Priesthood Keys: A Chain Holding Copies of One Master Key that Unlocks Multiple Views

Morgan wrote a post on By Common Consent last year entitled "Keys" - about the place of that word and concept in Mormon vocabulary.  I recommend it highly.

My comment in that thread is below: 

It's interesting how such a simple concept as a key can be so profound to different people in different ways, as evidenced by its relevance today in ways that would have been unimaginable to the ancient people who wrote about keys. 

I like the framework of opening and closing, but I also like the purpose of most openings.  It's one thing to talk about opening a door (or gate) in order to enter a room (or restricted area), but it's another thing entirely to talk about opening a door or gate with the purpose of seeing / experiencing what is inside the room or restricted area.  In other words, keys, primarily, aren't about getting into a locked space; rather, at the core, they are about access to something of value - whether that be gold or an elite group or solitude or safety or increased light and knowledge.  It's not the room that is the focal point of having keys; it's what is inside the room and the benefit of what's inside the room. 

That's easy to forget that in the myopia of "getting into the Celestial kingdom" - or any other location.  In Mormon theology, the ultimate destination is a condition - and the key generally gets someone on the path and allows her to walk along the proper path - having her condition changed as she walks.  I believe, therefore, that life's journey is comprised of a series of keys - and, in a real way, I believe the final destination has no key and no entrance,  Rather, it is where someone ends up after all the gates have been opened and the veils parted and the realization hits that she was "there" all along.  Thus, theoretically, there is one key chain holding copies of the same master key. 

At least, that view works for me right now. 

Individual Adaptation within Collective Norms

 I have a friend who has struggled with body acceptance issues for a long time.  She is working on coping mechanisms to help her overcome this difficulty, but wearing garments exacerbates seriously her struggles.  I can't understand those struggles fully, since I have never experienced them personally, but they are real and, at times, can be damaging and even dangerous.

With reference to the garment, she said something to me once that I thought at the time was very powerful - and I have thought about it off and on since then.  She said:

It's difficult for me to see how a loving Heavenly Father could require something that makes us feel this way.

I had the chance to communicate with her again a while ago, and the topic arose one more time.  Having thought about it since she first shared her frustration, I answered her in the following way:

I don't believe he requires us to do things that make us feel that way - but, if you accept his existence and the foundation of communal rules in any way, he does require some people to do things that aren't "ideal" for those people. There's no way to have communal laws, rules, regulations, suggestions, cultural practices, etc. that are going to be "right" for everyone. They are approximations of what works generally for the good of the collective group.

That's an important, even critical, distinction - and I believe it's vital to understand. "We" don't get everything that would be "ideal" for "us" when we agree to be part of any group. An essential part of learning charity - true charity - is acceptance of that fact. The key is to step back a bit, see the benefit for the collective group, make whatever sacrifices are possible for the group, make individual adjustments and adaptations that are important to you personally and find peace in that balance between serving the collective good and honoring what is vital to yourself.

It's not easy - this embrace of paradox and complexity. Simple extremes are easier - but they also are more destructive. Worship according to the dictates of your own conscience, but find a way to do it within the community you choose as your own. It might take a while, but it's worth it in the end - since the faith you carve out will be your own, and it will allow you to continue being an active part of your own tribe, so to speak. 

In the specific case of the garment and her body issues, I have NO problem with her not wearing the garment in the same way most Mormons who wear it do so.  The Church Handbook of Instruction actually leaves how she does so in her hands, and I love that policy.  If adapting in healthy ways means wearing it only for specific things (like when she attends the temple) - or only for a short period of time each day and/or night - or only one day per week or month - or even not until she has a better handle on her body acceptance issues, so be it.  I would rather have her be working on getting to the point that she can wear it without real damage than be damaged in a very real way on a regular basis.  The key, I believe, is not to wear or not wear but rather to face the issue head-on and strive to find a way to do whatever is possible in the present while working on making the future better.

I think that is a good outline for most things in life. 

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Our New Framing of the Priesthood - Elder Oaks: Part 4

Last Sunday, we covered the last five paragraphs of Elder Oaks' talk - with paragraph defined loosely.

I close with some truths about the blessings of the priesthood. Unlike priesthood keys and priesthood ordinations, the blessings of the priesthood are available to women and to men on the same terms.

I mentioned that Elder Oaks said this, with different words, multiple times throughout the talk (including in the upcoming paragraphs) - but that he was about to use two specific examples that rarely have been discussed in those terms in the past.

The gift of the Holy Ghost and the blessings of the temple are familiar illustrations of this truth.

We defined "the priesthood" one more time (the power of God) and I asked the students if they could list times / events in life when we could say we represent God in some way. The obvious responses were ordination for the young men and baptism, so we talked about those and others.

1) We believe we all are children of God, so, in a very real way, if we believe that, we also believe we can represent him as his children. That is emphasized in our theology by our belief in the light of Christ, which we equate with our consciences. Everyone, with a few exceptions, represents God in this way.

2) When we are baptized, we covenant to take the name of Jesus upon us - to become "Christian". That is a direct commitment to do what Jesus would do and represent him.

3) When we are confirmed, we are told to receive the Holy Ghost - which we equate to striving to understand and do the will of God.

4) We talk of the Priesthood in terms of service - which, phrased differently, is participating in the work and glory of God.

5) When members are endowed in the temple, every ordinance men experience, women also experience - and women perform almost all of them. We talked about each ordinance - what it is meant to convey, what blessings are promised, what covenants are made, what symbolism is used, etc. I told them that there are two primary wording differences for men and women in the endowment and the sealing - and that I personally see them as cultural remnants of our earlier history that don't match a lot of what has been taught in numerous talks over the last couple of decades and the last part of what we discussed last week from Elder Oaks' talk. (the description of marriage as a full partnership of equals)

All of these things are "exercising the authority and power of the Priesthood" - and all of them are available, according to Elder Oaks, to men and women alike. Currently, the only exceptions are, in his words, "priesthood keys and priesthood ordinations" - and those can change if the top leadership receives revelation that would change the historical "pattern" they see right now and not if they don't. 

In his insightful talk at BYU Education Week last summer, Elder M. Russell Ballard gave these teachings:

“Our Church doctrine places women equal to and yet different from men. God does not regard either gender as better or more important than the other . . . When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is priesthood power . . . Access to the power and the blessings of the priesthood is available to all of God’s children.”

This is another reiteration of one of Elder Oaks' central themes - but it is one of the first times I have heard two apostles say unequivocally that women are endowed with priesthood power when they attend the temple. As was the case with his words earlier in the talk, Elder Oaks did NOT frame this as women having access to the priesthood power men are given; rather, once again, he framed it explicitly as women having / being given the same power men are given - that the priesthood power they exercise is their own power, endowed directly and personally to them.

We talked about the temple garment - the "garment of the holy priesthood". I explained that both men and women wear symbolic clothing ("robes") in the temple that represent the ceremonial clothing temple priests wore in the Old Testament time. Thus, in the temple, men dress as priests and women dress as priestesses. We talked about how men AND women leave the temple "clothed in the garment of the holy priesthood" - which means, in a tangible way, BOTH men and women "hold the priesthood" when they leave the temple. In other words, when women wear the garment, they are "putting on the priesthood" once again, symbolically - and that the garment is the tangible representation of their priestess robes outside the temple. Again, with that in mind, when women do the Lord's work outside the temple, they are doing it as priestesses through the priesthood power with which they were endowed when they first went through the temple.

I testify of the power and blessings of the priesthood of God, available for His sons and daughters alike. I testify of the authority of the priesthood, which functions throughout all of the offices and activities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I testify of the divinely directed function of the keys of the priesthood, held and exercised in their fulness by our prophet/president, Thomas S. Monson. Finally and most important, I testify of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whose priesthood this is and whose servants we are, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

I told the students that if they wanted an interesting experience they should go through the talk again, in its entirety, and count the number of times Elder Oaks said that men and women both have access to the power and authority of God and exercise it in everything they do in the Church. I asked why he would have to repeat it so many time, and, after we talked about that, I told them that I think it's because members who are close to my age and older need to have it repeated that many times to have it register and to understand and accept it. I asked them to be patient when they heard members repeat the former framing - to understand how hard it can be to let go of things that were learned when those people were teenagers and early adults - but to commit to make sure they helped change the Church into more of what Elder Oaks described than it currently is.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Our New Framing of the Priesthood - Elder Oaks: Part 3

This lesson covered the next seven paragraphs in Elder Oaks' talk.  (To read the summaries of the first two lessons about his talk, read here and here.)

