Priesthood session leads to questions

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am going to go with the "hide in my bomb bunker and eat astronaut ice cream" version.

That stuff is nasty. I hear it is the reason astronauts’ DNA changes.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

Well, the priesthood is the authority to act in the name of God.  Does "the authority to act in the name of God" session make a lot of sense?  It doesn't make much sense to me.

The term really only makes sense if it's using the word 'priesthood' to refer to the men who hold it, and Elder Oaks emphatically stated that shortening 'the priesthood holders' to 'the priesthood' was not appropriate.  That's why I'm wondering if it will be necessary to change the name of the session.

The term, “Priesthood Session” makes sense in that it is a meeting organized and presided over by the First Presidency for the narrow purpose of instructing those with offices within the priesthood organization to officiate of the Church, as follows:

D&C 107: 65, 66: “Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church; Or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church.” This does not refer to presiding over individuals or the men at large, but over the power of God that has been delegated to men according to ordained scopes of office (the second meaning here: https://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood?lang=eng).

Verse 76 in relation to the Aaronic priesthood uses it in this vein also: “But a literal descendant of Aaron has a legal right to the presidency of this priesthood…” In verse 91, “the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses…” Presiding over the Church, not the people. The Church is organized along a priesthood order which involves offices (involving men only) and duties and delegation (involving both men and women).

The narrow scope i referred to has to do with one element of the Presiding High Priest's duty (verse 9), which involves officiating in all the offices in the the Church, and this particular session having to do with priesthood offices only.

[Thinking]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

Second, will the priesthood session of conference be changed to a different name since it's not appropriate to call men 'the priesthood'?  

It only took six months after then Elder Nelson's GC talk about the appropriate name of the Church for Gordon B. Hinckley to give a talk that basically accepted the fact that members of the Church will be called Mormons and the Church will be called the Mormon Church.

Elder Nelson's April 1990 GC Talk

President Hinckley's October 1990 GC Talk

This too shall pass. Those "women holding the priesthood" jokes will still be relevant.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It only took six months after then Elder Nelson's GC talk about the appropriate name of the Church for Gordon B. Hinckley to give a talk that basically accepted the fact that members of the Church will be called Mormons and the Church will be called the Mormon Church.

Elder Nelson's April 1990 GC Talk

President Hinckley's October 1990 GC Talk

This too shall pass. Those "women holding the priesthood" jokes will still be relevant.

One has to do with what others call us. The other has to do with one weird idiom only some people use (I never did) and almost exclusively used by us. I would like to think we can change the latter even if we cannot change the former but I could be wrong.

I also just want the joke to die. It is not funny.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The term, “Priesthood Session” makes sense in that it is a meeting organized and presided over by the First Presidency for the narrow purpose of instructing those with offices within the priesthood organization to officiate of the Church, as follows:

 

D&C 107: 65, 66: “Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church; Or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church.” This does not refer to presiding over individuals or the men at large, but over the power of God that has been delegated to men according to ordained scopes of office (the second meaning here: https://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood?lang=eng).

 

Verse 76 in relation to the Aaronic priesthood uses it in this vein also: “But a literal descendant of Aaron has a legal right to the presidency of this priesthood…” In verse 91, “the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses…” Presiding over the Church, not the people. The Church is organized along a priesthood order which involves offices (involving men only) and duties and delegation (involving both men and women).

The narrow scope i referred to has to do with one element of the Presiding High Priest's duty (verse 9), which involves officiating in all the offices in the the Church, and this particular session having to do with priesthood offices only.

 

 

I think that's why it's confusing to me.  It's a meeting with the sole purpose of instructing priesthood holders concerning their priesthood duties.  Calling it the 'priesthood session' seems like shorthand.  But per Elder Oaks instruction, is shorthand appropriate?  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think that's why it's confusing to me.  It's a meeting with the sole purpose of instructing priesthood holders concerning their priesthood duties.  Calling it the 'priesthood session' seems like shorthand.  But per Elder Oaks instruction, is shorthand appropriate?  

