What does keys of the priesthood add?

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How can you lead an organization without being a member of it?

Teaching a boy how to lead is essential; so is teaching a girl of course, both are also taught in the youth programs.

Agreed. 

My question is why the priesthood is required for one but not the other.  Is it only required for the DQ because you have to be a member of the organization?  If so, wouldn't that mean that there is no functional difference between leading in a quorum and leading in a RS meeting?

And thus, that the priesthood adds nothing when we are specifically talking about leading?

[gav]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's the bolded that I'm specifically asking about.

If conducting in a Deacon's quorum meeting requires the priesthood, why?  Conducting a meeting has nothing to do with using the priesthood or with any ordinances.

Conducting does not require the priesthood or keys. Presiding on the other hand in most circumstances does. Keys "open and shut" doors. Certain activities must be performed under the direction of keys otherwise they are invalid. They do not have the stamp of approval. Keys are how the sealing or binding power or celestial ratification or recording in heaven aspect filter down from the first presidency and 12 that hold all keys.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, gav said:

Sorry, added more after you replied, it's about full time vs part time. Men have a permanent calling/duty where women are only called and released from time to time as their circumstances and other commitments allow.

How does this (and your added edit above) work when we are talking about a RS president and an EQ president, for example?  Both require the same amount of time to fulfill that calling (when done correctly).  The EQ president is not a full time calling with the RS president being a part time calling.

Maybe it would help if you described what priesthood duties men have that are full time that don't have an equivalent duty for women?

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's the bolded that I'm specifically asking about.

If conducting in a Deacon's quorum meeting requires the priesthood, why?  Conducting a meeting has nothing to do with using the priesthood or with any ordinances.

Yes, conducting a meeting is not an ordinance. The sacrament is an ordinance, so keys are needed to oversee the meeting and perform the preparing, blessing and transfer of emblems from the blessing to the congregation, as Jesus instructed his twelve disciples in 3 Nephi 18: 3-4, 8-9. The office of deacon is one that may transfer the emblems from the blessing to the congregation. So, the purpose of his priesthood office is not to conduct, but to pass the sacrament. He conducts in a quorum meeting just as a young woman his age would conduct in her class.

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

They both have authority to do their callings, but the EQ members with a priesthood office perform ordinances while the RS members have no priesthood office and do not perform ordinances. The EQ members need a president with the keys to direct them in this particular activity. The RS members do not perform ordinances, so their president does not require keys to issue assignments. Of course, there are many things that both EQPs and RSPs assign to members without a priesthood office or that do not involve / having nothing to do with performing ordinances, but the fine difference involves the administration and performance of ordinances. Both EQP and RSP operate under a "president" who has the keys to call them and give them assignments according to their presiding role. 

Yep

Similar to the military. I am sure women in the military get it

Layers of authority.

This is not difficult. And in both, the President is the President. 

 

[bluebell]

Just now, gav said:

Conducting does not require the priesthood or keys. Presiding on the other hand in most circumstances does. Keys "open and shut" doors. Certain activities must be performed under the direction of keys otherwise they are invalid. They do not have the stamp of approval. Keys are how the sealing or binding power or celestial ratification or recording in heaven aspect filter down from the first presidency and 12 that hold all keys.

Is it one of the DQ presidents responsibilities to delegate who conducts the meeting, because of the keys he holds?  A RS president can delegate who conducts without needing keys. 

If yes, then conducting in one meeting requires the exercise of priesthood keys but conducting in the other meeting does not, right?

[mfbukowski]

Ok, I'm outa this one.

[gav]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How does this (and your added edit above) work when we are talking about a RS president and an EQ president, for example?  Both require the same amount of time to fulfill that calling (when done correctly).  The EQ president is not a full time calling with the RS president being a part time calling.

Maybe it would help if you described what priesthood duties men have that are full time that don't have an equivalent duty for women?

When the EQP is released he will still have general priesthood duties. When the RSP is released she will have only the most basic of member duties. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

He conducts in a quorum meeting just as a young woman his age would conduct in her class.