We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be? When a woman—young or old—is set apart to preach the gospel as a full-time missionary, she is given priesthood authority to perform a priesthood function. The same is true when a woman is set apart to function as an officer or teacher in a Church organization under the direction of one who holds the keys of the priesthood. Whoever functions in an office or calling received from one who holds priesthood keys exercises priesthood authority in performing her or his assigned duties.

We talked about this as being a rephrasing of what we had discussed in the first week's lesson - that everyone who acts under the direction of the presiding Priesthood keys does so with the authority and power of God - the classic definition of the Priesthood. We talked about how traditionally young men serving missions has been considered a Priesthood duty but young women have been told they can serve missions or not, whatever they want, without any pressure to do so - since "preaching the Gospel" has been considered a Priesthood duty. We talked about how the lowering of the minimum age for young women goes hand-in-hand with seeing women as working with Priesthood authority and power, as well. Therefore, serving a mission is a good example for Elder Oaks to use when talking about how we need to start seeing Priesthood authority and power differently than in the past.

Whoever exercises priesthood authority should forget about their rights and concentrate on their responsibilities. That is a principle needed in society at large. The famous Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is quoted as saying, “It is time … to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.” Latter-day Saints surely recognize that qualifying for exaltation is not a matter of asserting rights but a matter of fulfilling responsibilities

.

This could have been tricky, but I focused on the concept that Elder Oaks already had said that everyone can exercise Priesthood authority and power, so, with that foundation (not talking about Priesthood offices and the performance of ordinances but only exercising Priesthood authority), it really is more important to talk about what is done with that authority (one's responsibilities) than focusing on a right we all have anyway. I mentioned explicitly that this paragraph has nothing whatsoever to do with civil rights. We also talked about how different Mormon theology is with regard to responsibilities relative to exaltation than Protestant theology relative to the right to salvation merely by confessing the name of Jesus.

The Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood. But, as various Church leaders have emphasized, men are not “the priesthood.” Men hold the priesthood, with a sacred duty to use it for the blessing of all of the children of God.

I repeated from last week's lesson that the leadership sees a historical pattern of a male-only Priesthood office structure, but, as we discussed in a previous lesson about the sacrament, "the priesthood" is not the men who hold offices and preform ordinances outside the temple. We then talked again about how easy it is to slip into the vocabulary of our formative years, like even Elder Oaks did when he said "men hold the priesthood" - after he had made it clear throughout the talk that what he had to mean is that men are ordained to offices in the priesthood and administer ordinances outside the temple. I emphasized that most people will continue to use the term "hold the priesthood" when what they mean, usually without realizing it, is "be ordained to offices in the priesthood and administer ordinances outside the temple".

Prior to reading the next few paragraphs, I emphasized that Elder Oaks now was starting to talk about a new topic - and that he was NOT repeating the oft-stated idea that priesthood is the male counterpart to motherhood. That is easy to misunderstand with a quick reading only, but that former comparison makes no sense in light of the entire talk. I also told them explicitly that the next paragraphs contain good examples of cultural assumptions that are hard to release, even in a talk as paradigm-altering as this one.

The greatest power God has given to His sons cannot be exercised without the companionship of one of His daughters, because only to His daughters has God given the power “to be a creator of bodies … so that God’s design and the Great Plan might meet fruition.” Those are the words of President J. Reuben Clark.

It makes no sense to read "the greatest power God has given to His sons" as being the Priesthood, since men can exercise the Priesthood without the companionship of women - and, according to Elder Oaks in this talk, women can exercise the Priesthood, as well. The ONLY logical meaning of that "greatest power" is the ability to have kids - or "procreation" in Mormon-speak. I simply added that this is kind of a "Duh!" statement and that Pres. Clark, whom I really respected and admired, was wrong in a way - since a woman is NOT "a creator of bodies" all by herself. I grinned and said that a man has to be involved, as well - that they both are creators of bodies.

He continued: “This is the place of our wives and of our mothers in the Eternal Plan. They are not bearers of the Priesthood; they are not charged with carrying out the duties and functions of the Priesthood; nor are they laden with its responsibilities; they are builders and organizers under its power, and partakers of its blessings, possessing the complement of the Priesthood powers and possessing a function as divinely called, as eternally important in its place as the Priesthood itself.”

I pointed out that, all by themselves, these sentences make little sense when compared with the rest of Elder Oaks' talk - that the rest of this talk up to this point actually changes many of the assumptions in Pres. Clark's words. Either Elder Oaks was using the quote because it was quoted often over the years or he is talking about something else. The next sentence shows he is talking about something else.

In those inspired words, President Clark was speaking of the family.

Thus, Elder Oaks used Pres. Clark's quote not to discuss Priesthood authority and power but to discuss family and marriage structure and responsibility.

As stated in the family proclamation, the father presides in the family and he and the mother have separate responsibilities, but they are “obligated to help one another as equal partners.”

I simply mentioned how frustrating it is for me to hear members cite the Proclamation to insist that men and women have to adhere to the traditional roles described as "primary responsibilities" in the Proclamation - since the part about helping each other as equal partners says it applies to "these responsibilities" inclusively and then goes on to talk about how each couple needs to make adaptations that work for them. Given this wording, just like the distinction between rights and responsibilities in exercising the authority and power of the Priesthood, it's not about who does what (rights) but simply that everything that is supposed to happen actually happens (responsibilities). Thus, I know stay-at-home dads who are married to full-time working moms - which now is said to be completely fine if decided mutually by those spouses.

I also mentioned that "preside" now means something very different than it did when I was their age, as emphasized in the next thing Elder Oaks quoted.

Some years before the family proclamation, President Spencer W. Kimball gave this inspired explanation: “When we speak of marriage as a partnership, let us speak of marriage as a full partnership. We do not want our LDS women to be silent partners or limited partners in that eternal assignment! Please be a contributing and full partner.”

I pointed out that this quote was a pre-cursor to the Proclamation and that it fundamentally changes the way we ought to talk about marriage. We talked about "full partnerships" by discussing joint checking accounts - that my wife and I each don't have access to half of our money but that each of us has access to all of it. It's not 50/50; it's 100/100. Likewise, a full marriage partnership means each spouse has equal access to everything done in the marriage - that there isn't one who is the final decision maker or ultimately the boss. Too many older members, especially, still see it that way, but it's not consistent with Pres. Kimball's quote or this talk.

In the eyes of God, whether in the Church or in the family, women and men are equal, with different responsibilities.

We ended the lesson by talking more about what it means to be equal but have different responsibilities - and that how the determination of how those responsibilities are divided among men and women is up to spouses in the family and "key holders" in the Church - and that changes to how responsibilities in the Church currently are allocated is up to the leadership, subject to revelation that may change the current division of responsibilities and the composition of the leadership.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Our New Framing of the Priesthood - Elder Oaks: Part 2

Priesthood and Priesthood Keys: Elder Oaks' General Conference talk - Part 2

We had three students in class today who weren't in attendance last week, so I took about ten minutes for a quick review of last week's lesson (the first six paragraphs of Elder Oaks' talk). It was good for the others to hear it again. (If anyone wants to review that lesson before reading this one, it is the post from last Saturday.)

Today, we covered the next six paragraphs. Like I did with last week's summary, I am going to quote the parts we discussed and provide a summary of the discussions:

Ultimately, all keys of the priesthood are held by the Lord Jesus Christ, whose priesthood it is. He is the one who determines what keys are delegated to mortals and how those keys will be used. We are accustomed to thinking that all keys of the priesthood were conferred on Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple, but the scripture states that all that was conferred there were “the keys of this dispensation” (D&C 110:16). At general conference many years ago, President Spencer W. Kimball reminded us that there are other priesthood keys that have not been given to man on the earth, including the keys of creation and resurrection.

