What does keys of the priesthood add?

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The President of the USA can go and visit Putin, can issue executive orders, speak to congress ,read classified documents  and on and on. He has the keys to do that.

He can also "do certain things that presidents aren't actually required to do, such as "authorize and supervise duties, organizational functions, teachings, and all other things pertaining to her / his specific job" like do the dishes at home, or make personal business decisions.

Does that help?

A driver's license give you keys to drive, but you also do other things in your life too.  It serves as ID to buy booze, get on an airplane, and wash the dishes, even without keys or special authority 

 

I appreciate the effort, but none of that addresses the issue.  Bernard said that keys authorize priesthood holders to do the bolded above (because, unlike your president analogy, they are required as part of their calling). 

But those things don't actually require keys right?  For example, those things are also a required part of being called as the RS president.  But she doesn't need keys to do them.

[gav]

54 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, women are the jewels in the men's crowns...polygamy.

With respect...

How long will you let this perspective sour what could otherwise be a glorious relationship with the truths of the restored gospel?

Are there things one won't fully understand? Sure.

Do we make them a large part of our focus to the obscurement of most of the other glorious truths? No.

Some things need to be put in a box to one side for a bit, there is so much more to explore and enjoy.

 

[Rain]

This is not a polygamy thread.  Please do not discuss that here.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I appreciate the effort, but none of that addresses the issue.  Bernard said that keys authorize priesthood holders to do the bolded above (because, unlike your president analogy, they are required as part of their calling). 

But those things don't actually require keys right?  For example, those things are also a required part of being called as the RS president.  But she doesn't need keys to do them.

I don't understand the purpose or goal of this entire thread.  You attack the relevance of the analogy, correctly I admit, indicating that you already DO IN FACT correctly understand that in leadership you have responsibility to do things others in leadership do not.

As usual, I guess this is some kind of complaint about RS not having "keys" and the priesthood.

The concept is a simple one, and you are extremely intelligent, so I KNOW you understand it.  I said before I was out, and here I am, still. x

Edited January 14, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

guess this is some kind of complaint about RS not having "keys" and the priesthood.

That you go there shows you aren’t understanding the question being asked and that is why your explanation isn’t sufficient to answer questions.

Wanting to know how things work does not equate to wanting to change them.

But if you continue to suspect this is not a good faith effort to understand a gospel principle that we are told is of prime importance and insist in making your accusations, then perhaps it would be best for you to stop your participation in this thread. 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

Since this is my thread I'll answer your questions. 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't understand the purpose or goal of this entire thread. 

I was talking with a friend and I realized I did not get what keys add. I get how people have authority.  I get that some people have more authority than others - like a RS president will have authority over more things than a RS teacher will have. I don't get what keys will give an EQ president more than a RS president. There must be something more right or else why have keys?  

And if the only thing more you get is authority than I don't get why it needs a different name.

So if the same things are done with keys as are done without keys then it is not something more and I don't see why you would need a key for those things yet those things keep getting mentioned over and over again. So far the biggest difference I have is that ordinances require keys which makes total sense in why one calling would have them and another not.  But then people start adding things like "presiding" to the list of things added with keys and that mixes everything up 

Then there is the idea that on this earth the prophet holds all the keys on the earth and delegates them?  So if that's they case then why does anyone else hold a key?

 And I do not mean the person gets this special gift.  I'm not talking about privilege. I'm using the word "get" because I'm unable to come up with a better word right now.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You attack the relevance of the analogy, correctly I admit, indicating that you already DO IN FACT correctly understand that in leadership you have responsibility to do things others in leadership do not.

She has not been "attacking" it.  She is showing where it doesn't make sense to her (and me) and trying to reword the questions like you asked us to.  

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

As usual, I guess this is some kind of complaint about RS not having "keys" and the priesthood.

No.  This is not a complaint.  And it has nothing to do with men verses women.  It has to do with not knowing what keys mean verses what just having normal authority means.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The concept is a simple one, and you are extremely intelligent, so I KNOW you understand it. 

That is so unfair.  You know she is intelligent.  You know she is faithful. And now you are declaring her as dishonest.  

