- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I often hear people talking about misusing the priesthood authority… what is meant by this? I usually think of it as a hierarchal thing where someone uses position to dominate others or to make money. But you don’t need priesthood for that.
What about the supernatural stuff? Here is what I find odd. How can you abuse that side of things (hypothetically for the sake of this debate)? Give blessings for money? That’s plausible. But the rest? Use it to gain beautiful women or sex through it? Impossible – but many would like to. Use the powers to win the lottery? Doesn’t happen either.
Regardless of one’s views on how effective the priesthood actually is… I really can’t see this one. I can’t see how I could actually use my priesthood for ill since most of it consists of blessing people or things.
I think D&C 121 gives some really good examples of how priesthood authority can be abused. Quote:39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise
unrighteous dominion. 40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
In short, if you’re using your power or influence without persuasion, longsuffering, gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned, you’re abusing your power or priesthood authority.
Here are some ways it gets abused: 1. If you’re the male in your home and therefore the patriarch, you make decisions without listening to others and force your will on them because you’re the alpha male.
2. You appeal to your position to get people to do things “I’m the HPGL so it’s my call that you should do XYZ and in spite of what you think”.
3. Any form of coercion that forces people to do things when they don’t want to.
As I write this I wonder about the external compulsion exerted by the TR but I guess that falls outside the concept of unrighteous dominion.
To get more graphic, I hear stories over and over of women (and girls) that are raped and when they tell the bishop they are essentially told they need to repent and/or are asked to graphically describe the sexual encounter. I don’t see that this has any part of the repentance process. Sure if someone says, “I went too far” the bishop can be somewhat justified asking if they just french kissed (some people think that is a sin before marriage) or if they had intercourse since those two actions would have vastly different responses from the bishop.
Quote:Give blessings for money?
Catholic ChurchQuote:Use it to gain beautiful women or sex through it?
Joseph Smith
Quote:Use the powers to win the lottery?
Brigham YoungBut using the “supernatural” powers of the priesthood for personal benifit, the Church generally declares that as impossible. What is very possible is saying “If you don’t do what I ask, ‘X’ will happen. That’s not my will, that’s God’s”. Also, the more ambiguous the priesthood blessing/cursing, or the more difficult to prove whether or not it actually happened, the more likely it is to be viewed by the recipent that it actually did happen (even if it really didn’t), or to cause a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s how palm reading works.
The next two examples are not necessarily “abusing the priesthood”, but are instances where IMHO God’s authority was not present when the priesthood was exercised. Let’s say you are accused of adultry (something you know for a fact you didn’t commit). But the Council finds you guilty and strips you of your priesthood and membership in the Church. It happens. If evidence turns up later proving you were innocent, according to the Church, you are still stripped of your priesthood and membership and must have it restored. If you continue to give priesthood blessings while having those priviledges revoked, you’ll be further subject to Church discipline. Was it by God’s permission that you lost those blessings? Of course not. The council was decieved. But the council said it happened through God’s authority, and it is impossible to prove it DIDN’T happen. You are in quite a pickle.
Another example. Joseph Smith, when appealing to the US congress for aid, cursed them with the powers of the priesthood, stating, “”While discussing the petition to Congress, I prophesied, by virtue of the holy Priesthood vested in me, and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that, if Congress will not hear our petition and grant us protection, they shall be broken up as a government, and God shall damn them. And there shall nothing be left of them—not even a grease spot.” By TBM this prophecy is often reinterpreted as being fulfilled because, Congress did end up granting the LDS Church protection through “freedom of religion”, after they renounced polygammy and were thereby allowed to join the union. AND the ruling party at the time (the Democrats), were replaced in due time in their positions. But then they came back to power. But then they lost it again.
Point is, if you are a wicked and manipulative person, who also holds the priesthood, you can REALLY abuse your authority, even if God is not on your side. You can EASILY make it LOOK like God is on your side. “Supernatual abilities” have been greatly faked before. Just look at any televangelist or faith healer.
On the subject of one person being too powerful and misleading others. I listened to a podcast the other day that talked about how the power structure at the top of the church has drastically changed since the way JS mentioned it should be. He had said that the 1st presidency, Q12, AND the church’s Patriarch (which HAD to be a Smith by blood) were equal (sounds a bit like the US POTUS, Congress, and Supreme court – not quite the same). I think most of us know a bit of what Brigham did to consolidate power and it wasn’t only about 60 years ago that the church patriarch was quietly done away with.
