Which Is Greater: The Priesthood Or The Church?

[Jason]

So I'm relooking at this theological question again, after thinking a bit about "Serg's" questions on female priesthood ordination.

Im not sure that this question has been very well developed by theologians in the LDS church, but perhaps someone has a few things they can bring to the discussion table?

Im going to try and keep this OP short, and hope for more information before we go any further. Here are my thoughts on this issue: The Priesthood is the power of God, and the Church is a vehicle used by the Priesthood to bring about God's will.

Ok so far?

Now, today it seems that the Church and the Priesthood are considered ONE and unseperable. While that may be the case, is that truly the situation? Have we not all seen instances where there was no Church but there was a visible Priesthood? Let me quote from an old article I wrote 7-8 years ago:

Another Book of Mormon example is the story of Alma, who was a priest of wicked king Noah. Following the powerful testimony of the prophet Abinadi, he secretly began to teach the gospel to the inhabitants of Lehi-Nephi. He then took with him all of the believers to the waters of Mormon. There he baptised them by the power and authority of God, or the Holy Priesthood, into the church. In the book of Mosiah, we read the following:

"And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward. And it came to pass that whosoever was baptised by the power and authority of God was added to his church. And it came to pass that Alma, having authority from God, ordained priests. . . to teach them concerning the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. And now, Alma was their high priest, he being the founder of their church. And it came to pass that none received authority to preach or to teach except it were by him from God. Therefore he consecrated all their priests and all their teachers; and none were consecrated except they were just men." (Mosiah 18:17-18)

Joseph Fielding Smith explained this unusual line of authority by pointing out that Alma only organised a branch of the Church. The main body still residing in the land of Zarahemla. (Answers to Gospel Questions 3:39) Showing that where "two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20) Alma received no authority from the leaders of the Church in Zarahemla, yet possessed the power and authority of God, or the Priesthood, and was given permission to organise a Church, or according to Joseph Fielding Smith, a branch of the Church. Alma later led his 'branch' to Zarahemla to join with the main body of the Church, and became the High Priest over the entire Church.

[Others however, take the view that prior to Alma setting up the Church in the land of Mormon there was no organised Church in existence, and that the people were under the direction of their Priesthood head (Mosiah), rather than a Church President. The Book of Mormon speaks of Mosiah giving Alma, "the authority over the Church" (Mosiah 26:8) and "the charge concerning all the affairs of the church," (29:42). It also states that, "Alma did establish the church among the people, yea, the first church which was established among them ..." (3 Nephi 5:12), and that he was, "the founder of their church." (Mosiah 23:16; 29:47) This would infer that the offices of Priesthood head (Mosiah) and Church President (Alma) were two different offices, and that the organisations of Priesthood and Church could (and indeed had prior to this point) exist and operate separately.]

Of course, you could add that Joseph Smith held the Priesthood before there was a Church organized.

A few more quotes:

"The Church is the body of believers, organised by the Priesthood according to divine law." (Widtsoe, Priesthood and Church Government 174)

"The Church may be said to arise from the Priesthood. Comprehensively defined it may be said to be an organisation of people including all officers and members who believe in and endeavour to incorporate in their lives God's Truth; who have obeyed the ordinances or sacraments appointed of God for salvation and admission into his Church; whose officers are of divine appointment and commission, (that is, possessed of divine authority, the Priesthood) guided by and ever present inspiration from God, and walking within reach of an ever present and continuous source of immediate revelation." (B. H. Roberts, The Seventy's Course in Theology 13)

The administration of church government is wholly dependent upon priesthood authority. The Church depends upon the priesthood for its administration and 'the priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations." (O. McConkie God and Man, 101)

"We learn from the Doctrine and Covenants that the Priesthood existed with others than with [or in addition to] Abraham and his direct descendants. For instance, one Esaias is named as being contemporary with Abraham and blessed of Abraham, but that Esaias himself received the Priesthood 'under the hand of God.' That he (Esaias) conferred it upon Gad: Gad upon Jeremy, and Jeremy upon Elihu, and Elihu upon Caleb, and Caleb upon Jethro, Jethro, who was the priest of Median with whom Moses sojourned forth years after his flight from Egypt, and whose daughter he married– Jethro conferred the priesthood upon Moses. (D&C 84:6-13) So that Moses himself received the priesthood from a line of men holding it who were not descendants of Abraham. . . . and therefore we have knowledge of the Gospel existing not only with Abraham and his successors, but with this independent line of men also [both being recognised by the Lord]" (The Seventy's Course in Theology, 93)

Ok so far?

Now if we accept that the Priesthood and the Church are seperate, and we accept that the Priesthood is in fact 'greater' than the Church, then we must decide if holding the Priesthood is a permanent thing. Now, let's consider a man is excommunicated from the LDS church. Now according to the Church Handbook of Instructions, if a man was endowed and Ordained, he must have an ordinance called "restoration of blessings" in order to be restored to his former position. According to my understanding of the CHI, this does not mean you are re-ordained, but simply restored. Hence, I theorize that you never "lose" your Priesthood, but you simply are forbidden from exercising said Priesthood without the consent of the Church.

