- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
For as long as I can remember I have disagreed with the classic definitions of the Priesthood as “the power and authority of God” and “the authority to act in the name of God”. I believe ALL who covenant to take the name of God upon them (inside or outside the Church, irrespective of sex or age and no matter what specific name they use) have the authority to act in His name (unless they lose it through D&C 121-described abuse) and all who have access to the Holy Ghost (to any degree and by whatever name they call it) can exercise His power. In fact, I believe that is inherent in the very words of the sacramental prayer. Given this fundamental belief, I define “the Priesthood” in administrative terms. Therefore, I would tweak the definition of the Priesthood as follows: “the authority to administer (oversee the performance of) eternal ordinances and to administer (oversee the performance of) the activities related to those ordinances”
That definition allows for MANY actions to be performed without Priesthood authority and, I believe, is much truer to the actual way the Priesthood is used in the Church than the more common definition. Also, in the interest of full disclosure, my belief that women who have been endowed possess and can exercise real Godly power within and when they leave the temple also influences how I have tweaked the definition to focus on “administrative rights” (as assigned responsibilities) rather than “power” and “authority”.
What think ye?
I think that is one of the more controversial ideas you’ve posted 
I agree though. I also come away from the temple experience with the idea that endowed women have “priesthood” power. I might add that the belief and faith of people also gives a sense of “authority.”
I will give a personal example. I had the amazing opportunity to perform the marriage ceremony for some friends of mine this summer. Neither of the couple is Mormon. Neither is even strongly Christian. They both REALLY wanted me to perform the wedding. I was the “devout” religious person they knew in their life, and they saw me as someone who took religion seriously. They key was me being open-minded and non-judgmental. That was important to them. We made a combination Christian-Taoist ceremony to include his Catholic family and her Chinese (actually flew in from China) relatives. It turned out really very nice.
I registered myself as a minister with the Universal Life Church so that I had the legal authority to perform the marriage (would never get permission as an Elder in the LDS Church, go figure… which “priesthood” was more useful? lol).
The whole point I am getting at is this: I had “authority” because of their belief. They feel their marriage is special because they believe it was “done right,” even though they are not traditional followers of any church. They still wanted that sense that someone in connection with God, who had authority, declared them married. Do you see what I am getting at? I didn’t have any special powers. I had an internet ordination as my legal authority (which I do take seriously). I had authority because they believed they were making a covenant between them and God. I just stood there, spoke the words, and orchestrated the ceremony for them.
What think I? I think that the whole idea of a priesthood is terribly confusing to me. I’ve tried to ask teachers, priesthood holders and more recently home teachers throughout my life to explain what the priesthood really
is. I thought maybe I just didn’t get it because they didn’t bother to explain it in depth to the girls or something. Nowadays I don’t think I was really taught all that differently about the priesthood than the boys were. They were taught more of the mechanics, but that’s it. Because I don’t understand what the priesthood is at all, it doesn’t really bother me so much. However, what you hit on in your rewording is actually where I find more frustration. I don’t get why the men should be acting alone as overseers.
If women fulfill roles that are distinctly different from—but of equal import to—that of men; then, they must also offer knowledge and perspective that is distinctly different from—but of equal import to—that of men. Thus, we need both men and women acting as overseers.
The question of whether women do or should bear the priesthood is outside the question of what the priesthood is. Or, at least, of what it should be. So, I guess what I am trying to say is that I don’t understand what the priesthood is, but the way it is currently practiced troubles me.
I would like to understand what the priesthood is. If anyone feels they are particularly adept at explaining this concept, I will be an eager listener. If anyone has read any literature or had any experiences that helped clarify to them what the priesthood is, I will be an eager listener.
Correct as usual, King Ray. Priesthood=Administrative rights in the church. Great thought, Valoel: You have authority for those who believe in you. That’s the true meaning of authority.
I tend to follow Valoel’s line of reasoning. Generally in our society people have authority because we give it to them. I used to believe that there was something mystically powerful in the Priesthood. As if there really was some unforeseen force or power. But in actuality, looking back on church history, and the origins of the priesthood, it seems to me that the priesthood came into existence for exactly the reasons Ray said, administering ordinances and associated affairs. And I would add that the priesthood gives the church structure and order. I would further tweak Ray’s statement in the following way:
Priesthood =
“the authority (from man, given by man to other men within Mormonism) to administer Mormon ordinances/rituals and to administer the activities in the Mormon church related to those ordinances.”
To me the Mormon distinction is important as it relieves the notion that President Monson is the prophet for the entire world and that everyone else sort of needs to “come to the light” as it were. I also relieves the notion that the Mormon ordinances are universally applicable and required for everyone, which I don’t believe.
