- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Heber13 wrote:
What is priesthood getting us that we don’t already have without the priesthood?
Cynical views:
Dominance and order. When a conflict arises it tells us who is in charge, who gets to make the final decision. It’s the mechanism for establishing the hierarchy.
The Dumbo’s feather view. PH doesn’t give us anything that we don’t already have, other than the confidence to go forward.
Calming fears:
Does god recognize this ordinance?
Yes, because it was performed by someone with the PH.
Good, now I can rest easy knowing that I met the requirement correctly.
Does god forgive me?
Yes, because I talked about my sins to the BP, who is a judge in Israel, and he told me god forgives me.
Bolstering faith:
I’m sick but I know I’ll get better because someone with the PH blessed me.
The gathered crowd received an apostolic blessing and the apostle blessed people to be forgiven. I’m forgiven now, so I’ll walk away from this meeting with a renewed determination to be better because I don’t want to revisit carrying around the burden of sin.
– – – – – –
I’ll often hear leaders of the church make statements that single women have the PH in their homes but it’s always placed in the context of having
access tosomeone else that holds the PH. Parsing the language in some of the quotes from leadership in this thread:
Quote:I close with some truths about the blessings of the priesthood. Unlike priesthood keys and priesthood ordinations, the blessings of the priesthood are available to women and to men on the same terms.
“are available” – I can go somewhere and get them.
“to women and to men on the same terms” – if a man needs a blessing he can’t give himself a blessing, he has to ask his home minister to come over to give him a blessing, just like a single sister would have to do.
Quote:When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is priesthood power. … Access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children.
“they are both endowed with the same power” – what does with mean? They are both endowed with (by) the same power or they are both endowed with (given) the same power. It could mean either.
“Access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children” – access to. Here again, women and men alike can go find someone that has the PH when they need it.
And a comment without a quote but a general observation:
I see separate concepts in the tread. Authority, priesthood, and priesthood authority. In the quotes from leaders it sounds like they’ve been careful to separate out the concepts of authority and priesthood. The single mother has the
authorityto tell her kids what to do and to be the head of household. She also has access tothe priesthood. In the very first quote, which I’m assuming is paraphrased:
Quote:Single mothers and single sisters, I want to tell you that you have Priesthood power and authority in your homes. Elder Oaks said so in a General Conference talk recently. Let me repreat, you have Priesthood power and authority in your homes, even if there is no man in it.
PH power
andauthority, two separate things but the thread is titled “Single Women: You have Priesthood Authority in Your Home” which combines the two things into one thing, “Priesthood Authority.” I’ve got to question whether the carefully nuanced statements by leaders reflect a combined PH authority concept or whether the people giving the talks were extremely careful in separating the two concepts when making their statements. Besides.
You have the PH.
Sorry, can’t use it though.
I get the PH keys argument. There are lots of ways men can’t use the PH because they haven’t been duly authorized or they haven’t been ordained to the proper PH/office but we’ve throttled down the “duly authorized” for women to the point where apparently no one even knows they have the PH, so much so that members don’t even realize it when it’s stated openly during a general conference talk… and there’s not a problem? And we still get to say that women have the PH?
Heber13 wrote:
What is priesthood getting us that we don’t already have without the priesthood?I think that is easier to get consensus on actions to complete in a male-only group (which is our Priesthood holder leadership up until recently (ish)) instead of a group containing both males and females. I am typing in general terms, relying on the principle that men and women have fundamental world view differences.
In my schooling on management principles recently, I learned that the less diverse a group, the sooner that group arrived at a consensus of what to do – not necessarily the best option, but an option that the group was united in.
Old Timer wrote:
He said, “What other power could it be?” and used female missionairies as a prime example
Here is why I see DHO’s statements as meaning that women are given only “delegated authority” (in other words that it is the Priesthood Holder who has the authority, and he simply delegates assignments to others).
Quote:DHO: When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function.
The “priesthood function” is the preaching of the gospel. She is set apart by a priesthood holder to preach the gospel. The Priesthood Authority is the directive from the priesthood holder… I do not believe it means that she has any form of priesthood. Only the authority FROM the priesthood. She is authorized BY the priesthood to perform a delegated assignment. I say this because of the comparison that DHO makes in the very next lines:
Quote:DHO:
The same is truewhen a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.
