- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’d like to ask for your help. I’m supposed to teach a lesson on “honoring the priesthood” to the YW this month. I feel totally out of my league, but want to do right by these girls (and their parents, who have given me a lot of trust).
Here’s my problem: I’m not sure I even know what “the priesthood” means. I get that it’s the “power and authority to act in the name of God.” But what in the heck does that really mean?
I love our gospel, and many of our beautiful doctrines. I believe in God, and accept Christ as my Savior. I’ve had experiences w/the Holy Ghost. I know the church is “good.” But “true” is harder.
I do NOT know that we have exclusive power to act for God. So,I am seeking “first to obtain the word,” before I can teach. Can those of you with faith in our organized church help me understand why we need priesthood? I really want to understand this and teach a faithful lesson.
I have to admit I have a very hard time understanding why we need ordinances. I see them as “useful,” but struggle with “necessary.” I tend to believe that love seals a marriage more than priesthood. I see faith as the active power that allows healing, not the priesthood. We are taught that the first and second commandments are abt love. We learn the faith moves mountains. I’m struggling with why we need “priesthood.” Can you help?
I have to admit, the feminist in me also recoils a bit at these lessons, because of how I’ve seen them taught before.
Too many people think priesthood just equals “men.” I’ve seen this lesson taught in the past as “how can we show the boys how awesome they are?” I love the men in my life. I would love for my own son to be treated well by his peers, including YW (once he’s that age). But this lesson is supposed to be a blessing to the girls too. If the priesthood is God’s power, how can they access that power in their lives, being female?
I tend to see “God’s power” as open to all, but “priesthood leadership” as an administrative function. Is it too heretical to focus on upholding leaders out of respect and an understanding that every group needs someone “in charge” to function?
The lesson suggests that we talk to the girls about being “guardians of virtue” for the boys. Respect is important. But being responsible for another person’s sexual morality is NOT how I see “honoring the priesthood.” In fact, the idea is repellant and nauseating to me (for reasons I hope are obvious).
HELP!
Quote:The lesson suggests that we talk to the girls about being “guardians of virtue” for the boys.
NO!!!! That has nothing to do with honoring the Priesthood, and I wouldn’t teach it in my class if someone offered to pay me.
My wife is teaching the same lesson, and she is going to focus on the standard definition of authority of God, focus on how all of us accept a covenant to remember God and keep his commandments, and talk about how honoring the Priesthood is based on becoming like God. So, she’s focusing on “the Priesthood” – NOT the men who can perform Priesthood ordinances.
She is going to distinguish between the authority of the Priesthood (to perform ordinances) and the power of the Priesthood (to actually act in the name of God apart from ordinances). With those definitions, anyone who has taken upon themselves the name of God and acts in accordance with divine inspiration / revelation / direction is “honoring the Priesthood” in a very real way.
She showed me some of the resources that are really good in that regard – a video and a talk from which she can excerpt some really good quotes and concepts.
The Sunday School version of that lesson is about how men and women together can honor the Priesthood, and I plan on focusing on the concept of unity and equal partnership. Since I’ve told them I always will be honest about my own beliefs if they ask, if any of the students ask why women can’t hold the Priesthood, I will tell them I believe temple endowed women do – but that they aren’t authorized to perform ordinances outside the temple right now. Thus, they can exercise the power of the Priesthood without being authorized to perform ordinances outside the temple.
Can’t help with all of your questions, as I have many of the same thoughts. But I will say that it is critical in any lesson about the priesthood, whether you are talking to girls, boys, adults, primary kids, to separate the priesthood from the “boys”. The priesthood is not the male half of the church. We should have respect for men/boys because they are children of God. We should equally have respect for women/girls because they are children of God. None of that has anything to do with the priesthood.
The priesthood is not part of a man, nor is the man part of the priesthood. The priesthood exists among all of us whether Joey is a jerk or not. The priesthood belongs to all of us equally, regardless of who the individuals are who officiate in the ordinances. Taking baptism as an example, the person who benefits from the baptism is the one being baptized. The one performing the baptism must be a priest in good standing with God and the Church, but other than that, the identity of the individual is inconsequential to the ordinance. I took the sacrament on Sunday in a ward I was visiting. I don’t know the names of the priests who performed the blessing of the sacrament.
In other words, I approach lessons about the priesthood by focusing on the RECEIVER of the ordinances, rather than on the PERFORMER of the ordinances. The existence of the priesthood simply allows each one of us, male or female, to take part in the ordinances that have meaning to us.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.