So his keys have no function in a Deacon's quorum meeting?

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, gav said:

When the EQP is released he will still have general priesthood duties. When the RSP is released she will have only the most basic of member duties. 

Ok but I'm asking what are those general priesthood duties?  How do they differ from basic member duties?

[bluebell]

Just to make sure everyone is clear, I'm not trying to be a pain and my questions are not in any way connected to whether or not women should be ordained (because inevitably whenever a sister has questions about the priesthood or how it works someone decides she only has questions because she doesn't think it's fair women don't have it).

These are things that genuinely don't make sense to me and that I want to understand better.

[gav]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is it one of the DQ presidents responsibilities to delegate who conducts the meeting, because of the keys he holds?  A RS president can delegate who conducts without needing keys. 

If yes, then conducting in one meeting requires the exercise of priesthood keys but conducting in the other meeting does not, right?

Nope, conducting and delegating conducting requires no keys... The DQP assigns who passes the sacrament, an duty in an ordinance of salvation. That requires keys. The participation in that ordinance is an ordinance of salvation that must be ratified/recorded in heaven.

Edited January 11, 2023 by gav

[gav]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ok but I'm asking what are those general priesthood duties?  How do they differ from basic member duties?

Saving and non-saving ordinances which he must be worthy and ready to perform at a moments notice and whenever need requires.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, gav said:

Nope, conducting and delegating conducting requires no keys... The DQP assigns whio passes the sacrament, an duty in an ordinance of salvation. That requires keys. The participation in that ordinance is an ordinance of salvation that must be ratified/recorded in heaven.

So (to make sure I understand), the keys that the DQP has pertain solely to the sacrament and to no other duties or responsibilities connected to being a Deacon or a president in that quorum?

[bluebell]

Just now, gav said:

Saving and non-saving ordinances which he must be worthy and ready to perform at a moments notice and whenever need requires.

So the full time work that priesthood holders do is to be worthy to perform an ordinance at any moment and that is what they covenant, to be worthy at all times.  But women don't have a responsibility to be worthy at all times and make no covenant to do so.

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So his keys have no function in a Deacon's quorum meeting?

Not that I can tell in common practice. A President may, under the direction/delegation of the Bishop(ric) extend sacrament ordinance assignments to his fellow deacons. Aside from ordinance-related work, a deacon may also assist a teacher (D&C 20:56-57) or bishop in “administering all temporal things” (D&C 84:111, 107:68) during the quorum meeting, but that's getting pretty granular, and I suppose one might see some semantic overlap with other callings and assignments, and what a young woman can do in her class.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not that I can tell in common practice. A President may, under the direction/delegation of the Bishop(ric) extend sacrament ordinance assignments to his fellow deacons. Aside from ordinance-related work, a deacon may also assist a teacher (D&C 20:56-57) or bishop in “administering all temporal things” (D&C 84:111, 107:68) during the quorum meeting, but that's getting pretty granular, and I suppose one might see some semantic overlap with other callings and assignments, and what a young woman can do in her class.

Thank you.

Does this mean that a DQ meeting could be held and conducted without anyone having keys in attendance and without anyone hold keys delegating who is to conduct?

[CV75]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Thank you.

Does this mean that a DQ meeting could be held and conducted without anyone having keys in attendance and without anyone hold keys delegating who is to conduct?

Since DQ meetings are only legitimate when held under assignment from the bishop, he would be the one with the keys to a) authorize the meeting to take place and b) delegate who conducts. So, without anyone holding the keys (the bishop), the meeting wouldn't happen, and he would not delegate anyone to conduct.

There is a policy (10.2.1.2) that indicates that it is most appropriate for a member of the quorum presidency to conduct. Being "just" a policy, I suppose there could be exceptions if no member of the deacon presidency is in attendance. There's another policy for presidency meetings (10.4.3), and the quorum president conducts these meetings, so at least one member of the deacon presidency would need to be attendance (by definition of the meeting!).