Now this seems to be a theological stalemate. If the Priesthood is greater than the Church, can the Church exercise dominion over the Priesthood?

I realize that most LDS believe that the Church cannot fail or fall astray (anymore), therefore this is not a plausaible situation. But, since it's happened before, let's assume it could happen again. Can the Church remove a righteous Priesthood holder's authority?

Let's also consider that if (im going on this theme of "if") the Priesthood is greater, and if the Church cannot remove a "righteous" man's Priesthood, then we must enter the realms of theological speculation and consider the possibility that righteous actions performed by this theoretical man's Priesthood are valid.

- Enter Roman Catholic theological doctrine -

According to the RCC, once a man is ordained to the Priesthood, he always remains a Bishop or Priest, whether he is excommunicated or whatever. An excommunicated Bishop may even ordain a man a Priest, and his ordination is considered "valid but illicit". Meaning that it's a true ordination, but it was done contrary to will of the Church, what they would call Church Law.

---

Could the LDS church possibly accept such a doctrine as the RCC uses? Does the LDS church actually accept unofficially this position when you find an unworthy man ordaining another to the Priesthood, only to discover later that this man ordaining was technically unworthy to ordain in the first place? The reason I bring this us is due to the following scripture verse:

"That they (the rights of the Priesthood) may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man." (D&C 121:37)

[Ray]

You’ve brought up some good information, Jason, and while it seems strange to me that you can’t see the solution to your issue even when the information is in front of your face, I'll accept the fact that you do not see it and try to help you understand.

…a man is excommunicated from the LDS church… restored to his former position… not… re-ordained, but simply restored… never <losing his> Priesthood, but… simply forbidden from exercising said Priesthood without the consent of the Church.

That is a true scenario, Jason, and you among all people should know that.

Now, can you tell me the difference between losing your Priesthood and not being permitted to ever use it again?

… If the Priesthood is greater than the Church, can the Church exercise dominion over the Priesthood?

Yes, because the Church consists of people who have the Priesthood, including some who have the authority to revoke the authority of others who have the Priesthood.

Can the Church remove a righteous Priesthood holder's authority?

You already answered that question above, and I've already given you the answer, but to try to help you understand it better I'll rephrase it in other words.

The Church consists of people who have the Priesthood, including certain people who have some keys, and those keys give them the authority to bind and loose in heaven what they bind and loose on Earth, which means they can revoke the authority of others as well as restore their authority to you.

[LionHeart]

This is a question that I have thought of alot: does the priesthood govern the Church or does the Church govern the priesthood? The answer must be that the priesthood governs the Church. Here is a quote by Brigham Young on the matter; this statement was made at the time there was the debate about whether Brigham Young or Sydney Rigdon should lead the Church:

I do not care who leads the Church, even though it were Ann Lee; but one thing I must know, and that is what God says about it. I have the keys and the means of obtaining the mind of God on the subject……

Does this Church want it as God organized it? Or do you want to clip the power of the priesthood, and let those who have the keys of the priesthood go and build up the Kingdom in all the world, wherever the people will hear them?

Although people think that Brigham Young became the president because he was the president of the twelve, this is the real reason he was chosen. The practice of making the president of the twelve the president of the Church wasn't adopted as the official method till later on. I'm not sure how late, but I know that Joseph F. Smith was the second counselor, and unofficially the first counselor to Lorenzo Snow when he was chosen to be the president.

Here is another later statement by Brigham Young on the same subject:

A man may be a prophet, seer, and revelator, and it may have nothing to do with his being President of the Church. Suffice it to say, that Joseph was the President of the Church as long as he lived: The people chose to have it so. He always filled that responsible station, by the voice of the people. Can you find any revelation appointing him the President of the Church? The keys of the priesthood were committed to Joseph, to build up the Kingdom of God on the earth……But when he was called to preside over the Church, it was by the voice of the people; though he held the keys of the priesthood, independent of their voice.

[Jason]

Howdy Ray. Im glad you stopped by.

Originally posted by Ray

You’ve brought up some good information, Jason, and while it seems strange to me that you can’t see the solution to your issue even when the information is in front of your face, I'll accept the fact that you do not see it and try to help you understand.

Ok.

I said: "…a man is excommunicated from the LDS church… restored to his former position… not… re-ordained, but simply restored… never <losing his> Priesthood, but… simply forbidden from exercising said Priesthood without the consent of the Church."

Ray replied:

That is a true scenario, Jason, and you among all people should know that.

Why? Because Im a student of Mormonism, or what? Perhaps you forgot that I wasn't excommunicated, and therefore have no experience with excommunication. I resigned my membership, that's it.

Now, can you tell me the difference between losing your Priesthood and not being permitted to ever use it again?

