Baptisms for the Dead - now by Aaronic Priesthood

[clarkgoble]

21 hours ago, Five Solas said:

One of the LDS explanations given for the absence of evidence of baptisms for the dead in the Second Temple was the absence of Melchizedek Priesthood authority.  But within a month of that thread we learn from LDS leadership in Salt Lake City that Melchizedek Priesthood authority wasn't actually necessary for such temple ordinances.  If I were clarkgoble, I might feel a little vexed by this sudden & awkwardly timed development...

But he'll take it on the chin, I suspect. 

It still functions under the direction of the sealing power of the Temple President and then under the President of the Church. So just because the ordinance doesn't need to be conducted by someone with the office of Elder or High Priest doesn't mean it's not functioning under the Melchezedek order.

However if you reread that thread you'll note that the bigger issue I raised for no temple work in the second temple period was that Jesus hadn't broken the bands of death and gone to spirit prison allowing missionary work to proceed there.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/15/2017 at 9:36 PM, LittleNipper said:

May I ask a simple question?  How does a dead, deceased, kaput individual know that someone is being baptized in his/her behalf?  I believe it is in Ecclesiastics where it is stated that the dead known nothing... 

1 peter 3:19

[RevTestament]

On 12/15/2017 at 10:36 PM, LittleNipper said:

May I ask a simple question?  How does a dead, deceased, kaput individual know that someone is being baptized in his/her behalf?  I believe it is in Ecclesiastics where it is stated that the dead known nothing... 

Yeshua apparently disagreed with that interpretation. Bukowski gives us:

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

1 peter 3:19

But Yeshua Himself said several things which show things were not as they seemed:

John 5:25

25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the ^adead shall ^bhear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall ^clive.

So according to Yeshua, the dead could hear Him in Spirit, and accept Him in order that they could be resurrected with Him.

Luke 23:43

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in ^aparadise.

That doesn't sound like the thief was going to be know-nothing dead person does it?

 

[LittleNipper]

On 12/16/2017 at 1:51 AM, Duncan said:

it isn't in Ecclesiastes. In the next life they are alive and well, there is no such thing as a dead person to God

Ecclesiastes 9:5 ►

Verse (Click for Chapter) New International Version For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten. New Living Translation The living at least know they will die, but the dead know nothing. They have no further reward, nor are they remembered. English Standard Version For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. New American Standard Bible  For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. King James Bible For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Holman Christian Standard Bible For the living know that they will die, but the dead don't know anything. There is no longer a reward for them because the memory of them is forgotten. International Standard Version At least the living know they will die, but the dead know nothing; they no longer have a reward, since memory about them has been forgotten. NET Bible For the living know that they will die, but the dead do not know anything; they have no further reward--and even the memory of them disappears.  New Heart English Bible For the living know that they will die, but the dead do not know anything, neither do they have any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. GOD'S WORD® Translation The living know that they will die, but the dead don't know anything. There is no more reward for the dead when the memory of them has faded. JPS Tanakh 1917 For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. New American Standard 1977  For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. Jubilee Bible 2000 For the living know that they shall die, but the dead do not know any thing; neither do they have any more reward, for their memory is placed into oblivion. King James 2000 Bible For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. American King James Version For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. American Standard Version For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Douay-Rheims Bible For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing more, neither have they a reward any more: for the memory of them is forgotten.  Darby Bible Translation For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. English Revised Version For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Webster's Bible Translation For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. World English Bible For the living know that they will die, but the dead don't know anything, neither do they have any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Young's Literal Translation For the living know that they die, and the dead know not anything, and there is no more to them a reward, for their remembrance hath been forgotten.

[LittleNipper]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Ecclesiastes in that chapter is written from the perspective of godlessness. Or do you also subscribe to the idea that everything on earth is vanity?

Only the spiritual counts. The materialism, scientific pursuits,  and a knowledge for knowledge sake would seem not to win one anything in the afterlife and are vanity.  The researcher who places all his eggs in the basket of evolution will lose his soul ---- such a pursuit is folly --- vanity... 

