- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I liked Dan Wotherspoon’s comment that the priesthood, as we typically think of it in the church, is like Dumbo’s feather. We all inherently have the power to positively affect (bless?) the lives of others. Some of us need a symbolic external ordinance in order to believe it. Old-Timer wrote:Quote:you can’t say that in church
Yes, you can – and I have done so more than once, in multiple wards and stakes, with nobody disagreeing with me. I say it carefully and pick my words carefully (by talking about “power of God” and not “Priesthood authority”), but I still say it. For example, I have said that Mother Teresa exercised the power of God and was a better Christian than a Stake President who doesn’t care about anything but statistics – and absolutely nobody has disagreed with me.
Pres. Packer spoke not long ago about how the Church has done a better job of distributing the “authority” of the Priesthood than of distributing the “power” of the Priesthood, so even Boyd K. Packer agrees with Brian in theory – even if he wouldn’t frame it or phrase it in the same way as Brian did.
In this case, it’s how we say it and what words we choose that make all the difference.
Yes yes, I agree with all that Ray, BUT, in the LDS church that is NOT what we believe. I’m talking about the LDS version of “priesthood”, not the power of god. No one will argue that others have the power of god – but 99% of active mormons will argue they don’t have the priesthood. You must have the priesthood to baptize and administer the sacrament. The LDS church doesn’t care how great of a person they are – if they haven’t been “ordained” and given the priesthood, they don’t have IT. So you cannot say that one receives the priesthood from “god” or such like Brian suggests —- because, in the LDS church, you have to receive the priesthood from another priesthood holder. If you do not, than technically speaking, YOU DO NOT HOLD THE PRIESTHOOD. And if you stand up and argue otherwise you will be in apostasy —- because that is exactly what the FLDS folks claimed and look what happened to them.
So let me ask – the FLDS claim to hold the priesthood. Would BKP agree with them that they do? Of course not.
cwald wrote:Yes, I agree Brian. 100%. But, you can’t say that in church. That is the kind of theology that will get a person in trouble. It’s a black and white issue as far as the LDS church is concerned, and I don’t think there can be any argument about it. That kind of thinking does not work in the LDS church today.
Yes, this is true that the church paints it very clearly as an authority matter, unquestioningly. I agree, except maybe about the part where you get in trouble. Unless a person is outwardly making this point and doing it very loudly, and engaging others to argue about it…I’m not sure what the church would do to someone who thinks this way.
I guess my point is that sometimes we feel like we get in trouble…or more accurately, that others don’t approve of divergent ideas or opinions…but they don’t do anything about it. Do they?
Heber13 wrote:I agree, except maybe about the part where you get in trouble. Unless a person is outwardly making this point and doing it very loudly, and engaging others to argue about it…I’m not sure what the church would do to someone who thinks this way.
I guess my point is that sometimes we feel like we get in trouble…or more accurately, that others don’t approve of divergent ideas or opinions…but they don’t do anything about it. Do they?
I’m saying if that if I claim to have the priesthood from God, and not some church leader, and that I can administer the sacrament, and that I could start baptizing folks without permission from my BP/SP —- that I’m going to be up for excommunication. I call that getting in trouble.
I actually can’t believe that I’m getting “call out” on this. I mean come on guys, in the LDS church, just to ordain someone a member, they not only have to hold the priesthood, but they have to be “worthy” of such priesthood, which in LDS translation means they have to be TEMPLE RECOMMEND worthy. Look, I get that we have “different” definitions of priesthood, even in the LDS church. But come on – because of correlation, 99% of membership are conditioned to understand that when we talk “priesthood”, that we are talking Aaronic/Melchizedek priesthood, that was restored from John and Peter to JS, and passed down, from man to man. Non members and women don’t have it (in the correlation manuals at least) So YOU CANNOT go to church and preach something contrary like Dalia Lama or the Pope or Father Yo Yo across the street at the Catholic church “has the priesthood.” You CANNOT teach that and talk like that at church without “getting in trouble.” That IS APOSTASY, and will get you red flagged in a New York minute.
cwald, I agree with both of your last comments. Remember, I’m a parser of the highest order. I have no disagreement with your last two comments. I would say there is a bit of a semantic argument about whether women hold the priesthood. Michael Quinn has said,
Quote:The last major development in LDS priesthood is even less recognized today. In 1843 Smith extended the Melchizedek priesthood to LDS women through an “endowment ceremony” rather than through ordination to church office.
For example, in 1843 Presiding Patriarch Hyrum Smith blessed Leonora Cannon Taylor:
“You shall be bless[ed] with your portion of the Priesthood which belongeth to you, that you may be set apart for your Anointing and your induement [endowment].”
Thirty-five years later, Joseph Young (a patriarch and senior president of the Council of Seventy) blessed Brigham Young’s daughter:
“These blessings are yours, the blessings and power according to the Holy Melchi[z]edek Priesthood you received in your Endowments, and you shall have them.”
The decline in women’s awareness that the endowment ceremony gives them Melchizedek priesthood corresponds to the decline in women’s status in the LDS church during those same years. In the process, twentieth-century Mormons–both male and female, conservative and liberal–have identified priesthood with male privilege and hierarchical administrative power. Therefore, some recent writers regard as insignificant the concept that endowed Mormon women had (and continue to have) the Melchizedek priesthood without ordained office and hierarchical status.
