Priesthood of believers

[Olmec Donald]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No, how so?

Sifted my paradigm nearly thirty years ago from "the Priesthood is just for men" to "nope, our sisters are born Priestesses; we are actually the ones playing catch-up".

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not sure that moly, doctrinally speaking, is necessarily holy, but that is just my opinion.  That would make another thread here, I am sure.

My guess is... yeah.  Let's save it for another thread.  Vitally important subject, we must argue about it to the death.

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I know nothing about the second anointing, but I am told it has to do with the wife annointing the husband before death, not unlike the Catholic sacrament "Extreme Unction", which though is performed by an ordained priest.

But that would fit. !

Very interesting!   I had a similar thought about the connection between the second anointing and Jesus being anointed by that woman (speculating that it was performed on the husband by the wife and affected them both), but I've never been told anything specific about the second anointing so it would have been pure speculation on my part. 

Thank you for letting me know!

Edited October 30, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

Sifted my paradigm nearly thirty years ago from "the Priesthood is just for men" to "nope, our sisters are born Priestesses; we are actually the ones playing catch-up".

Ok, I see now, I think.

You said it "shifts your paradigms", and I was wondering who "your" was; still not quite sure who that applies to.

I shift mine on average about every 17.3 minutes.

But I think yours still applies, since the sisters get a pass on at least one thing the bros have to slog through in the washing part of the initiatories.

They get completely washed gratis while we only get clean though faithfulness.

Clear discrimination.

But to me it's just clear that women are better than men.  And watch- someone will bust my chops for saying that.

Go figure

 

 

Edited October 30, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Olmec Donald]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You said it "shifts your paradigms", and I was wondering who "your" was; still not quite sure who that applies to.

It was a generic "your", not specifically aimed at any particular Picasso look-alike.  In other words, anybody who arrived at the same unorthodox conclusion would (presumably) have their paradigms shifted.  Sorry unclear was that my wording.

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But to me it's just clear that women are better than men. 

This is actually one of my beliefs too, and was part of that paradigm shift. 

Edited October 30, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Olmec Donald said:

It was a generic "your", not specifically aimed at any particular Picasso look-alike.  In other words, anybody who arrived at the same unorthodox conclusion would (presumably) have their paradigms shifted.  Sorry unclear was that my wording.

This is actually one of my beliefs too, and was part of that paradigm shift. 

Incidentally I chose Picasso as a self- portrait which is non-representational and an image which is self created, kind of like how we all remake ourselves, yes in God's image, but as we interpret ourselves within the parameters of BEING in God's image.

And I think I am becoming MY image of "Orthodox" and still have a long way to go!

Still working on that painting!

And yes I hope to change paradigms, if folks like them 

 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry, I don't see how this is relevant or has anything to do with priesthood authority?

Yeah, I meant more like exaltation. 

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Excellent excellent points, and since my wife and daughter are temple workers, and so am I, I got to stand in on their setting apart, and your point is well taken!

Women in these roles are presumed to have priesthood authority, and are set apart with no need for conferring the priesthood, but just being set apart 

 

Too bad women aren't equal as far as being allowed to give blessings to their own children using oil to anoint them. Like they did in the early church.

[Olmec Donald]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Too bad women aren't equal as far as being allowed to give blessings to their own children using oil to anoint them. Like they did in the early church.

Agreed.

But I don't think God has a problem with it.

[mfbukowski]

On 10/30/2021 at 5:54 PM, Tacenda said:

Yeah, I meant more like exaltation. 

Too bad women aren't equal as far as being allowed to give blessings to their own children using oil to anoint them. Like they did in the early church.

Do you believe that God even answers women's prayers!! That may be a shock!

The oil is just for convincing you that THIS blessing is somehow magically better than another.

Honest. You are fine without it. It's faith, not magic that works.

[Mike Drop]

On 10/30/2021 at 8:54 PM, Tacenda said:

Yeah, I meant more like exaltation. 

Too bad women aren't equal as far as being allowed to give blessings to their own children using oil to anoint them. Like they did in the early church.

Nothing wrong with women blessing their own children. And as far as the oil is concerned, that’s done for dramatic effect, that’s it, a blessing is all about faith. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The oil is just for convincing you that THIS blessing is somehow magically better than another.