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I said before I was out, and here I am, still. x

That's probably best because I'm really tired of being accused of things when I do not get it.

 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Rain

[Rain]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't understand the purpose or goal of this entire thread.  You attack the relevance of the analogy, correctly I admit, indicating that you already DO IN FACT correctly understand that in leadership you have responsibility to do things others in leadership do not.

As usual, I guess this is some kind of complaint about RS not having "keys" and the priesthood.

The concept is a simple one, and you are extremely intelligent, so I KNOW you understand it.  I said before I was out, and here I am, still. x

I want to add one more thing.  I took this to my husband first.  This is the kind of thing he has understood well.  He has had all sorts of things come up in bishopric and high council and young men's meetings and has taught a lot of things correctly that were misunderstood about this kind of thing and shown in handbooks and manuals where those things were.  The other leaders have really appreciated it.

So luckily my husband and I have a good connection and he really listens to my questions and it was pretty quick for him to understand what I was asking.  I don't expect that from everyone - we have a 36 year connection.  But when I asked him about this though his answer was "I don't know".

I'm good with that answer.  Sometimes we just don't know things.   Sometimes it helps us search and learn whatever it is we don't know.  But if someone has the answers on the board I wanted to find out what they were.  And that's why I asked here, though I was not sure that there would be an answer.  

 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't understand the purpose or goal of this entire thread.  You attack the relevance of the analogy, correctly I admit, indicating that you already DO IN FACT correctly understand that in leadership you have responsibility to do things others in leadership do not.

As usual, I guess this is some kind of complaint about RS not having "keys" and the priesthood.

The concept is a simple one, and you are extremely intelligent, so I KNOW you understand it.  I said before I was out, and here I am, still. x

Geez Mark.

First, I didn't attack anything, I just explained the differences between your analogy and the situation being discussed. 

Second, I explained it near the beginning of the thread (because it always seems to be the go-to-accusation against women when this subject comes up) that these questions have zero to do with RS not having keys.  I personally have no issues with women not being ordained.  

Third, I had a male poster message me a couple of days ago who mentioned that even men struggle with understanding these concepts.  Having questions or being confused about this stuff has nothing to do with being intelligent or not.  As you've seen on this thread if you've read all the replies, even the men are contradicting each other somewhat in their explanations, showing that even people who are ordained, or who actually hold or have held keys, aren't sure of some things.   The simple-to-understand concepts are not the concepts being questioned.

Lastly, If you can't be disagreed with or questioned without feeling attacked, and if you are going to make up negative reasons for women asking questions because they aren't finding your answers helpful, and if you are going to imply that women are lying when they say that they don't understand something then yes, it's probably best if you leave the conversation.  

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I want to add one more thing.  I took this to my husband first.  This is the kind of thing he has understood well.  He has had all sorts of things come up in bishopric and high council and young men's meetings and has taught a lot of things correctly that were misunderstood about this kind of thing and shown in handbooks and manuals where those things were.  The other leaders have really appreciated it.

So luckily my husband and I have a good connection and he really listens to my questions and it was pretty quick for him to understand what I was asking.  I don't expect that from everyone - we have a 36 year connection.  But when I asked him about this though his answer was "I don't know".

I'm good with that answer.  Sometimes we just don't know things.   Sometimes it helps us search and learn whatever it is we don't know.  But if someone has the answers on the board I wanted to find out what they were.  And that's why I asked here, though I was not sure that there would be an answer.  

 

I’m so impressed with this.  Thank you. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

I want to add one more thing.  I took this to my husband first.  This is the kind of thing he has understood well.  He has had all sorts of things come up in bishopric and high council and young men's meetings and has taught a lot of things correctly that were misunderstood about this kind of thing and shown in handbooks and manuals where those things were.  The other leaders have really appreciated it.

So luckily my husband and I have a good connection and he really listens to my questions and it was pretty quick for him to understand what I was asking.  I don't expect that from everyone - we have a 36 year connection.  But when I asked him about this though his answer was "I don't know".