I think some confusion might be eased by looking at the difference between a synonym and shorthand.

I don’t see calling men “the priesthood” as an example of shorthand, but of malapropic synonymy. From Note 11 in Elder Oaks’ talk https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng in reference to his comment, “men are not the priesthood,” he says, “We sometimes say that the Relief Society is a “partner with the priesthood.” It would be more accurate to say that in the work of the Lord the Relief Society and the women of the Church are “partners with the holders of the priesthood.” He's saying it is a bad synonym to use (priesthood for men or males).

I would also offer an alternate saying that keeps the spirit of his comment: “…that in the work of the Lord the Relief Society is a partner organization with the priesthood quorums and other Church organizations by virtue of the respective unit’s presiding high priest’s delegation.”

Conversely I see my suggested usage as appropriate “shorthand” because it captures a specific picture, more so than "the Conference Session about the power of God," which quite rightly describes the Priesthood and all other General Conference sessions. Tacking on to D&C 107:99, the “Priesthood Session” is shorthand for “The Presidency of the High Priesthood’s Session to Let Every Man Learn His Priesthood Duty And to Act in the Priesthood Office in Which He is Appointed in All Diligence,” not for "Men's Session."

[CV75]

@bluebell I've been trying to find the earliest General Women's Session to try and ascertain the reason for its origin and title. The earliest I can find is October 1978. President Kimball says, "This is an unique and significant gathering. Nothing like it has ever been held before in the Church—and so far as I know, in the world," so I'm thinking this is the first such session. He also says, " I come to you tonight with a message of peace and hope and love, a message of advice and counsel, a message of faith and encouragement and confidence. I trust that what I say will be helpful and beneficial to you."  He attributes its initiation to "the sisters in the general presidencies of the Relief Society, the Young Women, and the Primary, who, along with their boards, do so much to serve the sisters of the Church, and have been largely responsible for initiating this coming together here tonight." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/10/privileges-and-responsibilities-of-sisters?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/10?lang=eng

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

It only took six months after then Elder Nelson's GC talk about the appropriate name of the Church for Gordon B. Hinckley to give a talk that basically accepted the fact that members of the Church will be called Mormons and the Church will be called the Mormon Church.

Elder Nelson's April 1990 GC Talk

President Hinckley's October 1990 GC Talk

This too shall pass. Those "women holding the priesthood" jokes will still be relevant.

You, like others, misunderstand the counsel regarding Mormon. Neither the Church nor its officers have ever forbidden the use of the word to refer to members of the Church, i.e. "Mormons."

The directive has to do only with the name of the Church, and the reason is well taken. Christ Himself directed that the Church be called in His name (see 3 Nephi). It is for this reason that the leaders have asked that we, as members, use the name of Christ when giving the name of the Church (either the full and formal name or a the shortened form "Church of Jesus Christ).

And no, I don't agree that the leaders of the Church have backed away from this instruction. President (formerly Elder) Ballard has given at least two general conference talks about it that I know of. And there was a recent Church News editorial on it.

[SJR3t2]

On ‎2018‎-‎04‎-‎01 at 4:10 PM, bluebell said:

I didn't specifically sit down and watch the Priesthood session but I was in the same room as the TV so heard a lot of it.  Lots of good stuff.  I loved it.

I loved Pres. Nelson's talk on how we often live below our privileges (using the example of how members sometimes don't know the difference between a prayer and a blessing).  I loved how Elder Oaks (IIRC) reiterated strongly that the men are not 'the priesthood' and shouldn't be referred to by that title.

These two issues have brought to questions to my mind though.  

-First, If Rongo is right about the change in Elders and HP is because we are now living a lesser law, why wouldn't the Prophet just tell us that?  Why pretend that it's a good thing rather than not.  Pres. Nelson's talk shows that they don't shy away from letting us known when we need to change or improve or have failed to live up to what God wants of us.  Is there a precedent for Heavenly Father implementing lesser laws and not telling His children that's what's happening?