That's part of the question, Ray. Who decides whether you can use your Priesthood or not? Is it God, or the Church?

I said: "If the Priesthood is greater than the Church, can the Church exercise dominion over the Priesthood?"

Ray replied:

Yes, because the Church consists of people who have the Priesthood, including some who have the authority to revoke the authority of others who have the Priesthood.

That really doesn't make any sense Ray. Just because the Church has members of the Priesthood guiding and directing it, does not give the Church authority over the Priesthood. If all the members of the Priesthood withdrew from the Church, would the Church continue to exercise dominion over the Priesthood? (Of course this is all hypothetical, but try and humor me, ok?)

I asked: "Can the Church remove a righteous Priesthood holder's authority?"

Ray replied:

You already answered that question above, and I've already given you the answer, but to try to help you understand it better I'll rephrase it in other words.

The Church consists of people who have the Priesthood, including certain people who have some keys, and those keys give them the authority to bind and loose in heaven what they bind and loose on Earth, which means they can revoke the authority of others as well as restore their authority to you.

But what about the D&C which states that ". . . the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven. . ." (Doctrine and Covenants 121:36) Notice it does not say connected with the powers of men holding keys on earth. That's a big difference there Ray.

Anyway, thanks for thinking about it anyway.

[Traveler]

Jason: You have some confusion with Priesthood and Priesthood keys. This also concerns "agency". You have also confused the terms of excommunication and resigning your membership. Regardless if you have removed your membership from communion or if you were put from communion you are no longer in communion with the body of members and therefore excommunicated.

If you are excommunicated you have no right to the priesthood or legal claim to any priesthood ordinances or covenants. There is a slight difference in your status because you once entered into priesthood covenants. You are forever responsible for that covenant but by removing you membership you are not held to any additional responsibilities under the covenant. You can be restored to your priesthood but the requirement for restoration is greater than for just receiving the priesthood for the first time. Thus the difference in terms.

Now to highlight covenants and responsibilities. Those that hold the priesthood are under covenant to their priesthood leaders (See D&C 84). As with any legal contract failure to up hold your obligations will result in the nullification of covenant blessings and will enable covenant curses or penalties. If you disagree with a priesthood leader you have a number of options. One is to refer to the next higher authority of the priesthood. Another option is to become an agent unto one self thereby taking upon yourself all the obligations and releasing the priesthood leader from any responsibilities or consequences. If you do this then at the judgment you answer directly to the L-rd for your actions. If you are right then all is well for you - if you are wrong then you have taken the consequences to yourself. The final option is to do as your leader has directed. Under the covenant you are released of any responsibilities and your priesthood leader must answer for misdirecting you. This is why one can never go wrong in following their priesthood leaders. It is the legal "I was following orders" excuse.

The Traveler

[Ray]

Heh, okay, that didn’t work, so I’ll try to use other words which you can understand.

First of all, replace the word “Church” with the words “people in an organization known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”.

Okay so far?

Now replace the word “Priesthood” with the words “people who have authority from our Lord, or what are known as the keys”.

Are we still okay so far?

Heh, I certainly hope so.

And supposing for a moment that you do understand that, now try to understand this thought:

The Church has no authorization to do any work for the Church unless that work is authorized by the Priesthood.

You should be able to agree with that thought, because you were saying the same thing.

And if it helps any, try thinking of it this way too:

Priesthood is the power in the Church, because the Church is governed by the Priesthood.

Now, combine all of those thoughts together and you will then have this true statement:

People in an organization known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have no authorization to do any work in the Church, unless their work is authorized by people who have authority from our Lord, or what are known as the keys.

And btw, if you still don’t understand me, I suggest that you ask God to explain it to you.

Oh, and one more thing.

As I said before, the “Priesthood” refers to “people who have authority from our Lord or what are known as the keys”, and they bind and loose in heaven what has been bound and loosed on Earth, so if you think you have any authority from our Lord, independent of the Church or any others who have the Priesthood, you should go ahead and try to give yourself all the blessings you can while you are on Earth as well as in heaven.

Oh. Oh. And one more thing… :)

. . . the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven. . ."

… means the same thing as saying…

the rights of the people who have authority from our Lord, or what are known as the keys, are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven

… in the sense that what those people bind and loose on Earth is also bound and loosed in heaven.

But you already knew that, didn’t you?

[Jason]

Hi Traveler, thanks for stopping by.

Jason: You have some confusion with Priesthood and Priesthood keys. This also concerns "agency". You have also confused the terms of excommunication and resigning your membership. Regardless if you have removed your membership from communion or if you were put from communion you are no longer in communion with the body of members and therefore excommunicated.

That's very similar to the Roman Catholic idea of excommunication. But is excommunication actually losing one's Priesthood? Or in my case, since I resigned my church membership, did I or can I resign my Priesthood ordination? (Theoretically speaking of course, im not trying to prove a point.)