Doesn't the New Testament say that the wise will be made foolish and the foolish wise?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Only the spiritual counts. The materialism, scientific pursuits,  and a knowledge for knowledge sake would seem not to win one anything in the afterlife and are vanity.  The researcher who places all his eggs in the basket of evolution will lose his soul ---- such a pursuit is folly --- vanity... 

Doesn't the New Testament say that the wise will be made foolish and the foolish wise?

So those prohibitions on fornication and murder are meaningless as the physical means nothing and only the spiritual counts? Are you a Buddhist? A Gnostic maybe?

If knowledge is in the physical brain then by your standard it is all meaningless so what does it matter whether someone is wise or foolish?

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It still functions under the direction of the sealing power of the Temple President and then under the President of the Church. So just because the ordinance doesn't need to be conducted by someone with the office of Elder or High Priest doesn't mean it's not functioning under the Melchezedek order.

However if you reread that thread you'll note that the bigger issue I raised for no temple work in the second temple period was that Jesus hadn't broken the bands of death and gone to spirit prison allowing missionary work to proceed there.

This is similar to what Elder Oaks said in his talk about priesthood. "What other authority is there?"

But this illustrates that when functioning under the priesthood keys of a prophet, temple president, and I presume any other key holder like stake President, bishop, quorum president, anyone under that person's stewardship can be assigned to carry out any priesthood practice. When we had a 70 organize our new stake a while back I asked if he had priesthood keys and he responded that he didn't personally but that they were temporarily assigned by the Q12 for the purpose of organizing the stake. I asked if he had hands laid on his head. He said the only authority he needed was the letter assigning him to do it.

So...I take all of this to mean that any person could perform any duty assigned by a priesthood key holder. This could be to witness a sealing or baptism, perform a sealing, baptism or other ordinance, give a blessing, set someone apart etc. etc. There really is no limitation to how a person can function under the priesthood keys simply because their own priesthood ordination may be lacking. If this can be done for Aaronic priesthood performing M. priesthood functions, why couldn't it also be true of women and YW?

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Ecclesiastes 9:5 ►

Verse (Click for Chapter) New International Version For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten. New Living Translation The living at least know they will die, but the dead know nothing. They have no further reward, nor are they remembered. English Standard Version For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. New American Standard Bible  For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. King James Bible For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Holman Christian Standard Bible For the living know that they will die, but the dead don't know anything. There is no longer a reward for them because the memory of them is forgotten. International Standard Version At least the living know they will die, but the dead know nothing; they no longer have a reward, since memory about them has been forgotten. NET Bible For the living know that they will die, but the dead do not know anything; they have no further reward--and even the memory of them disappears.  New Heart English Bible For the living know that they will die, but the dead do not know anything, neither do they have any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. GOD'S WORD® Translation The living know that they will die, but the dead don't know anything. There is no more reward for the dead when the memory of them has faded. JPS Tanakh 1917 For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. New American Standard 1977  For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. Jubilee Bible 2000 For the living know that they shall die, but the dead do not know any thing; neither do they have any more reward, for their memory is placed into oblivion. King James 2000 Bible For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. American King James Version For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. American Standard Version For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Douay-Rheims Bible For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing more, neither have they a reward any more: for the memory of them is forgotten.  Darby Bible Translation For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. English Revised Version For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Webster's Bible Translation For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. World English Bible For the living know that they will die, but the dead don't know anything, neither do they have any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Young's Literal Translation For the living know that they die, and the dead know not anything, and there is no more to them a reward, for their remembrance hath been forgotten.

what this is talking about isn't what you're talking about. To me these verses are talking about a dead body, they can't do anything anymore. The Church believes the spirit and body are two things and at death the body stays here and the spirit goes onto the spirit world, Christ told the thief on the cross that he would be with him in paradise, but he didn't mean his dead body but his spirit and at the resurrection the spirit and body will be reunited