We talked about what this means about possible changes in the future - that it is another reminder that the way we do things currently is not necessarily unchangeable, eternal doctrine - and that we have to be open to radical changes if they occur.

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.

We discussed the difference between "administration" and "the priesthood". We defined "administer" as "oversee; supervise; direct". We discussed what that means in terms of the sacrament. We talked about why it is incorrect to say, "The sacrament will be administered and passed by the Priesthood." First, I simply pointed out that the Priesthood is different than the people who do things with Priesthood authority and power - as has been stated numerous times by apostles recently.  I asked who administers the sacrament and who passes it. Their first responses were the Priests, Teachers and Deacons, so we dug further into what happens with that ordinance.

The Bishop (or Branch President or presiding key holder), as the presiding Priest, administers the sacrament, as do the Priests. The other offices in the Aaronic Priesthood (the Deacons and the Teachers) have been authorized to "help" the Bishop and the Priests - not actually to administer but to assist in an official way - and every single person in the congregation passes the sacrament among themselves.  (As pointed out by a commenter on this post, D&C 20:58 explicitly says that Teachers and Deacons are NOT authorized to administer the sacrament.)  This means that "administer" and "prepare and pass" MUST be different things, while "bless" (pronounce the prayer) is part of the administration.  Administering (including blessing) is a responsibility specific to a Priesthood office (Priest), while the others are assignments made by the presiding Priest to help / assist - NOT to administer. 

We talked about how the exact method or pattern of distributing the sacrament is different from congregation to congregation, based on the size and demographics of the congregation. We mentioned various ways the sacrament could be "passed" - from a tiny unit where everyone goes up to the sacrament table and takes it directly from the person who blesses it (with nobody "passing" it) to a larger branch in another part of the world where there are dozens of members but only one man who is ordained to an office in the priesthood and the women (young and old) pass the sacrament throughout the congregation completely on their own - including practical applications that look much like what we see regularly with AP young men. [I know of situations where that happens in some countries.] We talked about the fact that HOW it happens is determined by the person who holds the keys to "direct, control and govern" it - and how nearly every aspect about it is "cultural", when it comes right down to it, since nearly every aspect can change depending on the unique congregational situations. (Outside of the prayer wording and the current restriction on who can voice the prayer [since voicing the prayer is part of the administering], there might be nothing else that couldn't be adapted by a Bishop, Branch President or Area Authority.)

We re-read the last sentence in that paragraph, and I simply pointed out that, as far as we know, women have not been ordained to offices in the priesthood at any point in our scriptural history - so our current leadership does not see that as a matter of practice or policy. Rather, they see it as a "pattern". Therefore, just as was the case prior to OD2 and the lifting of the race-based ban, they don't feel "authorized" to change it without direct revelation from God. I told the students that I hope such a revelation will be received at some point, but I understand why it can't change without revelation to the church leadership. I told them that, lacking such revelation, we need to work on everything else laid out in this talk - that, maybe, this is a case of learning and changing line-upon-line and precept-upon-precept.

I come now to the subject of priesthood authority. I begin with the three principles just discussed: (1) priesthood is the power of God delegated to man to act for the salvation of the human family, (2) priesthood authority is governed by priesthood holders who hold priesthood keys, and (3) since the scriptures state that “all other authorities [and] offices in the church are appendages to this [Melchizedek] priesthood” (D&C 107:5), all that is done under the direction of those priesthood keys is done with priesthood authority.

I pointed out that Elder Oaks' use of "man" in the first point MUST mean the generic "mankind" or "humanity", given everything he had said up to that point in the talk. We talked about how often we fall back on the language with which we are familiar, even when we are teaching new understandings. I told them that we can accept that and be charitable, or we can get upset and take offense - but that we ought not "make a (person) an offender for a word" and not focus on one word and let it negate everything else the person has said.

We talked about what "appendages" means: "a subordinate part attached to something; an auxiliary part; addition". I pointed out that Elder Oaks said that "ALL authorities and offices in the church" are auxiliary to the priesthood itself - which means that even the "office" of apostle is an appendage, governed by keys just like any other calling or office. We talked about the concept that Paul taught about all parts of the body being necessary and no more important than any other body part - that "appendages" are of equal importance when, as Elder Oaks said in the first paragraph of the talk, there is no "up and down" in the Church structure. We talked about the idea that, if ALL is subordinate to the priesthood itself and ALL is done with priesthood authority (and priesthood power), then appendages are complementary - especially when at the same organizational level within the Church. Thus, the Young Men quorums are the male equivalent of the Young Women classes (as complementary appendages), and the Relief Society is the female equivalent of the MP quorums. All of them are, based on Elder Oaks' reframing, "priesthood" groups - meaning they can act with priesthood authority and exercise priesthood power. He addresses this further in the following paragraph.

We also talked about what Priesthood "offices" means. I asked them what the word "office" means outside a discussion of the Priesthood. We agreed that offices are rooms (or spaces) where people do certain things that are assigned to them or that are their responsibilities. That basic definition works for Priesthood offices, as well - figurative locations that are "unlocked" (by keys) to allow people to do certain things therein. Using the AP offices, the Deacons are given access to one room where certain things are authorized to be done - and Teachers are given access to that room and one more, where other things are authorized to be done - and Priests are given access to those rooms and one more - etc. The "office" is nothing more than the authorization to do specific things - to be allowed into that room of the overall Priesthood house, per se.

How does this apply to women? In an address to the Relief Society, President Joseph Fielding Smith, then President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, said this: “While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, it has not been conferred upon them, that does not mean that the Lord has not given unto them authority. … A person may have authority given to him, or a sister to her, to do certain things in the Church that are binding and absolutely necessary for our salvation, such as the work that our sisters do in the House of the Lord. They have authority given unto them to do some great and wonderful things, sacred unto the Lord, and binding just as thoroughly as are the blessings that are given by the men who hold the Priesthood.”

I pointed out that, linguistically, President Smith had modified the first phrase ("While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood') to clarify what he meant ("it has not been conferred upon them [through ordination to an office])" - and how that is an important distinction, since it supports the concept that women DO have priesthood authority and can exercise priesthood power. He then said that women can do things that are "binding" AND "necessary for salvation" - that are just as "binding" as what men who have been ordained to offices in the Priesthood do. We talked about how the priesthood itself is the same no matter who uses it, which also means the admonitions in D&C 121 about unrighteous dominion apply equally to men and women. We talked about how "binding" and "sealing" mean, in practical terms, the exact same thing - and how women perform "sealing" ordinances in the temple, just like men. Again, the only restrictions in place right now are ordinance-specific - meaning men are authorized to do some things women currently can't do.

In that notable address, President Smith said again and again that women have been given authority. To the women he said, “You can speak with authority, because the Lord has placed authority upon you.”

We talked about how women have authority within themselves - that Priesthood keys don't let women use a man's priesthood but rather allow women to use the priesthood authority and power that the Lord has placed upon them (particularly in the temple, when they are endowed). Thus, the young women in the class don't use the Bishop's authority and power in their callings; they use their own.

He also said that the Relief Society “[has] been given power and authority to do a great many things. The work which they do is done by divine authority.” And, of course, the Church work done by women or men, whether in the temple or in the wards or branches, is done under the direction of those who hold priesthood keys. Thus, speaking of the Relief Society, President Smith explained, “[The Lord] has given to them this great organization where they have authority to serve under the directions of the bishops of the wards … , looking after the interest of our people both spiritually and temporally.”

Thus, it is truly said that Relief Society is not just a class for women but something they belong to—a divinely established appendage to the priesthood.

