The Difference Between Organizational Priesthood Authority and the Authority of God

I was really glad to hear Elder Bednar's discussion of light and revelation in General Conference yesterday.  I've thought a lot over the years about the Priesthood power and authority - and revelation - and how it is available to so many people outside of our modern Priesthood structure, and I loved the way Elder Bednar addressed that issue - even though it wasn't direct but more tangential.  


Let me try to explain what I mean:

For as long as I can remember I have agreed with the classic definitions of the Priesthood as "the power and authority of God" and "the authority to act in the name of God" - but I have disagreed that such a definition is limited to men who have been ordained to offices within the administrative Priesthood structure. I have believed that there is a huge difference between "the comprehensive power and authority of God" and the implementation of organizational Priesthood authority. 

I believe ALL who covenant to take the name of God upon them (inside or outside the Church, irrespective of sex or age and no matter what specific name they use) have the authority to act in His name in some way and to some degree (unless they lose it through the type of abuse described in Doctrine & Covenants 121) and all who have access to the Holy Ghost can exercise His power (to some degree). In fact, I believe that is inherent in the very words of the sacramental prayer, the way that the Priesthood is exercised in the temple and our beliefs concerning revelation that can be received by all.

Given this fundamental belief, I define "the formal, organizational Priesthood" as it currently is implemented in the LDS Church in administrative terms - since that is how our own Article of Faith presents it. Therefore, I would tweak the definition of that Priesthood as follows:

"the authority to administer (oversee the performance of) eternal ordinances and to administer (oversee the performance of) the activities related to those ordinances, including preaching the Gospel"

I'm not arguing against the current structure of the organizational Priesthood responsibilities; not at all.  I'm just saying that there is a difference between the fullest definition of the power and authority of God and how the Priesthood is exercised currently within the Church - and I'm OK with that. 

Also, I'm not sure that everyone will understand what I am saying in this post (and I am concerned a bit that some will misunderstand), but I really don't think what I'm saying is controversial in any real way.  The definition above allows for MANY actions to be performed without organizational Priesthood authority but still through the more general authority of God - and, I believe, it is much truer to the actual way the Priesthood is used in the Church than the more common definition. I believe this is part of what Elder Bednar was saying in his talk about light and revelation, even though he didn't address the specific application I am making in this post.  

[Also, in the interest of full disclosure, my belief that women who have been endowed in the temple by the administrative Priesthood leave the temple with real power and authority as a result of that endowment also influences how I have tweaked the organizational, formal definition to focus more narrowly on "administrative rights" (as assigned responsibilities) rather than the more comprehensive "power and authority of God".] 

No New Year's Resolution Post This Weekend - So Stop By and Read an Old Post or Two

I have been traveling with my job this month, and I am exhausted.  I also have extended family in town visiting, and I need to spend time with them.  Therefore, I am not writing a New Year's resolution post tonight. 

If the title brought you here, go ahead and browse in whatever way you want.  I'd hate to have you visit and not read something that took some thought and contemplation, as this post certainly did not.  *grin*

Spiritual Time Thieves

When I speak, I don't like to waste any time - mostly because I believe in the importance of what I am saying. Every second I spend not dealing with the topic and my own take on it is a second I spend wasting the listeners' time - and I don't have the right to waste anyone else's time.

Introductions, jokes, sappy analogies, visual aids, long quotes, even scriptures - all of these things are not important when compared to the insights I can offer. My own life is far more important and interesting and enlightening than these other things that make me a spiritual time thief if I let them take precious moments from my allotted time.

This is true especially if Sunday falls on April Fool's Day. *GRIN* I hope I gotcha with this one!

We Are Not Stuck in the Past

My Sophomore Talk - Tracy M (By Common Consent)

Is Twilight Porn in Print?

I read an interesting review of the Twilight books that went to great lengths to explain why the books should be considered porn in print. The following was my response:

1) Pornography without sex is not pornography, in my opinion. Just as we should avoid restricting our definition of pornography in such a way that we allow soft core porn to go unlabeled, we also need to avoid the Victorian impulse to widen the definition to such a degree that it encompasses nearly everything that arouses sexually - including lingerie and erotic language and other things that are perfectly appropriate within a marriage. It's a fine line, but it's a line that can be as destructive on one side as on the other.

2) Why is "sexless romance" a bad thing for teenagers? These are teenagers! What's the proper alternative for those who feel they love each other?

To deny sexual attraction and tension in teenage relationships is very dangerous and ignorant. I know a young woman who grew up hearing that sex was dirty and horrible (and that "good girls" don't like sex before marriage). When she first felt aroused and realized how good it felt, she automatically labeled herself a bad girl and decided she might as well enjoy it. A teenage pregnancy later . . .

