Fiona Givens speculates that Joseph Smith gave Priesthood Keys to women?

[theplains]

On 22/06/2016 at 9:35 AM, JLHPROF said:

Joseph did intend women to receive priesthood keys but this referred to the temple.  And they began receiving them in 1843.

Which keys did women receive in 1843 and afterwards?

Thanks,
Jim

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, theplains said:

Which keys did women receive in 1843 and afterwards?

Thanks,
Jim

The ordinance was known at the time as "the Fullness of Priesthood".

So all of them available on earth.
But having keys is not the same as having offices and having callings.
As I said, this is a temple order and did not apply to Church offices.

[Eek!]

On ‎8‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 6:07 PM, JLHPROF said:

The ordinance was known at the time as "the Fullness of Priesthood".

So all of them available on earth.
But having keys is not the same as having offices and having callings.
As I said, this is a temple order and did not apply to Church offices.

Very interesting.   Does it have a different name that we might be more familiar with? 

If you'd rather not go there (and I'm only wild guessing about where "there" may be), no problem. 

Edited August 13, 2016 by Eek!

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Eek! said:

Very interesting.   Does it have a different name that we might be more familiar with? 

If you'd rather not go there (and I'm only wild guessing about where "there" may be), no problem. 

“For any person to have the fullness of that priesthood, he must be a king and priest. A person may have a portion of that priesthood, the same as governors or judges of England have power from the king to transact business; but that does not make them kings of England. A person may be anointed king and priest long before he receives his kingdom.”  -Brigham Young

Holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood have power to press forward in righteousness, living by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God, magnifying their callings, going from grace to grace, until through the fulness of the ordinances of the temple they receive the fulness of the priesthood and are ordained kings and priests. Those so attaining shall have exaltation and be kings, priests, rulers, and lords in their respective spheres in the eternal kingdoms of the great King who is God our Father. (Rev. 1:6; 5:10.)  Bruce R. McConkie Mormon Doctrine, p.425
 

The Second Anointing in Latter-day Saint Theology and Practice
http://www.scottwoodward.org/priesthood_fulness.html
 

[Eek!]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

“For any person to have the fullness of that priesthood, he must be a king and priest. A person may have a portion of that priesthood, the same as governors or judges of England have power from the king to transact business; but that does not make them kings of England. A person may be anointed king and priest long before he receives his kingdom.”  -Brigham Young

Holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood have power to press forward in righteousness, living by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God, magnifying their callings, going from grace to grace, until through the fulness of the ordinances of the temple they receive the fulness of the priesthood and are ordained kings and priests. Those so attaining shall have exaltation and be kings, priests, rulers, and lords in their respective spheres in the eternal kingdoms of the great King who is God our Father. (Rev. 1:6; 5:10.)  Bruce R. McConkie Mormon Doctrine, p.425
 

The Second Anointing in Latter-day Saint Theology and Practice
http://www.scottwoodward.org/priesthood_fulness.html
 

Thank you very much.  I had read the Buerger article some time ago but look forward to re-reading it, and Scott Woodward's page looks like it has some really good quotes which I am going through now. 

[theplains]

On 13/08/2016 at 10:17 AM, JLHPROF said:

“For any person to have the fullness of that priesthood, he must be a king and priest. A person may have a portion of that priesthood, the same as governors or judges of England have power from the king to transact business; but that does not make them kings of England. A person may be anointed king and priest long before he receives his kingdom.”  -Brigham Young

D&C 76:54-58 describes those in the Church of the Firstborn.

"They are they who are the church of the Firstborn. They are they into whose hands the 
Father has given all things—They are they who are priests and kings, who have received 
of his fulness, and of his glory; And are priests of the Most High, after the order of 
Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only 
Begotten Son. Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God."

I don't see anything in these verses that exclude women.

Would you agree?

Thanks,
Jim

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

D&C 76:54-58 describes those in the Church of the Firstborn.

"They are they who are the church of the Firstborn. They are they into whose hands the 
Father has given all things—They are they who are priests and kings, who have received 
of his fulness, and of his glory; And are priests of the Most High, after the order of 
Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only 
Begotten Son. Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God."

I don't see anything in these verses that exclude women.

Would you agree?

Thanks,
Jim

Yes I would agree.
Women become Priestesses of the Most High, Queens of Heaven, Gods even the daughters of God.