It seems like there might have been a bit of structure setup to keep this from happening in the church, but it didn’t seem to last.
dande48 wrote:
Quote:Give blessings for money?
Catholic ChurchQuote:Use it to gain beautiful women or sex through it?
Joseph Smith
Quote:Use the powers to win the lottery?
Brigham Young
Yep the RCs do that but they didn’t have the priesthood at least according to us.
JS AFAIK used his authority but not any magical power (except the Or Else! factor)
Did BY win the lottery? New one on me.
SilentDawning wrote:
Here are some ways it gets abused:1. If you’re the male in your home and therefore the patriarch, you make decisions without listening to others and force your will on them because you’re the alpha male.
2. You appeal to your position to get people to do things “I’m the HPGL so it’s my call that you should do XYZ and in spite of what you think”.
3. Any form of coercion that forces people to do things when they don’t want to.
As I write this I wonder about the external compulsion exerted by the TR but I guess that falls outside the concept of unrighteous dominion.
It strikes me that one could do 1&3 without any priesthood. 2 on the edge… None of this applies to the magical side though. Seems to me we see unrighteous dominion exerted by the leader of North Korea or certain workplace bosses as much as any church member.
As for cursing, I don’t remember that aspect of my priesthood being discussed in EQ!
SamBee wrote:
Did BY win the lottery? New one on me.
Not the literal “lottery”, as we think of it today. But he did retain the autority to draw from Church tithing funds for his own expenses, which he did heavily, and interest free. He also landed himself the most lucrative position in the west. During the trial in which Ann Webb sued Brigham Young for alimony, she claimed he had a monthly salary of $40,000 (equivalent to $680,000 today), although he refuted it and stated he only had a monthly salary of $6,000 a month ($102,000 today). He was an obscenely rich man, largely due to his “priesthood authority”. I’d call that “winning the lottery”, by rigging the odds in your favor.
My twisted mind immediately went to how some people call men who have been ordained to an office in the Priesthood by the term “the Priesthood”, combined with an element of sexual activity for which some members and leaders (and booklet) use a stupid euphemism that includes the word “abuse”. In those terms, that activity would be abusing the Priesthood. 
I will go wash out my mind with soap now.
😳 :silent: I think often when the idea of someone abusing the priesthood is brought up it’s really an individual (or sometimes a group of individuals) who are abusive as individuals. That is, they are abusing or improperly/unfairly using power as people, not as “the priesthood” but happen to be priesthood holders. There’s no question that some people who have ascended to positions of power in their own wards and stakes are abusive for whatever reason. I know I’m not making myself very clear here, but what I’m trying to say is that a man who abuses his power/authority or just plain abuses is not necessarily abusing the priesthood but happens to be a priesthood holder. A non-priesthood holder in similar or other situations could abuse in the same way. In other words, a man is not necessarily abusing the priesthood just because he holds the priesthood – he could abusing despite the priesthood. Old Timer wrote:
My twisted mind immediately went to how some people call men who have been ordained to an office in the Priesthood by the term “the Priesthood”, combined with an element of sexual activity for which some members and leaders (and booklet) use a stupid euphemism that includes the word “abuse”. In those terms, that activity would be abusing the Priesthood.I will go wash out my mind with soap now.
😳 :silent:
Phew. I’m glad I wasn’t the only one.
nibbler wrote:
Old Timer wrote:
My twisted mind immediately went to how some people call men who have been ordained to an office in the Priesthood by the term “the Priesthood”, combined with an element of sexual activity for which some members and leaders (and booklet) use a stupid euphemism that includes the word “abuse”. In those terms, that activity would be abusing the Priesthood.I will go wash out my mind with soap now.
😳 :silent:
Phew. I’m glad I wasn’t the only one.
Oh, yeah, I’m there too. Nice gutter we have here isn’t it?
😈 I couldn’t possibly comment on that aspect of abusing one’s priesthood! 😆 Lets all sing him 274 to get our minds out of the gutter. And I bet we all smirk the next time we sing this at church.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.