- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
As I hear of cases like the Kate Kelly excommunication, and others, I think about what the Church claims it has authority to do to individuals for eternity, and frankly I cannot accept it. I cannot accept that God gave some bishop in the DC area the authority to try her in absentia and revoke all her blessings with all that implies in Mormonism. And I can multiply that case by so many that are not as high profile. It makes no sense to me for God to give this power to fallible humans. It is the toddler with the loaded gun analogy. Please do not expect me to accept the standard answer of “all the screw ups will be fixed in the next life”. That is just a cop out. But I am asking my question here partially because I would like to get a thoughtful, faithful perspective if one is to be had.
I agree stan. In the history of our church their have been cases where church discipline has been politically motivated or based on incomplete information only to be reversed post humously sometimes decades or generations later. Given that church officials can and do make mistakes I wonder about the state of those souls that die wrongfully excommunicated between the moment of their death and the moment when their blessings are “restored’.
I find the idea of them stuck in some sort of prison or pergatory until everything gets straightened out with the technicalities uninspiring.
I believe that priesthood is the power of God given to mankind. To do what? to serve and benefit each other. I believe what is not a service and not a benefit goes beyond the sanction of God through the priesthood.
I believe in the concept and principle of embryonic gods (us) learning to become people who can act with divine power and authority. I also believe in the right of all organizations to set rules that govern participation in those organizations. I disagree quite often with decisions made in the name of the Priesthood – and I disagree quite often with the decisions all organizations make with regard to boundary maintenance – but those are very different questions than why God would give people his power and authority – and different questions than who “holds the Priesthood” – and different questions than what it really means to act in the name, with the power and through the authority of God.
If you want to see specifically how people here feel about Kate Kelly, we have an extremely long thread about her situation in our archives. Search for her name to find that thread. Comment on it, which will bump it up for comment once again.
[Admin Note]: This thread needs to focus on the title question, not any specific case of proper or improper use of Priesthood authority. I wonder lately if God really gives anyone the priesthood. I think men with various motives have stepped up, reached out (hopefully, “up”) and taken it, along with the responsibility and accountability – and the results are mixed. I’m not really sure the priesthood was “given” either. I recognize it as not necessarily a “power” but more of an authority. In my view the priesthood authority does not have any effect outside this life and has not spiritual effect (for lack of a better term) at all. At most, IMO, it is the authority to act in God’s name in set ordinances (such as baptism) on the earth. Thanks for the replies so far, including the one from admin to stay on topic. I am only using Kate Kelly as an example. I have already read and participated in discussions about that specifically. What I really want to discuss is the authority to perform saving ordinances. I can see how a claim to such authority benefits the earthly institution that claims it. If you view a church as a business, Authority is a source of monopoly power in the religious marketplace. It gives that institution great power over those who believe it has that monopoly. It also tends to be the source of most religious abuse we see throughout history.
In the end, it seems to me that the authority to perform saving ordinances only serves the aims of men, and not the purposes of God. It seems so much cleaner for God to keep this power to himself, rather than having to fix all the errors made in His name later on. Contrasting views?
Every organization teaches the same thing, in theory, when it comes to religious ceremonies of various kinds. Mormon temple theology actually is incredibly liberal in that regard, ironically – even if many members don’t understand that. I think it simply is that humans are wired that way – and that could be seen as divinely ordained or simply evolutionary. If we posit that God has authority of some kind – and if we posit that we are children of God – it makes sense that we would want to speak and act in the name of God. Once you get past those basic assumptions, things get messy in a hurry and far less clear.
OK I will likely offend someone and I’m only speaking for me .. but isn’t one of the PH powers is to call down administering angels? If so I would do it. If I was a bishop-tess and the person assigned to nursery duty was a no show, no problem. I would called an angel down to fill in. The parameters say I can so I would try it. Maybe it is a misunderstanding on my part but I haven’t been active in a while or read the particulars lately. I do think women (stereotypically with many exceptions) have a tendency to push the envelope more than men (eg Eve.) Would I be tempted to dust my feet off at a school if my children were bullied but the powers that be wouldn’t stop it? Probably.