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

what this is talking about isn't what you're talking about. To me these verses are talking about a dead body, they can't do anything anymore. The Church believes the spirit and body are two things and at death the body stays here and the spirit goes onto the spirit world, Christ told the thief on the cross that he would be with him in paradise, but he didn't mean his dead body but his spirit and at the resurrection the spirit and body will be reunited

Right. This is a proof-text (Bible bashing) used to argue that LDS doctrine about the spirit world and repenting is false doctrine (nothing can be done once you are dead). As has been pointed out, there are other Bible passages that contradict this (1 Peter 3 and 4). In a Bible bash, people will simply return to this passage from Ecclesiastes, plunking it like a piano with just that one key. 

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But this illustrates that when functioning under the priesthood keys of a prophet, temple president, and I presume any other key holder like stake President, bishop, quorum president, anyone under that person's stewardship can be assigned to carry out any priesthood practice. When we had a 70 organize our new stake a while back I asked if he had priesthood keys and he responded that he didn't personally but that they were temporarily assigned by the Q12 for the purpose of organizing the stake. I asked if he had hands laid on his head. He said the only authority he needed was the letter assigning him to do it.

That's normal. Think of missionaries doing interviews. They are given keys by the mission president but there's no ritual associated with the giving of those keys.

I think it's an interesting theological question as to why callings/offices require a ritual (laying on of hands) while keys as permissions to act don't. Further it's pretty clear looking at the history of the Church the past 100 years that keys as permissions don't even get associated with callings. Sometimes it's presumed that the calling has the key while a policy change can switch this. 

More or less what we have are the old formal vs. informal lines of power and authority that we see analyzed so often in systems. 

I think Mormons tend to assume priesthood is something mysterious and often reify it (treat it as an actual thing that gets passed around). One think I liked about Oaks treatment, which probably comes out of his legal background, is that he really goes out of his way to get away from that idea. Even in historical treatment of priesthood though you sometimes see priesthood reified. So you'll see historians sometimes talking about D&C 84 really introducing priesthood as an abstract entity. I think that there are some theoretical assumptions working in these historical papers the authors may not be aware they're making. The very priesthood versus being a priest distinction can itself be pretty problematic.

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So...I take all of this to mean that any person could perform any duty assigned by a priesthood key holder. This could be to witness a sealing or baptism, perform a sealing, baptism or other ordinance, give a blessing, set someone apart etc. etc. There really is no limitation to how a person can function under the priesthood keys simply because their own priesthood ordination may be lacking. If this can be done for Aaronic priesthood performing M. priesthood functions, why couldn't it also be true of women and YW?

I think the thinking is that the only limit on baptism is that one needs to have a priesthood office and it can't be deacon or teacher. 

The point that feminists have been raging about the past week is the idea that being a witness doesn't technically require priesthood, although in practice it always has. (Or more accurately usually has since Nauvoo) 

To your final point, effectively what you (and what many feminists ask) is why there are priesthood structures at all. They don't phrase it that way, but the line of argument basically hinges on skepticism towards structure. In this case the structure are priesthood offices and what they mean. If we drop the reification of priesthood many take as an assumption then what we're left with are structures as essential. In other words it seems to me that the line of reasoning feminists have been adopting actually makes their position more difficult. Since if there's no reified priesthood then what counts are the structures that they are trying to upend. I'd think a stronger argument would be pushing more for a reified priesthood and devaluing structures as arbitrary and accidental.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

That's normal. Think of missionaries doing interviews. They are given keys by the mission president but there's no ritual associated with the giving of those keys.

I think it's an interesting theological question as to why callings/offices require a ritual (laying on of hands) while keys as permissions to act don't. Further it's pretty clear looking at the history of the Church the past 100 years that keys as permissions don't even get associated with callings. Sometimes it's presumed that the calling has the key while a policy change can switch this. 

More or less what we have are the old formal vs. informal lines of power and authority that we see analyzed so often in systems. 

