What does keys of the priesthood add?

[Rain]

23 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

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).

That's what is confusing.  Because the church doesn't officially give the young woman a key, but it seems to be for most things except for ordinances she is supposed to act as if she has a key.  So I'm not seeing a real difference that a key makes on top of authority except in the matter of ordinances.

23 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

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]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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 

You didn't reply to anyone so I figured you were talking about the whole thread.  As people answer I'm trying to repeat my question in different words based on what tthey are saying and my understanding of it. 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Balaam said:

Imagine chaos.  Start with that.  Suppose some members of a ward wanted to meet for Sacrament meeting in the chapel at noon every Sunday.  Sounds good so far, some may say, but suppose some other members of that same ward want to meet at 9am instead of at noon simply because they would prefer to meet earlier in the day than at noon.  So these ward members then go to meet for Sacrament meeting at the time they want it to be.  Meanwhile the bishop has decided that Sacrament meeting for this year in that ward will be at 10am, and he informs the people who will actually bless and pass the sacrament to be there and do that at that time.  I could make this even more complicated but I think you can probably envision how bad it could be.

Thank you. I do get this aspect of keys. It’s the other times that priesthood keys or authority are necessary that I have questions. 

[Pyreaux]

Keys describe the Sealing authority of priests. Keys lock and unlock, bind and unbind, seal and unseal. Not all priests have sealing authority. Aaronic priests do not have Sealing Keys. Sealing types range from to binding devilish spirits and spirits of infirmity, to sealing the Holy Spirit and the spirits of spouses upon each other.

Edited January 11, 2023 by Pyreaux

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Pyreaux said:

Keys describe the Sealing authority of priests. Keys lock and unlock, bind and unbind, seal and unseal. Not all priests have sealing authority. Aaronic priests do not have Sealing Keys.

So there are two different types of keys?  Sealing authority keys and then other keys?

[Buckeye]

8 minutes ago, Rain said:

That's what is confusing.  Because the church doesn't officially give the young woman a key, but it seems to be for most things except for ordinances she is supposed to act as if she has a key.  So I'm not seeing a real difference that a key makes on top of authority except in the matter of ordinances.

 

In my view, if you’re driving an organization - and RS, Primary Presidents, YW class presidents etc certainly are - then you must have a key.  
 

The issue is sensitive IMO because Joseph gave the RS keys and then subsequent leaders essentially took the keys back. There’s a hesitancy to acknowledge women’s authority because women don’t hold priesthood office so us men worry we won’t be able to control them if they have their own keys. Just one of the many reasons I support women’s ordination. 

[bluebell]

Just now, Balaam said:

You're welcome.  I later edited that post and added this, hoping it would help more:  edited to add:  If the bishop did not conduct or delegate, who would, or how would anyone know who should?  If nobody got up there on the stand I suppose somebody eventually would, but would that be the way things should be?  What if the bishop never came back and never told anybody in the ward what to do if he wasn't there?  As our Catholic friends like to point out, a bishop is an "overseer" of a ward, or whatever other word they use which we refer to as a ward.  So all of that "overseeing" he does stems from the fact that he is the person who has been authorized and appointed to be the overseer of that ward..

My questions tend to stem more from the keys and priesthood of the quorums and how a deacons quorum operates any differently from, say, the YWs classes.  Or what the priesthood adds to the EQ that doesn’t exist in the RS.   

What does the priesthood or deacon priesthood keys add to a deacon’s quorum meeting that is absent from a YW’s meeting, for example?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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?

Yep, no functional difference.

The priesthood is one thing, the art of leadership is something else, imo.

 I have "keys" from my state to run my business, a requirement where I live. My associates who work for me must have licenses too, they work under my "keys" because I have had extra training, more experience and a "higher" license than they do.

Like a bishop and a stake President, maybe.

Like different kinds of contractors.

But all the licenses in the world (keys) do not give me the ability to be a good leader.

It's like book learning vs experience in the real world.

So THEORETICALLY a new convert could be called as stake President, and have all the keys, but not understand anything about leadership or even the priesthood.

Of course that would never happen but it is a theoretical possibility; it is said a direct descendant of Aaron could be a bishop theoretically. 

John the Baptist was ordained at the ripe old age of 8 DAYS supposedly.

He had the genealogy and a "member" of the right family already

Two different things: keys vs leadership skills.