I don’t remember if it was in an official manual or one of those white horse prophecies in which JS saw Adam and Eve in a vision. They were equal in stature and glory so sexual dimorphism is done away with in the afterlife. That is radical (and equalizing as well when you’re sick of being the weaker sex).
And stan I am one of one of those that had the temporal/eternal blessings taken away for a time. I have been ex’d. I’m rebaptized and endowed. Also inactive. I don’t want to suffer like KK by being cast out. I lay low. I have faith in the afterlife. I have to believe that I’m worth more than a baby factory or a member of a heram. I have more faith in Christ than that. rachael wrote:I don’t remember if it was in an official manual or one of those white horse prophecies in which JS saw Adam and Eve in a vision. They were equal in stature and glory so sexual dimorphism is done away with in the afterlife. That is radical (and equalizing as well when you’re sick of being the weaker sex).
I had not heard that. I did read (I believe in Answers to Gospel Questions) that people that do not make it to the celestial kingdom will have no need for sexual organs and may not be allowed to keep them – becoming genderless ministering angels. I believe this to be speculative and not frimly rooted in accepted doctrine.
rachael wrote:I have to believe that I’m worth more than a baby factory or a member of a heram. I have more faith in Christ than that.
I believe that there are individuals that do take great meaning in the promise of eternal increase and that those same individuals would greatly object to the characterizations of “a baby factory or a member of a heram”. I completely understand why that vision of heaven might not be right for you – but that does not mean that it is not meaningful for others.
As someone who has lost a child in childbirth and cannot have more children without significant risk, I would not mind the possibility of being able to have more children in heaven – with my valiant, equal partner, one and only wife at my side.
rachael wrote:OK I will likely offend someone and I’m only speaking for me .. but isn’t one of the PH powers is to call down administering angels? If so I would do it. If I was a bishop-tess and the person assigned to nursery duty was a no show, no problem. I would called an angel down to fill in. The parameters say I can so I would try it.
Maybe it is a misunderstanding on my part but I haven’t been active in a while or read the particulars lately. I do think women (stereotypically with many exceptions) have a tendency to push the envelope more than men (eg Eve.) Would I be tempted to dust my feet off at a school if my children were bullied but the powers that be wouldn’t stop it? Probably.
I don’t remember if it was in an official manual or one of those white horse prophecies in which JS saw Adam and Eve in a vision. They were equal in stature and glory so sexual dimorphism is done away with in the afterlife. That is radical (and equalizing as well when you’re sick of being the weaker sex).
I was actually hoping to avoid a discussion of sexism in the church. I probably should have titled this “Why would God give the Priesthood to fallible humans?” My bad for not being more clear.
That said, you bring up an interesting point, rachael. If the priesthood includes, for example, the ability to call down ministering angels, how is that helpful? Are we not taught that we have such power only if HF agrees to our using it? So how would my calling down a ministering angel be different than someone else praying to ask for the same angel? It seems that the middle man is there in either case. For me, the conditional nature of the use of priesthood power makes it indistinguishable from the power any believer can access through faith.
I believe that women have access to ALL spiritual gifts but the PH is supposed to grant ” authority”. I was just saying what would Rachael do with the authority. Like the two scenarios of the nursery or school, perhaps I would meet and debate with a staunch atheist. Maybe I would get tired and frustrated with them. Perhaps I would use my “authority” to call down an angel to give that person an Alma the Younger or Paul experience. That ain’t right. But I might do it anyway. I don’t like that about myself. Just being honest What happened to my post about God upholding authority but punishing later? Instead I have a double post. And for the person that said that they lost a child, I’m so so sorry for that devastation. It is a cruel irony that people who want children can’t have them and those that don’t want them seem to have no problem procreating… even aborting them 
[Admin Note]: It appears that your lost post, rachel, simply didn’t post. I can’t see it anywhere.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.