-Second, will the priesthood session of conference be changed to a different name since it's not appropriate to call men 'the priesthood'?  

I didn't watch it, but did he teach us what the difference between a prayer and a blessing is?

[Marginal Gains]

On 4/1/2018 at 8:10 PM, bluebell said:

I didn't specifically sit down and watch the Priesthood session but I was in the same room as the TV so heard a lot of it.  Lots of good stuff.  I loved it.

I loved Pres. Nelson's talk on how we often live below our privileges (using the example of how members sometimes don't know the difference between a prayer and a blessing).  I loved how Elder Oaks (IIRC) reiterated strongly that the men are not 'the priesthood' and shouldn't be referred to by that title.

These two issues have brought to questions to my mind though.  

-First, If Rongo is right about the change in Elders and HP is because we are now living a lesser law, why wouldn't the Prophet just tell us that?  Why pretend that it's a good thing rather than not.  Pres. Nelson's talk shows that they don't shy away from letting us known when we need to change or improve or have failed to live up to what God wants of us.  Is there a precedent for Heavenly Father implementing lesser laws and not telling His children that's what's happening?

-Second, will the priesthood session of conference be changed to a different name since it's not appropriate to call men 'the priesthood'?  

It’s not appropriate to call a group of men “the priesthood”?

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

It’s not appropriate to call a group of men “the priesthood”?

Yes, it's not appropriate.  This has been taught before but traditions die hard.  Men are not the priesthood-they are not authority to use God power.  Men hold the priesthood.  People in the church get lazy and often just leave out the first two words of that phrase, but as was taught, it's not appropriate to do that.

Here is what Pres. Oaks said at April's GC-

"We should always remember that men who hold the priesthood are not “the priesthood.” It is not appropriate to refer to “the priesthood and the women.” 

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said:

I didn't watch it, but did he teach us what the difference between a prayer and a blessing is?

Here is the relevant part of his talk-

Now, may I voice a concern? It is this: Too many of our brothers and sisters do not fully understand the concept of priesthood power and authority. They act as though they would rather satisfy their own selfish desires and appetites than use the power of God to bless His children.

I fear that too many of our brothers and sisters do not grasp the privileges that could be theirs.3 Some of our brethren, for example, act like they do not understand what the priesthood is and what it enables them to do. Let me give you some specific examples.

Not long ago, I attended a sacrament meeting in which a new baby was to be given a name and a father’s blessing. The young father held his precious infant in his arms, gave her a name, and then offered a beautiful prayer. But he did not give that child a blessing. That sweet baby girl got a name but no blessing! That dear elder did not know the difference between a prayer and a priesthood blessing. With his priesthood authority and power, he could have blessed his infant, but he did not. I thought, “What a missed opportunity!”

Let me cite some other examples. We know of brethren who set sisters apart as Primary, Young Women, or Relief Society leaders and teachers but fail to bless them—to bless them with the power to fulfill their callings. They give only admonitions and instructions. We see a worthy father who fails to give his wife and his children priesthood blessings when that is exactly what they need. Priesthood power has been restored to this earth, and yet far too many brothers and sisters go through terrible trials in life without ever receiving a true priesthood blessing. What a tragedy! That’s a tragedy that we can eliminate.

Brethren, we hold the holy priesthood of God! We have His authority to bless His people. Just think of the remarkable assurance the Lord gave us when He said, “Whomsoever you bless I will bless.”4 It is our privilege to act in the name of Jesus Christ to bless God’s children according to His will for them. Stake presidents and bishops, please ensure that every member of the quorums within your stewardship understands how to give a priesthood blessing—including the personal worthiness and spiritual preparation required to call fully upon the power of God.

You can read the whole talk here.

[SJR3t2]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Here is the relevant part of his talk-

Now, may I voice a concern? It is this: Too many of our brothers and sisters do not fully understand the concept of priesthood power and authority. They act as though they would rather satisfy their own selfish desires and appetites than use the power of God to bless His children.