I think Mormons tend to assume priesthood is something mysterious and often reify it (treat it as an actual thing that gets passed around). One think I liked about Oaks treatment, which probably comes out of his legal background, is that he really goes out of his way to get away from that idea. Even in historical treatment of priesthood though you sometimes see priesthood reified. So you'll see historians sometimes talking about D&C 84 really introducing priesthood as an abstract entity. I think that there are some theoretical assumptions working in these historical papers the authors may not be aware they're making. The very priesthood versus being a priest distinction can itself be pretty problematic.

I think this reification of keys is at the heart of the LDS interpretation of apostasy and the restoration of the priesthood. It runs through the doctrine deeply.

I think the thinking is that the only limit on baptism is that one needs to have a priesthood office and it can't be deacon or teacher. 

Why would there be any limitation at all? Just because we haven't seen it done otherwise before? If, in theory, the prophet could write a letter assigning me to perform a sealing (I'm not a temple sealer), then why could he not write a letter or even give a verbal assignment to a sister to baptize? In both cases the individual would be working under authorization of priesthood keys. As Oaks said, all work that is done is priesthood work authorized by keys.

The point that feminists have been raging about the past week is the idea that being a witness doesn't technically require priesthood, although in practice it always has. (Or more accurately usually has since Nauvoo) 

That's not quite accurate. There's a By Common Consent blog post quoting a historian that shows that up until the 1950's women acted as witnesses in the temple. Like I said previously, there's no reason why they couldn't if a key holder assigns/allows it. There were also other examples shared in which women were witnesses to baptisms. Then you have examples like Camilla Kimball laying her hands on Pres. Kimball's head to give a blessing of healing. Many things that are associated with male priesthood haven't always been, nor do they need to be male-centric.

To your final point, effectively what you (and what many feminists ask) is why there are priesthood structures at all. They don't phrase it that way, but the line of argument basically hinges on skepticism towards structure. In this case the structure are priesthood offices and what they mean. If we drop the reification of priesthood many take as an assumption then what we're left with are structures as essential. In other words it seems to me that the line of reasoning feminists have been adopting actually makes their position more difficult. Since if there's no reified priesthood then what counts are the structures that they are trying to upend. I'd think a stronger argument would be pushing more for a reified priesthood and devaluing structures as arbitrary and accidental.

I don't think I'm arguing that priesthood shouldn't have any structure at all. But it appears that most structure is man made for the purposes of administration. The structure is attributed to God but it's awfully hard to disentangle traditions and history of patriarchy and the male leaders who promote the status quo. I can't speak for feminists but your final sentence makes no sense to me because I am not trying to upend the structure of actual keys. I'm proposing a restructure of the traditional patriarchy that has always been a part of the time and culture. It's pushing against the limitations imposed by the system of priesthood, whether reified or not, that systemically excludes 1/2 of the population. So whether keys and priesthood are formally passed or not, functionally that is the way they work in the church (with very few exceptions), and that is what could be changed. Change the traditions and administration that treats women like they have no priesthood when we know that in fact they do. They simply aren't permitted, by the structure, to use it like a man would.

Great post, Clark. I'll respond inside your comment because there is a lot there.

 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Great post, Clark. I'll respond inside your comment because there is a lot there.

(Can't quote your interlineated statements in red without copying and pasting, and that is a recipe for a post not going through here. At least for me).

At some point, though, you have to have ordination by the laying on of hands. It can't all be "deemed as authorized." 5th Article of Faith, etc.

I'm on the conservative, old-fashioned end of the spectrum, and I would also be fine with, for example, a Relief Society president calling teachers, committee members, etc. within her organization. This would be like appointing, or even asking, sisters to do things within the organization. I know people who *really* want to be set apart immediately for a calling, and then there are people who are fine serving in their calling indefinitely, without formally being set apart. I'm more of this second type, figuring that the presiding authority calling/asking me to do something provides the mandate/authority that I need for it. 