We finished with me explaining a "soapbox" issue - a pet peeve - of mine. I told them that I hope as they perform their callings in leadership positions, they never let their organizations be just classes and social clubs - that they treat them like Priesthood groups who have responsibilities to serve and bless people - that they never defer to others to tell them what to do but rather embrace their own authority and power to make decisions and receive personal revelation. I mentioned specifically Relief Society and Young Women, but I told the young men what I was saying applied to them, as well. I stressed that the adults in the youth organizations are not supposed to be the "leaders" or "decision makers" - that those roles are supposed to belong to the youth presidencies. I begged the young women to remember that when they move into Relief Society - that they are supposed to run that organization and report to the Bishop, not ask for permission in everything they do, and, particularly, not let it become just a class and a social club. I told them that there is tremendous potential for life-changing service in the Relief Society and that they need to lead the necessary change to make it what it can be.

I ended with the concept of new wine and old bottles, and I told them that a lot of members my age and older simply can't understand and accept the changes outlined in Elder Oaks' talk very easily, if at all - that the youth are the new bottles that can handle the new wine without bursting and that I hope they step up and help lead the older folks to where we need to go.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Our New Framing of the Priesthood - Elder Oaks

The topic this month is "Priesthood and Priesthood Keys".

I explained to the students that the lesson outlines had been written before Elder Oaks gave his talk in the April General Conference about the authority and power of the Priesthood, and we were going to go through his talk sentence-by-sentence and discuss what he said and how it changes the way we should talk about priesthood, keys, authority, power, offices and ordination from how we did so when I was their age.

For the purposes of this summary, I will quote the sentences we discussed and give a synopsis of the discussions. We only managed to discuss the first six paragraphs, so we will continue next week - and the following week, if necessary.

1) "We do not “step down” when we are released, and we do not “step up” when we are called. There is no “up or down” in the service of the Lord. There is only “forward or backward,”

I asked them if we really believe this, since it goes against everything about our natural person view of "positions and responsibilities". We talked about a corporate or college President being asked to become a secretary and how many would accept that change. We talked about members of the Church going from Bishop or Stake President to Nursery Leader.

2) While addressing a women’s conference, Relief Society general president Linda K. Burton said, “We hope to instill within each of us a greater desire to better understand the priesthood.” [Said Elder Oaks,] That need applies to all of us

The direct implication is that "all of us" don't understand the Priesthood well enough - that we all need to accept that our understanding needs to change and grow - that what we have believed in the past wasn't full and isn't good enough / adequate anymore. Thus, what Elder Oaks said after this point constitutes "new understanding" that needs to replace our old understanding.

priesthood ordinances and priesthood authority pertain to women as well as men.

I asked them how many of them had heard someone say in the past that priesthood authority pertains to women. None of them had heard that. I told them that Elder Oaks explained that change in the next few paragraphs, and that it is important to start thinking about women using Priesthood authority from now on.

President Joseph F. Smith described the priesthood as “the power of God" [to do lots of things].

So, at heart, "priesthood" can be defined as "power" - most specifically "power to do God's work" (to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man[kind]). Jesus is taught to have accomplished the immortality part (living forever as resurrected beings), so our work falls within the eternal life part (being / becoming like God).

“Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood [holders] to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth.”

We discussed the concept that, given this wording, changes to how priesthood authority and power are used is up to people who have keys to direct, control and govern - and, as we will read further on in the talk, ultimately we teach that Jesus has the final word. So, what happens in a ward is up to the Bishop, within some limitations directed by those who hold more keys (like the Stake Presidents and Apostles) and "confer" Bishop-specific keys on the Bishop (give them to him and authorize him to use them). Thus, at the local level, leaders with keys can do things differently in many ways than others at that same level but in different locations, subject to restrictions put in place by those with more keys.

As Elder M. Russell Ballard has explained, “Those who have priesthood keys … literally make it possible for all who serve faithfully under their direction to exercise priesthood authority and have access to priesthood power.”

We spent more time on this statement than any other one. I asked the students who, according to this sentence, can exercise priesthood authority and access priesthood power. It took a little time, but they came to see that ALL means all - so all who are set apart in any calling or who accept any assignment from someone having keys can exercise priesthood authority and access priesthood power. Focusing on the ward, that means it's not just men and young men who can exercise priesthood authority and access priesthood power, but it also is the YW class presidencies, the Primary and Relief Society Presidency, the Ward Chorister, the Librarians, the Primary and Sunday School teachers, etc. I asked them how often they had heard about any of those people exercising priesthood authority and accessing priesthood power - and none of them had heard that previously. I reiterated that this is something that they are going to have to accept and understand, even if older people like me struggle to do so from decades of hearing it explained differently.

In the controlling of the exercise of priesthood authority, the function of priesthood keys both enlarges and limits. It enlarges by making it possible for priesthood authority and blessings to be available for all of God’s children. It limits by directing who will be given the authority of the priesthood, who will hold its offices, and how its rights and powers will be conferred. For example, a person who holds the priesthood is not able to confer his office or authority on another unless authorized by one who holds the keys. Without that authorization, the ordination would be invalid. This explains why a priesthood holder - regardless of office - cannot ordain a member of his family or administer the sacrament in his own home without authorization from the one who holds the appropriate keys.

We talked about two things from this paragraph:

1) The limits on who will be given authority, hold office and receive rights and powers are set by the people who hold the keys - at whatever level they are. Thus, the enlarging also is in their hands - subject, of course, to what they perceive to be the will of the Lord. That can change, as was the case with OD2 and the lifting of the race-based Priesthood ban. People who previously had been unable to hold Priesthood office, perform Priesthood ordinances, attend the temple, etc. were authorized to do so from that point forward - because those holding the keys to direct, control and govern those things "enlarged" the former boundaries to include people who had been "limited" previously.

2) Even an apostle can't baptize his own grandchildren without the authorization of the Bishop, since that key (directing, controlling and governing right) is given to the Bishop to use.

With the exception of the sacred work that sisters do in the temple under the keys held by the temple president, which I will describe hereafter, only one who holds a priesthood office can officiate in a priesthood ordinance.

I asked if women can perform Priesthood ordinances in the Church, and their initial reaction was, "No." When I told them to re-read that sentence and then asked them the same question again, they all said, "Yes, but only in the temple." I asked them WHY women can perform Priesthood ordinances in the temple, and they saw that it is because Temple Presidents have been authorized to use their keys (that allow them to direct, control and govern what happens in the temple) to allow women to perform those ordinances there - even without "holding a priesthood office". (We will talk more about what Priesthood "offices" mean next week.) So, looking at that sentence, outside the temple, the distinction is that women currently can't hold priesthood offices. That "limitation" hasn't been removed, so an "enlargement" hasn't occurred like it did with OD2. I asked them if there was anything in the talk so far that said women never will be able perform priesthood ordinances outside the temple, and they saw that there isn't.  (I told them that we would talk about that topic next week as we continued to read more from the talk.) 

We ran out of time at that point, so we will pick up with the next paragraph next week.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: Truth and Error, Pure Doctrine and the Prieshood Ban

The topic this month is The Apostasy and the Restoration. There are five potential lesson outlines but, due to General Conference and Easter, there are only two Sundays available to teach about that topic. Therefore, I combined two lesson concepts last Sunday: "How can I recognize the difference between truth and error?" and "Why is it important to teach pure doctrine?"

I started the class by telling everyone that I really struggled to prepare this lesson, because I had felt some impressions about structuring it around something that might be seen as controversial by some members - but which I believe is probably the best example possible of why it is important to focus on pure doctrine, why it is important not to stray into the purely / highly speculative and how we should approach understanding anything in relation to truth and error.

We then read the first scriptural passage in the truth vs. error lesson outline - John 8:31-32. I read verses 25-29 to lay the groundwork to understand the context, focusing on the fact that Jesus started by talking about doing the will of the Father and then addressing 31-32 exclusively to those who "believed on him" - a subset of those to whom he had been teaching originally. Thus, 31-32 was said to believers - those who accepted his statement that he was representing the Father and were looking for a practical answer to what they should do with that belief.