[blueglass]

On 6/22/2016 at 11:13 AM, smac97 said:

It's available online: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V49N01_fg.pdf

In her interview with Jana Riess, Fiona Givens makes the following claims (emphasis added):

I have not studied Sis. Given's article in detail, but her thesis about the "turning over" of "priesthood keys to Emma" appears to be almost entirely predicated on a single reference on page 40 of the Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book (link here) (see footnote 57 in Sis. Givens' article), as follows (emphasis added):

And perhaps also this reference (from page 38 of the Minute Boo, see footnote 29 of Sis. Givens' article) (emphasis added):

Contrast the above-emphasized claims with this statement by Elder Oaks in his April 2014 General Conference address, The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood (emphases added):

As I read Elder Oaks, although women can "exercise" priesthood authority and receive all of the blessings of the priesthood without actually holding the priesthood, the "holding" of "keys" appears to be a function of "holding" the priesthood.

Thus Sis. Givens appears to be contradicting Elder Oaks (obliquely, anyway) when she claims that Joseph Smith "{turned} over priesthood keys to Emma."

See also these remarks by Elder Ballard (emphases added):

Again, this seems to be contrary to the claim of Sis. Givens.

I hope she is not setting herself up as a voice of authority alternative to that of the leaders of the Church

Thanks,

-Smac

just conducting a search on the RS minutes book I found five hits to keys as pertains to the relief society.  1)  pg37  "He spoke of delivering the keys to this Society and to the church", 2) pg38 "that the keys of the kingdom are about to be given to them". 3) pg40 "and I now turn the key to you in the name of God and this Society shall rejoice and knowledge and intelligence shall flow down", 4) pg52 "the object is to make those not so good, equal with the good and ever hold the keys of pow’ r which will influence to virtue and goodness."  5) pg53, "ye shall do the work which ye see me do— These are  the grand key words for the Society to act upon."  Also there is a hyperlink on the word keys on pg 38 which sends you to the JSP glossary definition of keys where it says, "JS later bestowed keys on the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo “that they may be able to detect every thing false” and that “knowledge and intelligence shall flow down from this time.”   Where did these keys go after BY disbanded the relief society for 23 years?  On pg 52, it appears that JS said the RS would have an everlasting possession of these "keys of power".  I think Oaks 1992 talk was part 1 of his 2014 talk, and likely a rebuttal to the work of Hanks, Toscano, Quinn, et al.  Oaks says in 1992, at the RS 150th anniversary. "No priesthood keys were delivered to the Relief Society".  

[carbon dioxide]

On 6/22/2016 at 8:15 AM, carbon dioxide said:

" 3)   Ancient traditions (and some early Mormon traditions) associated Heavenly Mother with the Holy Spirit. "  

I am not sure how one could support this.  Why would God the Father have a body of flesh and bones and his wife still just have a spirit body.  One would think that they obtained their glorified physical bodies together.  Perhaps one could argue some idea that the Holy Ghost is the first or highest spirit daughter of our heavenly parents like Jesus is the highest son but God the Mother?  I don't see how its possible.

It does not make any sense.  The Father and Son get their glorified resurrected bodies before our Heavenly Mother?

[blueglass]

17 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

It does not make any sense.  The Father and Son get their glorified resurrected bodies before our Heavenly Mother?

It's referencing the Shekinah or female divine presence.  Patai talks about it in his book.  In a way the mother goddess is anthropomorphic and resurrected from diamond dust or eternally regenrating stem cells or whatever, and she exerts her influence through the Shekinah.  i.e. Shekinah is her holy spirit messenger.  The father has his own Holy Spirit messenger. 

[JLHPROF]

49 minutes ago, blueglass said:

It's referencing the Shekinah or female divine presence.  Patai talks about it in his book.  In a way the mother goddess is anthropomorphic and resurrected from diamond dust or eternally regenrating stem cells or whatever, and she exerts her influence through the Shekinah.  i.e. Shekinah is her holy spirit messenger.  The father has his own Holy Spirit messenger.

I think we take a risky path in accepting such ideas that have little evidence in scripture.
This may be true, but are there ANY scriptures to back it up?  Is there any evidence in revelation from God that Heavenly Mother has her own messengers and holy spirit?
I'm personally of the belief there is much truth hidden in Gnostic doctrines, including some related to this principle, but they did not come directly through God's prophets.

Exalted godhood does require male and female counterparts (Gen 1) which includes Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father since they are a unit.

According to Joseph Smith the three Gods that minister and preside over this earth are God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third the witness or Testator.
It is possible these three may have female counterparts, but they would operate unitedly with their male partners, not independently.
And we have no authentic record as to their roles or identities.

