Elder and Sister Bednar recently addressed temple workers in Utah County. I received some notes from the address in which Elder Bednar talked about keys of the priesthood. I was told he spoke quickly, and often said “put your seatbelts on.” These notes are from someone trying to write as fast as possible, and some of his comments regarding priesthood were interesting. In light of the new church essay on Joseph Smith’s Teachings on Priesthood, Temple, and Women, I thought it might be interesting to read some notes of his remarks. It was interesting that he spoke about priesthood keys, and I learned some things.
….
It’s an honor to be here. When I say that, it’s not a trite saying. It is truly an honor, and I use that word intentionally and with purpose. I can see all in the overflow section, and I am told that there are people in the chapel across the street. Think of all the time you voluntarily serve the Lord in the temple. It’s not hard to understand why opponents see our church as a cult. They say “what could possibly motivate people to spend this much time in their life?” What we do not is not rational. It doesn’t make sense. This devotion must be an example that you are brain washed.
I do lots of interviews with the press, and they are usually antagonistic. It’s fun. They will ask what is the proof of your claim? What proof do you have that the gospel has been restored to earth. I should bring bring you as my proof. Look at you people, you are not paid. I know that if the Brethren need you, everyone in this room would be ready in an instant. You would think it was brainwashing. I love your faith and devotion. It truly is an honor to be in your presence. I rest my case.
It is honor to be with you. Your devotion makes me more devoted. Weeks ago I had a thought. I want to teach this principle. Don’t be afraid of repetitive teaching, Elder Neal Maxwell told me. We almost always say Moroni visited Joseph Smith and taught the same thing three times. This is inaccurate. He didn’t say same thing. There was something different in each visit. Go read the Pearl of Great Price, and you will find there was something distinctive each time. Make big deal. I have told the Joseph Smith story a zillion times. Even in the D&C the words are never quite the same. Sister Bednar is always writing things down that I say. She is listening for things I’ve never said before. In every episode just like with Joseph Smith, there is always something new. This is how the Lord delivers revelation.
In testimony meeting, don’t complain about repetition. Open your heart by power of the Holy Ghost. If all you hear is what the teacher said, you haven’t been listening. The Holy Ghost is the teacher, not the person. Don’t be afraid of repetition. When Elder Rasband was set apart the title of apostle was conferred on him. Then he joined us as we ordained Elder Stevenson. We continued with Elder Renlund until all fifteen apostles were standing.
I’d like to talk about priesthood keys. I will give you a brief quiz. Some of you may feel terror because it is a topic you are supposed to know. Not many know. Tonight you will know, but listen for what you have never heard before.
Priesthood is the authority to act in name of God in work of salvation of humanity. When those hold keys have authorized. Or authority is authorization to act in his name as his representative. Man may receive authority but not power. Power comes from righteousness, but we do not have to be perfect. we become a conduit, vessel, channel for power of godliness. Preisthood operates in home. No need for priesthood keys. Parents in home hold no keys in home. Keys pertain to church, the kingdom of God.. Apostasy is the loss of keys. Keys removed at death of apostles. Restoration was the return of keys.
What is bound on earth is bound in heaven. What we loose on earth is loosed in heaven. Priesthood is authority resident in Christ. Power comes by laying on of hands, and worthiness. Priesthood is not male, it is the authority to act in goodness. Think Aaronic priesthood. Priesthood is not male. Come back to this in a minute.
Church add BMD {Notes didn’t make sense…} kingdom of God, need for keys. Right, responsibility to oversee priesthood. Keys are only given to those who preside over a quorum. Only a quorum holder can hold keys. Keys are a channel for revelation. 100% predictable, through priesthood keys. Sees pattern in stake. Deacons, even a 12-13 year old boy has responsibility. Keys are bounded by geography. Bishop can only exercise his keys through his ward, so in stake. Bishop has no authority outside ward.
Apostolic, so, bishop. That’s it. Alone speaks inspiration heaven Joseph Smith.
In my career, I diagnosed problems in organizations. They spend millions on succession planning but aren’t any more effective than church management. Restored Church of Jesus Christ has a simple organization and the Fundamental keys: apostolic to bishop. Each man called and sustained as apostle is ordained to the office of apostle, and given all keys restored in this dispensation. Surreal reference. These keys were restored via Peter, James, John, John the Baptist, Elijah, etc. Within quorum, each man receives all keys. Pres Monson is the only man that both holds and is authorized to use all priesthood keys. Can any man confer keys? Only if Pres Monson says so.
All fifteen are equal. It has nothing to do with the man, symbol of reference for keys. I remember a story about students at BYU. Harold B Lee said we should be loyal to royal within you.
When the prophet enters a room you can often feel tangible keys in room. You can feel something, it is not an emotion. You feel the keys, not the man. There are no geographical limits for the keys of an apostle. I accompanied Elder Scott as he organized a stake. He asked me, Elder Bednar, should we divide the stake? I said I would follow his lead. He responded that if I thought it should it should be divided go ahead and do it.
If he goes the stake, he assesses, and can divide the keys. A Seventy would be unemployed of he does the same thing. I am asked all these time. A Stake President holds keys. I jumped from apostolic keys to Stake president keys. I jumped right over Seventies. A Seventy holds no priesthood keys. All keys are held by the Stake President, yet a Seventy presides when stake reorganized. How can a Seventy confer keys to the stake president when he has no keys?
A Seventy is an apostolic office, but is not an apostle. The Twelve serve as especial witnesses of Christ. A Seventy is not an especial witness. Difference. Twelve hold keys, Seventy act under direction of Twelve. For purposes of assignment, the Twelve delegate keys to fulfill the assignment. When a Seventy sets apart a stake president, he has the keys necessary to do the work. When he completes the assignment, he is no longer authorized. Many have served as regional representatives, area authority, area seventy. This is middle management. Office of Seventy is a conduit for apostolic keys. One day we will have 100 million members, and still twelve apostles, we will have hundreds of quorums of seventies. Area seventy, got jipped this time. Think about that sometimes. Seventy authorized by apostle. Too many stakes. In such a church, it will take 30 years to get apostle in your stake. Joseph Smith was 29 years old when he recorded D&C 107. It is a simple plan from God.
If we understand that a Seventy hold no keys, the Stake president directs priesthood in the stake. Auxiliaries to priesthood are not subservient. There is no separate Young Women work, just priesthood work. Activities may be different, but work is the same. Does Relief Society president hold keys? No. Priesthood keys are only given when someone presides over a priesthood quorum. Does Relief Society president act under direction of priesthood? Yes. Counselors of the stake president, can utilize keys if president is indisposed. By set apart, properly can act in authority of keys, has everything. Sisters smiling.