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Since DQ meetings are only legitimate when held under assignment from the bishop, he would be the one with the keys to a) authorize the meeting to take place and b) delegate who conducts. So, without anyone holding the keys (the bishop), the meeting wouldn't happen, and he would not delegate anyone to conduct.

I do get the part about the meeting needing to be authorized by the Bishop, but would he need to be in attendance and would he specifically need to delegate who conducted, if conducting isn't a priesthood function?

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Rain said:

I understand what priesthood means. 

This (Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Priesthood") is a good place to start.

So is this ("Chapter 13: The Priesthood" from the Gospel Principles manual).

And this ((Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Keys of the Priesthood").

10 hours ago, Rain said:

I understand how a bishop has authority over his ward or a relief society has authority over the ward relief society. What does having keys add to this authority?  Is it just more authority or is it something more? If it's something more what is that something more? If it's just authority how is it different that it has to be called something different?

Here is my thinking:

1. "Priesthood" is, in the end, nothing less than the power of God.  All that He does, He does through exercising the Priesthood.

2. The "Keys of the Priesthood" pertain to matters of governance.  See here:

Quote

Keys are the rights of presidency, or the power given to man by God to direct, control, and govern God’s priesthood on earth. Priesthood holders called to positions of presidency receive keys from those in authority over them. Priesthood holders use the priesthood only within the limits outlined by those who hold the keys. The President of the Church is the only person on earth who holds and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys (D&C 107:65–67, 91–92; 132:7).

Peter received the keys of the kingdom, Matt. 16:19.

And here:

Quote

All priesthood keys ultimately come from Heavenly Father through His Son, Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith taught, “The keys [of the priesthood] have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 104). The keys necessary for governing the Church in the latter days were restored to Joseph Smith by heavenly beings—for instance, John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elias, and Elijah (see Joseph Smith—History 1:72; D&C 27:12; D&C 110:11–12). These keys have been passed on to his successors.

3. I was previously my ward's bishop, during which time I held "keys" that, upon my release, were either removed from me and given to my successor.  Whereas I previously had authority to authorize distribution of Fast Offerings, to interview others, to issue temple recommends, etc., now I do not.  The Priesthood I hold has not changed, but the keys (the permission/right to use the Priesthood "to direct, control, and govern" matters pertaining to my ward) were given to me and then taken back.

4. The reference above to "all priesthood keys" being held only by President of the Church is apparently to be construed as "all priesthood keys {which have been given so far}."  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Specifically, in modern usage, those who hold keys are:

• The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
• The Presidency of the Seventy
• The Presidents of temples, missions, stakes, and districts
• Bishops and branch presidents
• Quorum presidents (including Aaronic Priesthood quorum presidents)

The simplest way to understand modern usage of priesthood keys is to think in terms of saving ordinances. A man who has the priesthood can exercise certain authority and power on his own. However, he cannot baptize someone without first gaining permission from someone with those keys (usually the bishop). Only those with the proper keys can authorize saving priesthood ordinances to be performed.

In that sense, does the Savior hold keys (the right to the administration of saving ordinances) that the living prophet does not? It would seem so. President Brigham Young taught, for example:

“It is supposed by this people that we have all the ordinances in our possession for life and salvation, and exaltation, and that we are administering in those ordinances. This is not the case. We are in possession of all the ordinances that can be administered in the flesh; but there are other ordinances and administrations that must be administered beyond this world. I know you would like to ask what they are. I will mention one. We have not, neither can we receive here, the ordinance and the keys of resurrection.”

What other ordinances are there that we don’t have? I do not know for sure. A few other potentials that are mentioned by Spencer W. Kimball, from where I pulled the above Brigham Young quote, are the power to create a spirit and the power to fashion worlds. Will these be specific ordinances in the same regard as baptism and the like? I guess someday we’ll find out.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok, I'm outa this one.