Edited January 11, 2023 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

For anyone, what specific keys does an EQP hold?  Or a DQP?  Where can we find those listed?

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Sealing types range from to binding devilish spirits and spirits of infirmity, to sealing the Holy Spirit and the spirits of spouses upon each other.

Huh??

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, Rain said:

You didn't reply to anyone so I figured you were talking about the whole thread.  As people answer I'm trying to repeat my question in different words based on what tthey are saying and my understanding of it. 

I did but you made me a zombie member of the thread by calling me by name.  Bruhaaahhaaaa!👹

[Pyreaux]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So there are two different types of keys?  Sealing authority keys and then other keys?

Three were given to Joseph Smith, who had the Priesthood but not the Keys at the Temple,

Moses "the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes" 

Elias gave the keys to the "dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed" 

Elijah gave the "keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors."

Describing what authority we have to adopt people into Israelite tribes, to seal ancestors and families.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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?

Ok this is the post I did not directly answer, but now I feel I have answered it: no functional difference.

This is starting to feel like "mansplaining"  Very confusing. 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok this is the post I did not directly answer, but now I feel I have answered it: no functional difference.

This is starting to feel like "mansplaining"  Very confusing. 

It's a confusing topic, especially because there have been lots of answers but not all of them agree with each other (which makes it seem that even the men are a little confused) or make sense when fleshed out.

 

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Three were given to Joseph Smith, who had the Priesthood but not the Keys at the Temple,

Moses "the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes" 

Elias gave the keys to the "dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed" 

Elijah gave the "keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors."

Describing what authority we have to adopt people into Israelite tribes, to seal ancestors and families.

I think we are talking specifically about the keys that are held by the president of the church that are then delegated out to other leaders (like the bishop, stake president, EQP, DQP, etc.) in this discussion.  I'm not sure how your post fits in with that topic.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Is it all just semantics?  Because that's what I'm wondering. 

We have two people who are essentially doing the exact same thing, but one is using priesthood keys to do it and the other isn't.  If they are doing the same thing, and if the outcomes are the same, what exactly does the priesthood add?

But both received their callings from probably the same person who HAD keys, and you picked a leadership situation which REQUIRES no keys

There are no ordinances involved, "just" an understanding of leadership, so no, no keys are required for either to fulfill their callings 

So here, no the priesthood has no function, it is just leadership 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

This level of detail is not generally taught to women perhaps because we don’t work directly with keys…which is fine, I am fully satisfied with the current setup of authority in the Church, but then some start talking about keys and my experience is that we women often don’t get the nuances. 
 

mfb, thanks for confirming my very brief summary. Maybe if you could talk to the other men about making it more difficult than it needs to be because they don’t seem as satisfied with it and the rest of us might be waiting for the men to come to a consensus before assuming it’s been addressed.  

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Three were given to Joseph Smith, who had the Priesthood but not the Keys at the Temple,

Moses "the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes" 

Elias gave the keys to the "dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed" 

Elijah gave the "keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors."

Describing what authority we have to adopt people into Israelite tribes, to seal ancestors and families.

But baptism and sacrament were ordinances being performed before, so he had to have had some keys. 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Balaam said:

What leads you to believe both people aren't using priesthood keys? 

Because women are told we don’t have keys, so how can we use them?

Edited January 11, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, Balaam said:

What leads you to believe both people aren't using priesthood keys?  If both people are doing the exact same thing, how is one using priesthood keys and the other not?  Are both authorized by someone with keys to do what they are doing?

I can see this happening with people who are not members of our Church doing things that we do, while we have priesthood authority and they don't.  Is that what you are talking about here? 

The President of the Church authorizes what we can do and can't do, so if you're talking about members of our Church doing what they hae been authorized to do, everything we are authorized to do is authorized by someone with those keys.

One president is using authority form priesthood keys which he holds. The other president is "essentially doing the exact same thing" using authority from priesthood keys which has been delegated to her.  What is different about these duties that one should have those keys, but the other only needs them delegated to her?

[gav]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think we are talking specifically about the keys that are held by the president of the church that are then delegated out to other leaders (like the bishop, stake president, EQP, DQP, etc.) in this discussion.  I'm not sure how your post fits in with that topic.