Bishop. Seventy in between. Elders quorum president is a stake calling, under direction of stake president. High Priest group leaders have no keys. That’s why they are groups not a quorum.
Let’s talk about the Elders quorum president. I am such tired of lame jokes about the elder’s quorum president. There is a joke that the only requirement for an Elder’s Quorum president is that he must have a truck. I hate this. Part of Mormon culture well established. It makes me fired up. Elder’s quorum president has responsibility to receive Aaronic boys, aids young men in picking a career, vocation, new husbands, new father. Do they only help move? Who hold keys? Bishop, elder’s quorum pres. But we don’t treat them that way. Given elder’s quorum presidents are responsible to do, it is an overwhelming responsibility.
…..
The two remarks that stuck out to me were “Priesthood is not male”, and “Priesthood is not administration.” While it is interesting to me that key holders are quorum leaders I still have a few questions.
(1) We have 7 presidents of the Quorums of Seventies? If these are truly priesthood quorums, why don’t these presidents have keys? (Or are they mainly limited to the Q70?)
(2) If Priesthood is not male, then why are all the leaders male?
(3) If Priesthood is not administration, why are all administrators male?
(4) Given the new church essay stating
In organizing the Relief Society, Joseph spoke of “ordain[ing]” women and said that Relief Society officers would “preside over the Society.”23 He also declared, “I now turn the key to you in the name of God.”
why does the essay then go to great pains to state that these are not priesthood keys?
(5) I have heard some say that the new church essay (and indeed Elder Bednar “priesthood is not male” and Elder Oaks recent conference address) are stepping stones to allowing women to hold the priesthood one day. Do you agree with this? Or is this just a way to tell women “silly women–you’ve been exercising priesthood all this time and just didn’t know it. You’re delegated keys when you perform your callings. We don’t need to extend priesthood to you when you’ve already been exercising the power of the priesthood.”
Wheat & Tares 
His teaching about 70’s didn’t make sense and his assessment of the family being separate from the Priesthood work in the kingdom didn’t make sense to me. So many testimony meetings have been filled with sentiments similar to the line in the primary hymnal (a child’s prayer), “mine is a home where every hour, is blessed by the strength of priesthood power, …with mother and father leading the way..”
The position here and in the essay is “silly women…we’ve been letting you use the keys all along.” Don’t cry little baby, daddy will let you hold his keys while you are in sight.
It still doesn’t explain why a 12 year old or 17 year old president of a deacons q or priests q has more authority than their mothers.
Priesthood is needed for the Church, not for families. A father presides in his home whether or not he holds the priesthood. A deacons quorum president only has “authority” at church, within his quorum — in his family, he does not have more authority than his mother. That’s a false notion and part of our folklore.
I appreciate Elder Bednar affirming that elders quorum president is a stake calling (not a ward calling) under the direction of the stake president (not the bishop) — that is a correct teaching, but it is not commonly implemented in the Church. I hope he is able to teach that principle to stake presidents.
Man may receive authority but not power. Power comes from righteousness… hmm, so how do we reconcile these words of a living LDS prophet with Paul’s Biblical experience? Is it possible that righteousness can follow power? And what about nonmembers who are healers?
A few thoughts after reading this is. Re-defining problematic concepts without changing the substance of those concepts does not resolve them. Also, men exercise priesthood by making decisions, while women exercise priesthood by obeying men. And I hope Elder Bednar takes lots of notes when his wife speaks as well.
Like Mortimer above, this topic is turning into a lot of details I don’t understand why things need to be so complicated. I can’t see Jesus needing to explain such intricate details over and over because they are so complicated. Maybe they are trying to back away from saying “women will never receive the priesthood” and we have seen in the past where the Q15 when pushed to make a change will staunchly resist and then once the pushing subsides will make a change and say, “It had nothing to do with the pushing.” I still come away with the question, “why can’t women hold the priesthood?” Of course Elder Bednar has said, “I AM scripture”, which I am having a hard time swallowing that one.
Priesthood is not male…Keys are only given to those who preside over a quorum…Keys are a channel for revelation…Auxiliaries to priesthood are not subservient. Yet women have no quorum! And therefore hold no keys! Clearly women need quorums or and explanation of why they don’t have them.
I just read this again where Elder Bednar said “Apostasy is the loss of keys.” So when they excommunicated Kate Kelly, she lost her keys of authority? She lost her priesthood because priesthood is not male?
While it is interesting to me that he is tying apostasy and quorum leaders with keys, apparently most of the leaders misuse both the word keys as well as apostasy according to the definitions Bednar gives. It just sounds like double-speak to say that women have priesthood power but aren’t ordained to office and that administration belongs only to men, which has nothing to do with priesthood. I’m getting dizzy from the logical circles.
” Only a quorum holder can hold keys. Keys are a channel for revelation.”
I thought all church members are entitled to revelation, but apparently only quorum leaders have “a channel for revelation.”
But if a quorum leader can delegate keys (such as a Seventy, or a bishop who delegates keys to a Relief Society President) can’t everyone have revelation?
hmmmm….. I wish there was a Q&A. I’d like to ask some questions.
Reading this made me feel like this is the plan:
Women ask for priesthood (because they want to be part of governing and ordinances). Women are told they already have the priesthood but only men who have keys can govern and perform ordinances (outside of the temple). Women still ask to govern and perform ordinances. Women are told they have already been given the priesthood power and authority (just not any keys) and that we’ll never be satisfied no matter what we’re given.
Or, as Joel said perfectly, “Re-defining problematic concepts without changing the substance of those concepts does not resolve them.”
Maybe a re-reading of Handbook 2 on priesthood is in order. It explains very clearly who has keys, who doesn’t; who acts under delegated authority and who doesn’t.
IDIAT, would you like to do a guest post on Handbook 2?
I would add that much of the current understanding of priesthood, quorums, and keys derives from the succession crisis after Joseph Smith’s death. In order to make the case that the Apostles should govern the church, Brigham Young had to emphasize the importance of having a quorum, and of the 12 Apostles being a world-wide governing body, and of Joseph Smith having given them the keys of the kingdom prior to his death.
During Joseph’s life, the Stake High Council was not underneath the Apostles. Nor was the Relief Society. The Apostles were the missionary branch of the church. But I suppose once you got to Utah, and they re-instituted the Relief Society, and the Stakes, they would have done it under the authority of the Twelve Apostles.