I'm good with that answer.  Sometimes we just don't know things.   Sometimes it helps us search and learn whatever it is we don't know.  But if someone has the answers on the board I wanted to find out what they were.  And that's why I asked here, though I was not sure that there would be an answer.  

 

Sorry for my flippant remark to a poster about the p word. 

To me the keys to the priesthood have been what delineates from other faiths and puts men in the Latter-day faith ahead of the rest. 

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, the bolded is understood.  It doesn't really address my post though.  

Please clarify. I don’t understand.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Sorry for my flippant remark to a poster about the p word. 

To me the keys to the priesthood have been what delineates from other faiths and puts men in the Latter-day faith ahead of the rest. 

I'm not worried about it.  It was just when it was replied to that I wanted to stop it before it got further. 🙂

[mfbukowski]

Ok all, thanks for setting me straight, I still don't understand the question.  I went to the temple today, partially because of this and all I got that was new was one word and that was "PERMISSION" 

Keys are permission to use levels of the priesthood others don't currently have, and one is set apart to perform a particular needed function others do not have at the moment but may or may not have in the future or past.  One can be a bishop for 5 years, have those keys, and then not have them.

Your teenage kid wants to borrow the car.  What do you do? Throw her the keys.  Permission to use for a set period and function.

And yes I am off the thread; by  popular demand, I no longer have the keys.  Have a good Sunday all!

 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok all, thanks for setting me straight, I still don't understand the question.  I went to the temple today, partially because of this and all I got that was new was one word and that was "PERMISSION" 

Keys are permission to use levels of the priesthood others don't currently have, and one is set apart to perform a particular needed function others do not have at the moment but may or may not have in the future or past.  One can be a bishop for 5 years, have those keys, and then not have them.

Your teenage kid wants to borrow the car.  What do you do? Throw her the keys.  Permission to use for a set period and function.

And yes I am off the thread; by  popular demand, I no longer have the keys.  Have a good Sunday all!

 

So do you feel this means you can have authority without having permission (keys)?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

So do you feel this means you can have authority without having permission (keys)?

100 per cent. In all cases, the exercise of divine authority requires the 'permission' of the relevant keyholder, even if it's the blanket permission, for example, of performing a blessing of healing or a father's blessing. And in fact, in certain (disciplinary) cases, that blanket permission is withdrawn whilst the authority remains.

Relatively speaking, very few people in the Church hold keys. With very rare exceptions (the need for duplicate quorums), there are exactly four in a ward and, beyond that, only one in a stake, one in a mission, one in a temple, and so forth.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

100 per cent. In all cases, the exercise of divine authority requires the 'permission' of the relevant keyholder, even if it's the blanket permission, for example, of performing a blessing of healing or a father's blessing. And in fact, in certain (disciplinary) cases, that blanket permission is withdrawn whilst the authority remains.

Relatively speaking, very few people in the Church hold keys. With very rare exceptions (the need for duplicate quorums), there are exactly four in a ward and, beyond that, only one in a stake, one in a mission, one in a temple, and so forth.

Can you explain that again please. I am not getting from your comment an answer to Rain’s question except that someone can have authority without permission. 
 

I assume this means authority without permission to use it. But wouldn’t that be power and not authority…like a cop has the ability/power to arrest someone, but he better have an arrest warrant granting him permission to do so. 
 

But the permission is the authority so it doesn’t make sense to me to say someone has authority but not permission. They no longer have authority if they don’t have permission. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Can you explain that again please. I am not getting from your comment an answer to Rain’s question except that someone can have authority without permission. 

I assume this means authority without permission to use it. But wouldn’t that be power and not authority ... ?

That's not how we describe priesthood. Authority is inherent in ordination and comes from God. For example, I have the authority to baptise by virtue of holding the Aaronic Priesthood. I cannot exercise that authority without permission from the relevant keyholder. In the case of baptising the living, that would be my bishop. In the case of baptising the dead, that would be the temple president.

Priesthood power is separate to authority, comes through the Holy Ghost, and depends upon the righteousness and preparation of the one holding the authority.

President Nelson preached on this topic in April 2016:

Quote

I fear that there are too many men who have been given the authority of the priesthood but who lack priesthood power because the flow of power has been blocked by sins such as laziness, dishonesty, pride, immorality, or preoccupation with things of the world.