Ultimately every key and everything we do rolls up to those keys that were given in the Kirtland Temple. The restoration of the priesthood in this dispensation was not complete and fully operative until those keys were given. Aaronic priesthood is given as preparation and training for the melchizedek priesthood.

Keys are given to the DQP to train them on how to use keys and are very limited for a deacon to learn to administer a quorum of up to 12 deacons.

Similarly the calling of Elder has some keys that an elder can hold but the more extensive keys can only be held by a High Priest, and so on, until the office of Apostle and these dispensational keys that were given in Kirtland.

[gav]

3 hours 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?

In the DQP example he is exercising keys that he holds, he is learning to use keys, in preparation for greater keys, roles and responsibilities. The RSP holds no keys but is acting under the direction and under delegation of keys by virtue of the fact that she was called and set apart. In her instance keys are still at work just not keys that she holds. this is no different from when an elder is acting on assignment from the EQP. That elder holds no keys of his own but keys are still being exercised.

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, Rain said:

So power would go towards making things like baptism, sealings etc eternal.

Yes.  Ordinances must be done with authority, which encompasses both the Priesthood generally (the person performing the baptism must hold the Priesthood), and Priesthood Keys (the performance of the baptism must be authorized "by those who are in authority" (AoF 1:5).

Consider this: Many years ago (in 1976, I believe), a fellow named Douglas A. Wallace was an ordained High Priest in the Church, but he was estranged from it.  He was unhappy with the Church's policy of excluding black men from the Priesthood, and so he took it upon himself to baptize a black man in a motel swimming pool and then ordained him to the priesthood.  See, e.g., here, here, here, here).  Were these ordinances "valid?"  I think not.  Even thought Mr. Wallace's objection to the Church's then-in-place policy was understandable and reasonable, neither the baptism nor the ordination to the priesthood were authorized by those who are in authority, and were not recorded in the records of the Church (see, e.g., here and here).  Moreover, the ordinance must be ratified or "sealed" by the Holy Spirit of Promise (see D&C 132:7).

So an ordinance, to be valid, must

• A) be performed by one with the requisite Priesthood office, and
• B) under permission given by "by those who are in authority," and 
• C) recorded in the records of the Church, and 
• D) be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise.

49 minutes ago, Rain said:

It would also go towards things like healing of the sick. 

Well, no, I don't think so.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Elder Dallin H. Oaks explained further in the October 2005 general conference:

"One important difference between (priesthood) function in the Church and in the family is the fact that all priesthood authority in the Church functions under the direction of the one who holds the appropriate priesthood keys. In contrast, the authority that presides in the family — whether father or single-parent mother — functions in family matters without the need to get authorization from anyone holding priesthood keys."

Family authority is applied in directing family activities, meetings and prayer; teaching; counseling; disciplining; and ordained fathers giving priesthood blessings.

"However, priesthood keys are necessary to authorize the ordaining or setting apart of family members," Elder Oaks continued. "This is because the organization the Lord has made responsible for the performance and recording of priesthood ordinances is the Church, not the family" ("Priesthood Authority in the Family and the Church," Ensign, November 2005).

In addition to a father's blessing, no prior authorization is required to perform ordinances or blessings such as consecrating oil and administering to the sick.

However, performing ordinances of salvation (such as baptism and confirmation), other ordinances that are recorded by the Church in meetings where a priesthood leader presides (ranging from the administration of the sacrament to the dedication of a grave) such require authorization from one holding the appropriate priesthood keys.

That priesthood leader authorizes who performs the ordinance, when and where it is done. The leader also confirms the ordinance was performed appropriately.

A worthy priesthood holder cannot decide on his own to conduct a sacrament service at a family gathering, nor to perform a baptism, confirmation or ordination at a time, site and situation of his own choosing. Instead, he seeks the necessary authorization before appropriately performing the ordinance.

Seeking and following priesthood authorization should not seem restrictive nor routine. Rather, it is an empowering demonstration of obedience and understanding that validates acting in God's name.

I think that makes sense.

49 minutes ago, Rain said:

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.

See above.  Some ordinances are "of record," and some are not.  It appears that those ordinances that are "of record" require permission from "those that are in authority," whereas those ordinances that are not "of record" do not require such permission.

49 minutes ago, Rain said:

Quote

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

And here:

So this would be an authority thing right?  

I'm not quite sure I understand your question.

49 minutes ago, Rain said:

Quote

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.