I try to set everyone apart as soon as possible after being sustained, but many people are familiar with the carnage that ensues immediately after sacrament meeting, and it isn't always possible to do this and has to be postponed or rescheduled (there can be bigger fires to put out, or lots of irons in the fire). This is especially true if there is a lot of ward business on a given Sunday. I wouldn't mind a less stringent view of setting aparts for some callings (other callings should be formally set apart, in my view). And, for common sense things that belong to organizational function, I for one would be fine with RS presidents or YW presidents asking people to do things (teach, serve as advisors, etc.) --- without setting them apart. They would still need to be approved by the bishopric, because of "greater needs" (they're earmarked for something else) or because of discipline restrictions that aren't generally known. 

But I also understand and support the idea that all callings are ultimately under the bishop's keys. 

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think this reification of keys is at the heart of the LDS interpretation of apostasy and the restoration of the priesthood. It runs through the doctrine deeply.

I'm not sure I agree. I think the stronger argument for apostasy is God simply withholding his prophets and thereby keys. That's Nibley's take and I think is still deeply influential. Which writers are you thinking of with a reified priesthood tied to apostasy.

Certainly people loosely talk of the priesthood being lost. But I don't think that entail reification.

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why would there be any limitation at all? Just because we haven't seen it done otherwise before? If, in theory, the prophet could write a letter assigning me to perform a sealing (I'm not a temple sealer), then why could he not write a letter or even give a verbal assignment to a sister to baptize? In both cases the individual would be working under authorization of priesthood keys. As Oaks said, all work that is done is priesthood work authorized by keys.

That's more or less the perspective I mentioned that downplays structure. As to why there's a limit, it's because of the revelations on Church offices where deacons and teachers (and non-office holders) not being able to baptize. 

Ultimately the question is what can we do on our own versus what do we require explicit revelation for. In this case we know power as authorization is necessary. (3 Nephi 11:21-22; D&C 20:46) Put an other way, just because you have keys, doesn't mean you can use them any way you want.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There's a By Common Consent blog post quoting a historian that shows that up until the 1950's women acted as witnesses in the temple. 

 I was speaking of baptism. The BCC post is a bit problematic as I think it conflates several senses of witness. But I find it's as often as not, not worth commenting on such things there. I think you're actually referring to Ardis' comments quoted at the Trib. However she's talking about witnesses for marriage, not baptism. (The BCC comments expanded that to all temple rites which doesn't seem supported) My understanding is that while there were some women in Nauvoo who did it, the practice stopped in Utah. I may well be wrong on that, but I've not seen evidence yet. Given that the ordinance was just being introduced in Nauvoo and initially women would be baptized for men and vice versa I think we have to be careful assigning too much significance to Nauvoo. That's not to say it might not be changed. Just that again there's that epistemological question of how we know what requires significant revelation or not.

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Then you have examples like Camilla Kimball laying her hands on Pres. Kimball's head to give a blessing of healing. Many things that are associated with male priesthood haven't always been, nor do they need to be male-centric.

Healing can be done by faith or by priesthood. It's a policy that when they are available the Elders should be called for instead of faith healing to the point that faith healing is down looked down upon. Not helped by the fact that those who do it usually are tied to apostate movements like the Snuffers or people pushing a feminist agenda independent of the brethren. (i.e. changing practice without authority to change practice) However in theory that could be changed by a policy shift. So far as I know healing was never done in terms of priesthood by women. I know Jonathan Stapley has a new book coming on tied to his research on "cosmic priesthood" so he might change some views on this. However in the past he's been critical of feminist treatments of such things such as the argument in Women and Authority relative to seer stones and female prophecy. I'm looking forward to reading his book. 

I should note that this is becoming a present issue given Elder Ballard's talk at fall conference due to so-called energy healing that's a popular alternative medicine business in Utah. Apparently some Snuffers in one stake have started doing it but calling it female priesthood leading to divorces and excommunications.

[HappyJackWagon]

31 minutes ago, rongo said:

(Can't quote your interlineated statements in red without copying and pasting, and that is a recipe for a post not going through here. At least for me).

At some point, though, you have to have ordination by the laying on of hands. It can't all be "deemed as authorized." 5th Article of Faith, etc.