Nah. Just about everything relating to PH mentioned by Elder Bednar is laid out in Handbook 2, 2.1 and 2.1.1. When he says much of the stuff is something the audience has never heard before, its a shame, because access to Handbook 2 has been available for a number of years now. The first several chapters contain excellent summaries of what the church believes. There was a good Ensign article on the Handbook and its importance I think in September. My advice is to read it first, then think about What Elder Bednar is saying.
MH,
““Apostasy is the loss of keys.”
As in Great Apostasy, not individual. Since very few hold keys to begin with…..
It seems to me that we have a very superficial understanding of many Church Doctrines such that when a discussion comes up like “Priesthood is not male” some people react without giving it much thought. I think it’s a profound statement and should require some thought before reacting. Because if the reaction I hear are really what people have concluded about that statement, little to no thought went into thinking about what it could mean.
Anyone who might think that a Deacon’s Quorum President has the authority to rule over his mother is clearly needing a lesson.
What we are taught in the three hour Church block is not the end to our learning, but should be considered the beginning of a quest to understand the Gospel, Church History and the Signs of the Times. Some folks seem to just put it away each week and then get surprised when they find out something they didn’t hear in Church.
IDIAT, you’re the only person I know that continually references the church handbooks, which were originally supposed to be available only to bishops. Then they got leaked, so the church acqueiseced and put them on the internet. But nobody references the Handbook in church talks, Sunday School, or Priesthood lessons, so I don’t understand how you can get off saying “everything relating to PH mentioned by Elder Bednar is laid out in Handbook 2, 2.1 and 2.1.1” when MOST people have never read them. Apparently you read them all the time–it would be nice for you to put your vast expertise of them out here for people.
I read lots of things, but have never read the Handbooks. And I’ve never heard that keys are associated with quorum leaders, and that Seventies don’t have any keys. In fact, I got a Facebook question asking “What makes you think the 70 have no keys?”
The answer is straight from Elder Bednar: “”A Seventy holds no priesthood keys. All keys are held by the Stake President, yet a Seventy presides when stake reorganized. How can a Seventy confer keys to the stake president when he has no keys?”
Is that in the handbook?
“Maybe a re-reading of Handbook 2 on priesthood is in order.”
I think you meant “Maybe a FIRST reading of Handbook 2 on priesthood is in order” since few people have read it.
Serious question. If “priesthood authority” is essentially any action taken at the direction priesthood leaders (and within the bound they set), then is it accurate to say that a person can exercise LDS priesthood authority even if they are not a member? Non-members can fulfill assignments and even hold some callings in the church (e.g., scouting). So if a sister is acting with priesthood authority when she accepts the call to be a scout committee chair and she faithfully presides in that role, does it matter for purposes of “priesthood authority” whether the sister is a baptized member or not?
MH – Handbook 2 has been in Gospel Library app for about 5 years. If you’ve served in any kind of leadership position, priesthood or auxiliary, you were given a hard copy of handbook 2. Again, I recommend everyone reading this to take a few minutes and familiarize themselves with Handbook 2. See also “Church Handbooks: The Written Order of Things,” Ensign, September 2015 Elder Per G. Malm of the Seventy.
IDIAT,
Apparently I haven’t served “in any kind of leadership position” (despite being a member of the bishopric as Asst Ward Clerk) in the last 5 years.
I’ve never recieved any hard copy, and I haven’t downloaded it. Once again, it would be nice for someone like you who has read it so much to give your expertise for us peons who haven’t downloaded it or served “in any kind of leadership position” over the past 5 years.
Look there are lots of people who get stuck in scouts or primary for 5 years. Quit pretending people have read it. I guess you have it memorized by now, but the Handbook isn’t exactly the topic of the Ensign message each month. It isn’t read by many–that’s my point which you keep missing!
My wife has served in the Nursery, primary, scouts, nursery, primary, VT supervisor, scouts, and is back in the nursery again! I guarantee you she hasn’t read it. Apparently she doesn’t have what it takes to be “in any kind of leadership position.” As for me, I’ve served as Ward family History consultant in 3 wards in a row. Before that I was in scouts and Ward membership clerk. So I guess I’m also not “in any kind of leadership position” for the past 5 years. But I’m glad you’ve got it memorized!!!! Please impart some of your wisdom of this mysterious document that I haven’t downloaded to my app and don’t read on a daily basis like you do.
Dave, I love your question, and I think when we dilute this concept of priesthood to “anything delegated by the bishop is exercising priesthood power”, than of what value is priesthood? Because we claim that we have the same power that John the Baptist restored, but good ole’ John didn’t come here to restore the keys of the nursery, now did he? He came here to restore the ability to baptize. Women don’t baptize. Women don’t have this priesthood power, responsibility, authority, whatever you want to call it. So I’m not a fan of this “hey, everybody has priesthood power” BS. Women can’t baptize. That is significant.
Women should be able to baptize, ordain, set apart, lead a congregation. If we claim that a priest can do this, why can’t a priestess? This whole “delegation of priesthood power” is much like Obi Wan Kenobi saying “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.”
Doing a blog post on Handbook 2 seems like an impossible task. I would think a series of posts covering each chapter (or groupings of chapters) would be of greater value. I know self invitation is bad form, but I’d be willing to collaborate on this if IDIAT would be more willing to go into it as a partnership.
Ben, I’d just like to hear how the handbook relates to Elder Bednar’s talk, and specifically does the Handbook state that Seventies hold no keys. If you’d like to do a guest post, just send me an email to mormon heretic at gmail dot com, and I’ll put it up. If you can get IDIAT to collaborate, fine. If not, fine.
MH It would take you all of two minutes to read the handbook portion on priesthood and keys:
https://www.lds.org/manual/handbook?lang=eng
The handbook speaks for itself. I don’t see the sense in trying to paraphrase when church leaders say things so plainly.
I will agree with MH that the logic seems to be pretty circular. Priesthood isn’t administrative, which is why all administrative function is performed by priesthood holders, etc. I think that, culturally, we spent so long referring to the body of men as ‘the priesthood’ that when we started to try to distinguish what only the priesthood could do and what it couldnt, we’d forgotten what it’s real purpose was. And now that we realize that we really only need it to make covenants, we’re facing a painful reality that our entire administrative structure is arbitrary.
From the Handbook:
“Seventies act by assignment and by the delegation of authority from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Area Presidents are assigned to administer areas under the authorization of the First Presidency and the Twelve. The Presidency of the Seventy are set apart and are given the keys to preside over the Quorums of Seventy.”
I’m confused because according to the OP, Elder Bednar implied that there is no one with keys between the Apostles and the Stake President. The Handbook says that the Presidency of the Seventy has keys.