If you are excommunicated you have no right to the priesthood or legal claim to any priesthood ordinances or covenants. There is a slight difference in your status because you once entered into priesthood covenants. You are forever responsible for that covenant but by removing you membership you are not held to any additional responsibilities under the covenant. You can be restored to your priesthood but the requirement for restoration is greater than for just receiving the priesthood for the first time. Thus the difference in terms.

Now are we talking about priesthood activity within the Church, or without the Church?

Now to highlight covenants and responsibilities. Those that hold the priesthood are under covenant to their priesthood leaders (See D&C 84). As with any legal contract failure to up hold your obligations will result in the nullification of covenant blessings and will enable covenant curses. If you disagree with a priesthood leader you have a number of options. One is to refer to the next higher authority of the priesthood. Another option is to become an agent unto one self thereby taking upon yourself all the obligations and releasing the priesthood leader from any responsibilities or consequences. If you do this then at the judgment you answer directly to the L-rd for your actions. If you are right then all is well for you - if you are wrong then you have taken the consequences to yourself.

Now this is what Im driving at. If I take upon myself the responsibility of my actions, with or without the Church, I am responsible to God directly. This is the "valid but illicit" idea of Roman Catholicism. Can you elucidate that last part of your comment any further?

The final option is to do as your leader has directed. Under the covenant you are released of any responsibilities and your priesthood leader must answer for misdirecting you. This is why one can never go wrong in following their priesthood leaders. It is the legal "I was following orders" excuse.

The Traveler

Haha. Of course.

[Dr T]

Interesting question Jason, thanks.

Ray, I’ve read a number of your responses and they come off as patronizing and/or pedantic. Do you realize that you’re doing that? If not, now you know. If you are, what purpose does it serve?

Thanks,

Dr. T

[Jason]

Ray, thanks for coming back.

Heh, okay, that didn’t work, so I’ll try to use other words which you can understand.

First of all, replace the word “Church” with the words “people in an organization known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”.

Okay so far?

Now replace the word “Priesthood” with the words “people who have authority from our Lord, or what are known as the keys”.

Are we still okay so far?

Heh, I certainly hope so.

Of course.

And supposing for a moment that you do understand that, now try to understand this thought:

The Church has no authorization to do any work for the Church unless that work is authorized by the Priesthood.

You should be able to agree with that thought, because you were saying the same thing.

And if it helps any, try thinking of it this way too:

Priesthood is the power in the Church, because the Church is governed by the Priesthood.

Now, combine all of those thoughts together and you will then have this true statement:

People in an organization known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have no authorization to do any work in the Church, unless their work is authorized by people who have authority from our Lord, or what are known as the keys.

And btw, if you still don’t understand me, I suggest that you ask God to explain it to you.

Ok. So you're saying that the Church can't do anything without the Priesthood. I understand that Ray. Now back to my hypothetical question: "Can the Church unjustly make a ruling stripping a man of his Priesthood?" I think the answer is yes, but I'd love to have you tackle that hypothetically speaking.

Oh, and one more thing.

As I said before, the “Priesthood” refers to “people who have authority from our Lord or what are known as the keys”, and they bind and loose in heaven what has been bound and loosed on Earth, so if you think you have any authority from our Lord, independent of the Church or any others who have the Priesthood, you should go ahead and try to give yourself all the blessings you can while you are on Earth as well as in heaven.

Sort of like Alma in my Book of Mormon example from the OP, or perhaps like Jethro, Moses' father-in-law or even Melchizedek? Are you offering that it is possible for a Priesthood holder to exercise his authority independent of the organized Church? And if so, who is a candidate for this and who is disqualified?

Oh. Oh. And one more thing… :)

". . . the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven. . ."

… means the same thing as saying…

"the rights of the people who have authority from our Lord, or what are known as the keys, are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven."

… in the sense that what those people bind and loose on Earth is also bound and loosed in heaven.

But you already knew that, didn’t you?

I know that many if not practically all LDS believe this. Im just offering some speculative thoughts here, offering the possibility that a Righteous man (as you understand righteousness) could hold the Melchizedek Priesthood and perform righteous duties wholly independent of, and apart from the leadership and Priesthood of the LDS Church proper.

[Ray]

Interesting question Jason, thanks.

Ray, I’ve read a number of your responses and they come off as patronizing and/or pedantic. Do you realize that you’re doing that? If not, now you know. If you are, what purpose does it serve?

Thanks,

Dr. T

Yeah, yeah. I've heard that before. But I think the person who tells someone else they are being patronizing and pedantic is actually the one who is being patronizing and pedantic.

Funny how it works that way, huh? :)

And btw, next time, please try to say something informative and instructive, instead of trying to criticize me for what I have had to say.

