Talk:D&C 84:31-42 - Revision history

KurtElieson: KurtElieson moved page Talk:D&C 84:31-35 to Talk:D&C 84:31-42: Regrouping content

2015-11-07T02:04:09Z

KurtElieson moved page Talk:D&C 84:31-35 to Talk:D&C 84:31-42: Regrouping content

KurtElieson: Moving content to regrouped page

2015-11-07T02:03:51Z

Moving content to regrouped page

Joe Spencer: some musings on all of this

2006-11-16T14:24:57Z

some musings on all of this

Rob Fergus: /* Priesthood is Primarily a Convenant Relationship */

2006-11-16T01:39:04Z

‎Priesthood is Primarily a Convenant Relationship

71.115.204.114: /* Priesthood is Primarily a Convenant Relationship */

2006-11-15T16:00:04Z

‎Priesthood is Primarily a Convenant Relationship

Rob Fergus: priesthood=covenant relationship

2006-11-15T12:31:41Z

priesthood=covenant relationship

New page

===Priesthood is Primarily a Convenant Relationship===
OK, I don't know where I've been all these years, but somehow a light just turned on with all our recent discussion about "what is priesthood". In my mind, I just foregrounded the oath and covenant of the priesthood. In the past, I've seen priesthood as the authority to act in the name of God. I think I saw the oath and covenant as the small print. Right now, I'm looking at priesthood as primarily a covenant relationship, with authority to act in God's name as an important part, but only in so far as it allows us to fulfill and sustain that covenant. While the Aaronic priesthood functions without oaths and covenants as a preparatory priesthood, there are numerous priesthood oaths and covenants administered and entered into by what we've come to call Melchizedek and Patriarchal priesthood offices and ordinances. Maybe its just me, but this is new for me to think of priesthood as primarily a relationship, rather than as a legal authorization.--[[User:Rob Fergus|Rob Fergus]] 12:31, 15 Nov 2006 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-===Priesthood is Primarily a Convenant Relationship===
+===31-35: Priesthood is Primarily a Convenant Relationship===
 OK, I don't know where I've been all these years, but somehow a light just turned on with all our recent discussion about "what is priesthood".  In my mind, I just foregrounded the oath and covenant of the priesthood.  In the past, I've seen priesthood as the authority to act in the name of God.  I think I saw the oath and covenant as the small print.  Right now, I'm looking at priesthood as primarily a covenant relationship, with authority to act in God's name as an important part, but only in so far as it allows us to fulfill and sustain that covenant.  While the Aaronic priesthood functions without oaths and covenants as a preparatory priesthood, there are numerous priesthood oaths and covenants administered and entered into by what we've come to call Melchizedek and Patriarchal priesthood offices and ordinances.  Maybe its just me, but this is new for me to think of priesthood as primarily a relationship, rather than as a legal authorization.--[[User:Rob Fergus|Rob Fergus]] 12:31, 15 Nov 2006 (UTC)
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 :I'm more and more convinced (this over the course of the past year or two) that every "doctrine" of the restored gospel is interpretable on three levels, each level corresponding to one of the three orders of the priesthood (order of the servant/Aaronic, order of the Son/Melchizedek, order of the Father/Patriarchal) or perhaps to one of Joseph's three translation projects (Book of Mormon, Bible, Book of Abraham) or even to one of Joseph's three "endowments" (ordination of high priests, Kirtland House of the Lord, Nauvoo temple). I suppose these three "levels" might be parallel to the members of the Godhead or the three degrees of glory, etc. At any rate, I think such a model opens possibilities for the multiplicity of meanings a given "doctrine" has (this is one of the reasons I like to focus on scripture rather than doctrine--that way several different things can be said about a doctrine that don't ultimately come together well). An example to illustrate: the gift of tongues was certainly in the earliest era of the Church an ecstatic sign of faith (first level: the servant knows not the mind of his Lord, etc.), but it became somewhat later tied to the Adamic language and the words with which one was to speak directly to God (second level: a son approaches the Father in the Father's language), and it finally became simply speaking another language that someone else knows and can understand for the purposes of teaching (third level: as a father or like the Father, one can speak any language to further the work). All of this can, I think, be applied to the priesthood as well: the priesthood was first a sort of basic authority to regulate the Church (first level: outward ordinances, servant accomplishing the work), though it became afterwards the possibility of opening the veil itself to commune with God, etc. (second level: key to the mysteries, a son, like the Son, rending the veil), and it finally became in Nauvoo a husband-wife relationship akin to the binding that makes God God in His relationship with us (third level: sealing power, a father, like the Father, going about the work of binding). At any rate, this has proliferated enough for the moment.  --[[User:Joe Spencer|Joe Spencer]] 14:24, 16 Nov 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:24, 16 November 2006
Line 5:		Line 5:

	::Perfect sense, at least to me. I could go pretty far afield here with some funky Brigham Young statements, but before I take this into the realm of Space Doctrine, I'm really curious to think this through more in other ways. Perhaps as related to the temple, the House of the Lord, where we need priesthood to enter and participate in the ordinances and enter into closer relationship with the Lord. What does this say about women and the priesthood? Men and women enter into many of the same ordinances/relationships there. Others have argued that this means that women have the priesthood. Perhaps its a matter of semantics. Of course women aren't ordained "to" the priesthood, but if priesthood is a relationship, surely they share those relationships that are created in the temple, which might be another way of saying that they share the priesthood. Don't want to take this too far at this moment, but wonder what else might shift as we think about priesthood as a relationship, rather than a sort of divine drivers license.--[[User:Rob Fergus\|Rob Fergus]] 01:39, 16 Nov 2006 (UTC)		::Perfect sense, at least to me. I could go pretty far afield here with some funky Brigham Young statements, but before I take this into the realm of Space Doctrine, I'm really curious to think this through more in other ways. Perhaps as related to the temple, the House of the Lord, where we need priesthood to enter and participate in the ordinances and enter into closer relationship with the Lord. What does this say about women and the priesthood? Men and women enter into many of the same ordinances/relationships there. Others have argued that this means that women have the priesthood. Perhaps its a matter of semantics. Of course women aren't ordained "to" the priesthood, but if priesthood is a relationship, surely they share those relationships that are created in the temple, which might be another way of saying that they share the priesthood. Don't want to take this too far at this moment, but wonder what else might shift as we think about priesthood as a relationship, rather than a sort of divine drivers license.--[[User:Rob Fergus\|Rob Fergus]] 01:39, 16 Nov 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	:Talmage: "It is a precept of the Church that women of the Church share the authority of the Priesthood with their husbands, actual or prospective; and therefore women, whether taking the endowment for themselves or for the dead, are not ordained to specific rank in the Priesthood. Nevertheless there is no grade, rank, or phase of the temple endowment to which women are not eligible on an equality with men." (''House of the Lord'', 79). Women and the priesthood is a question about which one must be very careful, but I believe that endowed women hold the ''keys'' of the priesthood as much as any endowed man, though they are not ordained to ''offices'' of the priesthood in the government of the Church. I think this amounts to saying that women function in the priesthood in the kingdom, though not in the Church (the relief society was, at the first, a kingdom issue--and so they received "the key"). At the very least, it is as clear as can be that women have the potential to become queens and priestesses. All of this certainly shifts understanding of the priesthood quite a bit.
		+
		+	:I'm more and more convinced (this over the course of the past year or two) that every "doctrine" of the restored gospel is interpretable on three levels, each level corresponding to one of the three orders of the priesthood (order of the servant/Aaronic, order of the Son/Melchizedek, order of the Father/Patriarchal) or perhaps to one of Joseph's three translation projects (Book of Mormon, Bible, Book of Abraham) or even to one of Joseph's three "endowments" (ordination of high priests, Kirtland House of the Lord, Nauvoo temple). I suppose these three "levels" might be parallel to the members of the Godhead or the three degrees of glory, etc. At any rate, I think such a model opens possibilities for the multiplicity of meanings a given "doctrine" has (this is one of the reasons I like to focus on scripture rather than doctrine--that way several different things can be said about a doctrine that don't ultimately come together well). An example to illustrate: the gift of tongues was certainly in the earliest era of the Church an ecstatic sign of faith (first level: the servant knows not the mind of his Lord, etc.), but it became somewhat later tied to the Adamic language and the words with which one was to speak directly to God (second level: a son approaches the Father in the Father's language), and it finally became simply speaking another language that someone else knows and can understand for the purposes of teaching (third level: as a father or like the Father, one can speak any language to further the work). All of this can, I think, be applied to the priesthood as well: the priesthood was first a sort of basic authority to regulate the Church (first level: outward ordinances, servant accomplishing the work), though it became afterwards the possibility of opening the veil itself to commune with God, etc. (second level: key to the mysteries, a son, like the Son, rending the veil), and it finally became in Nauvoo a husband-wife relationship akin to the binding that makes God God in His relationship with us (third level: sealing power, a father, like the Father, going about the work of binding). At any rate, this has proliferated enough for the moment. --[[User:Joe Spencer\|Joe Spencer]] 14:24, 16 Nov 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:39, 16 November 2006
Line 3:		Line 3:

	:I think you are on the right track here, Rob (see my other two posts today). But don't let the "in the name" business get too far from what you are thinking now. I think they amount to the same thing. To do something in someone's name is to act as if one were that person: if I come in the name of the president, I come as if I were the president, and so I come with a very particular relationship--even with a very particular bond--to that person. That is, the nature of the relationship is one in which we take up someone's name: marriage, for example. The relationship is bound by a covenant (literally, a "coming-together," some sort of ritual act that marks our being bound together, and there is a change of names (I can act in God's name). I think that what Joseph Smith is ultimately pointing out in [[D&C 121:34]]ff is that the relationship is far more than just using a name: one must be bound within the covenant as God stipulates it (loving kindness, etc.) to be able to bear the authority that derives from that relationship. The relationship, in other words, feeds power into the ability to use the name. Otherwise, anyone who had the priesthood could do anything he wanted, worthy or not. I hope that makes some sense? --[[User:71.115.204.114\|71.115.204.114]] 16:00, 15 Nov 2006 (UTC)		:I think you are on the right track here, Rob (see my other two posts today). But don't let the "in the name" business get too far from what you are thinking now. I think they amount to the same thing. To do something in someone's name is to act as if one were that person: if I come in the name of the president, I come as if I were the president, and so I come with a very particular relationship--even with a very particular bond--to that person. That is, the nature of the relationship is one in which we take up someone's name: marriage, for example. The relationship is bound by a covenant (literally, a "coming-together," some sort of ritual act that marks our being bound together, and there is a change of names (I can act in God's name). I think that what Joseph Smith is ultimately pointing out in [[D&C 121:34]]ff is that the relationship is far more than just using a name: one must be bound within the covenant as God stipulates it (loving kindness, etc.) to be able to bear the authority that derives from that relationship. The relationship, in other words, feeds power into the ability to use the name. Otherwise, anyone who had the priesthood could do anything he wanted, worthy or not. I hope that makes some sense? --[[User:71.115.204.114\|71.115.204.114]] 16:00, 15 Nov 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	::Perfect sense, at least to me. I could go pretty far afield here with some funky Brigham Young statements, but before I take this into the realm of Space Doctrine, I'm really curious to think this through more in other ways. Perhaps as related to the temple, the House of the Lord, where we need priesthood to enter and participate in the ordinances and enter into closer relationship with the Lord. What does this say about women and the priesthood? Men and women enter into many of the same ordinances/relationships there. Others have argued that this means that women have the priesthood. Perhaps its a matter of semantics. Of course women aren't ordained "to" the priesthood, but if priesthood is a relationship, surely they share those relationships that are created in the temple, which might be another way of saying that they share the priesthood. Don't want to take this too far at this moment, but wonder what else might shift as we think about priesthood as a relationship, rather than a sort of divine drivers license.--[[User:Rob Fergus\|Rob Fergus]] 01:39, 16 Nov 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:00, 15 November 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	===Priesthood is Primarily a Convenant Relationship===		===Priesthood is Primarily a Convenant Relationship===
	OK, I don't know where I've been all these years, but somehow a light just turned on with all our recent discussion about "what is priesthood". In my mind, I just foregrounded the oath and covenant of the priesthood. In the past, I've seen priesthood as the authority to act in the name of God. I think I saw the oath and covenant as the small print. Right now, I'm looking at priesthood as primarily a covenant relationship, with authority to act in God's name as an important part, but only in so far as it allows us to fulfill and sustain that covenant. While the Aaronic priesthood functions without oaths and covenants as a preparatory priesthood, there are numerous priesthood oaths and covenants administered and entered into by what we've come to call Melchizedek and Patriarchal priesthood offices and ordinances. Maybe its just me, but this is new for me to think of priesthood as primarily a relationship, rather than as a legal authorization.--[[User:Rob Fergus\|Rob Fergus]] 12:31, 15 Nov 2006 (UTC)		OK, I don't know where I've been all these years, but somehow a light just turned on with all our recent discussion about "what is priesthood". In my mind, I just foregrounded the oath and covenant of the priesthood. In the past, I've seen priesthood as the authority to act in the name of God. I think I saw the oath and covenant as the small print. Right now, I'm looking at priesthood as primarily a covenant relationship, with authority to act in God's name as an important part, but only in so far as it allows us to fulfill and sustain that covenant. While the Aaronic priesthood functions without oaths and covenants as a preparatory priesthood, there are numerous priesthood oaths and covenants administered and entered into by what we've come to call Melchizedek and Patriarchal priesthood offices and ordinances. Maybe its just me, but this is new for me to think of priesthood as primarily a relationship, rather than as a legal authorization.--[[User:Rob Fergus\|Rob Fergus]] 12:31, 15 Nov 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	:I think you are on the right track here, Rob (see my other two posts today). But don't let the "in the name" business get too far from what you are thinking now. I think they amount to the same thing. To do something in someone's name is to act as if one were that person: if I come in the name of the president, I come as if I were the president, and so I come with a very particular relationship--even with a very particular bond--to that person. That is, the nature of the relationship is one in which we take up someone's name: marriage, for example. The relationship is bound by a covenant (literally, a "coming-together," some sort of ritual act that marks our being bound together, and there is a change of names (I can act in God's name). I think that what Joseph Smith is ultimately pointing out in [[D&C 121:34]]ff is that the relationship is far more than just using a name: one must be bound within the covenant as God stipulates it (loving kindness, etc.) to be able to bear the authority that derives from that relationship. The relationship, in other words, feeds power into the ability to use the name. Otherwise, anyone who had the priesthood could do anything he wanted, worthy or not. I hope that makes some sense? --[[User:71.115.204.114\|71.115.204.114]] 16:00, 15 Nov 2006 (UTC)

← Older revision	Revision as of 02:04, 7 November 2015
(No difference)