- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have question from those of you who have knowledge about this topic. The concept of “priesthood keys” gets a lot of talk now and then in our Wards and Stakes. What do you think a “priesthood key” is? Decision-making authority? Position power in the organization? a symbol of the ability to open doors or unlock power – and, therefore, pretty much whatever people make of it I really don’t mean to be flippant with that answer, but it’s been viewed differently even in just our own short history. I see it as a symbol – but, if I am being literal, I define it as organizational authorization to do stuff. Hence, women who have been endowed in the temple have the Priesthood in a very real way, imo (and I think that’s obvious and indisputable) – but they currently only have the “keys” to perform ordinances in the temple. (not making an argument of “should” or “ideal” or “eternal” in that statement – only of “is” and “practical” and “current”)
Now, I have another question. Why do we invest the “keys” in the Stake President for High Priests, and not the HPGL? And, why do we invest the keys in the Ward EQP, and not the HPGL? I’m not upset about this (particularly since I’ve never heard a concrete, practical, functional definition of what a priesthood key is), but I never understood why the Stake President is the president of the High Priest quorum, a large quorum through the whole Stake, and the EQ president has a local quorum.
SilentDawning wrote:Now, I have another question. Why do we invest the “keys” in the Stake President for High Priests, and not the HPGL? And, why do we invest the keys in the Ward EQP, and not the HPGL?
I’m not upset about this, but I never understood why the Stake President is the president of the High Priest quorum, a large quorum through the whole Stake, and the EQ president has a local quorum.
My guess would be historical outgrowth. That is what I think happened with the Bishop being the president of the Priest’s quorum or with the phased out office of the Presiding Patriarch, historical outgrowth that may or not make sense to the modern organization.
SilentDawning wrote:Now, I have another question. Why do we invest the “keys” in the Stake President for High Priests, and not the HPGL? And, why do we invest the keys in the Ward EQP, and not the HPGL?
It’s tradition. That’s how the chips fell when whoever was figuring things out figured things out.
Just wondering … does it matter? Is there some specific task that you felt yourself unable to perform because you lacked the necessary keys as the HPGL?
Quote:It’s tradition. That’s how the chips fell when whoever was figuring things out figured things out.
That is SO true of SO many things, imo.
Quote:Just wondering … does it matter? Is there some specific task that you felt yourself unable to perform because you lacked the necessary keys as the HPGL?
Not at all, I was just curious. There seemed to be no reason for it, that was all. In fact, your question sort of validates my original question — as there was not real difference in functionality between the practical, execution “rights” I had, and whatever rights accrue to a person with “keys” then why even make the distinction?
It’s not a point of angst for me, just a question. Particulary when I heard people sometimes teaching us about the distinction. To this day, I’m not really sure what a key is in the religious sense — other than what people imagine it to be.
There may have originally been some symbolism in the fact that the ‘keys’ to the HPG rested with the SP, or maybe not. In any case, it’s lost to history now (unless someone knows of some reference in church history about this) and we are free to make up our own version of some significant meaning to invest it with. BTW, speaking of traditions that can sometimes seem outdated or meaningless, I love it when the person conducting says “the voting appears to be unanimous”. Gets me every time.
Another one for me is when the presiding person says after the administration of the sacrament, “We’d like to thank the Priesthood for the reverent way in which they administered the sacrament and excuse them now to sit with their families” – or something similar. I’ve argued for some time, and been consistent with the CHI, that such verbiage isn’t necessary – that those administering the sacrament should finish and just go sit down in the congregation without being “excused” to do so. After all, the ordinance is over once the cloth covers the table fully – and sitting down just to stand right back up again seems silly.
Also, do we have to say that in order to keep them from break dancing down the aisles or reading and laughing at the comics at the sacrament table?
Yeah, picky, I know . . .
🙄 I’ve been studying some personality stuff, as you know — particularly Gallup Strengths. There is a trait called Consistency. It’s opposite to “Individualization” and it involves really LIKING repetition and routines and the same thing over and over again. Some people get a real charge out of it. Others, like me, who have a creative side, always wanting to experience new things, find it monotonous. Sometimes I just have to remind myself of that.
I may be starting some great legend or fable here, but I believe I recall a stake president explaining the keys issue and his thoughts on the HPG not having keys had to do with the brethren in that group. Active and release Bishops are in the group. The active trump, if it were a card game, the released are often still called Bishop (I’ve heard why but I can’t remember). Also you have functioning and life time Patriarchs in that group. And so the various “keys” kind of outweigh the others. In Elders Quorum no one else with “keys” exist in the room. If I’m remembering correctly still, this same stake president mentioned that the Deacons Quorum President has keys which his adult leaders do not have. Making him the true quorum leader. Same with teachers, the priests keys are held by the Bishop. Anyway thats what I recall. I have no references to back it up just memories of a prior conversation. But it makes sense to me in a way.
Just as a point of historical interest, the organizational power and authority in our church wasn’t always configured the way it is now. This doesn’t address priesthood keys directly, but is related to how things ended up the way they are. Back in early Church history (Kirtland through Nauvoo) there were three sources of priesthood, and a very different power hierarchy. We only think of priesthood via ordination today (the laying on of hands). But Joseph Smith also entertained two other forms: charismatic and patriarchal (or blood lineage) forms of priesthood. I don’t have my reference books here at work to provide citations, but i’m taking this from memory from having read D. Michael Quinn’s “Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power.” Charismatic priesthood refers to a specific theological term — the greek usages of experiencing gifts of the Holy Spirit. So for example, if Jesus Christ appears to you in all his glory, you are certainly qualified to be a “special witness” of Christ (the definition of an apostle). Even without laying on of hands, someone who has direct contact with the divine is invested with some level of “authority” or “priesthood”. That’s the theory anyway. It just so happens there were one or two Mormon apostles in the first year or two of the Church who were acting as priesthood holders, but had not been ordained as we think of it today. The priesthood was restored after some of these offices existed.
The other lineage-based or “patriarchal” priesthood (as we call it) still exists within the fringe of our doctrine. Joseph Smith taught sometimes that his father JS Sr. had the priesthood because of their family’s lineage going back to OT times (if I remember correctly). That is why JS Sr. was the first patriarch of the Church. This theory of priesthood authority is still retained in our fringe doctrine that any direct descendant of Aaron automatically has the Aaronic Priesthood and would be recognized as a Bishop (who is the president of the Aaronic Priesthood in each ward).
There was also a different organizational power and authority structure in the early Kirtland/Nauvoo Church. There were five governing quorums: first presidency, presiding patriarch, twelve apostles, quorum of seventy, and presiding bishopric. The curious thing is that “Apostles” were fairly low on the totem pole. They originally only had authority to govern the Church *OUTSIDE* any organized stake or ward. They were missionaries sent out to witness for Christ and the restoration. They were essentially lower in authority than Stake Presidents today. And back in that day, the Presiding Bishops had power that nearly rivaled the First Presidency due to their direct day-to-day contact with members, and managing the economic affairs of the Church.
That all flip-flopped IMO with the Brigham Young (who was an apostle) during the succession crisis. The Apostles are now the highest organizational power (First Presidency are like super-apostles, we even call them all the “Q15”). And today we see the Presiding Bishop in the Church as a title/calling that nobody really even understands and has little meaning. Didn’t they finally get rid of the position of Presiding Patriarch? I can’t remember. If I am wrong, I don’t even know who that would be today (it’s not a prominent role anymore either). We just have local Stake Patriarchs.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.