Again, why is sexless romance a bad thing? We live in a sexually arousing world. My teenagers are going to be sexually aroused - my boys AND my girls. Writing about sexual tension and desire that remains unconsummated is a bad thing? What should we do - write things that don't mention sexual desire or write about giving in to it? I only see those three options. Am I missing one?

3) I understand intellectually the concerns others have about the books, especially some of the messages it can send girls, but I like the message it sends to boys. Bella really loves Edward, and, like many young women, she is trusting and vulnerable - and it would be easy for Edward to take advantage of her. He doesn't. He respects her, literally rising above his nature in more ways than one to exercise self-control and help make the relationship work and flourish without sex. Yep, what a lousy example that is for teenagers. Girls certainly shouldn't fall in love with boys who have excellent self-control and don't try to have sex with them.

4) My daughters are huge fans, and they understand the issues everyone highlights. Their response to me when we discuss the books is the same one I hear from nearly all of their friends:

"We have a choice between books that glorify sex (or assume it's no big deal and unavoidable), sappy books that deny sexual attraction altogether or books that admit it up front and say it's OK to not give in - and that says boys are just as responsible for that as girls. Which option is the most realistic? Which one would you rather have us read?"

I understand what they are saying and, given many of the alternatives out there, I can't argue with it.

5) Plus, to reiterate for those of you who haven't read the books or seen the movie, Edward is not a "bad boy". He only looks like a bad boy to those who don't know him - who judge him based on his appearance. There is a huge difference, and it gets botched constantly in reviews by adults I read. Again, the alternative is to look at someone and judge them based on first visual impression. How is that a good thing?

Do I love the books? Not really. I just disagree strongly with many reviews, and calling them "porn" really, really bothers me.

Understanding Abuse and Abusers: A Survivor's Insightful Post

"It's Not You, It's Me" - Silver Rain

Modern Prophets & Ancient Prophets - One Standard

Modern prophets probably should be held to the same standard that can be applied reasonably to Biblical prophets. If some of the actions of those prophets still allowed them to be considered prophets (think Samson and Moses) and some of their teachings are allowed to be considered products of their less enlightened cultures (think Paul and nearly the entire OT), I'm not sure exactly where the line should be drawn. 

I just know that many people now hold modern prophets to a standard that essentially would eliminate all former prophets from consideration - especially since we only have a very limited, subjective, carefully-constructed, airbrushed snapshot of those former prophets. Too often, people forget that basic fact.

The Key to Receiving God's Image in Our Countenances

As I read the scriptures, it appears to me that Christ didn't accept His part of the Atonement because He wanted to get glory; He left the issue of reward in the hands of His father - no strings attached. He did it because He loved us - pure and simple. He showed that love by laying down His own life for us - by becoming a "minister" and a "preacher". He didn't do it for a personal reward; He did it for our reward. 

Frankly, I don't think we will gain an eternal reward by trying to earn an eternal reward. I think we will receive an eternal reward when we quit trying to earn it and focus instead on helping others in whatever way we can - when we end up forgetting about being rewarded and simply love and serve and obey for the sheer joy of doing so and seeing the results in the lives of others. We won't be "given" anything; rather, we will be changed into a condition acceptable to Him. In other words, we will become something - and that something will be Christ-like and godly.

I think we will not be perfect (complete, whole and fully developed) until we can act for our Savior in the "at-one-ment" of others (individually and as a community) - in the process of relieving their suffering, taking their pain and misery from them, bringing them joy and comfort, caring for them in a real and powerful and practical way, and empowering them to do so for others (individually and as a community).

In other words, I believe we receive His image in our countenances most fully by living and loving and serving as He did.  Sometimes we focus so much on his death and resurrection and "godhood" that we improperly devalue his life and "humanity" - but it is that life and humanity that we can emulate and that can engrave his image into our very being. 

Condescending to Not Be Condescending

"Condescend" is a verb, but it also has a very different meaning as an adjective.

As a verb, "to condescend" means "to put aside one's dignity or superiority voluntarily and assume equality with one regarded as inferior". In that sense, Jesus condescended to assume equality with us - to become "as one of us", subject to all of our problems and suffering (include death).

As an adjective, "to be condescending" means "to deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner". It means making sure others know of one's higher status - that one is choosing to lower himself to deal with those who still are below him.

In other words, being condescending is the opposite of what is meant by Christ "condescending" to become as one of us. Christ lived as a servant - as the lowest and least important. He didn't claim his rightful privilege as our Lord during mortality, and he didn't "lord it over" those with whom he associated. He condescended to not be condescending, so to speak.

In my own words, he agreed to two manifestations of "at-one-ment" - first, by closing the gap that existed between us prior to his birth, and, second, by closing the gap that otherwise would have existed between us after our deaths.

Another Profound Discussion of Homosexuality and the Mormon Church

Zeitcast 3.9.1: MikeInWeHo, Part II - Scott B. (By Common Consent)

Comment #13, by Kevin Barney, is particularly insightful.