[Dr T]

Hello Ray,

I debated posting that for fear that you would be offended. I thought that maybe you didn't realize how you were coming off to people and I thought I would have the integrity to bring it up to you directly. I should have PM'ed it to you. I apologize. I just thought of that as I was writing this. I hope to have interesting dialogue with people on this forum and I really enjoy the topics here, but when it turns to patronizing, it becomes off-putting. Your accusation that I was being patronizing or pedantic confuses me. I was not feeling better, or more intelligent than you or was not splitting hairs in my post to you in any way .

next time, please try to say something informative and instructive, instead of trying to criticize me for what I have had to say

I thought I was being informative about the way you come off, but as you said, you have heard that before-yet you continue to post in that way. Do you often ignore feedback? Since I'm new here and havn't experienced you much, I don't know if you find that it helps you get your points across by using that type of post or if you are often dismissed on this board?

Look forward to finding out as I go along,

Dr. T

[Ray]

I was not feeling better, or more intelligent than you or was not splitting hairs in my post to you in any way.

That’s interesting, because I also was not feeling <patronizing> or <pedantic> to you or anyone else in any way either, and yet you gave as your opinion that I was “coming off” as being patronizing and pedantic.

And just in case I might be able to clear up this point for you, which I doubt considering what my track record appears to be with you so far, I was saying that any mortal who considers themselves qualified to state that another mortal is “speaking down” to other mortals is a mortal who is being patronizing, because they are the ones who feel better or more “superior” to other mortals so much so that they feel they can evaluate and accuse and judge other people of having a “superior” attitude.

And btw, doc, no matter how much you believe that piece of paper you got from a college qualifies you as someone who is qualified to evaluate and accuse and judge other people who pay you to tell them what you think, I neither asked nor am I interested in your “superior” opinion of me and my attitude.

Or in other words, stick to the subject matter, doc, and don’t go gettin all personal.

Ray: … next time, please try to say something informative and instructive, instead of trying to criticize me for what I have had to say

Dr. T.: I thought I was being informative about the way you come off, but as you said, you have heard that before-yet you continue to post in that way.

Heh, while you did convey some information, you were being judgmental of how I think, and if it helps you to better understand what I was saying I’ll rephrase it for you again.

Next time, please try to say something informative and instructive, without trying to criticize me personally for what I have had to say.

Do you often ignore feedback?

Heh, yep, especially when I know I know a subject better than someone else who only thinks they know it better than me.

For instance, in this case, your “feedback” was to tell me that I was “coming off” as being “patronizing and pedantic”, and since I immediately saw that as a judgment call, and I knew my own attitude regarding how I was feeling and what I was thinking, I dismissed what you said in your “feedback” while trying to better inform you about me.

And btw, whether you realize this or not, when a person receives information from another person, there is a fine line in determining whether or not the person who gives the information is being patronizing or is simply being informative, and nobody knows the truth of that matter better than the person who is giving the information.

Or in other words, while you may choose to believe I was being patronizing and pedantic, I wasn’t, and I know that, so your opinion of my attitude is irrelevant and based on a false idea.

Since I'm new here and haven't experienced you much, I don't know if you find that it helps you get your points across by using that type of post or if you are often dismissed on this board?

If people choose to dismiss what I have to say because they choose to think I have a superior attitude, and they would rather not learn or gain information from someone when they believe they have a superior attitude, the first mistake they made was in judging me, and the second mistake was their decision to not gain some information from someone no matter how well they appear.

Or in other words, if people are only willing to learn from “books with a nice cover”, or “people who are attractive”, or “people who gain their attention because they say only what they want to hear”, those people are choosing to avoid to learn simply because the people who convey the information don’t conform to their ideals.

Look forward to finding out as I go along,

Good for you, and I suggested, we will probably get along better if you refrain from judging me.

Or in other words, I suggest that you try to overlook what may be my lack of social graces while trying to learn about me from me and the information I have to share.

And now can we FINALLY get back to the topic at hand?

Sheesh. There’s just about nothing I dislike more than a personal party pooper.

[Jason]

Hey guys....can we get back on topic yet?

[Dr T]

Ray,

I offer my sincere apology for offending you. Please forgive my poor decision to address you in that way.

Dr. T

Jason,

I also apologize for distracting from your interesting thread.

Dr. T

[Ray]

“Can the Church unjustly make a ruling stripping a man of his Priesthood?"

I think the answer is yes, but I'd love to have you tackle that hypothetically speaking.

Heh, you still don’t seem to understand what I am trying to tell you, because you said this: “Can the Church unjustly make a ruling stripping a man of his Priesthood?" without realizing that the Church does not do the “ruling”.

Or in other words, the Priesthood does the ruling, and the Church either sustains or opposes the rulings of the Priesthood.

Ray: As I said before, the “Priesthood” refers to “people who have authority from our Lord or what are known as the keys”, and they bind and loose in heaven what has been bound and loosed on Earth, so if you think you have any authority from our Lord, independent of the Church or any others who have the Priesthood, you should go ahead and try to give yourself all the blessings you can while you are on Earth as well as in heaven.

Jason: Sort of like Alma in my Book of Mormon example from the OP, or perhaps like Jethro, Moses' father-in-law or even Melchizedek?