Edited February 3, 2017 by JLHPROF

[halconero]

On 2017-02-03 at 11:54 AM, JLHPROF said:

I think we take a risky path in accepting such ideas that have little evidence in scripture.
This may be true, but are there ANY scriptures to back it up?  Is there any evidence in revelation from God that Heavenly Mother has her own messengers and holy spirit?
I'm personally of the belief there is much truth hidden in Gnostic doctrines, including some related to this principle, but they did not come directly through God's prophets.

Exalted godhood does require male and female counterparts (Gen 1) which includes Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father since they are a unit.

According to Joseph Smith the three Gods that minister and preside over this earth are God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third the witness or Testator.
It is possible these three may have female counterparts, but they would operate unitedly with their male partners, not independently.
And we have no authentic record as to their roles or identities.

Except for God the Creator...we have some record on his female counterpart's role and identity.

[blueglass]

On 2/4/2017 at 10:32 PM, halconero said:

Except for God the Creator...we have some record on his female counterpart's role and identity.

For female counterpart to "Elohim" we have to go way back to the eon's past:   "there was a time when that being whom we now worship—that our eternal Father and Mother were once man and woman in mortality.” "soul-making trials of her earthly experience, coupled with continuing growth after a celestial resurrection, helped her hone the qualities of divinity to move her from 'womanhood to Godhood." - Elder Orson Whitney 1878 - 1906.

 “We . . . [are] literally the sons and daughters of divine parents, the spiritual progeny of God our Eternal Father, and of our God Mother.” - James Talmage, (Quorum of 12, 1911 - 1933).

I think it's time to change the young women's theme - not sure if Oscarson would disagree.  

[Gray]

On 2/3/2017 at 0:54 PM, JLHPROF said:

I think we take a risky path in accepting such ideas that have little evidence in scripture.
This may be true, but are there ANY scriptures to back it up?  Is there any evidence in revelation from God that Heavenly Mother has her own messengers and holy spirit?
I'm personally of the belief there is much truth hidden in Gnostic doctrines, including some related to this principle, but they did not come directly through God's prophets.

Exalted godhood does require male and female counterparts (Gen 1) which includes Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father since they are a unit.

According to Joseph Smith the three Gods that minister and preside over this earth are God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third the witness or Testator.
It is possible these three may have female counterparts, but they would operate unitedly with their male partners, not independently.
And we have no authentic record as to their roles or identities.

Growing up I had a theory that Heavenly Father and Mother had actually fused into one being. The secret of godhood being that you literally become one with your eternal companion, which is the only way to become a god. In retrospect there are echoes there of the Adam and Eve story, which can be read as Adam and Eve having started out as one being, but were separated into two by God. 

[clarkgoble]

As others noted the key text by Joseph appears to be setting the Relief Society up as a parallel organization unlike how it was set up when eventually restore in Utah. Even the initial Utah Relief Society was far more independent than what there is now. During the period of the rise of correlation all Relief Society functions came under the control and authority of the priesthood. As others mentioned Elder Oaks is talking of what we have in place right now. There's no reason that couldn't change but we have to be careful not to compare apples and oranges. The key issue really is that of appointing officers in organizational positions. Much like an Elders Quorum President is appointed. Right now a Relief Society President can submit callings to the Bishop but it's the Bishop who makes the final decisions and sets them apart.

Regarding the Nauvoo situation things are, in my mind, a bit messier than many using the history let on. For one there was a lot of tension with Emma and Joseph (IMO) was desperate to keep her in the Church. Polygamy was a huge issue and conflict. I'm not convinced everything he did was necessarily exactly what God would have wanted. So the assumption that Nauvoo is more correct because it's closer to Joseph is to my mind questionable. There's also of course the more speculative connection of the Relief Society to adoptive masonry which were masonic lodges tied to a regular lodge but with women. A lot of the more interesting parallels in masonry to the endowment actually come out of adoptive masonry. There's at least a reasonable parallel there that Joseph was doing something similar to the Relief Society. But whatever he was dong was never completed and pretty explicit revelations to the contemporary apostles would likely be necessary to change anything.