John 31-32 says:

If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

We talked about the most important words in that passage: "continue", "truth" and "free". We discussed the idea that "continuing" means nothing more than "not stopping" - but, in Mormon theology, it also carries connotations of "progress" (which includes an inherent aspect of "growth and change"). It is that continuation of growth and change that, eventually, creates a "new creature in Christ" that is free - specifically from the limitations, restrictions, bonds, etc. that existed prior to "know(ing) the truth". Thus, the ultimate end of knowing truth from error is freedom from ignorance and all of its mortal applications.

We then discussed D&C 9:7-8 (all of 7 and the first sentence of 8), after discussing the context of the section, which reads:

Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind.

I mentioned to them how often we talk in the Church about the confirmation of the Holy Ghost in terms of how we feel (our spiritual/emotional/heart experience) but how little we tend to mention our minds as part of the testimony toolbox, if you will. I explained that I don't take anything as "pure doctrine" unless it speaks compellingly to BOTH my heart AND my mind - that there are things that resonate with my heart or mind but not with the other - that I try not to rely on only one of those things in constructing what I believe - that I only accept it as part of my own faith if I like how I feel and think about it. I told them that when there is a disconnect between the two, I try to dig deeper into the disconnected aspect and understand why the disconnect exists by looking more closely at it - not by ignoring it. I mentioned that problems can occur when either the heart or mind is allowed to dominate - that the heart alone can lead to emotional conclusions that aren't true, while the mind alone can lead to an intellectualism that denies feelings and can allow someone to lose sight of morality and humanity.

Focusing on "pure doctrine" is important in this process, because it explicitly is when we leave pure doctrine and move into speculation that things get all kinds of messed up and we become enslaved (not free) by our mistaken understandings.

I told them that this was the point over which I agonized in the preparation of the lesson. I wanted to use a real example of something that was not "pure doctrine" but which mutated into being seen as pure doctrine due to the mortal inability to distinguish between truth and error and the similar mortal tendency to hold on to false traditions and teachings. The best example I know of this is the Priesthood ban, so I mentioned the Joseph Smith Papers Project and the explanations of various things that the Church has published recently on lds.org in the Gospel Topics section.

First, I asked the students who was allowed to be baptized when the Church was established in 1830. They all answered that anyone of age could be baptized, regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, etc. I asked who could be ordained to an office in the Priesthood and attend the temple. They said all worthy members could attend the temple and all worthy men could be ordained, except for black men. (My daughter wasn't allowed to answer, since we have talked about all of this in the past.) I told them that answer was wrong - that, originally, there were no restrictions based on race and that a handful of black men had been ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood and endowed in the temple. I then summarized the lds.org explanation and talked about the prevailing "philosophies of men" and how they worked their way into our teachings - and how uniquely Mormon justifications arose when people tried to explain why the ban was in place. I mentioned the belief in a curse of Cain, the idea that the Church couldn't ordain black men in the political environment of the time, the belief that black men and women had been less valiant in the pre-existence / fence-sitters, etc. - and how those justifications allowed white people to think they were better than black people. I explained that every reference we have in our scriptures that might seem to support those conclusions to any degree occurs PRIOR to the life and death of Jesus - and that there are verses in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon that state, clearly, that, as of that time, ALL people were alike to God - including both black and white, explicitly.

We talked about how we all tend to explain rules, policies, commandments, counsel, etc. in order to justify them - in school, at work, in church and everywhere else. I mentioned Elder McConkie's statement in 1978 after OD2 and the rescinding of the ban about forgetting everything he and anyone else had said about the reason(s) for the ban - that they had spoken with limited light and knowledge and now had increased light and knowledge that repudiated everything they had said in the past. I stressed the importance of not holding so tightly to anything that they might lose the ability to let go when further light and knowledge appears, as I'm sure will happen in their lifetimes.

In the context of the lesson topics, we talked about how the entire thing might have been avoided if the early saints (including Pres. Young) could have let go of their bias against inter-racial marriage, focused solely on "pure doctrine" and been open to new understanding of truth and error. I told them that they never have to accept or believe something FULLY, without question or concern, simply because it is taught in the Church - that, ultimately, they have to receive confirmation in their hearts and minds about anything and, if necessary, hold onto hope and faith that what they can't accept or believe fully at the moment will change in the future - either the thing they can't accept or their personal understanding of it.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Balancing Two Lines of Communication

[Warning: This lesson summary is LONG.]

Today, we went through Elder Oaks' talk from General Conference in 2010 titled, "Two Lines of Communication".

For this summary, I'm going to highlight sentences from the talk that we discussed as we read the talk:

"We must use both the personal line and the priesthood line in proper balance . . . All should understand and be guided by both of these essential lines of communication."

I reminded them of how often in the past two months we have talked about exactly this principle - that balance means finding a point in the middle of extremes that works for us and allows us to live according to the dictates of our own consciences. I mentioned that Elder Oaks repeats this basic charge (to be balanced) throughout the talk and never, not once, stresses one line of communication over the other. Rather, what he does is lay out the pros and cons of each - or, more accurately, of relying too much on either.

"In the personal line, we pray directly to our Heavenly Father, and He answers us by the channels he has established, without any mortal intermediary."

I mentioned that this is a refutation of the old Catholic teaching that the Priest served as an intermediary between God and humanity - that this is what we discussed when we talked about "The Priesthood" and "the priesthood" in a previous lesson.

"The direct, personal line of communication to our Heavenly Father is based on worthiness"

I asked them what this means, in practical terms. Before any of them could answer, I asked them who is most worthy of communicating with Heavenly Father: each of us in the room, attending church or a homeless guy begging for money on the street or someone who used to be a member of the Church but had become inactive (or even started attending another church). After a few answers, two of them said, essentially, "You haven't given us enough information about the other people to know how worthy they are." I agreed, and we read Alma 41:5, which begins with:

"The one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good"

I asked what it takes to receive answers to prayers, and one of the students immediate answered, "Praying." That got chuckles, but everyone agreed.

We talked about "worthiness" being defined best, in the context of communicating with God, as "proper condition of the heart" and "willingness to ask, listen and accept" - rather than adherence to a checklist of do's and don'ts. It is measured more in terms of doing the best you can to follow what you believe. However, it also is influenced by actions that inhibit one's ability to hear - and the best example of this might be addictions that alter one's ability to see and feel clearly and/or act upon belief, knowledge and desires.

I asked them if they could think of a prominent example of someone who received communication from God without appearing to be worthy of it. Alma, the Younger, was mentioned immediately, but I pointed out that his father, the Prophet, had been praying continually for him - so some people could say that his communication really was a result of his father's worthiness. We then talked about Saul, of Tarsus, and his vision.

I told them to think about Saul and tell me who, in generic terms (as in what type of person), a "Saul" would be now - whom we might compare to Saul based on our own time and circumstances. Someone mentioned a person who leaves the LDS Church and then fights against it (an apostate in the clearest sense of the word), but I pointed out that Saul never had been a Christian in the first place. I told them that perhaps the best example would be a preacher who condemned and persecuted Mormons - a classic, traditional anti-Mormon agitator (like a man I know in Idaho who has made it his ministry's mission to lead members out of the LDS Church). I asked them why God would communicate directly with Saul, given how we would tend to call him an evil man if he lived in our time and persecuted us the way he did the early Christians.

We talked about the description of people who inherit the Celestial Kingdom - those who are "valiant" in their testimonies. Saul certainly was valiant and passionate and dedicated - and he was exactly that way after his conversion. Even though his actions prior to his conversion were not "worthwhile" in our eyes, he was "worthy" to receive communication from God. I emphasized that we can't dismiss other people's "revelations" and communications with God, simply because their actions aren't what we would consider to be worthy for us.

"On this personal line of communication with the Lord, our belief and practice is similar to . . . Christians (who believe in) . . . the principle Martin Luther espoused that is now known as 'the priesthood of all believers'."

I reminded them of the same conversation we had when talking about Priesthood and priesthood.