I have no idea what you’re talking about, Jason, because neither Alma or Melchizedek presumed to have authority they knew they did not have. I’m not sure about Jethro, though, and would have to do some reading on that.

Are you offering that it is possible for a Priesthood holder to exercise his authority independent of the organized Church?

Heh, if there was nobody else on Earth except for one person who received the Priesthood, that person would be the one and only member of the Church on Earth, and Yes, He could exercise His Priesthood.

And if so, who is a candidate for this and who is disqualified?

Okay, another example. If you received the Priesthood and God placed you on a planet alone with your wife, who was sealed to you in a temple, and you were allowed to live on that planet and rule it as God had authorized you, you would be authorized to exercise your priesthood among all of your children and anyone else who might also appear on the planet God had given you to rule.

And btw, nobody is disqualified from exercising the Priesthood God has given him, because Priesthood consists of people who have authority given by God.

Or in other words, nobody can receive the Priesthood by themselves, because in receiving the Priesthood you receive the authority God has given to others, as well as the authority God has given to you.

[Jason]

Heh, you still don’t seem to understand what I am trying to tell you, because you said this: “Can the Church unjustly make a ruling stripping a man of his Priesthood?" without realizing that the Church does not do the “ruling”.

Or in other words, the Priesthood does the ruling, and the Church either sustains or opposes the rulings of the Priesthood.

Ok, so let's say that the Priesthood using the vehicle of the Church claims to strip a man of his Priesthood. Is it valid if the man has done nothing unworthy? Consider this example from Apostle Francis M. Lyman, who at the time was serving as the President of the European Mission:

"Persons sometimes say that they have enjoyed the spirit of the work as much since they were cut off as while they were in the Church. Have they enjoyed the Spirit? Yes. Why? Simply because they were wrongfully cut off. They were cut off in such a way that it did not take the Spirit of God from them. And the reason why they were cut off was because they did not come up to the particular standard of perfection of those who dealt with them, or they did not come up to their feelings." (Francis M. Lyman, Millennial Star 24:99-100, Feb. 15, 1862)

Now, if the Spirit of God is still with a man who was also a Melchizedek Priesthoood holder, does he not also continue to hold his Priesthood, in spite of the actions of those members of the Priesthood who used the Church to strip a man of his right to hold the Priesthood?

I have no idea what you’re talking about, Jason, because neither Alma or Melchizedek presumed to have authority they knew they did not have. I’m not sure about Jethro, though, and would have to do some reading on that.

Alma especially demonstrates that even though there was an organized Church in Zarahemla under Mosiah, God gave Alma the Priesthood directly, and authorized him to ordain others to the Priesthood as well. Hence, we have a dual church situation in a very close geographic area.

Now, I asked: "Are you offering that it is possible for a Priesthood holder to exercise his authority independent of the organized Church?"

Ray replies: "Heh, if there was nobody else on Earth except for one person who received the Priesthood, that person would be the one and only member of the Church on Earth, and Yes, He could exercise His Priesthood."

That doesn't actually answer the question. Clearly we have examples of multiple Priesthood holders on the earth at the same time who knew nothing of each other and yet God still authorizes these men to do their work. Im asking can a man exercise his priesthood in spite of the priesthood holders in the Church?

[Ray]

Yes, Alma received the Priesthood from God, which gave him authorization to establish and regulate a church in his area, and Yes, Mosiah also received the Priesthood from God, which gave him authorization to establish and regulate a church in his area, and when Alma found out about Mosiah they worked as one together, because they both had received the same Priesthood from the one and only God.

Or in other words, those who receive the Priesthood should work together with others who receive the Priesthood, because the same God sends the Priesthood to each of them even when they do not know about each other.

I’m asking can a man exercise his priesthood in spite of the priesthood holders in the Church?

Let me put it this way.

If a man receives the Priesthood directing him to work in a specific area or realm of responsibility, and another man also receives the Priesthood directing him to work in another specific area or realm of responsibility, they both should work together for the only God who can authorize either one of them.

And that means the doctrine taught by each man should be in harmony with the doctrine taught by any other man, if they both have truly received the Priesthood.

Or in other words, if there two or more people on Earth, and they all form “churches” together, they should all be in harmony with each other, if they all receive the Priesthood … and if they’re not one, then at least one of those churches or groups of people hasn’t received the Priesthood, since they are not one together.

And btw, in the future, I think it might help if we try to be as specific as possible, because some things that apply generally do not apply to all things specifically.

[Traveler]

Jason: I hope you do not feel that I am critical. It is just that I am somewhat confused from your posts. Your odd use of terms confuses me. Perhaps if you would open an unabridged dictionary and review the meanings of excommunication and specifically indicate which meaning of the word excommunication from your point of view that does not apply to you and your relationship to the LDS church – I might better understand what you are trying to tell us.