Jeff,
I think the idea that Priesthood is not male can have some seriously great implications. The only problem is when it is surrounded by statements that while Priesthood is not male, governing the Priesthood is male. It sounds the same to me as claiming that the Patriarchal order is not just about males. Women are included, and even necessary for both the patriarchal order and the priesthood to work, but not at the same level as men – always a step below. Michelangelo couldn’t have painted the Sistine Chapel without a paintbrush. Priesthood may not be male, but the rhetoric implies that men are Michelangelo and women are the paintbrush.
Thank you, EBK, for actually reading the handbook so we can have an intelligent conversation. If you look at the chart of callings in chapter 19, the stake president is set apart by an assigned General Authority (somebody who we would usually consider to be a member of the FP/Q12/Pres. Seventy/First or Second Quorum of the Seventy. Or, an Area Seventy. Reading 2.1.1, it says seventies (small “s”, so I assume it means the first and second quorums as well as the other quorums) act by assignment and by delegation of authority from the FP/Q12. That “authority” part is what gives them the ability to pass along keys. I haven’t participated in any stake presidency organizations (around them, but not a direct participant.) I’m pretty sure when a stake president is called and set apart, I think a member of the first or second quorum of the Seventy are there, along with an area authority seventy. I obviously wasn’t there when Elder Bednar was speaking, but I’m not sure if the note taker was able to capture all his words or his meaning. At any rate, I don’t believe Elder Bednar would contradict anything laid in out in 2.1.1. If any one knows the in’s and out’s of the handbook, it’s members of the Q12, since they wrote it.
“Women should be able to baptize, ordain, set apart, lead a congregation.”
MH, you do realize if you’ve already got the answers, you’re going to use that lens to color what Eldar Bednar said, right? Also, you do realize that if you just jump to the answer without going through the steps to solve the problem, you’re likely to screw it up, right?
I read those notes with fascination, and it certainly didn’t sound like a “this is why the sisters don’t get the priesthood” talk at all, at least to me. That’s the lens you’re using. Apparently the same lens causes you to connect the loss of keys and apostasy to Kate Kelly, when he was clearly talking about the apostasy between dispensations.
Incidentally, nothing in the notes above preclude women from holding priesthood or priesthood keys, but they clearly don’t right now. The apostles are clearly thinking about priesthood authority and priesthood keys, and I think the feminists ought to rejoice (and even take some credit). Seems like acknowledging that women exercise priesthood authority (while delegated), ought to be welcomed by them, even if they consider it a weak first step.
Btw, Handbook 2 used to be distributed in pieces, the chapter for each auxiliary a separate booklet. I always thought auxiliary presidents were expected to be familiar with it. It primarily teaches how things are to be done in the church, so it’s more policy than doctrine, though it definitely teaches some doctrine and more doctrine is inferred.
Benjamin – there are 21 chapters in Handbook 2. It would be extremely hard to “summarize” each chapter because of the nature of the material. None of it is rocket science or anything, but reading it as a whole, it gives the reader a sort of “forest for the trees” view of what the church is about. I would hope anyone who cares enough about church doctrine and policies, about how the organizations mesh and work together, would take the time to at least give it a decent reading. People will read Harry Potter and not think anything about it. Surely they can take a little time out of their day and read Handbook 2. They don’t have to commit it to memory, and it’s easy to look up stuff in the index. I’ve seen blog posts where the author has chased down some arcane quote down to it’s source (which I know had to take a great deal of time), yet they won’t take a half hour to familiarize themselves with the basic structure of how the church functions? That seems ludicrous. I have been exposed to the handbooks in all sorts of ways over the last 25 or so years, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. But surely, now there is no excuse to be ignorant when Handbook 2 pulls up on Gospel Library. How hard can it be to look at the smart phone or tablet? I liken it to people who say “they just don’t know how to do family history.” Is it really that hard to at least dink around on familysearch? If you want to attempt a summary, then by all means, I wish you all the best. However, I think I’d rather see people exercise their own initiative and read it on their own.
These days it seems Handbook 2 isn’t available to just anybody, since we’re now required to login to our lds account to access portions of it. I had to login for the Melchizedek Priesthood section, but not Relief Society, for instance.
With this move, I’m wondering how long it will be before we can only access those portions related to our callings… That would be a backwards step I think.
Looks like my husband (along with IDIAT – I’m not married to IDIAT), is one of the few people to regularly read the handbooks. I do also consult it, in relation to my callings. If I’m disagreeing with a leader I want the handbook on my side!
“It would take you all of two minutes to read the handbook portion on priesthood and keys:”
IDIAT, I guarantee you’ve spent more than 2 minutes commenting here, and yet you refused to look it up….. With 21 chapters, I seriously doubt it would have taken me only 2 minutes to know where to look. And yet you act like you’ve memorized the thing.
EBK, thanks for quoting the proper paragraph. Let’s look at the sentence in question.
“The Presidency of the Seventy are set apart and are given the keys to preside over the Quorums of Seventy.”
Prior to receiving these notes, I would not have understand Bednar’s assertion that seventies (I couldn’t care less if lower or upper case) don’t have keys, because this sentence seems to imply that seventies receive keys based on being “set apart.” I mean Bednar’s logic doesn’t dispute this sentence, but if I had read this sentence I would have understood that Seventies have keys. Bednar’s assertion is that they expire after every stake is organized. I don’t get that expiration from the Handbook.
But even still, the handbook does seem to state that the presidencies of the Seventy do have keys. Once again, Bednar didn’t address they issue of presidents of the 70, but he dialogue strongly implied that the only keys are found in apostles and seventies. It could be argued that Bednar was not very precise when he said “A Stake President holds keys. I jumped from apostolic keys to Stake president keys. I jumped right over Seventies. A Seventy holds no priesthood keys.” The handbook seems to disagree because it says “The Presidency of the Seventy are set apart and are given the keys to preside over the Quorums of Seventy.”
I recently noticed that too HH. You can still easily find the full CHI 2 through google. I don’t see the day coming where the blogosphere is unable to quickly find a cite. So I really don’t understand the logic behind making someone log it to access certain portions of the online handbook. The most likely result of this will be that well-meaning members will give up and not read a subject that wanted to.
Martin, you’ve certainly offered a fair criticism here. I agree that the talk was not about “this is why the sisters don’t get the priesthood”, and neither was the church essay.
However, in light of Ordain Women’s public actions that brought the topic to light, one can’t help but wonder what is the rationale behind “this is why the sisters don’t get the priesthood.” I mean Bednar said, “Priesthood is not male” and “Priesthood is not administration.” Well why do only men get to administrate and baptize? I think it’s a more than fair question. Even if it wasn’t the purpose of Bednar’s talk, he sheds some interesting light on the topic, and his statement “The priesthood is not male” simply invites the question as to why women aren’t ordained to an office and allowed to baptize like men are.