I'm on the conservative, old-fashioned end of the spectrum, and I would also be fine with, for example, a Relief Society president calling teachers, committee members, etc. within her organization. This would be like appointing, or even asking, sisters to do things within the organization. I know people who *really* want to be set apart immediately for a calling, and then there are people who are fine serving in their calling indefinitely, without formally being set apart. I'm more of this second type, figuring that the presiding authority calling/asking me to do something provides the mandate/authority that I need for it. 

I try to set everyone apart as soon as possible after being sustained, but many people are familiar with the carnage that ensues immediately after sacrament meeting, and it isn't always possible to do this and has to be postponed or rescheduled (there can be bigger fires to put out, or lots of irons in the fire). This is especially true if there is a lot of ward business on a given Sunday. I wouldn't mind a less stringent view of setting aparts for some callings (other callings should be formally set apart, in my view). And, for common sense things that belong to organizational function, I for one would be fine with RS presidents or YW presidents asking people to do things (teach, serve as advisors, etc.) --- without setting them apart. They would still need to be approved by the bishopric, because of "greater needs" (they're earmarked for something else) or because of discipline restrictions that aren't generally known. 

But I also understand and support the idea that all callings are ultimately under the bishop's keys. 

Good point about the 5th article of faith.

Quote

5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

Yet it doesn't saying anything about "ordination" or that after an ordination has occurred that all other callings could be simply assigned by letter. So while this concept of laying on of hands for and by authority is a canonized doctrine/principle, I don't see that it is universally followed. That leads me to believe there is significant wiggle room.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I was speaking of baptism. The BCC post is a bit problematic as I think it conflates several senses of witness. But I find it's as often as not, not worth commenting on such things there. I think you're actually referring to Ardis' comments quoted at the Trib. However she's talking about witnesses for marriage, not baptism. (The BCC comments expanded that to all temple rites which doesn't seem supported) My understanding is that while there were some women in Nauvoo who did it, the practice stopped in Utah. I may well be wrong on that, but I've not seen evidence yet. Given that the ordinance was just being introduced in Nauvoo and initially women would be baptized for men and vice versa I think we have to be careful assigning too much significance to Nauvoo. That's not to say it might not be changed. Just that again there's that epistemological question of how we know what requires significant revelation or not.

 

Yes, that's what I was referring to. Why would it matter if women were witnessing for baptism ( a priesthood ordinance) or a marriage/sealing (a priesthood ordinance). Is there a difference in witnessing one type of ordinance versus witnessing another? If anything I'd think an Aaronic Priesthood ordinance like baptism would have a lower threshold for witnessing, than a M. Priesthood ordinance like sealing.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Good point about the 5th article of faith.

Yet it doesn't saying anything about "ordination" or that after an ordination has occurred that all other callings could be simply assigned by letter. So while this concept of laying on of hands for and by authority is a canonized doctrine/principle, I don't see that it is universally followed. That leads me to believe there is significant wiggle room.

The wiggle room is there. Whether or not it ought to be . . .  

A lot of changes have been done by fiat by the president of the Church over the years. I think it would be good to have kept a lot of them as they were. I think it is significant that *all* of our changes for the last long while have simply been done by letter, with little to no explanation of the doctrinal implications. My son is trying to wrap his mind around this change. He's in a good place, but has questions whose only answers are "because the governing authorities decided this and sent a letter." 

If women ever get the priesthood, I really think it will be as simple as a First Presidency letter (to be read in sacrament meeting), worded something like: "We rejoice that women around the world in the Church have been assuming a greater role. Effective January 1, 2037, all endowed women who desire it and are worthy of it may receive the Melchizedek Priesthood and be ordained to the office of Elder. The programs formerly known as "Home Teaching" and "Visiting Teaching" will now be combined into one, and renamed "Ward Teaching." 

I don't really think this would happen, but it wouldn't shock me at all. Well, the fact of it happening would shock me, but not this means of announcing it (simply a policy change, letter to leaders, no discussion of revelation or doctrine).