It's not clear to me that one should assume though that anything Joseph did with respect to the Relief Society really entailed much different from our current priesthood organization. There's no indication for instance that the Relief Society President wasn't under the President of the Church for instance. While blessings of the sick by women continued until around WWII that was never done with a claim as by priesthood. (Although as Elder Oaks explicitly noted all power is ultimately priesthood) So I think there's much less here than meets the eye. It seems much more about the internal structure of the Relief Society and who appointed leaders within the organization. But you don't need Navuoo quotes of Joseph to show that - you can just turn to the early Utah period under Eliza R. Snow and Zina Huntington.

None of this is to say that some of the policies that arose in the 20th century which just seem social norms unrelated to revelation couldn't change. We've already eliminated many things, like a priesthood holder giving prayers or always being the concluding speaker. The positions in the Sunday School and Primary could easily be more modified to be more inclusive. Even Relief Societies could be made much more independent by giving them more independent financing if the Church wanted. (I'm not saying those changes should be made mind you - just that they seem unrelated to priesthood)

[halconero]

On 2017-03-09 at 0:20 PM, blueglass said:

For female counterpart to "Elohim" we have to go way back to the eon's past:   "there was a time when that being whom we now worship—that our eternal Father and Mother were once man and woman in mortality.” "soul-making trials of her earthly experience, coupled with continuing growth after a celestial resurrection, helped her hone the qualities of divinity to move her from 'womanhood to Godhood." - Elder Orson Whitney 1878 - 1906.

 “We . . . [are] literally the sons and daughters of divine parents, the spiritual progeny of God our Eternal Father, and of our God Mother.” - James Talmage, (Quorum of 12, 1911 - 1933).

I think it's time to change the young women's theme - not sure if Oscarson would disagree.  

I hear you. I and at least one other are believers in a more fundamentalist strain of doctrine regarding Heavenly Mother, including her name and mission on earth, but I recognize that current doctrine doesn't allow for a space for that.

[clarkgoble]

55 minutes ago, halconero said:

I hear you. I and at least one other are believers in a more fundamentalist strain of doctrine regarding Heavenly Mother, including her name and mission on earth, but I recognize that current doctrine doesn't allow for a space for that.

Not quite sure what you're calling fundamentalist. If you mean claims by initial polygamist groups that the keys given in the fulness of the temple make them independent of Church authority then I'd probably agree. If you just mean the claim we have a mother in heaven who holds a role to the father analogous to how men and women are raised up in the temple, then that seems to be pretty uncontroversial mainstream LDS teaching. Now claims about particular roles and/or power or claims about a special relationship with her are not doctrine simply because nothing has been revealed. Likewise the claim that mother in heaven went through a mortal probation like us seems pretty uncontroversial in LDS theology.

There are claims by both what I'd term fundamentalist breakoffs of Mormonism (primarily the FLDS and Allred groups) that have certain theologies that go beyond that. Likewise come liberal feminist Mormons have created a fairly expansive speculated theology of the divine feminine which isn't LDS doctrine. There are some overlap between the two groups but also a lot that is unique to the liberal feminist models. Again though we probably have to get specific to particular claims to say much. 

Edited March 12, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

On 6/22/2016 at 8:15 AM, carbon dioxide said:

" 3)   Ancient traditions (and some early Mormon traditions) associated Heavenly Mother with the Holy Spirit. "  

I am not sure how one could support this.  Why would God the Father have a body of flesh and bones and his wife still just have a spirit body.  One would think that they obtained their glorified physical bodies together.  Perhaps one could argue some idea that the Holy Ghost is the first or highest spirit daughter of our heavenly parents like Jesus is the highest son but God the Mother?  I don't see how its possible.

The usual answer is that we have to distinguish between remnants of a once fuller understanding of the godhead prior to the rise of strict monotheism during the exile. The theory goes that the earlier tradition had remnants of the divine feminine. There are apologetic arguments that aspects of Nephi's vision has elements of this where the tree of life and heavenly mother are related. Certainly most scholars assume that the Judaism prior to the Josiah reforms was closer in appearance to general Canaanite religion with a similar pantheon which in turn is closer to the  Mormon view. The later post-exilic writings such as in the wisdom literature or the traditions around the time of Christ are thus remnants of these earlier traditions. So Sophia speculation is making use of these fragmentary oral traditions and aspects within the text. To be fair I think most of them are also simply adopting Greek ideas as well.

In other words the way to look at this is muddled remnants of once clearer doctrines lost through apostasy.