When I think about Simon Magus, in Acts, I see Priesthood. Simon was baptized. He saw Peter and the other Apostles performing miracles. He wanted this power and was willing to pay for it. So, baptism and the Holy Ghost did not seem to be this power. Then, that left something more. Something that Simon did not have…the Priesthood. I do not believe Priesthood is the ONLY power from God, though. I have seen miracles performed by those without Priesthood and I have seen miracles performed from those having some kind of Priesthood…whether in LDS Church or not. Priesthood authority is a very important part of the Mormon mythology. However it has morphed or adapted over our short history, it is a central theme to the Mormon experience, our LDS way of relating to the world. The LDS Church has to have something special like that. I personally think it is time for another reinterpretation of the urges of mormonism. I think we are drifting out of relevance in a few areas, and this is one of them. Our Church is stagnating a little because of it, in some regards. I think some good new changes are coming in the near future generations. It happened in the past, things will change again in the future. That is the nature of a living tradition. Our flexibility is something I really enjoy, after getting over the shock of un-learning the teachings of my youth — that the gospel and the Church never change (God does not change). Well, I would respectfully disagree with the idea that the priesthood is administrative rights in the Church. Abraham, Issac, Jacob…all had the priesthood. I think we can agree on that.
There was no Church present.
Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry had the priesthood bestowed upon them. At that time, once again, there was no Church. They performed priesthood ordinances (baptisms) where there was, you guessed it….no Church.
The Church is an appendage to the Priesthood, not the other way around.
(This is my fundamentalist view so consider it as such)
Re: women in the priesthood…
The second annointing, which is rarely discussed, confirms people as Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses (sp?)…not just “sealed up to become” like the 1st endowment.
I would say that a priestess most definitly is a priesthood holder although I wouldn’t speculate what the boundaries of her authority are.
Food for thought…
mileage may vary.
Bruce in Montana wrote:
The Church is an appendage to the Priesthood, not the other way around.(This is my fundamentalist view so consider it as such)
Re: women in the priesthood…
The second annointing, which is rarely discussed, confirms people as Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses (sp?)…not just “sealed up to become” like the 1st endowment.
I would say that a priestess most definitly is a priesthood holder although I wouldn’t speculate what the boundaries of her authority are.
Food for thought…
mileage may vary.
Wow. I totally agree that the church (and all offices) are appendages of the Priesthood. I think a person can have priesthood without an office.
I also think that men and women have always been able to receive it without a church. By power of the Holy Ghost. Would you say that is true? Or do you think that now it can only be done in temples during the 2nd annointing?
I would have a problem with women receiving the priesthood except through the 2nd annointing. However, I don’t view it as something denied to them but rather that they have higher callings. A woman shares her husbands priesthood exercising it through him.
A man shares his gift at bringing forth posterity exercising it through her.
Neither is lesser/greater IMHO.
Secular society teaches us that motherhood, being a traditional homemaker, etc. is degrading to women…I would disagree.
Having said all that I do believe that priesthood is transferred from person to person (ok..man to man) through a direct traceable lineage. It’s another one of those “Mine is a house of order” things.
Okay, thanks. So, how do you think Abraham (et al) got it? Do you believe they all went through 2nd annointings with their wives?
No I don’t..sorry if I implied that. I believe Abraham’s prieshood was confered upon him by Melchizedek.
Bruce in Montana wrote:No I don’t..sorry if I implied that.
I believe Abraham’s prieshood was confered upon him by Melchizedek.
No, no, you didn’t imply which is why I asked. Just a genuine question to learn.
I removed part of my question which was, do you think Abraham’s wives held the PH in connection with him. That was what led me to ask about 2nd annointing. So, I guess I could ask if you think A’s wives held the PH in connection with him. And if so, did it occur when they were “sealed” or what?
Do you have an idea where Lehi or Nephi or Alma got it?
I’m not sure where Lehi got his priesthood. Nephi, I assume, had his conferred by Lehi. I don’t know about Alma either but I believe it is always an unbroken chain.
Since this post has been revived, let me clarify one thing: In re-reading the post, I realized I wasn’t clear enough about something.
I don’t have a problem with the “classic” definition in isolation – in a vacuum, if you will. My concern is with how that definition gets watered down tremendously, imo, when “the Priesthood” is limited to what men can do as a practical application of them being ordained to Priesthood offices. I make this distinction for a simple reason:
As I stated in the post, I believe that all believers who take upon them the name of Christ can act in the name of God and with His authority to some degree. I also believe that all endowed members literally “hold” the Priesthood in a very real way – that they are endowed with power and authority of God and that they carry the symbols of that endowment with them when they leave the temple – men AND women. So, what is the difference between members and non-members, endowed men and endowed women, unendowed men and unendowed women? What unique “power and authority” do men have when they are ordained to an office in the Priesthood?
About the ONLY thing that men can do that women currently cannot is administer ordinances outside the temple – and it’s important to make the distinction between “administering” and “participating in”. Women and girls (and children under
can participate in the passing of the sacrament, for example, on their individual rows – but they can’t “administer” (watch over and officiate and control) the ordinance. I see NO reason to not have a woman hold her child while the baby is given a name and a blessing (sitting on a chair, while the men place hands LIGHTLY on the child), since that would be participation but NOT administration. My main point is that I believe the classic definition, while technically valid, is far too broad to be adequate and “correct” in practical life. It implies things that are not accurate, imo – based on how the word “Priesthood” is used generally. I probably should have been much more comprehensive and changed the title slightly, but it’s too late for that now.
😳
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.