[Jeanne]

Quick question...women who give blessings today....is it because of a 2nd annointing?

[rongo]

Just now, Jeanne said:

Quick question...women who give blessings today....is it because of a 2nd annointing?

No. I think it is very rare today --- and I don't believe that women have ever given them by the authority of the priesthood. I have a family history of Eliza R. Snow healing many people by the laying on of hands in Morgan, Utah during a cholera epidemic --- and it worked. But, she did it through the prayer of faith. 

I think that most today who are intrigued by this are afraid to try. There is something in the back of our minds that this is not quite right --- probably from conditioning. 

I wouldn't counsel any women to lay hands on, even though I know of and have no problem with the historical practice of it. 

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Quick question...women who give blessings today....is it because of a 2nd annointing?

No. D&C 46:20.

LDS.org actually has a full article on these issues including healing. Quoting the relevant paragraphs.

Quote

The second aspect of Joseph Smith’s teachings to the Relief Society that may be unfamiliar today is his endorsement of women’s participation in giving blessings of healing. “Respecting the female laying on hands,” the Nauvoo Relief Society minutes record, Joseph said that “it is no sin for any body to do it that has faith,” and admonished, “if the sisters should have faith to heal the sick, let all hold their tongues, and let every thing roll on.”³⁰ Some women had performed such blessings since the early days of the Church. At that time, Latter-day Saints understood the gift of healing primarily in terms of the New Testament’s teaching that it was one of the gifts of the Spirit available to believers through faith. Joseph Smith taught that the gift of healing was a sign that would follow “all that believe whether male or female.”³¹

During the 19th century, women frequently blessed the sick by the prayer of faith, and many women received priesthood blessings promising that they would have the gift of healing.³² “I have seen many demonstrations of the power and blessing of God through the administration of the sisters,” testified Elizabeth Ann Smith Whitney, who was, by her own account, blessed by Joseph Smith to exercise this gift.³³ In reference to these healing blessings, Relief Society general president Eliza R. Snow explained in 1883, “Women can administer in the name of JESUS, but not by virtue of the Priesthood.”³⁴

Women’s participation in healing blessings gradually declined in the early 20^th century as Church leaders taught that it was preferable to follow the New Testament directive to “call for the elders.”³⁵ By 1926, Church President Heber J. Grant affirmed that the First Presidency “do not encourage calling in the sisters to administer to the sick, as the scriptures tell us to call in the Elders, who hold the priesthood of God and have the power and authority to administer to the sick in the name of Jesus Christ.”³⁶ Currently, the Church’s Handbook 2: Administering the Church directs that “only Melchizedek Priesthood holders may administer to the sick or afflicted.”³⁷

 

Edited December 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Quick question...women who give blessings today....is it because of a 2nd annointing?

No, there is no connection.
Although, in the 19th century when there were fewer temples far more temple workers were called from among those who had received their 2nd anointings.

[Jeanne]

Thanks to Clarkgoble and rongo.  I get so confused in the "sharing of priesthood" and said actually blessings given.  I understand that Temple Ordinances mean that a woman shares the priesthood with her husband in some capacity...so when I read hear about C. Kimball, I was surprised. Missed  J:HLOP's reply..thanks to all of you!!

Edited December 18, 2017 by Jeanne

[clarkgoble]

54 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, that's what I was referring to. Why would it matter if women were witnessing for baptism ( a priesthood ordinance) or a marriage/sealing (a priesthood ordinance). Is there a difference in witnessing one type of ordinance versus witnessing another? If anything I'd think an Aaronic Priesthood ordinance like baptism would have a lower threshold for witnessing, than a M. Priesthood ordinance like sealing.

Again, I don't know. But that's what I was getting at with some just having a thoroughgoing distrust of structure when others don't. My sense is that there's a fundamental disagreement over where the burden of proof has to be.

I confess that I'm very much on the "if you don't have a good reason to think the structure is arbitrary then you have to have a revelation." My sense, perhaps wrong, is that those who don't share that view don't share it simply because they want things changed and don't want revelation on the subject because that might mean their desired changes don't happen. i.e. they want it affected purely by political agitation.