"The personal line is of paramount importance in personal decisions and in the governance of the family . . . the priesthood line, which operates principally to govern heavenly communications on Church matters"

We talked again, as we had in a previous lesson, about a church leader who confuses these "spheres of responsibility" (as one student phrased it) and tries to tell someone that s/he has received revelation for that person outside the realm of "church matters". I asked the students what they would say if a church leader walked up to them and said, "I have received a revelation that you should marry (a particular person)." They all agreed with one young man who said, "I wouldn't say it to the person, but I would think he was nuts." I told them that is a perfect, albeit extreme, example of what Elder Oaks said in the quote above - that each line of communication has its place and sphere and that neither should cross into the other.

"Some seek to have their priesthood leaders make personal decisions for them, decisions they should make for themselves through the personal line."

I told them about a member I know online who argues all the time with people almost solely by quoting former church leaders who agree with him. He ignores those that express different opinions and almost never includes original thoughts of his own. I like the man and try not to argue with him, but I am saddened by that type of "quote fighting" - since it says, at the core, that he wants church leaders to do his thinking for him and, therefore, has surrendered his own right to receive answers from God directly. I also mentioned that church leaders over time have disagreed about a lot of things, so it is impossible to rely on them ("mortal intermediaries", as Elder Oaks called them) to answer questions unanimously outside their callings as people who strive to use the priesthood line to "govern heavenly communications on Church matters".

Since we were starting to run out of time, I summarized the section on the priesthood line by telling them that Elder Oaks did the exact same thing in that section that he had in the section about the personal line: explain its place (the Church), its history (ancient to present) in the emphasis on "authoritative ordinances (sacraments)", the danger of underestimating its importance (at the extreme, rejection of "organized religion"), the tendency of some members to over-emphasize it and devalue the personal line, the need to not be "solely dependent on one priesthood leader or teacher for our personal testimony" to avoid being "forever vulnerable to disillusionment by the actions of that person" (and I mentioned that Prophets and apostles are included in that statement).

We read the paragraph about Joseph not being able to translate when he was upset and how he had to calm down, pray and apologize to Emma before he was able to translate again.

I asked everyone if they could draw something that represents, for them, the concept of two lines of divine communication - using a circle to represent each of them as an individual. One person drew two waves going through the circle that intersected occasionally within the circle. Another person drew a circle for God and a line between him and God, then another circle to the left of the line for the Church and lines going from God to the Church to him - ending up being a triangle. Another drawing was of multiple circles of increasing size (looking like a shooting target), the smallest being herself and each larger circle being a family, then the Church, then the community, then the world, then God - with the personal line of communication going out to family and then jumping ("tesseracting" - for those who had read "A Wrinkle in Time" or seen the new Superman movie) straight to God and skipping the other circles.

One of the students asked where the prophet fit into the drawing of multiple circles, and we ended up agreeing that he fits exactly where each one of them fits - with the only difference being how far out into the circles his line extends before jumping to God. I mentioned that the problems arise when someone confuses how far out the personal lines go and how far in the priesthood line goes.

I ended the lesson by explaining, once again, why I believe this concept of finding a balance that works individually is so important that it would come up again and again in our lessons - and I used "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" as a concrete example. One of the talks in Sacrament Meeting had included a reference to it, and the speaker had said that she believe it was for the membership more than those who are not members. I told them that I admire and respect that person greatly but that I disagreed with that statement. I said I believe it is directed primarily to "the world" - and that I have worked in my professional life in enough places that need some of the central messages badly - that some of those concepts literally would change the world if enough people really believed them. I talked about the paragraph about parental responsibilities - how there is a general statement about "primary responsibilities" that constitutes general guidelines for all (the priesthood line) but also a clear statement that puts the responsibility to figure out how to be "equal partners" based on "individual circumstances" that allow each couple to "adapt" individually (personal lines). I told them that such a balance (general outlines and personal adaptation) is what I read in Elder Oaks' talk - honoring and valuing each, but crafting a personal combination that is our own.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: "Following the Counsel Given by Priesthood Leaders"

Last Sunday, the lesson title was:

"Why is it important to follow the counsel given by priesthood leaders?"

I wrote that title on the board and then wrote the following on the leftt side of the board, under the title:

1) Follow vs. Obey
2) Counsel vs. Command
3) Sustain & Support
4) Group vs. Individual

I asked everyone for the first thing that came into their minds when I read the lesson title - whether that was an answer to the question or any other thought or comment. The responses were all answers to the title question, and I was impressed by how thoughtful and, in a couple of cases, nuanced they were. Among the responses were:

"Because they are older than we are and have years of experience."
"Because they are good people who only want the best for us."
"Because there has to be order in the Church, not chaos."
"Because they usually try to know what God wants and share it with us."
"Because they care about us, and what they say usually is good."

I agreed with all of those reasons, and I asked them how they would react if I changed the title to the following:

"Why is it important to obey the commands given by priesthood leaders?"

All of them immediately got the difference and expressed concern over that wording, so we moved into a discussion of the numbered list above. I won't got through all of it here, but it was a very good conversation that lasted about 15 minutes. (It helped that we had covered revelation and Priesthood & priesthood extensively over the past couple of months.)

We then read and discussed the following scriptures, which all were in the official lesson outline:

1) Ephesians 4:11-14 - We talked about some of the "purposes" for the offices listed (most of them) were institutional, while a few ("perfecting of the saints", "coming to a knowledge of the son of God") relate to personal growth - just as the reasons they had given at the beginning of the class were split between institutional and personal reasons. We talked about why it's important to distinguish between those purposes when determining whether or not to "follow the counsel given by priesthood leaders" - and I mentioned again the example I used of a High Priests Group Leader and spheres of revelation and stewardship in the lesson about Priesthood vs. priesthood.

2) D&C 1:38 - I asked them what the standard, easy interpretation of that verse might be. They agreed among themselves that it seems to say that church leaders speak for God. I told them that I was about to share my personal opinion, as I always do when that happens, and I told them that this verse is a perfect example of why I read scriptures very carefully, word-by-word, to see what meaning seems most likely and "true" to me.

We went phrase by phrase:

"What I, the Lord, have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself;"

This means that the Lord doesn't rescind anything he has said - that he doesn't "make excuses" for things he's said in order to get out of responsibility for saying it. In other words, "I stand by whatever I've said."

"and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my words shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled,"

This means that everything God has said will happen, even if it is after this earth is gone.

"whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

I asked them if they believe that everything a church leader says, even apostles and prophets, is the pure word of God. They all said no. We talked about things that have been taught in the past that we no longer teach or believe - like Paul's statements about women being silent in church and Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory. (They hadn't heard about that, so I gave them a very short, very simple summary.) I asked them if that makes Paul and Brigham disqualified as prophets, and they all said that it doesn't. I asked them if that was the case, what D&C 1:38 could mean.

That stumped them, so I broke down the last phrase and showed them that God's voice is singular - and so is the "voice" of (plural) servants. I told them that I read that verse to say that when something has been taught throughout our history by all of our prophets and apostles (when their "voice" is united), with no variation or disagreement, it's a very good bet that it is "what the Lord hath spoken". I told them that the list of those things is relatively small, like: there is a God, we are his children, love is important, Jesus is the Christ and our Savior and Redeemer, we need to repent, etc.

3) D&C 21:4-5 - We did the same reading exercise, and the students immediately recognized the importance of "as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me". We talked about those disclaimers, and I used the example, which I emphasized happens very, very rarely but does happen, of a Bishop whom they know is having an affair. That type of egregious sin invalidates the charge to "give heed to ALL his words" - even though we still ought to consider those words and give heed to those we can accept as coming from God while he serves in that office.

4) D&C 124:45-46 - They saw that the wording in this passage is phrased exactly like D&C 1:38 - with "voice" being singular.

I told them that we will be reading Elder Oaks' "Two Lines of Communication" and focusing again, like when we talked about institutional and personal revelation last month, on the need to balance both "lines of communication" Elder Oaks describes in that talk. I told them that 90+% of my time in the Church, I have been able to "follow the counsel given by priesthood leaders" - but that there have been quite a few times when I felt I had to speak up and express my disagreement with something or propose a different course. Whenever I felt that the final decision was not so damaging as to violate my core conscience, I have accepted that decision - especially when the decision was focused on the institution, not individuals. Whenever I felt the decision simply was something I couldn't do or support in good conscience, I said so and refused to "preach it", even if I still sustained and supported the leader whose decision it was. I also told them about the time I quit a job, with four kids and no job lined up, because I was asked to do something I couldn't do in good conscience.

