Tuesday, April 5, 2011

What Priesthood Service Is Supposed To Be

Handled With Care - Tracy M (By Common Consent)
Posted by at

7 comments:

ji said...

This is a good example of neighborly kindness. But I might want to stop short of calling it priesthood service. I wouldn't want to impose the kind example here as the standard or the rule for other priesthood holders.

The original poster is very appreciative of the kindness of her neighbor in taking her sons on a father-and-son campout. But some of the later commenters expressed hostility to the brothers of the priesthood in their wards, and the Church in general, because no one took their sons on the father-and-son campouts of their wards. This hostility arises because of a mistaken and misplaced expectation of priesthood service.

Any man, priesthood holder or not, could have offered this kindness. Here, the provider was a priesthood holder, but I wouldn't thereby call it priesthood service. No man in particular, and no priesthood holder in particular, has the DUTY to do it. And no woman has a basis for offense if no one takes her son on a campout -- especially, she cannot be offended by "the priesthood" of her ward. Rather, she should continue to honor and respect the the men of the priesthood of her ward for the good they do in ordinances and church administration.

Must we say there is a failure somewhere if a boy of divorced parents is not taken by someone on a ward father-and-son campout? No, I don't like finding fault -- but if we must, let's say honestly that the failure is the mother's. The DUTY, if any, is hers. She can ask her home teachers or her neighbor or an uncle or the father of her son's friend or the college kid, priesthood holder or not -- maybe one of them might be able to say yes. And if she tries and fails, and the kid asks why he isn't going, her answer might be something like, "I'm sorry, son, but I wasn't able to make arrangements with anyone for you." She should not use such an outcome to disparage the men of the priesthood in her ward. Yes, a priesthood holder COULD offer to take the kid without being asked first, but I have to stop short of saying that a priesthood holder MUST or SHOULD volunteer such an offer.

May God bless the man here for his neighborly kindness, and the woman here for her appreciative spirit.

April 5, 2011 at 11:28 AM
Papa D said...

ji, I think there is little difference between kindness and Priesthood service - that service which should be rendered by those who hold the Priesthood. There is a difference between the performance of Priesthood ordinances and kindness - that there is a difference between ordinances (specifically) and service (writ large).

"Must we say there is a failure somewhere if a boy of divorced parents is not taken by someone on a ward father-and-son campout?"

Yes, there is a failure somewhere - and I'm not ready to blame the mother completely.

April 5, 2011 at 3:03 PM
Papa D said...

ji, I think you've never been a single parent with three young children - one of them with extensive special needs. In those situations, there is no "blame" when someone can't do everything that might be possible in a more traditional family.

We always say the Priesthood is all about service and this post highlights how men rose to that Priesthood calling and served someone who needed them.

Also, if I want to endorse the comments on a thread, I will say so in my post. Just because there are comments I don't like, that doesn't mean the post itself is not profound.

April 5, 2011 at 4:31 PM
ji said...

The post is profound, and may God bless the man here for his neighborly kindness, and the woman here for her appreciative spirit.

But I still wonder if some in the Church have a mistaken and misplaced expectation of priesthood service, and what it really means. This is a wonderful example of service and kindness by a priesthood holder, and this kindness was received with appreciation. But this example cannot serve to create a demand that the same outcome MUST be provided in all other similar cases, or else the priesthood in a ward fails. That would be a mistaken and misplaced expectation of priesthood service.

I have taken boys not my own sons to ward father-and-son campouts, and I probably will again in some years. But I do so because I choose to do so because I want to and am able to be kind and helpful -- no ward member has the right to demand such service from me because of my priesthood. If in a particular year I take only my son and no one else, it cannot be said that I or my ward's priesthood has failed.

I much appreciate your sharing the example and the well-written posting -- I just have concern that some in the Church have a mistaken and misplaced expectation of priesthood service. No divorced woman whose son is not invited by someone else has been failed by her ward's priesthood, but any woman whose son is invited has received a kindness and a service.

April 5, 2011 at 8:29 PM
ji said...

Oops! No divorced woman whose son is not invited by someone else has not been failed by her ward's priesthood, but any woman whose son is invited has received a kindness and a service.

April 5, 2011 at 11:08 PM
Papa D said...

I agree in general with that, ji - but I do think that there IS a failure of some degree whenever someone with an obvious and important need that they can't meet doesn't have that need met when there is a way to meet it without causing undue harm to another. I'm not into assigning "blame" when I don't know enough to be a pure judge, but I do believe a failure has occurred.

I agree that no one has the right to demand that someone else meet such a need - but I don't think Tracy made that claim in the post. However, Zion, to me, is a society in which these types of needs are met DESPITE the lack of right to demand it. Creating that situation where these needs are met even though they are not demanded is at the heart of real Priesthood service, imo - and I think that is the point of Tracy's post, especially since she made no demands.

April 5, 2011 at 11:58 PM
ji said...

Yep -- thanks...

April 6, 2011 at 1:07 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)