It is at the very least for creating a sacred space and time in which the ritual of healing takes place as well as demonstrating obedience to God by following his instructed forms.  I wouldn’t use the term “magically better” as I believe that has the wrong nuance. Perhaps spiritually or emotionally better because by our actions we seek a greater, deeper, even perhaps more intimate connection with God through the Spirit and our acceptance of his direction. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you believe that God even answers women's prayers!! That may be a shock!

The oil is just for convincing you that THIS blessing is somehow magically better than another.

Honest. You are fine without it. It's faith, not magic that works.

I experienced two times when my young children had croup that my husband called someone in the ward in the middle of the night to help give a PH blessing. My priesthood didn't count for much as the second person I guess. 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Tacenda

[theplains]

On 10/30/2021 at 2:47 PM, mfbukowski said:

All are set apart under priesthood authority, and act in their calling under that authority.

Under the priesthood authority of men or under their own [female] priesthood authority?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

It is at the very least for creating a sacred space and time in which the ritual of healing takes place as well as demonstrating obedience to God by following his instructed forms.  I wouldn’t use the term “magically better” as I believe that has the wrong nuance. Perhaps spiritually or emotionally better because by our actions we seek a greater, deeper, even perhaps more intimate connection with God through the Spirit and our acceptance of his direction. 

Agreed. 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I experienced two times when my young children had croup that my husband called someone in the ward in the middle of the night to help give a PH blessing. My priesthood didn't count for much as the second person I guess. 

I'm sorry that happened 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

Under the priesthood authority of men or under their own [female] priesthood authority?

Ambiguous question.

All authority comes from Christ, down through the prophet, and no, women are not ordained to the priesthood, but all the authority comes ultimately from Christ.  NO ONE gets authority on their own say so, women OR men.

If that bothers you, it bothers you.

Don't play "gotcha" with me, you know this as well as I do.

[Tacenda]

57 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I'm sorry that happened 

But you know that's how we're supposed to do it in the church, right? I can't anoint with oil or be a part of a PH blessing like that right? Surely I'm not being gaslighted, you're too good a man. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

But you know that's how we're supposed to do it in the church, right? I can't anoint with oil or be a part of a PH blessing like that right? Surely I'm not being gaslighted, you're too good a man. 

My wife has stood in on blessings and we did not get struck by lightening.   Nor lightning.     We all can pray for anyone, whether or not someone has their hands on the person to me is immaterial, yet we follow the custom.  That is how I see it anyway.   It creates a "sacred space" and makes it more of an "ordinance" by going through the motions.

As a Catholic altar boy, I got to light the candles before mass, and could never figure out why we HAD to have candles.   But that is what came to me.  It makes the event more "official".   It is a sign of officiality

 

[secondclasscitizen]

On 10/30/2021 at 5:54 PM, Tacenda said:

Yeah, I meant more like exaltation. 

Too bad women aren't equal as far as being allowed to give blessings to their own children using oil to anoint them. Like they did in the early church.

Bless your children anyway. No oil needed. No church leader can tell you you cannot bless and pray for your child. It is just as effective as some dude down the street coming over with some other dude to do it for you. Probably more effective coming from the mother anyway. 

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

My wife has stood in on blessings and we did not get struck by lightening.   Nor lightning.     We all can pray for anyone, whether or not someone has their hands on the person to me is immaterial, yet we follow the custom.  That is how I see it anyway.   It creates a "sacred space" and makes it more of an "ordinance" by going through the motions.

As a Catholic altar boy, I got to light the candles before mass, and could never figure out why we HAD to have candles.   But that is what came to me.  It makes the event more "official".   It is a sign of officiality

 

I think that's great! I'm just going by the church's policy. And come to find out, my husband could have done it on his own, we didn't need to call the neighbor. Unless things have just changed up since the 80's. It would have been good to know!

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings/administering-to-the-sick?lang=eng

[Olmec Donald]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

It is at the very least for creating a sacred space and time in which the ritual of healing takes place as well as demonstrating obedience to God by following his instructed forms.  I wouldn’t use the term “magically better” as I believe that has the wrong nuance. Perhaps spiritually or emotionally better because by our actions we seek a greater, deeper, even perhaps more intimate connection with God through the Spirit and our acceptance of his direction. 