This honestly frustrates me.  We ask questions because we don't understand and you (and others in the past) leave.  I'm not fighting for rights.  I do NOT get it.  And it completely frustrates me to not get it, seek for understanding and be told no as if I were being argumentative and unfaithful. If you don't want to answer please just don't answer rather that toss something like this out there.

[Buckeye]

10 hours ago, Rain said:

I understand what priesthood means.  I understand how a bishop has authority over his ward or a relief society has authority over the ward relief society. What does having keys add to this authority?  Is it just more authority or is it something more? If it's something more what is that something more? If it's just authority how is it different that it has to be called something different?

Apologies if this analogy has been mentioned already. While no analogy is perfect I find this one helpful in teaching youth. It’s the analogy of driving.
 

A priesthood office is like a license. It gives authority to perform a set of limited actions. A normal license allows you drive a car, but not a semi truck or motorcycle. A deacon can do certain things; a priest more. 
 

Priesthood keys are like car keys. Having a license doesn’t give you the right or ability  to drive my car. For that you need my key. Only one person drives at a time. At the end of the drive the key is given back to the owner. So too when you are given a priesthood key (say as a bishop, deacon quorum president, or I would even say a young women’s class president). You don’t only have authority, you have a responsibility to drive the car. 
 

Priesthood power is like driving ability. It is gained drop by drop with experience. And it can be lost quickly through a bad decision. A drunk driver will likely have an accident regardless of whether his license is valid or whether he has keys. Likewise a priesthood holder can have valid authority and even a key, but be unable to act (or cause great harm in trying to act) if he is doing so unrighteously. 

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This (Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Priesthood") is a good place to start.

So is this ("Chapter 13: The Priesthood" from the Gospel Principles manual).

And this ((Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on "Keys of the Priesthood").

Here is my thinking:

1. "Priesthood" is, in the end, nothing less than the power of God.  All that He does, He does through exercising the Priesthood.

So power would go towards making things like baptism, sealings etc eternal.  It would also go towards things like healing of the sick.  But it seems like the ordinances are directly connected to the keys in ordinances, but not to healing especially when women are told how much power there can be in prayer.

 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

2. The "Keys of the Priesthood" pertain to matters of governance.  See here:

And here:

So this would be an authority thing right?  

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

3. I was previously my ward's bishop, during which time I held "keys" that, upon my release, were either removed from me and given to my successor.  Whereas I previously had authority to authorize distribution of Fast Offerings, to interview others, to issue temple recommends, etc., now I do not.  The Priesthood I hold has not changed, but the keys (the permission/right to use the Priesthood "to direct, control, and govern" matters pertaining to my ward) were given to me and then taken back.

And more of authority (not said in a negative way).  Not really adding something, but basically God giving one permission and responsibility of authority over those things.

How does this differ from others who don't have keys doing something in delegation? 

Ugh. I have no way to really describe my thinking/wondering here. Wish we could speak spirit to spirit.

Technically isn't everything delegated under God's keys? Why do people on down the levels need keys rather than just be given authority to do those things? What more does a key add?

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

4. The reference above to "all priesthood keys" being held only by President of the Church is apparently to be construed as "all priesthood keys {which have been given so far}."  See, e.g., here:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Rain said:

This honestly frustrates me.  We ask questions because we don't understand and you (and others in the past) leave.  I'm not fighting for rights.  I do NOT get it.  And it completely frustrates me to not get it, seek for understanding and be told no as if I were being argumentative and unfaithful. If you don't want to answer please just don't answer rather that toss something like this out there.

Sorry, let's try one more time.

Next time I will just not answer if I cannot help, but for me it feels like I HAVE answered already once or twice, and I consider NOT answering is rude. 

Please repeat the question using different words 

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I do get the part about the meeting needing to be authorized by the Bishop, but would he need to be in attendance and would he specifically need to delegate who conducted, if conducting isn't a priesthood function?

In addition to authorizing the meeting, the Bishop also delegates, by virtue of directing the presidency member, someone -- typically the presidency member -- to conduct (per the policy I listed above), even though conducting is not an ordinance and there may be exceptions made to policy.