Martin, I will also add that I have long maintained that the church misuses the term apostasy all the time, and in Kate Kelly’s case, they used the term apostasy when they really meant “not following your leaders.” That’s what she was guilty of, not apostasy. If you look at the dictionary definition of apostasy, it has nothing to do with lost keys or not following your leaders. The actual definition of apostasy is “the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.” LDS leaders misuse the word all the time.
MH, I think the essay is silent on the “why” specifically because the FP/Q12 couldn’t agree on a reason. That can be frustrating, but it’s also progress in my book. It’s the same pattern seen with the racial ban. At first, there’s nothing to discuss. Then church leaders put forth rationales. Then leaders stop the rationales and leave the members to debate among themselves. Over time the members’ desires and sentiments evolve. Finally, once most of the members desire a different direction, the FP/Q12 are able to receive a revelation changing the doctrine.
We’re still a ways off, but at least now when the subject comes up in gospel doctrine, I can point to the official essay and say “guys, the FP/Q12 give NO reason for the restriction; in fact, the only context they give is that members in Joseph’s day followed the common practice of restricting leadership based on gender.” The ball is now squarely in the general membership’s court to begin opening their hearts and minds to the possibility that ordaining women is possible, even good.
“With 21 chapters, I seriously doubt it would have taken me only 2 minutes to know where to look.”
I already told you what to read. See my #13 above. Surely you’re intelligent enough to follow chapter a paragraph descriptions. Somehow EBK had no problem. You really need to come up with a better excuse, but if you want to wallow in your ignorance, so be it.
IDIAT, I invited you to guest post in #10.
Howard- I thought that early descriptions of the RS included the word “quorum” and that word was actually used in the first minutes.
The elite sisters were part of the anointed quorum, which the essay tried to cover, but I couldn’t grasp the logic.
The explanations seem like something we would use to describe why our PH is true and others isn’t. We have direct lines of ordination.
The really interesting part of doing blog posts on each section would be highlighting a number of the policies that show how a program is theoretically “supposed” to be administered and comparing and contrasting thar with how we’ve actually seen them administered. Sometimes the discrepancies work for good and sometimes for not so good. MH, you may be hearing from me in a couple weeks’ time after I put some thoughts together.
For what it’s worth, growing up I was never taught that the seventies hold keys. This may have been inferred from the fact that calls to bishops come from the First Presidency and calls to stake presidents come from the Twelve. It may have been inferred from the fact that seventies were called at th he stake level and had no administrative function until the latter half of the 20th century. But the one thing I’m certain of is that the distinction is probably only obvious to people who have a mind for useless trivia. Those who would hold up such knowledge as a litmus test for … well, anything … aren’t exactly people I want ministering the church (although they often do make good clerks)
Also, D&C 107:35 (and thereabouts) describes the role of the seventies to be nearly identical to that of the Twelve, but verse 35 specifically names the Twelve as having been given keys.
As far as the seven presidents of the seventy having keys, I would interpret those ‘keys’ differently than I interpret the keys given to quorum presidents who are directly involved in the management of the stakes of zion. I would consider these presidencies’ keys more like the keys a husband and wide receive when they are sealed that entitle them to a constant conduit of revelation affecting their family unit. That is, the presidency of the seventy has the keys that allow them to tend to the specific needs of those quorum members they are called to lead and no one else.
Dave, I like your interpretation of events. April Young Bennett said something similar at The Exponent when she said
So yes, there is some definite improvement going on.
First, this is a report on someone else’s scribbled notes. I’m sure there are some points that are garbled. (BMD could mean Birth, Marriage, Death?
Second, apostasy as lost keys is clearly on a dispensation level, not individual level. He’s meaning a point when no individual is left on earth with permission to hold and delegate all priesthood keys in the management of the church (the power currently held by the most senior apostle). Applying it to Kate Kelly is inappropriate. Like MH said, it was a curious definition of apostasy anyway.
Third, Handbook 2 is available at LDS.org for anyone to view. There was a major rewrite in 2010, and the only reason I know was that I was a counselor in a Primary Presidency at the time. The ward didn’t have individual printed sections available (not sure if they do now), so each of us got our own full Handbook 2. When I read over the Primary section, I was very surprised at how much helpful information was in there. We really don’t utilize the handbook as well as we should.
The applicable section on Priesthood keys is here: https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-principles?lang=eng#2.1.1
In addition to apostles, “Priesthood keys are bestowed on presidents of temples, missions, stakes, and districts; bishops; branch presidents; and quorum presidents. This presiding authority is valid only for the designated responsibilities and within the geographic jurisdiction of each leader’s calling. When priesthood leaders are released from their callings, they no longer hold the associated keys.”
Earlier someone quoted the part about Presidency of the Seventy holding specific keys to preside over the quorums of the Seventy. I’m thinking when Bednar is referring to Seventy not having keys, he’s referring to the idea of management keys over the members in their jurisdiction. They have permission to transfer the keys from apostle to stake presidents, but they don’t technically hold those keys themselves.
Bednar also left out the keys given to Temple Presidents and Mission Presidents. Given that this was a speech to temple workers, I’m hoping this was just left out of the notes.
I agree with Dave and MH. One of the best things to come out of the OW events of 2014 was the declaration by church officials that we really didn’t have a good reason why men have the priesthood and women don’t. That is definitely progress.
To clarify, “why men hold priesthood offices and women don’t.” Just in case anyone was going to be helpful and point out that both men and women hold priesthood authority over their given jurisdictions.
I’ll add my simple spiritual impression that Elder Oaks talk on priesthood authority from a couple or three conferences ago, Pres. Nelson’s talk this past conference and Elder Bednar’s talk referenced in this post are signs, so-to-speak, preparing us for a great change to come. I’m not sure if they are cognizant of this, but either way there will come a time when members will look back at their words and “see” and “hear” that they were teaching of “key” things to come. This is prophesying, which they hold the keys to do. Glory be to God in the Highest!
It seems to me that they are saying that the priesthood is like a car that you can drive from one place to another, and both sexes have a drivers’ license that lets them drive in their designated area, but the only one who owns the car is a male, and any women driving it have to get the keys from him, and there’s only enough gas to stay within the area he’s defined.
It’s definitely more equal than Saudi Arabia.
Well, used the app to download the handbook. Will read it next.
Thanks for the pointer.
The contemperary church depends heavily on conflation to float their propritary narratives, as soon as you deconfiate and begin to clearly define the magic disappears and a nude Emperor Bednar or Oaks emerges from behind the curtain. Belief in these assertions is a delusion of illusion!