In other words, being a sister missionary is just like being a nursery leader. A man with the priesthood has provided HIS Priesthood Authority for you, the woman, to perform your “assigned duties.”In fact, this can be expanded further:
Quote:DHO:
Whoeverfunctions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.
So, you don’t have to be endowed in the temple to have this type of Priesthood Authority. The Beehive President falls under this category. So do the Elders and Sister Missionaries in my mission who had not yet been to the Temple (most of the missionaries in my mission fell into this category). And consider, too, that non-members may have some callings in a ward, meaning that non-members can have the exact same “Priesthood Authority” that we are talking about. From CHI2:Quote:People who are not members of the Church may be called to some positions, such as organist, music director, and assistant Scout leader. However, they should not be called to teaching or administrative positions or as Primary music leaders. The allowance to call nonmembers to some positions does not apply to excommunicated members, who may not have any callings.
Why does someone need authority to preach the gospel? We don’t authorize and ordain people before they can stand in fast and testimony meeting.
I can see the benefit of setting apart someone…so they know they are full time missionaries, for example. But…we don’t set apart someone to the priesthood, we ordain men to priesthood, and set apart men and women to their responsibilities.
Why?
What’s the difference.
I’m actually going to study this topic and try to understand better, because I have never wondered this before since I grew up in the church and just always accepted it and never wondered…what is it getting us to have the priesthood vs not having priesthood? I’m gonna be studying this. Help me with ideas or materials to study.
Now we have this system. And we are handcuffed to it. But….what really are we accomplishing with priesthood authority to some people and not others?
I wonder if the options forward are:
1) give priesthood to women;
2) stop giving priesthood to all men.
Then it is more equal.
[///Sorry…I think I’m thread-jacking here….I’ll move my topic and questions to a new thread here:
What IS the Priesthood and why is it needed?Heber13 wrote:
Why does someone need authority to preach the gospel?
I would say the relationship between the priesthood and people who preach the gospel is asymmetrical. The priesthood is tasked with a mandate to preach the gospel. To do this, it needs people. People can voluntarily preach the gospel. To do this, they do not need the priesthood.So, from the standpoint of the priesthood mandate, an organization and hierarchy is employed. There is structure. Training ensures both effectiveness (method) and consistency (content). There is accountability. This is all tied with priesthood authority.
From the standpoint of an individual outside of the priesthood they can “share” (preach) the gospel at any time without any of the above.
Note that the Church calls for both. It would be much less effective if it relied solely on one or other of the two approaches.
Fascinating topic: For me priesthood means I can participate in father’s blessings, baptisms, Gift of HG, ordination of son to priesthood, and be an official witness to my children’s temple sealings. If I were told that I had the priesthood but could not do any of these things I would wonder what good (or practical use) was the priesthood that I hold. To me the benefit of the priesthood is to hold a place of honorable participation in your children’s rites of passage. (somewhat as a tangent. We seem to feel that a father should have and invoke the priesthood to give a fathers blessing in the home. I strongly wonder what prevents non-priesthood holding fathers or mothers from giving parental blessings without invoking any type of priesthood.) There are also church administrative functions of priesthood that I personally do not care about.
Heber13 wrote:
Why does a Deacon have to have the priesthood to pass the sacrament to someone in a row, when that other person then just takes the tray and passes it down the row to others without any priesthood (the girls in that row are passing the sacrament to others, right?)?
