1-3, 5, 9-10, 12

Alma 21: 4-5, 11, 16, 20

Alma 31: 12-13

Hel. 3: 9, 14

2 Ne. 26: 26

Alma 16: 13

Alma 23: 2

Alma 26: 29

Alma 33: 2

It's been too long, was not King Benjamin pretty much the end of the Kings (and Priests) era with the Church (something lesser) being instituted after the Words of Mormon and the Book of Mosiah?

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, salgare said:

It's been too long, was not King Benjamin pretty much the end of the Kings (and Priests) era with the Church (something lesser) being instituted after the Words of Mormon and the Book of Mosiah?

Alma (the son of Alma) and reign of the judges came after that..  In any case, the people of God were organized into churches under high priests with keys, and they met in synagogues and houses of worship under both systems of kings and judges as mentioned throughout the books of Mosiah and alma.