Well, the keys are "added."  There were other High Priests in my ward, including former bishops, but none of them had the "keys" authorizing them to do what I could do.  And now that I have been released, I no longer hold those keys.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Some rights are given to a man automatically when he is given the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood. For instance, when a man receives the Melchizedek Priesthood, he is given the authority to give father’s blessings, to give blessings of comfort, and to administer to the sick. He will hold these rights as long as he bears that priesthood. Even death cannot take this authority from him.

However, there are certain rights that one can be given that are only temporary. A branch president, for example, holds the keys of his branch only for the time he remains branch president. When he is released from that position, he no longer holds these keys.

When a person is called to a temporary Church assignment as an officer or teacher, he is set apart to that calling. The Church officer holding the keys to that calling gives the individual the right to act in that calling in the setting-apart blessing. Thereafter, no one else can act in his calling—just as he cannot assume the duties of someone else’s job. The individual retains this right until he is released from the position. This release is given by the presiding officer; afterward the individual no longer holds the right to act in that position. Church members may be set apart to serve in positions of Church service for a period of weeks, months, or years. The length of service is according to need, individual performance, and the Lord’s guidance to the presiding officer.

Although both men and women can be set apart to callings, only priesthood bearers are ordained to priesthood offices. These offices include deacon, teacher, priest, elder, high priest, bishop, patriarch, Seventy, and Apostle. Ordination to any of these offices enables a person to serve the Church in specific ways—but only, as discussed earlier, when given permission to do so by those who hold the keys of the priesthood.

Hope this helps.

49 minutes ago, Rain said:

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?

Yes.  Technically, I think all keys are held by Jesus Christ, who "determines what keys are delegated to mortals and how those keys will be used."  On the earth, all keys which have been given are held by the Presiding High Priest, who then "delegates these keys to others who preside in the Church—temple presidents, mission presidents, stake presidents, district presidents, bishops, branch presidents, and quorum presidents, including deacons and teachers quorum presidents."  See also here:

Quote

All the keys of the kingdom of God on earth are held by members of the First Presidency and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The President of the Church—the senior Apostle—presides over the entire Church and is the only person on earth who exercises all the keys in their fulness. He delegates authority by conferring or authorizing the conferral of keys upon other bearers of the priesthood in their specific offices and callings.

Priesthood is the authority of God delegated to man to minister for the salvation of men. “The power of directing these labors constitutes the keys of the Priesthood.” We distinguish between holding the priesthood and holding keys of the priesthood. When an individual is given keys, he does not receive additional priesthood. What he has is the right to direct the work of the priesthood.
...
Every priesthood quorum has a president, whether it is a quorum of deacons, teachers, priests, elders, or high priests. Each president holds keys of authority. Quorum activities and opportunities for service are authorized by the president who holds those keys. Although a quorum president holds keys, his counselors do not. Auxiliary presidents do not hold keys. Counselors and auxiliary presidents serve on assignment from one holding keys who, in turn, has delegated authority for each of them to act.

 

49 minutes ago, Rain said:

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?

I think "need keys rather than just be given authority" is slightly off.  A person may be ordained to the Priesthood, but he has limitations on actually using it.  I am ordained to the office of Bishop, but I cannot function as a bishop because I do not have the "keys," the permission/authorization from "those that are in authority" to act as a bishop.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, Balaam said:

All the keys are delegated, from the President of the Church to all of the members who use them.  Actually from Jesus Christ down to all of us through the presiding President of the Church. 

I agree, but then what is the point of some priesthood holders holding keys? How is authority through delegation from Jesus Christ (an RSP) different than through holding a key that was delegated from him (an EQP) ?

3 minutes ago, Balaam said:

Imagine a key as something physical and then think about what would be involved for someone with a key to delegate the use of that key to someone else.  If it was physical, the key would actually be handed to them for them to use as authorized.  The only difference between both of those people would be that the one who delegated the use of a key to someone else would have the authority to take that key back from them if he didn't want that other person to have it anymore.

 

[bluebell]

49 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But both received their callings from probably the same person who HAD keys, and you picked a leadership situation which REQUIRES no keys

There are no ordinances involved, "just" an understanding of leadership, so no, no keys are required for either to fulfill their callings 

So here, no the priesthood has no function, it is just leadership 

I believe that the church teaches that keys are required for an EQP to fulfill his calling though.  The keys are an aspect of his calling.