I see it jus as Rocky Gma @46 all these talks, and each of them getting themselves confused trying to explain, are an indication that it is hot topic at HQ.
My wife and I thought during Elder Nelsons talk that he was giving the justifications to announce the priesthood for all worthy members equally.
With modern communications things seem to be speeding up. Interesting hopeful times.
Clair Barrus has a very interesting essay at Withoutend.org. Some interesting quotes:
and
#47 Hawk – but technically the people who own the cars are the apostles, and only the most senior apostle is allowed full ownership rights. Everyone else is limited, even if they hold keys themselves. It’s like getting keys to the church – only the maintenance guy and bishop have the master key to every room. Everyone else’s keys are specific to their particular jurisdictions.
This caught my eye:
The Twelve serve as especial witnesses of Christ. A Seventy is not an especial witness. Difference.
At a regional Aaronic PH event recently, an Area Authority Seventy was touted on the event website as “a visiting General Authority,” he described himself as “a special witness of Christ,” and our leaders had us all stand as he entered. This did not sit well with me at the time, and Elder Bednar’s remarks make it clear why.
MH #16 “I read lots of things, but have never read the Handbooks.”
That’s strange, because on May 6, 2013 on your personal blog, you posted a piece entitled “Mormon Doctrine: Cremation.” After reviewing McConkie’s thoughts on cremation, you write:
“So what is official church policy? Now that the Handbook of Instructions is available on the internet, here’s what it says.” You then proceed to quote out of Chapter 18 on Policies.
You are void of integrity and are a liar.
All I can see when I read these complex explanations for priesthood structure and keys, and authority, is a person really versed in Star Wars or Star Trek explaining how the mechanics of those universes work. Fascinating to the uber fan, but tedious and annoying to everyone else.
IDIAT, You got me. I’m a liar, a hypocrite, and I don’t always treat people like I should. And you’re a liar, a hypocrite, and you don’t always treat people like you should.
If you want to judge 1 reference in the hundreds of posts I have written that I routinely read the Handbook, and therefore I am “void of integrity and are a liar”, well, I pray God metes out the same judgment to you.
Pot, meet kettle.
And then there’s your post “Mormon Misconceptions About Sex” dated December 1, 2012, in which you state:
“Excuse me??? Let’s see what the LDS Handbook states:” where LDS Handbook is even hyper linked.
Should I keep looking and bury you underneath your lies and misrepresentations? I’m fed up with your attitude, rudeness, and sarcasm. I’ve tried to be pleasant, patient and charitable but I’m done with your nonsense.
IDIAT, I don’t routinely read it like you have admitted . (“I have been exposed to the handbooks in all sorts of ways over the last 25 or so years”) Sure I do research and find blurbs once in a while. Yet you seem to quote it like scripture. My blog has only been around since 2008, so I dare you to find something older than that.
I’d be happy to find examples of your bad behavior and hypocrisy too. I’m also fed up with “your attitude, rudeness, and sarcasm.” Would you like me to find some of your bad examples, or is it time to kill the threadjack?
Kill the threadjack if you want. You went out of your way to make it appear as if you had never so much as viewed the handbook, and that effort persisted through several comments. And, though you don’t tend to take anything Elder Oaks says seriously, he actually likened the first chapters of Handbook 2 to scripture when he introduced it at back in 2010. Bad behavior and hypocrisy on my part? Good luck. I don’t throw tantrums or immediately initiate personal attacks. I usually ignore the crap you dish out towards me, but my patience has grown thin. You want to argue a point? Argue the point. But the sarcasm and personal attacks (I seem to recall you once felt sorry for my wife) need to end.
IDIAT, you’ve been a dick throughout this entire post. You were arrogant and condescending right out of the gate. We’re all very impressed that you’ve been in so many leadership positions that you’ve read the handbook over and over and know so much more than the rest of us, blah blah blah. Yawn.
Golly, boys! Simmer down there.
Benjamin,
It seems that I now have a sort of request to read the Handbook. I’m not sure how interesting it will be (policies and procedures seem like rather dry material unless you work in Human Resources), but if you’d like to collaborate on a set of posts, I’d be willing (since someone else didn’t take up the offer. However, the offer is STILL open to anyone who is willing, even after the recent unpleasantness.)
I don’t know that I want to do a comprehensive review. Like my Mormon Doctrine series referenced above, I’m more interested in finding out either (1) any interesting doctrine that is in there not traditionally taught (such as Bednar’s keys), or (2) the weird policies that don’t seem to make sense. (Maybe there aren’t any, but since my cremation and sex posts were mentioned in the old handbook, I’m betting there are probably some weird ones in the current handbook too.)
I don’t think a blow-by-blow series on the Handbook is personally interesting, although obviously some others enjoy that kind of reading material. I do recall that my former bishop told me that one of the counselors in the stake presidency complained that people don’t read the handbook enough. (GUILTY! I guess I don’t want to be accused of that again so I don’t wallow in my ignorance.)
In one instance, the Counselor was concerned that too many men were in the circle for a baby blessing. As I was told, there is supposed to be a limit of 9 men or something like that (I’ll be sure to look it up when I do the series, as I’m sure it can be found in like 2 minutes.) So a group of men gets up, and the counselor turns to the bishop and says “You need to do something about that!”
Bishop turns to him and says “What would you like me to do?”
Counselor just sits there, and the blessing proceeds.
Now, I understand the reasons for the policy. You don’t want 30 people up there for a blessing, and that makes sense. After having heard the story, and now knowing the policy (which I think most are blissfully unaware), I have actually sat out on a family baby blessing for my sister. When I did so, her husband made sure I had a personal invitation for the next two children because he was sad I didn’t join on the first child. So it may be a policy there for a good reason–we don’t want 30 people up there, but on the other hand, it caused hurt feelings in the family. Is this a good policy? I would call it a better guideline, but I’m pretty sure most bishops ignore the policy so they don’t offend people.
I also understand the awkwardness of the situation my bishop was in. I think some people who read it all the time and can quote it are a little bit much.
Funny thing is, my bishop is now the stake president. I have a feeling he isn’t going to be enforcing any rules on number of people present in a baby blessing.
You bickering, mud-slinging guys hold the priesthood??? Come on……we can do better than this. Let’s discuss Elder Bednar’s talk and leave the handbook for another post. We’re trying to be like Jesus here.
All I know is priesthood use is very limited. Being female, I was surprised to learn all priesthood holders must first obtain their ward bishop’s permission before they may bless the Sacrament bread and water in their own home or for any one else in a homebound situation or on a day other than Sunday.