I fear that too many of our brothers and sisters do not grasp the privileges that could be theirs.3 Some of our brethren, for example, act like they do not understand what the priesthood is and what it enables them to do. Let me give you some specific examples.

Not long ago, I attended a sacrament meeting in which a new baby was to be given a name and a father’s blessing. The young father held his precious infant in his arms, gave her a name, and then offered a beautiful prayer. But he did not give that child a blessing. That sweet baby girl got a name but no blessing! That dear elder did not know the difference between a prayer and a priesthood blessing. With his priesthood authority and power, he could have blessed his infant, but he did not. I thought, “What a missed opportunity!”

Let me cite some other examples. We know of brethren who set sisters apart as Primary, Young Women, or Relief Society leaders and teachers but fail to bless them—to bless them with the power to fulfill their callings. They give only admonitions and instructions. We see a worthy father who fails to give his wife and his children priesthood blessings when that is exactly what they need. Priesthood power has been restored to this earth, and yet far too many brothers and sisters go through terrible trials in life without ever receiving a true priesthood blessing. What a tragedy! That’s a tragedy that we can eliminate.

Brethren, we hold the holy priesthood of God! We have His authority to bless His people. Just think of the remarkable assurance the Lord gave us when He said, “Whomsoever you bless I will bless.”4 It is our privilege to act in the name of Jesus Christ to bless God’s children according to His will for them. Stake presidents and bishops, please ensure that every member of the quorums within your stewardship understands how to give a priesthood blessing—including the personal worthiness and spiritual preparation required to call fully upon the power of God.

You can read the whole talk here.

thanks for finding the relevant section of talk, many kudos, as many don't do that. But in this quote you shared I see he making observations but not teaching what the difference actually is. In addition he brings up the concept of priesthood power and authority and also does not define it.

This is one of my favorite BoM verses regarding power.

Jacob 4:6 Wherefore, we search the prophets, and we have many revelations and the spirit of prophecy; and having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea.

 

[MormonMason]

On 4/2/2018 at 1:17 AM, Bernard Gui said:

That stuff is nasty. I hear it is the reason astronauts’ DNA changes.

It's designed to be eaten in space but it's more a novelty on terra firma.  If I recall correctly, people produce more saliva in space.  When you eat it down here it takes longer to reconstitute in your mouth than it would in space.  That's all assuming I recall correctly.  In my advancing age that's not always a given proposition!

[Marginal Gains]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, it's not appropriate.  This has been taught before but traditions die hard.  Men are not the priesthood-they are not authority to use God power.  Men hold the priesthood.  People in the church get lazy and often just leave out the first two words of that phrase, but as was taught, it's not appropriate to do that.

Here is what Pres. Oaks said at April's GC-

"We should always remember that men who hold the priesthood are not “the priesthood.” It is not appropriate to refer to “the priesthood and the women.” 

That’s interesting, as you say calling it “the Priesthood Session of Conference” is against what Oaks taught as a principle in that very session.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

That’s interesting, as you say calling it “the Priesthood Session of Conference” is against what Oaks taught as a principle in that very session.

I think it depends on whether or not the name is referring to who attends or who the meeting is for, or if it is referring to what the focus of the meeting is.  If it's the latter, then it's not against what Pres. Oak said.  If it's the first, then seems like it is.

[Marginal Gains]

12 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

That’s interesting, as you say calling it “the Priesthood Session of Conference” is against what Oaks taught as a principle in that very session.

 

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it depends on whether or not the name is referring to who attends or who the meeting is for, or if it is referring to what the focus of the meeting is.  If it's the latter, then it's not against what Pres. Oak said.  If it's the first, then seems like it is.

Quote

Beginning April 2018, both the general priesthood and general women’s sessions of general conference will be held annually, with the priesthood session being held in April and the women’s session being held in October.

https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-announces-change-to-general-conference-meeting-schedule?lang=eng

In the above explanation ‘the priesthood’ is being used as a synonym for ‘men’. 