That makes sense to me.

The first time a man goes to give a blessing he has a major internal struggle with all sorts of fears.  The consecrated oil helps him with that (it's a "team effort" even if he's actually solo), as does following the format (the format has worked for others, so he can be confident that it works). 

This is probably not news to you, but according to Jesus and Joseph Smith, it is not necessary to be a Melchizedek Priesthood holder in order to bless someone.  See Jesus' parting instructions in Mark 16:17-18 ("these signs shall follow them that believe..."), and see Joseph Smith's second address to the Relief Society in "History of the Church", volume 4, pages 602-607 (iirc), wherein he justifies women giving blessings.   His address is also in "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith", starting on page 223 (iirc), ignore the section headings.  The version in "History" is a bit better because it includes Joseph's journal entry as an introduction. 

It would take a while to try to explain why the practice was discontinued and I don't have any of my sources on hand or in my memory, but I'm not sure it matters.

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

But you know that's how we're supposed to do it in the church, right?

I have only seen two instances of instantaneous healing, and neither followed church guidelines.  One was by an LDS woman who simply placed her hand on the person's forehead with the intention of blessing them.  I presume she spoke quick words of blessing in her mind but I don't know.  To anyone watching there was no obvious "giving of an unauthorized blessing" - it would have looked like one person reached over and deliberately placed their hand on the forehead of the other, like you might do to check if the person's forehead was hot. 

Jesus used a wide enough variety of "techniques" - speaking to the person, speaking to the person's representative, being touched anonymously in a crowd, making spitmud and rubbing it in the person's eyes - that we may conclude the power is not in the outward form, but in something unseen. 

So I theorize that you could give a stealth blessing without anyone being the wiser, unless the recipient immediately blurts out, "What did you just do?", and you tell them.  You can mentally follow the format implied in Mark 16:17-18: "... as a disciple of Jesus Christ, I bless you...".  Or whatever feels right to you. 

Imo blessing someone (even if only in your mind and at a distance) differs from prayer in this way:  YOU are blessing the person, which is more pro-active than asking God to do the blessing.  Actually blessing the person yourself is a bit more like taking on the role of apprentice, rather than petitioner. Of course you can cover your bases and do both.

Edited November 3, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think that's great! I'm just going by the church's policy. And come to find out, my husband could have done it on his own, we didn't need to call the neighbor. Unless things have just changed up since the 80's. It would have been good to know!

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings/administering-to-the-sick?lang=eng

No changes.  When in doubt, read the directions 

 

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

That makes sense to me.

The first time a man goes to give a blessing he has a major internal struggle with all sorts of fears.  The consecrated oil helps him with that (it's a "team effort" even if he's actually solo), as does following the format (the format has worked for others, so he can be confident that it works). 

This is probably not news to you, but according to Jesus and Joseph Smith, it is not necessary to be a Melchizedek Priesthood holder in order to bless someone.  See Jesus' parting instructions in Mark 16:17-18 ("these signs shall follow them that believe..."), and see Joseph Smith's second address to the Relief Society in "History of the Church", volume 4, pages 602-607 (iirc), wherein he justifies women giving blessings.   His address is also in "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith", starting on page 223 (iirc), ignore the section headings.  The version in "History" is a bit better because it includes Joseph's journal entry as an introduction. 

It would take a while to try to explain why the practice was discontinued and I don't have any of the sources on hand or in my memory, but I'm not sure it matters.

I have only seen two instances of instantaneous healing, and neither followed church guidelines.  One was by an LDS woman who simply placed her hand on the person's forehead with the intention of blessing them.  I presume she spoke quick words of blessing in her mind but I don't know.  To anyone watching there was no obvious "giving of an unauthorized blessing" - it would have looked like one person reached over and deliberately placed their hand on the forehead of the other, like you might do to check if the person's forehead was hot. 

Jesus used a wide enough variety of "techniques" - speaking to the person, speaking to the person's parent, being touched anonymously in a crowd, making spitmud and rubbing it in the person's eyes - that we may conclude the power is not in the outward form, but in something unseen. 