I told them that I believe each of them, at least once in their life, will be in a situation where they have to make that type of decision, even if it might not be that extreme - and that I hope they are able to follow their own conscience in that situation.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: "P"riesthood and "p"riesthood - Power, Authority and Keys

Last Sunday was the first lesson about the Priesthood and Priesthood Keys.  I used the lesson to go into detail about what the Priesthood is and isn't and the difference between the Priesthood, the priesthood, power, authority and keys.  It was titled, "Priesthood and priesthood" - and I wrote each term above on the chalkboard, with definitions or descriptions under each one added as the lesson progressed. 

1) We started by reading from D&C Section 121.  I mentioned that we nearly always read the first part (Joseph's plea to the Lord) as completely separate from the last part (how to use the Priesthood) but that they are the beginning and end of the same section and, I believe, important to understand together.  I had them read verses 1-6, and I described what was happening in Joseph's life - that he was in the Liberty Jail for months under extreme duress as he heard about all the terrible things that were happening to his people.  I told them that I view this as the moment he finally "broke".  We read the verses and translated them into wording teenagers might use.

"Where are you, God?  Where are you hiding? How long will you watch and listen to your people suffer without helping them?  God, come out of hiding.  Let you anger and fury loose and wipe out our enemies!  If you remember us, we will praise you forever." 

Their translation of God's response was:

"My son, chill out.  Be at peace." 

God then went on to teach Joseph why the request had been an attempt to have God use the Priesthood unrighteously (the use of compulsion through the authority of the Priesthood - verses 36-37) - and he told Joseph how to use it righteously (verses 41-44). 

2) We read from the Bible Dictionary, in which "Priesthood" is not included, but "Priests" is.  It says that OT priests acted as mediators between God and the people - that they were able to "draw nigh to God" but the people weren't.  I pointed out that this structure was the same as the Catholic Church throughout the Middle Ages - and that it extended to the people being illiterate and not being able to read the Bible for themselves, relying totally on the Priests to tell them what it said and meant.  That changed dramatically with the Gutenberg Bible and the people being able to read and interpret on their own - and the subsequent rejection of the "Priesthood" being embodied in men and, instead, the "priesthood (of believers)" not requiring mediators between God and the people. 

I asked the students which model we have in the LDS Church, and they recognized that we have both "The Priesthood" and "the priesthood" - since we accept communication from God to church leaders but also personal revelation.  I told them that this structure is more complicated and can be messier than only having one of the models, but that I see it as an aspect of the "Restoration of ALL Things".  This means that the LDS Church has designated Priests, but it also allows everyone, male and female, to be priests.  (I will get into Priests and Priestesses and how this plays out in the temple in a later lesson.) 

2) I asked the students to define "Priesthood".  One of them said it is "the power of God" - so I wrote that on the board.  Another one said it is "the authority to act in the name of God" - so I wrote that also.  I then added that it is "an obligation to serve" and wrote that on the board, telling them I would talk about that later. 

3) Given those definitions and what we had discussed up to that point, I asked them what the difference is between "Priesthood" and "priesthood".  That stumped them, so I added "to perform ordinances" under Priesthood and "to hear and share God's word and do his work" under priesthood.  I called Priesthood the "administrative, formal" Priesthood and priesthood the "informal" priesthood. 

We talked about how every person ever born has the light of Christ and can receive revelation from the Holy Ghost - how every baptized member has committed to take the Lord's name upon them and renews that commitment each Sunday through the sacrament - how every temple endowed member makes covenants and receives promises relative to the priesthood (more detail in a future lesson), etc.  I mentioned that men are the only ones in the Church right now who can administer Priesthood ordinances outside the temple, but every member can speak and act in God's name and, therefore, every member (men, women and children) has that type of priesthood. 

4) We defined "authority" as "permission or right, given by someone to someone else".  Thus, young men in the Aaronic Priesthood have differing things they are authorized to do.  They have the same general authority, but they are authorized to do different things. 

5) We defined "power" as strength or ability, and we talked about how someone can have authority but no power - either due to general unworthiness or, going back to D&;C 121, by trying to compel someone to do what they say "by virtue of the priesthood" (lower case, interestingly).  I used them as examples, looking at one of the young women and mentioning that if she received personal revelation and tried to compel me to follow it, she would be using her priesthood authority unrighteously and, thus, would lose her priesthood power. 

6) I asked them what the purpose of Priesthood ordinances is.  That got some blank looks at first, so I asked them whom the "target" of the ordinances is - the people performing them or the people receiving them.  They got that distinction as we used baptism, the sacrament and healing blessings as examples.  I asked about vicarious temple ordinances - and I pointed out that those ordinances are a bit different in that we can receive the blessings of humility and having our hearts turn to our ancestors - that I don't see temple ordinances in quite the same way as non-temple ordinances, since I see just as much benefit to the "performer" as for the "recipient".

Thus, each and every one of them, male and female, regardless of the type of P/priesthood they hold, only can magnify that divinely representative power and authority righteously by serving others in the way that D&C 121:41-44 describe.  The performance of ordinances, notwithstanding, and the way those responsibilities have been assigned differently over time, in the way they are required to exercise what they have been given there is no difference between them; they all progress individually in exactly the same way.  

Mormonism's View of Authority Is a Combination of Protestant and Catholic

The following is a simplified generalization, but I think it is a useful and reasonably accurate one:

Martin Luther and other Protestant leaders of the Reformation realized very clearly that they did not have "The Priesthood" as it was understood at that time within Catholicism. In rejecting Catholicism, they also rejected the idea that God's authority was vested exclusively and totally in a few people through an ordination process (who were the only people required to read and know the word of God, and, therefore, stood as intermediaries between the people and God) - replacing that concept with the idea that God's authority was vested purely in His word (The Bible) and all true believers had the ability to read His word and act according to their own understanding of it ("the priesthood of believers").

Of course, this has been limited over time to be only those understandings of the Bible that don't contradict their own interpretations - which is ironic, given the foundation of the Reformation. Thus, in their construction, all who are "true believers" (not Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, and other deluded cultists) have the right to act in God's name (as true Christians), but God's actual authority lies only in the Bible.

So, the overall Mormon view of authority is kind of a combination of Catholic and Protestant views - since we maintain a formal, capital "P" Priesthood for the performance of binding ordinances but couple it with the general idea of a lower case "p" priesthood of believers who can read and act according to God's universal word, even though we don't talk about it in those terms. The "additional" aspect within Mormonism is that it posits that "His universal word" includes more than just the Bible - that it includes whatever he has said to all (truly universally) - and that individual believers actually can receive His unique word to them, even if it contradicts, occasionally, His universal word to all.

Therefore, in a nutshell, the Great Apostasy, as it is defined within Mormonism, began when the apostles no longer were able to gather and replace those who were being killed (to continue the ordinance-performing Priesthood) and was further entrenched when the priesthood of believers was eliminated by the Catholic Priesthood organization that removed from them the right and ability to read God's word and interact with God directly within their own spheres. The Reformation addressed the foundation of the second of these issues (allowing regular believers to interact directly with God through exposure to His word), while the Restoration addressed the extension of the second issue (re-establishing truly personal revelation as a universal right) and the first issue (re-establishing binding Priesthood ordinances).

"Reframing" and "Pruning" in the Church: The Priesthood Ban As an Example

I read the final part of Jacob 5 (the allegory of the olive tree) as the pruning of the modern church. That's the only way that it makes sense to me. Therefore, I have no problem accepting that "the bitter fruit" is part of the Restored Church. I don't want it to be there, and I pray it gets pruned out as quickly as is humanly (and divinely) possible, but it is interesting to contemplate that the Lord doesn't do the pruning; rather, his servants (we) do it.