In the D&C it states that “Administering the Sacrament” is one of the duties of the office of a priest. Passing the sacrament is something that each member technically does as they “pass” the tray down the row to the person next to them. Heber J. Grant wrote that there was “no rule in the church” that required priesthood holders to carry around the sacrament bread and water to the congregation after it was blessed. He did acknowledge that this was the custom but in no way a requirement. As the church began to move towards the lesser priesthood being reserved predominantly for the young men there was a need to come up with tasks for them to do. Passing the sacrament and collecting fast offerings are two of those duties that became assigned. Although there is still not a doctrinal requirement the CHI does state that the young men of the AP are to pass the Sacrament.Page 130
OON made a comment about a PP overseeing a male primary teacher. I have been a male primary teacher and the amount of deference and respect I received was palpable. I was praised all the time about being a positive priesthood influence for the kids. I am certain that if the PP had any difficulties with me that she would have gone to the bishop to address it rather than to confront me personally. I would call the PP by the title President and she said that it made her uncomfortable. I believe that culture is strong against women exherting authority over men (even when they could do so).
https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/029-16-25.pdf The link above is to a wonderful sunstone article about the history (and decline) of women performing ordinances of blessing and healing particularly on pregnant women.
Part of the problem with the practice was the disagreement on by what authority it was done. Was it by virtue of being in the RS presidency and under that authority to carry out women’s needs? Was the authority given as part of the temple endowment ceremony? Was it received by married women as somehow borrowing their husband’s priesthood authority for a specific womanly task?
I find it interesting that we are still very much confused on this topic. Do single women hold priesthood authority in their homes? Where does that authority come from? What does that authority authorize them to do? What happens to that authority if a man visits? What happens to that authority if she marries? interesting questions…
I understand the history, and I understand the concept of delegated authority. I also understand that Elder Taylor wasn’t talking about delegated authority and that he referenced Elder Oaks when he wasn’t talking about delegated authority.
Curt, Could you help me understand what these guys are talking about if it’s not delegated authority? I don’t mean that as any kind of debate/challenge. I honestly would like to see it differently and I’m interested in your take… I went back and re-read DHO and I just only can see delegated authority there. I’d like to be able to see more if it exists, and I’d like to get your perspective.
Thanks.
On Own Now wrote:
Curt,Could you help me understand what these guys are talking about if it’s not delegated authority? I don’t mean that as any kind of debate/challenge. I honestly would like to see it differently and I’m interested in your take… I went back and re-read DHO and I just only can see delegated authority there. I’d like to be able to see more if it exists, and I’d like to get your perspective.
Thanks.
I think you’re right, it is mostly delegated authority he is talking about. But that authority is not only delegated to men. In my calling I have essentially the same kind of delegated authority as the stake RSP, PP, or YWP, as does every other member of the stake council except the stake president himself (whose own authority is delegated from yet a higher source). It is likewise in every ward – there is no difference int he delegated authority of the nursery leader and the bishop’s counselor, it’s all delegated authority.
DarkJedi wrote:
there is no difference int he delegated authority of the nursery leader and the bishop’s counselor, it’s all delegated authority.
Hypothetically, could a woman be delegated the authority to perform a baptism? Why or Why not?
Roy wrote:
Hypothetically, could a woman be delegated the authority to perform a baptism? Why or Why not?
No. Because, handbook.
But getting more specific, in order to baptize you must have the priesthood conferred upon you, and then recieve the delegated authority from your local bishop to perform it. Whether or not they “have” the priesthood depends on your definition, but women do not have the priesthood conferred upon them. Is is, currently, against the rules.
Roy wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
there is no difference int he delegated authority of the nursery leader and the bishop’s counselor, it’s all delegated authority.
Hypothetically, could a woman be delegated the authority to perform a baptism? Why or Why not?
I think hypothetically in Joseph Smith’s day, yes. Probably not today unless it were up to me. But I think there were two points DHO was making.
1) Similar to the baptism hypothetical, women in the temple are delegated things that we normally associate with those who have been formally ordained to the MP. I believe that authority comes from the temple president (key holder) and in exactly the same way it comes to men on the other side of the building.
2) My authority to act as a high councilor comes from the SP and I act under his keys. I am his representative when I am assigned to the unit I advise and when I go and speak on his behalf. I am sometimes specifically authorized to set someone apart in a calling, I am not authorized to do that on my own. I have no other authority to act in his name, represent him or give blessings or perform other ordinances. (Yes, it’s amazing he trusts me to do this, but I do have his full confidence.) Likewise, the stake RSP has been given his authority and blessing to act on his behalf in her area of responsibility, which includes training and working with ward RSPs and she also has speaking assignments in the wards. I cannot act under the SP authority in her area of responsibility nor can she act under his authority in my area of responsibility – but we can sometimes act together under his authority. Everyone else who holds a stake calling (including EQPs) act under his authority, and none of us have the authority to act in any other capacity.