I would also refer you to “Common Law” as it relates to representation of authority and legal associations. You keep making reference to things as the Catholic view as though there is something odd or if such view is a minority view in society. Anytime an association is severed in a relationship where authority is given or implied that authority is revoked. I cannot think of a single legal exception. Perhaps if you could give a non religious example of how just law authorizes continued authority in a broken or severed contract – I might be able to understand what it is you are thinking. If your covenant contract (membership) with the LDS Church has been formally terminated (for what-ever reason) you have no priesthood authority granted by ordination of priesthood by LDS. If you want to claim priesthood authority by some other means; then that is between you and what-ever that other means is. This same logic and just sense applies to any legal association. If you were the treasure of some organization and authorized to write checks and transfer funds and for what-ever reason terminated that position then any effort to transfer funds would be illegal (criminal) and unauthorized despite your reasons for termination.

Now I would refer you to another concept in “Common Law”. This is the concept of “Aggravated”. This concept implies that anyone that is currently or once in a position of authority that misuses that authority is guilty of greater impasse and should receive increased penalties. An example of “Aggravated” would be a policeman or ex policeman that polls over young ladies with his vehicle with lights and sirens and wearing his uniform, in remote places for the intent of raping them. Jesus implied that such from a religious standpoint – that, the “Aggravated” abusers, would have been better off had they never been borne.

It is my personal opinion – for what it is worth – is that you seem to be taking the whole concept of priesthood and covenant obligation as it relates to authority; far too lightly and without any logical structure. Anyone that has ended their membership in the LDS church (regardless of reason) has no legal or just right to even speak in behalf of LDS to anyone for any purpose. Of course anyone is entitled to their own opinion(s) but no one has authority or right to speak for anyone else or for any group when no such authority is given and/or current.

The Traveler

[Ray]

Thank you, Traveler. You brought up some good thoughts that didn't even occur to me. :)

[Jason]

Jason: I hope you do not feel that I am critical. It is just that I am somewhat confused from your posts. Your odd use of terms confuses me. Perhaps if you would open an unabridged dictionary and review the meanings of excommunication and specifically indicate which meaning of the word excommunication from your point of view that does not apply to you and your relationship to the LDS church – I might better understand what you are trying to tell us.

Im not even trying to discuss excommunication Traveler. I don't know why that's even a subject actually.

So let's drop this part, ok?

I would also refer you to “Common Law” as it relates to representation of authority and legal associations. You keep making reference to things as the Catholic view as though there is something odd or if such view is a minority view in society. Anytime an association is severed in a relationship where authority is given or implied that authority is revoked. I cannot think of a single legal exception. Perhaps if you could give a non religious example of how just law authorizes continued authority in a broken or severed contract – I might be able to understand what it is you are thinking. If your covenant contract (membership) with the LDS Church has been formally terminated (for what-ever reason) you have no priesthood authority granted by ordination of priesthood by LDS. If you want to claim priesthood authority by some other means; then that is between you and what-ever that other means is. This same logic and just sense applies to any legal association. If you were the treasure of some organization and authorized to write checks and transfer funds and for what-ever reason terminated that position then any effort to transfer funds would be illegal (criminal) and unauthorized despite your reasons for termination.

All right. I suppose Im arguing that Priesthood authority comes from God, not from the Church or from other Priesthood holders. Therefore, since God authorizes his servants, it cannot be revoked by either the Church (which is just a vehicle of the Priesthood) or other Priesthood holders (who hold God's power in kind, and therefore are in no position to dictate).

Does that make more sense?

It is my personal opinion – for what it is worth – is that you seem to be taking the whole concept of priesthood and covenant obligation as it relates to authority; far too lightly and without any logical structure. Anyone that has ended their membership in the LDS church (regardless of reason) has no legal or just right to even speak in behalf of LDS to anyone for any purpose. Of course anyone is entitled to their own opinion(s) but no one has authority or right to speak for anyone else or for any group when no such authority is given and/or current.

I agree that once your relationship has ended with the LDS church, you cannot speak on it's behalf. However, you have every right to speak on God's behalf if you feel so inclined, and even start your own Mormon church if you were so inclined (and Im not, believe me).

[Ray]

I suppose I’m arguing that Priesthood authority comes from God, not from the Church or from other Priesthood holders. Therefore, since God authorizes his servants, it cannot be revoked by either the Church (which is just a vehicle of the Priesthood) or other Priesthood holders (who hold God's power in kind, and therefore are in no position to dictate).

Does that make more sense?

Heh, yeah, it makes sense in the sense that I can understand what you’re saying, but what you are saying does not agree with how God actually does things.

And in case you or others are interested, here is how God actually works.

God can do anything He wants to do or feels inclined to do, and He can also authority other people to help Him in His work. And when God does give authority to other people to help Him in His work, He gives what are known as the “keys of the kingdom” to those people, which gives those people not only the authority to use those “keys” themselves, but also the authority to authorize other people to use those keys.

Or in other words, Priesthood authority comes not only from God, but from other Priesthood holders who have the “keys of the kingdom”. And those who don’t have the keys have no authority to use them.