To me, that means that much of the process of eliminating false doctrine and simple, social stupidity depends almost entirely on how ready and willing the membership is to participate in that process. "Servants" can be read narrowly as "prophets and apostles", but it also can be read more expansively as "all who have covenanted to serve" - and, given my upbringing in orchard country, the latter makes more sense to me in the overall context of pruning.

In that light, I am completely in support of "reframing" and "pruning" issues within the Church - on both an individual level AND an institutional level. I just believe the institutional reframing has to move more slowly than the individual reframing, since the institution has to be aware of the possibility of moving too fast collectively and damaging "good branches" that might survive and produce good fruit with slower, more cautious pruning. That "awareness" can be conscious on the part of the leadership, but it also can be an issue with the leadership needing to become more aware of what needs to be pruned.

I see Pres. McKay's unsuccessful efforts to end the Priesthood ban as a sort of preparation to prune (the digging about and dunging) - working tirelessly to get the tree ready for the pruning that Pres. Kimball eventually was able to initiate formally.

In other words, I believe Pres. McKay, especially, started to "reframe" the issue for many of the leading brethren - moving it from being seen as "doctrine" to being accepted as "policy", and then Pres. Kimball took over and finished the reframing. Once it was reframed collectively, the pruning revelation followed immediately.

Understanding and Combatting Unrighteous Dominion

When discussing unrighteous dominion, I believe the key verse is D&C 121:39. This verse is fascinating, and it often gets overlooked in order to focus on the other verses.

D&C 121:39 says:

We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

Let me highlight a few phrases and explore their implications for us today.

We have learned by sad experience

This was written toward the end of the D&C, after multiple examples of people who had exercised unrighteous dominion within the Church - and even been chastised in the records that formed the D&C. This wasn’t theoretical or focused on “outsiders” and “Gentiles”. It included “saints” and leaders. It even included Joseph Smith, especially when it is viewed as the culmination of the section that starts with Joseph begging God to wipe out all those who had been persecuting the Saints. That aspect is ignored almost completely in most discussions about unrighteous dominion, but I believe it is critical in order to understand what this verse really says.  Hence . . .

it is the nature and disposition of almost all men . . . immediately begin

The Lord couldn’t be clearer in using the words “almost ALL” and “immediately begin”. The temptation and tendency to exercise unrighteous dominion is nearly omnipresent within humanity and manifests itself immediately when authority is given or assumed.

get a little authority, as they suppose

There is a natural supposition about what “getting authority” means that lies at the heart of this issue - a misunderstanding of what it means to have godly authority and to what that authority is directed. The whole passage makes it clear that the authority is not directed toward control, but control is the central focus of authority for “the natural (wo)man”. Authority is supposed to mean something different in the Church (within the Gospel’s good news) than it does in the natural world. Almost all men, however, don’t make that distinction; therefore, they abuse Priesthood authority and lose the power that can be gained by becoming “unnatural” in this regard.

That fundamental misunderstanding is the heart of this issue - misunderstanding the principle that Priesthood authority only applies to performing ordinances and preaching the Gospel (according to Article of Faith #5) - not controlling others. (and, I would add, that this tendency exists in "almost all" women, as well - that "men" is used in D&C 121 due to the focus on formal offices within the Priesthood, but that the principle applies to almost all men and women - that this tendency can be seen in many, many ways and not just within the Church)

I believe the problem is that in order to avoid this natural tendency, the principle (the antidote) needs to be taught in the formative years before boys and girls become men and women - when they can learn to make the distinction and internalize the ideal. Much of the failing we see in this regard in the Church is because the sins of the fathers and mothers are visited upon the heads of the children - in this case, by passing on the tendency toward unrighteous dominion to their children.

The only antidote of which I am aware to the natural tendency toward unrighteous dominion is a relentless teaching of the principle of Priesthood as servant leadership within the Church, equally-partnered co-presiding in the home and “authority” as relating only to what is stated in the 5th Article of Faith. All of that is grounded in charity, so I also would suggest a steady dose of the Sermon on the Mount (especially the Beatitudes), 1 Corinthians 13 and D&C 121. If a young man or woman “gets it” when s/he studies those passages, especially, s/he can blunt the natural tendency to gravitate toward unrighteous dominion. It’s not quick, and it’s not easy, but it can and does work - and it’s critical. 

A Version of Lucifer's Plan I've Heard Some LDS Members Advocate

Someone I admire greatly said something in a thread a while ago that really bothered me. It is something I've heard stated previously, and I simply couldn't disagree more. He said:

If a church leader in authority over you asks you to do something, even if you question it (and you can certainly question them or someone "higher up"), you should just do it.

My response was:

No way.

That, in a nutshell, is Lucifer's plan. ("They will do exactly what I tell them to do, and they won't be punished in any way because they just are doing what they are told to do.") It also is in direct opposition to what our own apostles and prophets tell us regularly - **especially in the temple wording to wives and in D&C 121 with regard to unrighteous dominion**.

Let me explain that as clearly as I can:

Women in the temple are told quite clearly that they have NO obligation to hearken to their husbands simply because they are their husbands - that their husbands can be wrong, and, in those cases, they are not required to agree with or accept their opinions. Men are told explicitly in D&C 121 that their authority is gone when they try to rule on the basis of "because I said so".

Now, to be just as clear, I generally accept and do what is asked of me by church leaders, even when I disagree - but I can't support an extreme "just do it no matter what it is" stance. Leaders can fall, and leaders can give terrible advice - and, at the heart, I just don't support Lucifer's plan.

One more thing:

We hear all the time, and rightly so, that little transgressions can lead to little sins and to bigger sins - until, eventually, one can be excommunicated for serious sins. I accept that fully. Conversely, I believe the same applies to imposing meaningless restrictions. The acceptance of arbitrary and relatively unimportant restrictions can lead to an acceptance of more specific and damaging restrictions - until, eventually, freedom is lost and we are enslaved. Again, the fulfillment of this idea is Lucifer's plan.

The real irony of this is that those who advocate most vociferously for total obedience regardless in church generally are the same people who argue most vociferously AGAINST such a standard in politics. Take the quote I excerpted and apply it to political leaders . . .

Blessings Include the Prayer of Faith

This is a very personal topic for me, since some of my most intense and enlightening experiences have been associated with Priesthood blessings. I have had at least three experiences that simply can't be explained in any way other than the opening of the heavens and having divine messages delivered through my mouth. (I really mean that, and I guarantee that nobody could construct a reasonable argument with that conclusion if I did share the details.)

Having said that, I also believe strongly that there is a "gift" associated with healings. I don't mean a gift to be able to heal everyone of everything, and I don't even mean a "gift of healing power". What I mean is a gift to be able to ascertain the will of God in situations where the person will be healed or not healed - but where God has something He wants said regardless. I’m not certain it is a permanent and constant gift, but I am sure it is a targeted gift in those circumstances when He really does want to speak directly to the person (or even those listening). I really don't know how to describe it properly, but I do believe in it.

In my own case, there have been lots of times when I simply have not felt any particular inspiration - where I have not felt like a conduit for His words. In those cases, I simply have stated that I am the one blessing the person as a Priesthood holder ("I bless you . . .") and hoped that my sincere hope would be granted - and I have avoided making specific promises about healing. However, there have been lots of times when I have felt prompted to make certain clear and astounding statements - and often I have seen them fulfilled. Those instances could be explained away as just the natural healing process, and perhaps they were, but I take comfort in them, nonetheless. That, in and of itself, makes giving blessings worthwhile - and the possibility that God will, for whatever reason, rend the veil once every few hundred blessings makes the concept and the practice sublime to me.

I think ALL worthy individuals (inside or outside the Church) have the right and ability to bless others and pronounce promises of hope and faith, dependent on the will of God (whether through the Priesthood or not), but I am deeply thankful for my own experiences where the heavens opened and I spoke the word of God. It's hard to explain what that feels like, but I'm glad I waded through the "common" ones enough to experience the "uncommon" ones.