I would have thought any priesthood holder should be able to just do so on his own since he holds the priesthood. But I know President Monson can’t give himself a temple recommend–his bishop and stake president interview him like the rest of us. I think these limits keep us humble no matter where we are in terms of church hierarchy. And I notice the priesthood is used to serve others, not the holder of it.
I think the Lord means to keep His power to act, in check, at all times.
You know who else hasn’t read the handbook? Jesus.
In the original post Elder Bedinar says
Sister Bednar is always writing things down that I say. She is listening for things I’ve never said before. In every episode just like with Joseph Smith, there is always something new. This is how the Lord delivers revelation.
Is he saying he gives the same talks over, and when things are changed that’s revelation. To define your mistakes as revelation is ???? Women are to find the revelation in their husbands mistakes, see what my wife can do with that?
I read the handbook once looking for ways womens roles could be expanded within the handbooks limits. It was pointless because my local leaders won’t do anything unless they are specifically told to from above. Elder Bedinar was in Australia a few years ago and he said if it doesn’t specifically forbid it in the handbook you can do it. Not so, It must specifically require it.
On a different note the Rugby world Cup is at the finals stage. If you want to see football as she is played by much of the world the semi final matches between New Zealand,V South Africa, and Australia v Argentina. The Aus v Arg game was brilliant
Recommend it for American football watchers
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/25/sport/rugby-wallabies-pumas-maradona/index.html
Ahh, football is a she? That’s quite lovely….
The most striking part to me was where Elder Bednar seems to define a process of revelation that is basically, “When something new pops out of my mouth I haven’t said before, that how revelation happens. Glad my wife writes it down for me”. huh? That’s a new one.
Elder Bednar didn’t say anything new in his talk. All that he stated has been taught in conference and other training material for years. In fact, Elder Perry came to your ward just a couple of years ago and taught the same principles to us.
Here are my answers to the original 5 questions posted in this blog. Sorry for repeating what some other have said, it was just easier to answer the questions this way as to try to reply or make reference to earlier posts.
(1) We have 7 presidents of the Quorums of Seventies? If these are truly priesthood quorums, why don’t these presidents have keys? (Or are they mainly limited to the Q70?)
Answer: “The Presidency of the Seventy are set apart and are given the keys to preside over the Quorums of Seventy.” (See: https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-principles?lang=eng).
Not having the full text of Elder Bednar’s talk, it sounds like he was making a general statement referring to the main body of the 70s when he said they don’t hold keys, as opposed to how all of the members of the quorum of apostles each hold ALL the keys restored in this dispensation. This was made evident when he explained the temporary use of the keys (under the direction of those holding the keys) when all of the 70s go throughout the world to reorganize Stakes.
(2) If Priesthood is not male, then why are all the leaders male?
Answer: This is a misleading question. Not all leaders or male. You have almost as many women leaders in the church as you do male. Just look at your local ward’s youth program. Not to mention Primary, Relief Society, and the women serving in the temple.
From the essay “Joseph Smith’s Teachings about Priesthood, Temple, and Women”, this is made very clear. In the essay it states:
“Among other things, Latter-day Saint women preach sermons in Sunday meetings and the Church’s general conference; serve full-time proselytizing missions; perform and officiate in holy rites in the Church’s temples; and lead organizations that minister to families, other women, young women, and children. They participate in priesthood councils at the local and general levels. Professional women teach Latter-day Saint history and theology at Church universities and in the Church’s educational programs for youth.”
Elder Bednar stated this as well when he said, “Auxiliaries to priesthood are not subservient. There is no separate Young Women work, just priesthood work. Activities may be different, but work is the same.”
Your question #2 and question #3 are really the same question. For further clarification see the answer for question #3.
(3) If Priesthood is not administration, why are all administrators male?
Answer: First, I never saw anywhere where Elder Bednar stated that “Priesthood is not administration.” as the author of this blog stated in her summery.
Priesthood is the power to act in God’s name. That is why it is not male or female. Anyone using that power (after receiving it properly), such as temple workers, are using the power of the priesthood (other female non-temple workers use it as well when fulfilling their church callings). The correct question is not “why are all administrators male”, but “why are only men ordained to priesthood offices?”
The simple answer is that questions is that God has so directed. When the Church received revelation describing the authority structure of the Church in terms of priesthood offices and roles, women were not included.
President Joseph Fielding Smith taught:
“There is nothing in the teachings of the gospel which declares that men are superior to women.” “The Lord has given unto men the power of priesthood and sent them forth to labor in his service. The woman’s calling is in a different direction. The most noble, exalting calling of all is that which has been given to women as the mothers of men.”
(Doctrines of Salvation, 3 volumes, compiled by Bruce R. McConkie, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 3:178).
Gordon B. Hinckley, as the Prophet and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said:
“Women do not hold the priesthood because the Lord has put it that way. It is part of His program. Women have a very prominent place in this Church. Men hold the priesthood offices of the Church. But women have a tremendous place in this Church. (See https://www.mormon.org.uk/faq/women-in-the-church)
In Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ talk (The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood) he taught and clarified it this way:
“The Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood.”…”The divine nature of the limitations put upon the exercise of priesthood keys explains an essential contrast between decisions on matters of Church administration and decisions affecting the priesthood. The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures—matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service. But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood.” See https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng#11-10985_000_31oaks
In addition, keep in mind that throughout history, God has specified additional limitation from time to time such as only allowing the tribe of Levi to officiate in the priesthood during the days of Moses (see Lev. 8:1-13; Num. 8:13-22; Heb. 5:4).
(4) Given the new church essay stating:
In organizing the Relief Society, Joseph spoke of “ordain[ing]” women and said that Relief Society officers would “preside over the Society.” He also declared, “I now turn the key to you in the name of God.”
Why does the essay then go to great pains to state that these are not priesthood keys?
Answer: Because, as the essay explains, being ordained did not mean that the Relief Society was being given a Priesthood office or Priesthood keys.
As the essay points out:
“These statements (the ones you quoted in your question) indicate that Joseph Smith delegated priesthood authority to women in the Relief Society. Joseph’s language can be more fully understood in historical context. During the 19th century, Latter-day Saints used the term keys to refer at various times to authority, knowledge, or temple ordinances. Likewise, Mormons sometimes used the term ordain in a broad sense, often interchangeably with set apart and not always referring to priesthood office.27 On these points, Joseph’s actions illuminate the meaning of his words: neither Joseph Smith, nor any person acting on his behalf, nor any of his successors conferred the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood on women or ordained women to priesthood office.”