Both of those are different from me holding the MP, where I can also only do most things when authorized. I can give blessing to the sick (I rarely do) or blessings to my children (now grown and I rarely did so). I cannot bless the sacrament or pass the sacrament without the Bishop’s approval (I did bless the sacrament today), or do a baptism or confirmation without his approval, etc. I do recognize that women can’t do any of those things, approval or not (but may have been able to in Joseph’s day) – but that’s not the point DHO was making.
So let me ask this. I’ve been reading Saints, and just finished the section where it talks about how the priesthood offices evolved over some time in the early church (initially there was apparently not a delineation between the two priesthoods as far as some offices were concerned). As a convert, I was ordained a priest, and a short time later an elder and a few years later a high priest. Is it possible that women hold a priesthood that we don’t full understand and has not yet evolved, but that they are not ordained to offices as men are (perhaps because it’s still evolving)?
Quote:“When men and women go to the temple, they both are endowed with the same power, which is Priesthood power.”
Elder Oaks stresses multiple times that only men currently are ordained to “offices” in the organized structure of ordinance performance (which we mistakenly call “the Priesthood”) – that there is “the Priesthood” and “offices in the Priesthood” and men who are ordained to offices in the Priesthood – and that they are not the same thing. He says “the Priesthood” is shared by everyone who is endowed and the authority of the Priesthood is given through delegation for the specific work within the Church, and he says that only men currently are delegated authority to perform Priesthood ordinances – except in the temple, where women are delegated authority to perform Priesthood ordinances (which they must have Priesthood power to do). He says explicitly that women who have been endowed in the temple receive the “same power, which is Priesthood power” as men do. In practical terms, he says they receive the same power, but they are not authorized to use that power in the same ways.
That is important. It is the way men and women are authorized to use the Priesthood that is different, not that the Priesthood they have (or “hold”) is different. We still talk commonly about only men “holding the Priesthood”, but that is incorrect, according to his talk.
That is what Elder Taylor implied in his statement to the women in our stake – and I am convinced it is the theological reason why the Church has changed its former policy of not allowing young women to attend the temple unless they were serving missions or getting married. (Of course, a practical reason probably is to increase dedication and commitment in a critical part of young adulthood.) I believe there is a general understanding now at the top leadership level that the temple endowment is a universal bestowal of Priesthood power and authority – and that all “worthy” adults should have it – and that endowed women, married or not, actually do receive it – and that we need to stop talking about it the way we have for so long. I also think it is a radical paradigm shift that the older generations, like mine, have a hard time wrapping their minds around, since we have heard something different for decades – and some of those things have been adamant.
Elder Oaks said clearly that men and women receive the same Priesthood power in the temple. He couldn’t have worded that part more plainly. All issues of equal performance of ordinances aside, as important as they are, he said the core power and the authority to use that same general power are the same. Men can’t perform ordinances on their own, without being given the authority to do so; neither can women. The difference is that men are being given the authority to perform ordinances inside and outside the temple, while women are being given the authority to perform ordinances inside the temple only. The power itself, however, is the same.
Old Timer wrote:
I believe there is a general understanding now at the top leadership level that the temple endowment is a universal bestowal of Priesthood power and authority – and that all “worthy” adults should have it – and that endowed women, married or not, actually do receive it – and that we need to stop talking about it the way we have for so long.
So, if men and women are both receiving the same priesthood power, and all worthy adults should have it, then why can a TR-worthy man not attend the temple if he doesn’t hold the priesthood? I just started thinking about this recently, when our youth group went to do baptisms for the dead. My 13-year-old son was not allowed to go, because he has decided that he doesn’t want to get the priesthood until he’s really ready for it. He would easily be able to answer all of the interview questions, and would be considered ‘worthy.’ But, he can’t go, because he doesn’t have the priesthood. Why do worthy young men have the additional requirement of having the priesthood?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.