Therefore, since either God or His authorized servants can authorize other servants, it can be revoked by other Priesthood holders who have the keys of the kingdom as well as by God Himself.

… you have every right to speak on God's behalf if you feel so inclined, and even start your own Mormon church if you were so inclined (and I’m not, believe me).

Heh, no, you do not have the right to speak or act for God just because you may feel so inclined. Heh, and your audacity in making that statement indicates that you have no idea of what you’re saying.

Jason, do you really believe anyone can be God just because they may feel so inclined?

You seem to think so. You seem to think that if anyone feels so inclined, they can speak for God, by interpreting His words to others, and act for God, by performing ordinances in behalf of God, as if God will approve of everything they do just because they felt so inclined.

Get a grip!

The authority to act for God is the most awesome authority there is, and you can only receive that authority from Him or His authorized servants who receive the keys of the kingdom from God.

[StrawberryFields]

As a family, we have been blessed MANY times through the Priesthood. The church has given us the opportunities to know about the Priesthood. :)

[Jason]

Heh, yeah, it makes sense in the sense that I can understand what you’re saying, but what you are saying does not agree with how God actually does things.

And in case you or others are interested, here is how God actually works.

God can do anything He wants to do or feels inclined to do, and He can also authority other people to help Him in His work.

I think you just refuted yourself here Ray. Im arguing that the Priesthood comes from God, therefore God can do as he wants, and the Church has no authority to revoke Priesthood. You just said that God can do anything he wants....so what's the deal?

And when God does give authority to other people to help Him in His work, He gives what are known as the “keys of the kingdom” to those people, which gives those people not only the authority to use those “keys” themselves, but also the authority to authorize other people to use those keys.

The Keys are included in the ordaination to the Melchizedek Priesthood. Then the Church votes on who is allowed to exercise those Keys on their behalf. If you can show me otherwise, please do.

Heh, no, you do not have the right to speak or act for God just because you may feel so inclined. Heh, and your audacity in making that statement indicates that you have no idea of what you’re saying.

Im not saying that anyone just speaks out God's will. Im saying that when someone feels directed by God to speak, that they may in fact be doing so.

Jason, do you really believe anyone can be God just because they may feel so inclined?

Im not sure what you're saying here.

You seem to think so. You seem to think that if anyone feels so inclined, they can speak for God, by interpreting His words to others, and act for God, by performing ordinances in behalf of God, as if God will approve of everything they do just because they felt so inclined.

Get a grip!

The authority to act for God is the most awesome authority there is, and you can only receive that authority from Him or His authorized servants who receive the keys of the kingdom from God.

I think you're taking this way to personally Ray. We're speculating theologically on this, and you seem hell-bent on maintaining Orthodoxy. We all know what the official party-line is, and if that's all you wish to contribute, then I invite you to bow out of this thread at this time.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

God can do anything He wants to do or feels inclined to do, and He can also authority other people to help Him in His work.

I think you just refuted yourself here Ray. Im arguing that the Priesthood comes from God, therefore God can do as he wants, and the Church has no authority to revoke Priesthood. You just said that God can do anything he wants....so what's the deal?

I think there are some uses of term that give wrong impressions. First I would point out that G-d is just. This is a little different than "he does what ever he wants". It only works because he wills himself to want to be just.

The point is that G-d follows a pattern of justice in how he delegates responsibility in his kingdom.

Jason: I get the impression if you were before a judge having your driver's license revoked that you would tell the judge that the state issued you your license and therefore the judge cannot revoke it - and that the state can do what-ever it wants. Perhaps if the state is a totalitarian state it can do what it wants but if it is a just state then it must abide by just laws, principles and logic. If you believe G-d is totalitarian and not just; then you may have a point – but if G-d is just then the principles of delegated authority must be according to just principles.

Here is a simple test my friend – if logic and principles concerning particular methods of G-d are not just and practical in society, there is a high probability such logic is flawed big time and in reality has nothing to do with an intelligent G-d. G-d is not an idiot nor is he stupid. He does not do stupid things. If you want to convince me that you have any inklings concerning G-d – you would have more respect and insight to how he delegates authority and runs his kingdom. So far you have not said a single thing to indicate that G-d is capable of a kingdom even comparable (let-a-lone superior) to any that have existed on earth.

The Traveler

[Ray]

I think you're taking this way too personally Ray. We're speculating theologically on this, and you seem hell-bent on maintaining Orthodoxy <or focused on sharing the truth on this issue as revealed by God and those who know Him. We all know what the official party-line is <or what God and His authorized servants actually teach>, and if that's all you wish to contribute by trying to explain what they teach and have taught, then I invite you to bow out of this thread at this time.

Fine. If you don’t want to discuss the truth about how God actually works with Man, and instead only want to talk about all your ideas that have no bearing on what the truth actually is, or was, or will be, then go ahead and count me out while you talk about all your ideas.