I must say that I agree that modern Mormons always associate priesthood with administration. On the other hand, I can remember as a deacon, teacher, and priest, being told the priesthood is “the power to act in the name of God.” So, even though women may not hold an administrative office, it is fascinating to me that Quinn uses a different definition to discuss women’s priesthood power “to act in the name of God.” Isn’t this a more important use of priesthood power?Jonathan Stapley seems to disagree with Quinn. He said on my blog,
Quote:Moreover, power, or the gifts of the spirit are incoherently conflated with priesthood. Now there is no question, as you note, that some have tried to say that priesthood is the power of God or the authority to act in God’s name; however, every day people pray in the name of Jesus that don’t hold the priesthood and no one seriously believes all spiritual gifts are constrained to priesthood office.
If you’re interested, here’s more info on Stapley’s article:
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2011/02/19/stapleywright-discuss-healings-by-mormon-women/ Okay, good enough Ray. I’m just wondering here, but if jwald, who DOES have the priesthood (at least according to everyone on this site I think) was to anoint and lay hands on someone and give them a blessing — would she get disciplined by the church today?
cwald wrote:I’m saying if that if I claim to have the priesthood from God, and not some church leader, and that I can administer the sacrament, and that I could start baptizing folks without permission from my BP/SP —- that I’m going to be up for excommunication. I call that getting in trouble.
I agree with your point Cwald. That crosses the cultural line and directly challenges the power structure. That would get someone ex’ed by even the most liberal mormon standard. Our Church has drifted back into this realm of authority from men. I think in the very very early days of the Church, many of the original converts were attracted to the egalitarian and universal notions of priesthood that JS taught. Heck, even two of the original “apostles” hadn’t been formally ordained to a priesthood until a year or two later. They were “special witnesses” of Christ because they had SEEN JESUS CHRIST! (or to be fair to the more agnostic among us, they believed they had seen J.C.).
There were three forms of priesthood “authority” in the proto-LDS Church under Joseph Smith (my date range 1820 to mid 1830’s):
1. Charismatic priesthood: A vision or visitation, seeing God and God telling you to perform some work for Him.
2. Patriarchal priesthood (or lineage-based): Joseph at times taught that some family lines (aka blood lines) naturally held priesthood — like the decendents of Aaron for example, or maybe Levites. JS claimed this as well through his father, and in fact used it as the justification for his father being “The Patriarch” for the church, which later morphed into Stake Patriarch callings we have today.
3. Ordained Priesthood: Authority and power transmitted from person to person by physical ritual of the “laying on of hands” as described in the Bible. This is pretty much the only version we continue to recognize today.
But all three version are a part of our heritage.
And yes, I would get ex’ed if I claimed that I know God wants me to start ordaining women to the offices in the priesthood, and went about doing that, bypassing the “chain of command” cultural / religious power structure.
Quote:if jwald, who DOES have the priesthood (at least according to everyone on this site I think) was to anoint and lay hands on someone and give them a blessing — would she get disciplined by the church today?
Honestly, I think the major question in that situation for most people would be the anointing.
Well, actually, THE major question would be the words she used in whatever she did – especially if she mentioned “Priesthood authority” while doing it. If she said, however, something like the following, I’m sure the reaction by the leadership would be mixed – with many more Bishops not making any kind of deal about it than you might think:
Quote:“As a disciple of Jesus Christ (your mother / a mother in Zion / etc.), I lay my hands on you and pray a blessing upon you . . .”
Your branch and stake . . . well, it is what it is – but in many places, that wouldn’t be disciplined in any way. I know it happened fairly regularly in the Boston area when we lived there, even with the wife of one of the Bishopric members.
Again, often it’s the wording and the perceived intent that matters as much as the action itself. If she invited others to watch and/or participate with her . . . or if it was seen as a direct challenge to the Priesthood leadership in the area . . . or if it was preceded by a diatribe in church . . .
I would like to see a return to the anointing of women by women (or even anointing of men by women). I posted this over at Wheat and Tares, and BiV commented there that
Quote:anyone, female or male, member or not, has the right to perform these types of blessings. Women do it today, but often surreptitiously because of the discomfort you mention in the OP.
Stapley’s article explicitly states that women performed anointings, though Stapley says this is a gift of the spirit and not of the priesthood. Stapley says,
Quote:“someone apparently reported to Joseph that the women were laying their hands on the sick and blessing them. His reply to the question of the propriety of such acts was simple. He told the women in the next meeting “there could be no evil in it, if God gave his sanction by healing.., there could be no more sin in any female laying hands on the sick than in wetting the face with water.” He also indicated that there were sisters who were ordained to heal the sick and it was their privilege to do so. “If the sisters should have faith to heal,” he said, “let all hold their tongues.”6
Click here for more info:
http://www.wheatandtares.org/2011/03/14/mormon-women-giving-blessings/ cwald wrote:Okay, good enough Ray.
I’m just wondering here, but if jwald, who DOES have the priesthood (at least according to everyone on this site I think) was to anoint and lay hands on someone and give them a blessing — would she get disciplined by the church today?
I don’t get what’s really different about laying on of hands vs joining in prayer.
SamBee wrote:Quote:I am pretty sure the priesthood is simply a mechanism
menuse to to say they have authority. I was thinking you meant males rather than mankind here.
No I was just saying the concept of the priesthood is just a man made concept so how can you keep or lose something that does not really exist. really was not referring to men or women.
Cadence wrote:I was just saying the concept of the priesthood is just a man made concept so how can you keep or lose something that does not really exist. really was not referring to men or women.
Your comment just reminded me of a time when a non-member friend was bemoaning that women were undervalued in the LDS church. She continued, “the RLDS church gave the priesthood to women, why can’t you?” “The RLDS did not give the priesthood to women,” I countered, “They didn’t have it to give.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.