There are also of course other complications such as just getting men to want to participate at church. The activity rates and conversion rates for women are much higher than men. While I completely understand why feminists want more participation by girls, I think they are consciously deciding that mens activity rates don't matter in how they analyze things. (Again I fully understand that from their perspective it's about justice and providing a role for people to feel a part of things doesn't matter if they don't feel a part of things) 

Edited December 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Jeanne]

So...another question...(I aim to drive you people nuts)...Having been a good person and still LDS...but not active...would a special blessing from me been beneficial to my husband at all....or just a comfort somehow to me??

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is similar to what Elder Oaks said in his talk about priesthood. "What other authority is there?"

But this illustrates that when functioning under the priesthood keys of a prophet, temple president, and I presume any other key holder like stake President, bishop, quorum president, anyone under that person's stewardship can be assigned to carry out any priesthood practice. When we had a 70 organize our new stake a while back I asked if he had priesthood keys and he responded that he didn't personally but that they were temporarily assigned by the Q12 for the purpose of organizing the stake. I asked if he had hands laid on his head. He said the only authority he needed was the letter assigning him to do it.

So...I take all of this to mean that any person could perform any duty assigned by a priesthood key holder. This could be to witness a sealing or baptism, perform a sealing, baptism or other ordinance, give a blessing, set someone apart etc. etc. There really is no limitation to how a person can function under the priesthood keys simply because their own priesthood ordination may be lacking. If this can be done for Aaronic priesthood performing M. priesthood functions, why couldn't it also be true of women and YW?

Being on the HC, I get the delegated keys to do all kinds of things for the stake president.  He will say "Please go to x ward and interview brother y and call him to be Elder's Quorum President, and then set him apart if he accepts".  (presuming the HC had already approved the individual)

He has never asked me to call a sister as Elder's quorum president.

Your point?

Yet suppose he did.  I would know he did not have the authority to do that and so I would not.   I still don't get your point.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Being on the HC, I get the delegated keys to do all kinds of things for the stake president.  He will say "Please go to x ward and interview brother y and call him to be Elder's Quorum President, and then set him apart if he accepts".  (presuming the HC had already approved the individual)

He has never asked me to call a sister as Elder's quorum president.

Your point?

Yet suppose he did.  I would know he did not have the authority to do that and so I would not.   I still don't get your point.

Your stake pres has assigned you to call and set apart, bestowing priesthood keys which you do not possess, to a new Elder's Quorum President? That is definitely outside the norm of priesthood assignments and handbook requirements. The handbook is quite specific about who sets apart quorum leaders. For example, according to the handbook the bishop doesn't have the authority to assign one of his counselors to set apart a Deacon's quorum president and bestow keys on the president. Why? Because the counselor doesn't hold the keys. Same with the 70 calling and setting apart a new SP when he doesn't actually hold the keys. What would stop a bishop from delegating a counselor to convene a disciplinary council for a ward member? Is it simply outside of policy, or do the keys as a judge in Israel truly matter? If you knew that the policy specifically dictates the calling and setting apart of EQ Pres by the Stake Pres (not even one of his counselors) would you still accept the assignment to do it? If so, why? Are some kinds of assignments that are outside of policy ok to carry out while others are not? Is that left to you to decide if the breach of policy is reasonable and authorized, allowing you to call and bestow keys on an EQ Pres but not to call a woman to perform a priesthood duty? What if a SP assigned you to call and set apart a woman as a ward clerk, which is clearly outside of handbook regs? Would you do it? Or does gender make these exceptions to policy much worse than what you are already doing?

I interpret these kinds of delegations of authority to be either a. an inappropriate delegation, b. evidence that church leaders don't consider the setting apart and keys to be essential for a person to serve adequately in their calling, or c. evidence that the laying on of hands isn't as important as the 5th article of faith suggests in maintaining reified keys that are properly passed from one individual to another.