[Benjamin Seeker]

On 2/2/2017 at 7:06 PM, blueglass said:

just conducting a search on the RS minutes book I found five hits to keys as pertains to the relief society.  1)  pg37  "He spoke of delivering the keys to this Society and to the church", 2) pg38 "that the keys of the kingdom are about to be given to them". 3) pg40 "and I now turn the key to you in the name of God and this Society shall rejoice and knowledge and intelligence shall flow down", 4) pg52 "the object is to make those not so good, equal with the good and ever hold the keys of pow’ r which will influence to virtue and goodness."  5) pg53, "ye shall do the work which ye see me do— These are  the grand key words for the Society to act upon."  Also there is a hyperlink on the word keys on pg 38 which sends you to the JSP glossary definition of keys where it says, "JS later bestowed keys on the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo “that they may be able to detect every thing false” and that “knowledge and intelligence shall flow down from this time.”   Where did these keys go after BY disbanded the relief society for 23 years?  On pg 52, it appears that JS said the RS would have an everlasting possession of these "keys of power".  I think Oaks 1992 talk was part 1 of his 2014 talk, and likely a rebuttal to the work of Hanks, Toscano, Quinn, et al.  Oaks says in 1992, at the RS 150th anniversary. "No priesthood keys were delivered to the Relief Society".  

JS and co. used the term key to describe at least two different things. Besides referring to authority, he also used them to describe access to the divine or divine knowledge such as when, according to his mother's rememberance, he described the Urim and Thummim as a key, and another example is the bolded phrase above. More than once he told the Saints that they would receive the ability to tell false messengers from true ones when they finished the temple (I would need to look and see if he specifically used the word key or not). which I believe is what he is talking about here. For those who are in the know, this is a reference to the endowment.

Edited March 12, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[halconero]

22 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Not quite sure what you're calling fundamentalist. If you mean claims by initial polygamist groups that the keys given in the fulness of the temple make them independent of Church authority then I'd probably agree. If you just mean the claim we have a mother in heaven who holds a role to the father analogous to how men and women are raised up in the temple, then that seems to be pretty uncontroversial mainstream LDS teaching. Now claims about particular roles and/or power or claims about a special relationship with her are not doctrine simply because nothing has been revealed. Likewise the claim that mother in heaven went through a mortal probation like us seems pretty uncontroversial in LDS theology.

There are claims by both what I'd term fundamentalist breakoffs of Mormonism (primarily the FLDS and Allred groups) that have certain theologies that go beyond that. Likewise come liberal feminist Mormons have created a fairly expansive speculated theology of the divine feminine which isn't LDS doctrine. There are some overlap between the two groups but also a lot that is unique to the liberal feminist models. Again though we probably have to get specific to particular claims to say much. 

I'm not saying that a belief in Heavenly Mother is fundamentalist as opposed to mainstream. The fact that most Latter-day Saints believe in Heavenly Mothers is obvious enough. I'm referring to teachings pertaining to her identity and mission on the earth.

To be blunt, I'm a believer in Adam-God wherein Michael is the Father of our Spirits as much as our body and that his wife, Eve is our Heavenly Mother. Their Fall was a descent from a state of resurrected immortality into mortality, but having previously overcome both sin and death they were able to resume immortality at will upon the completion of their mission to propagate the Plan of Salvation. Elohim is more of a Heavenly Grandfather to me. I still believe Jehovah to be Jesus Christ (I know I differ with the other Adam-God believer on this board regarding this). I'm an active Latter-day Saint, and sustain the prophets in the current teachings simply because I believe they have the keys to lock/unlock the public teaching of certain things.

[JLHPROF]

22 hours ago, halconero said:

I'm not saying that a belief in Heavenly Mother is fundamentalist as opposed to mainstream. The fact that most Latter-day Saints believe in Heavenly Mothers is obvious enough. I'm referring to teachings pertaining to her identity and mission on the earth.

To be blunt, I'm a believer in Adam-God wherein Michael is the Father of our Spirits as much as our body and that his wife, Eve is our Heavenly Mother. Their Fall was a descent from a state of resurrected immortality into mortality, but having previously overcome both sin and death they were able to resume immortality at will upon the completion of their mission to propagate the Plan of Salvation. Elohim is more of a Heavenly Grandfather to me. I still believe Jehovah to be Jesus Christ (I know I differ with the other Adam-God believer on this board regarding this). I'm an active Latter-day Saint, and sustain the prophets in the current teachings simply because I believe they have the keys to lock/unlock the public teaching of certain things.

Careful...that's a very unpopular position to take.  . I should know.

And we'll work on the whole Jesus/Jehovah thing...