So I theorize that you could give a stealth blessing without anyone being the wiser, unless the recipient immediately blurts out, "What did you just do?", and you tell them.  You can mentally follow the format implied in Mark 16:17-18: "As a disciple of Jesus Christ, I bless you...".  Or whatever feels right to you. 

Imo blessing someone (even if only in your mind and at a distance) differs from prayer in this way:  YOU are blessing the person, which is more pro-active than asking God to do the blessing.  Actually blessing the person yourself is a bit more like taking on the role of apprentice, rather than petitioner. Of course you can cover your bases and do both.

My father died the year I converted to the church.  He had been sick a long time

 He lived 150 miles away from my ward, when I got to the funeral, of course I did not know any LDS people within 150 miles.

I had the Aaronic priesthood so I could not dedicate his grave.

I prayed very earnestly for the ministry of angels to dedicate the grave.

I had a strong impression that they did, and I felt comforted.

 

 

[Olmec Donald]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

My father died the year I converted to the church.  He had been sick a long time

 He lived 150 miles away from my ward, when I got to the funeral, of course I did not know any LDS people within 150 miles.

I had the Aaronic priesthood so I could not dedicate his grave.

I prayed very earnestly for the ministry of angels to dedicate the grave.

I had a strong impression that they did, and I felt comforted.

Very good thinking! 

I had a similar experience.  I was solo and in way over my head.  The situation involved someone who was in a very dark place and suicidal.  I needed "backup", so I played the "ministering of angels" card.  That was thirty-something years ago, and this person and I spoke on the phone last week about what our respective kids were up to, so apparently calling for backup "worked". 

If I recall correctly, in his address to the Relief Society mentioned in my post to @Calm above, Joseph Smith talks about women having access to the ministering of angels.  Hey sisters, might be WORTH A SHOT calling on them if you need to. 

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

Very good thinking! 

I had a similar experience.  I was solo and in way over my head.  The situation involved someone who was in a very dark place and suicidal.  I needed "backup", so I played the "ministering of angels" card.  That was thirty-something years ago, and this person and I spoke on the phone last week about what our respective kids were up to, so apparently calling for backup "worked". 

If I recall correctly, in his address to the Relief Society mentioned in my post to @Calm above, Joseph Smith talks about women having access to the ministering of angels.  Hey sisters, might be WORTH A SHOT calling on them if you need to. 

Great story!

Fyi, if you highlight a few words, a link, or whatever, there will be a pop-up option box that will just quote what you highlighted and It will make its own quote box like this:

21 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

If I recall correctly, in his address to the Relief Society mentioned in my post to @Calm above

Could you do that? I could not find that quote 

[Olmec Donald]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Fyi, if you highlight a few words, a link, or whatever, there will be a pop-up option box that will just quote what you highlighted and It will make its own quote box like this:

Could you do that? I could not find that quote 

Like this?

9 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

This is probably not news to you, but according to Jesus and Joseph Smith, it is not necessary to be a Melchizedek Priesthood holder in order to bless someone.  See Jesus' parting instructions in Mark 16:17-18 ("these signs shall follow them that believe..."), and see Joseph Smith's second address to the Relief Society in "History of the Church", volume 4, pages 602-607 (iirc), wherein he justifies women giving blessings.   His address is also in "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith", starting on page 223 (iirc), ignore the section headings.  The version in "History" is a bit better because it includes Joseph's journal entry as an introduction. 

Sweet - Thanks!  Relevant parts bolded.

I no longer have either book so I'm going by memory.  The text of Joseph's address in both books is actually Eliza R. Snow's notes, and then Joseph's introductory journal entry in "History of the Church" gives the purpose of his talk, again relying on memory so this is paraphrased at best, "to show the sisters how they would come into possession of the gifts of the priesthood." 

Edited November 3, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[CV75]

On 10/24/2021 at 12:42 PM, poptart said:

How does it work in the LDS faith?  What are the different bodies that make it work?  

This may have been covered already, that the priesthood is the power of God. It seems to me that everyone born on earth has a degree of this power with them and can exercise it in some fashion. I would say the priesthood is simply the power to do good. The aspects of power that were restored are the keys of the priesthood, which are the powers to delegate and direct the exercise of priesthood authority to perform a fulness of good (the work of God's kingdom). Christ delegated these keys to the First Presidency and they delegate from there.