I fear that there are too many priesthood bearers who have done little or nothing to develop their ability to access the powers of heaven. I worry about all who are impure in their thoughts, feelings, or actions or who demean their wives or children, thereby cutting off priesthood power.

I fear that too many have sadly surrendered their agency to the adversary and are saying by their conduct, “I care more about satisfying my own desires than I do about bearing the Savior’s power to bless others.”

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by Hamba Tuhan

[gav]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I assume this means authority without permission to use it. But wouldn’t that be power and not authority…like a cop has the ability/power to arrest someone, but he better have an arrest warrant granting him permission to do so. 
 

But the permission is the authority so it doesn’t make sense to me to say someone has authority but not permission. They no longer have authority if they don’t have permission. 

Anyone can pray and ask in the name of Jesus Christ.

A Priesthood holder also has authority to act(perform ordinances, ordain, bless etc.) in the name of Jesus Christ but with certain duties permission to use that authority is also required.

As a melchizedek priesthood holder I can bless anybody at any time, but I cannot administer the sacrament in my own home even though I received that authority with the previous Aaronic priesthood confirmation. I need permission from the Bishop because he has the keys to the Priests quorum under which blessing of the sacrament falls. Once that permission was given(as during covid) I could exercise that authority at any time in my own home until that permission was revoked.

You can consider it as if everyone that is deputised can do basic peacekeeping but may only form a posse at the discretion of the sheriff. When the posse is formed nobody needs extra-deputisation but when the posse is disbanded they go back to looking after the prison cells and patrolling the town.

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Rain said:

So do you feel this means you can have authority without having permission (keys)?

This is how I understand this aspect of it.  Keys are the authority to use the authority.

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Can you explain that again please. I am not getting from your comment an answer to Rain’s question except that someone can have authority without permission. 
 

I assume this means authority without permission to use it. But wouldn’t that be power and not authority…like a cop has the ability/power to arrest someone, but he better have an arrest warrant granting him permission to do so. 
 

But the permission is the authority so it doesn’t make sense to me to say someone has authority but not permission. They no longer have authority if they don’t have permission. 

From how I understand it, Keys are the authority to use the authority.

So with the cop analogy, an arrest warrant (priesthood keys) grants the cop the ability to use his authority (priesthood) to arrest someone.  The cop always has authority from the state but he does not always have permission to exercise it.

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From how I understand it, Keys are the authority to use the authority.

So with the cop analogy, an arrest warrant (priesthood keys) grants the cop the ability to use his authority (priesthood) to arrest someone.  The cop always has authority from the state but he does not always have permission to exercise it.

I picture it that if you need a blessing and are in the hospital and you need an LDS blessing, it may not always work out if you're in a hurry and you don't want any other blessing because you want the one from the person who has the right authority. Me myself and I would welcome anyone's blessing though.

Edited January 15, 2023 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I picture it that if you need a blessing and are in the hospital and you need an LDS blessing, it may not always work out if you're in a hurry and you don't want any other blessing because you want the one from the person who has the right authority. Me myself and I would welcome anyone's blessing though.

Well, if someone believes that some people have authority to do something, and other people don't have that authority, then it makes sense to believe that if you want something to be valid that you go to the person who has the authority to make it valid.  For example, if you want to be married, then it makes sense that you go to someone who has the authority to marry you and not a person who means well and is sincere but has no authority.  

But, I do get what you are saying and I believe that there is power in seeking a blessing from anyone, even if that person does not (in my belief) have specific authority from God.

Edited January 15, 2023 by bluebell

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Rain said:

So do you feel this means you can have authority without having permission (keys)?

Yep

I have authority to be a bishop but no permission (thank God!)

[gav]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

So with the cop analogy, an arrest warrant (priesthood keys) grants the cop the ability to use his authority (priesthood) to arrest someone.  The cop always has authority from the state but he does not always have permission to exercise it.

Correct. However, technically the judge would be the equivalent of the priesthood keyholder and he issues the warrant which enables the cop to exercise it.