“In later years, words like ordination and keys were more precisely defined, as when President John Taylor, who acted by assignment from Joseph Smith to ‘ordain and set apart’ Emma Smith and her counselors, explained in 1880 that ‘the ordination then given did not mean the conferring of the Priesthood upon those sisters.’ Women did receive authority to preside in the women’s organization and to appoint officers as needed to conduct the organization in the pattern of the priesthood, including being led by a president with counselors. By the time of President Taylor’s statement, women-led organizations were also in place for young women and children. These organizations also had presidencies, who acted with delegated priesthood authority.”
In the essay’s footnote #27 you find some great examples of the above concept:
27. For example, William W. Phelps was “ordained” to assist with the Church’s printing operations, and Newel K. Whitney was “ordained” to act as an agent for the Church in business matters. The use of the term “set apart” to indicate a blessing given in conjunction with calling to a specific assignment developed in the late 19th century. (Doctrine and Covenants 55:4; 63:45; see also Doctrine and Covenants 104:61.)
(5) I have heard some say that the new church essay (and indeed Elder Bednar “priesthood is not male” and Elder Oaks recent conference address) are stepping stones to allowing women to hold the priesthood one day. Do you agree with this? Or is this just a way to tell women “silly women–you’ve been exercising priesthood all this time and just didn’t know it. You’re delegated keys when you perform your callings. We don’t need to extend priesthood to you when you’ve already been exercising the power of the priesthood.”
Answer: Does it really matter?
As Joseph Smith said:
“God said, ‘Thou shalt not kill;’ at another time He said, ‘Thou shalt utterly destroy.’ This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted-by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added.” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.256)
If God chooses to ordain women to officiate in priesthood offices at a later, time then so be it. Since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint is led by living Prophets of God, the church will never change its current doctrine until God so directs.
As to my own personal opinion, no, I do not believe it is a stepping stone. God has only allowed men to officiate in priesthood offices since Adam until now. I feel it is very unlikely this will change.
I wouldn’t state it as belittling to women as the author of this blog did, but yes, faithful women have always been able to exercise the priesthood, such as in the temple where sacred ordinances are performed to fulfilling their calling and role as Relief Society Pres. etc. It was revealed to Joseph Smith that men and women receiving temple ordinances, culminating in the sealing ordinance, enter into an “order of the priesthood.” (Doctrine and Covenants 131:1–4.)
Rick, it comes off as really arrogant to write a response that’s longer than the OP, especially when it’s not really a response but a complete post on the same topic.
Just so you can watch out for it in the future.
Rick,
Take a look at the administrators in the First Presidency. All Male. Take a look at the administrators in the Presiding Bishopric, Q12, q70, General Sunday School presidency. All Male. Ok, you got me the RS, Primary, and YW general presidencies are female. So we’re 90 male to 9 female. Yes it is not all male, but it is pretty darn close.
And by the way, I’m a “he.”
Rick,
When have you ever heard the phrase “counsel with your priesthood leader” used to refer to a female president of an auxiliary? By the way, I hate that the organizations ‘led’ by women are called auxiliaries. If you refer to the handbook, you’ll see that each female led organization designates the Bishopric as providing priesthood leadership. Not once does it say that the female presidents operate with priesthood authority or power. I’m hoping for updated handbooks to highlight this newfound authority.
Rick,
Why did the Church have to rename the Priesthood Executive Council in order to include a female president if she has priesthood power and authority?
Deseret News
This is from a post on fmh about women and healing.
I can’t possibly know understand how it feels to be you, Reese. So I hope you don’t take my thoughts on this as judgmental, because I know you’re a great person (and your husband, too).
From my perspective, your thoughts mistake a part for the whole. The three chapters you cite all discuss “healing”. This is a very broad term and, indeed, many people of both genders have a gift for healing in various ways that are pleasing to the Lord.
The New Testament scripture cited by the Church says specifically “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:” (James 5:14)
I think this is a narrower view of healing, specifically outlining blessings for the sick that include anointing, oil and laying on of hands.
In my experience, the faith of those present in a prayer situation is much more important than the physical attitude assumed. And the tableau of women who do not have the priesthood laying hands on the head gives the sense of imitation and usurpation. The scriptures make it clear that laying on of hands is a procedure related to priesthood ordinances (see here: https://www.lds.org/topics/laying-on-of-hands?lang=eng).
The priesthood is a very real power. As the fifth Article of Faith tells us, it can only be conferred by one who already has it and is authorized to do so. The act of assuming the attitude of performing priesthood ordinances while not actually having the priesthood gives the appearance of belief that the priesthood is merely a form to be assumed and not an actual power that is conferred.ï
Tangential comment: The issues raised in the OP Prompt other questions, for example, how widely is the designation ‘President’ applied? We have Relief Society and YW Presidencies but I am yet to hear RS or YW Presidents referred to as President Jones or President Smith, rather the designation is commonly ‘Sister’. In comparison it’s not uncommon to have the EQ & YM Presidents referred by that title. At least this is the orthodoxy in my part of the world. I’d be interested to know if there is a reason for this (I can’t see it linked to keys); and if this is not the case in other LDS jurisdictions.
As I understand, we might use the title “president” for presidents of priesthood quorums in our wards, but only in priesthood settings. We don’t usually use the title for presidents of auxiliary organizations, such as Young Men, Sunday School, Relief Society, Primary, or Young Women. That makes sense to me, and that’s equal.
That said, I have heard some bishops go overboard with titles. And it is unseemly for a president of an auxiliary organization (or a priesthood quorum, for that matter), to require others to use the title when speaking to or of him or her. Brother and Sister are never wrong.
My husband is a worker in the Mount Timpanogos Temple, and I attended this talk. It was excellent! I was searching for it online, to reference parts of it in a lesson I’m giving in relief society – hoping to find more details and insights than my own notes provided. I was excited to glean from the knowledge of others, but am extremely disappointed over what I found in most of these comments – which wreak of pride, self-righteousness, and condescending remarks. If your intention is to help others, a few of you have far missed the mark. If your intention is to prove how knowledgable you are, however, you’re doing a fabulous job. I am reminded that the basic principles are what are most important, and it’s not what we know, but how we treat others that trumps all else. Perhaps it’s time to return to the first and second great commandments before exploring details of deeper doctrine. Something for all of us to ponder.
En ningún pasaje de las escrituras dice que las mujeres bautizaban, bendecían y sanaban enfermos imponiendo las manos, ni otorgar el espíritu santo por medio de imposición de manos, ni llamar a hombres a predicar o servir por medio de imposición de manos en todos los pasajes son hombres los que tienen la autoridad para hacerlo no mujeres.