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-announces-change-to-general-conference-meeting-schedule?lang=eng

In the above explanation ‘the priesthood’ is being used as a synonym for ‘men’. 

I wonder if this is an artifact, a holdover from days gone by.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Marginal Gains]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if this is an artifact, a holdover from days gone by.

Thanks,

-Smac

October 2017.

[Calm]

 

54 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

October 2017.

Your point?

[Avatar4321]

7 hours ago, SJR3t2 said:

thanks for finding the relevant section of talk, many kudos, as many don't do that. But in this quote you shared I see he making observations but not teaching what the difference actually is. In addition he brings up the concept of priesthood power and authority and also does not define it.

This is one of my favorite BoM verses regarding power.

Jacob 4:6 Wherefore, we search the prophets, and we have many revelations and the spirit of prophecy; and having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea.

 

I think the observations show the difference.

 

[Maidservant]

On 4/1/2018 at 12:48 PM, bluebell said:

Yes, but they knew they were living a lesser law.  Is there any time when HF took a higher law away and implemented a lesser law but did not tell His children that's what He was doing but instead presented the change as superior to the old way?

I do like the way you phrase the question, and I have the same one.  On the other hand, I think it has been made clear to us that everything we have been given so far is the lesser law if for no other reason than that there is more to come and always has been.  I remember things like Article of Faith 9, of the sealed portion of the golden plates, and of the statement Joseph Smith said to the effect (or as I recall) that if he shared with the Saints everything he knew about the kingdom of God, they would kill him.  Also I can't point to a quote, but for some reason I have always gotten the idea that the entire church and its structure is a temporary measure for this earth i.e. the gathering of Israel; but it is not a structure that will survive into celestiality because its purpose will have concluded by then.  We know that the earth will become celestial--and we think that one day it will be not and the next day it will be, but I think it will be more of a transition in real time and maybe a bumpy one at that.

[smac97]

On 4/2/2018 at 1:17 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Quote

I am going to go with the "hide in my bomb bunker and eat astronaut ice cream" version.

That stuff is nasty. I hear it is the reason astronauts’ DNA changes.

I've been making freeze-dried ice cream for a few years now.  That is, I buy ice cream (usually from Costco or Winco) and freeze dry it in miniature scoops.  

I can't speak for store-bought freeze-dried ice cream, but my kids love freeze-dried mint chocolate chip ice cream.  I pull it out occasionally for a snack (though my kids actually prefer freeze-dried pineapplel, which is quite delicious).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 4/27/2018 at 4:26 PM, Marginal Gains said:

Quote

 

Quote

 

https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-announces-change-to-general-conference-meeting-schedule?lang=eng

In the above explanation ‘the priesthood’ is being used as a synonym for ‘men’. 

 

I wonder if this is an artifact, a holdover from days gone by.

October 2017.

Yes.  What I mean is that it is an artifact of usage in the old days that is still being used.

The vernacular in the Church changes over time.  Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were both frequently referred to as "Brother Joseph" and "Brother Brigham," respectively.  But nobody today calls Pres. Nelson "Brother Russell."

I wonder if we'll see a change in nomenclature, from "Priesthood Session" to "Men's Session."  Do you think such a change be seen as important or necessary?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 29, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  What I mean is that it is an artifact of usage in the old days that is still being used.

The vernacular in the Church changes over time.  Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were both frequently referred to as "Brother Joseph" and "Brother Brigham," respectively.  But nobody today calls Pres. Nelson "Brother Russell."

I wonder if we'll see a change in nomenclature, from "Priesthood Session" to "Men's Session."  Do you think such a change be seen as important or necessary?

Thanks,

-Smac

I see no need to change it. “Priesthood” here is an adjective meaning that the session is of or pertaining to the priesthood. President Oaks was objecting to its use as a nominal (noun) synonym for the men who hold it, as in "we're asking the priesthood to come set up chairs for stake conference." A good way to remember it is to use the phrase "priesthood holders" when that is the meaning one intends to convey.

 

 

Edited April 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd