Priesthood Keys

[SpiritDragon]

I have really been hoping to do a more in depth study of priesthood roles, responsibilities, power, authority and keys.

 

I haven't got to it yet, but I sure did love Elder Oaks talk in the priesthood session. I watched it twice already tonight to soak up the great content on the priesthood talked about.

 

I thought it was the best explanation I've ever heard of how the priesthood also pertains to women; having power and authority to direct work within the scope of the keys of the priesthood.

 

I was hoping for a discussion here of what powers and authority are delegated through the keys of the priesthood as well as a discussion of what various keys we know about.

 

To start things off I've always been taught that my wife is blessed as an extension of the priesthood that I hold through our sealing. After this talk, I feel like I may have a better understanding of this extension. As the father in our home I hold the keys to the presidency of affairs within our home and family. As such I can delegate to my wife priesthood power and authority to deal with matters pertaining to the home such as calling on one of the kids to say prayer in my absence.

 

Also if the stake president were at my house, although he presides over the stake, I still preside in the home. Therefore the priesthood keys establish channels of authority or jurisdiction of sorts in administering to the needs of the kingdom.

 

Thoughts?

[skippy740]

Unless one is excommunicated, one still (always) presides in their home, wears their garments if endowed in the temple, and can perform priesthood blessings (as long as personally worthy and ordained to that priesthood and an office within that priesthood).

 

The keys are of administration... and if we think about it, there are only 5 callings in the ward/stake level that have Priesthood Keys:

 

Aaronic Priesthood:

- Deacon's Quorum President

- Teacher's Quorum President

- Bishop (Priest Quorum President, presides over ward, and Aaronic Priesthood functions, such as Sacrament Administration - within Sacrament meeting, and to those who are sick.)

 

Melchizedek Priesthood:

- Elder's Quorum President

- Stake President (High Priest Quorum President, presides over stake, and Melchizedek Priesthood functions).

 

It's late right now, but I'm sure there's more to expound upon by referencing D&C 20.

[Just_A_Guy]

To start things off I've always been taught that my wife is blessed as an extension of the priesthood that I hold through our sealing. After this talk, I feel like I may have a better understanding of this extension. As the father in our home I hold the keys to the presidency of affairs within our home and family. As such I can delegate to my wife priesthood power and authority to deal with matters pertaining to the home such as calling on one of the kids to say prayer in my absence.

I could be wrong; but I don't recall Elder Oaks talking about priesthood keys operating in the home. I'm familiar with the discourse about the husband presiding; but I think this is subject to President Kimball's "partnership" language (quoted by Oaks). "Presiding" in the home is a very different dynamic than "presiding" in the Church, methinks.

Also, I seem to remember a talk Elder Oaks gave sometime back about how, as a young deacon, he was a little affronted that his single mother didn't consult with him on some minor family matter (it might have been the selection of a prayer for a family meal, come to think of it) before finally understanding that his priesthood didn't trump her role as leader of the home, due to her parental authority over him. (I'm hazy on the details, though.)

[Wingnut]

To start things off I've always been taught that my wife is blessed as an extension of the priesthood that I hold through our sealing. After this talk, I feel like I may have a better understanding of this extension. As the father in our home I hold the keys to the presidency of affairs within our home and family. As such I can delegate to my wife priesthood power and authority to deal with matters pertaining to the home such as calling on one of the kids to say prayer in my absence.

This doesn't really jibe with me.  Asking one of your children to offer the prayer at dinner or family prayer time doesn't really have much to do with the Priesthood at all.  To say that it does implies that non-LDS families who pray together, particularly under direction of the father of the family, are doing so without authority and therefore unrighteously.  Just doesn't work.

[pam]

This doesn't really jibe with me.  Asking one of your children to offer the prayer at dinner or family prayer time doesn't really have much to do with the Priesthood at all.  To say that it does implies that non-LDS families who pray together, particularly under direction of the father of the family, are doing so without authority and therefore unrighteously.  Just doesn't work.

 

Agree.  Also in the cases of single parent homes where there is no Priesthood holder.  So while I was raising my kids and asked them to say a prayer on the food was I using authority incorrectly as the only parent?

[Just_A_Guy]

Here's the Oaks talk I was thinking of:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/10/priesthood-authority-in-the-family-and-the-church?lang=eng

[The Folk Prophet]

I would think that priesthood authority in the home and presiding in the home are not exactly the same thing. A single mother absolutely presides in her home without priesthood. The father presides in the home under the patriarchal order, which is tied to the priesthood, but that order is appropriate even prior to the priesthood (as in a newly baptized family...were I hometeaching them I would still defer to the father to call on someone to pray, etc...).

 

DHK is correct on keys. But of course there are other keys that are not ward level in the church. The sealing keys, for example, which are held by one man at any time on the earth (the Prophet).

 

The father's priesthood authority is an extension of keys, methinks, in the same way that the relief society president's authority is an extension of priesthood keys. This is why the father, who does preside in the home independently, cannot baptize his children without approval from those with keys, cannot administer the sacrament, etc...  If all priesthood holders in the world died suddenly and a father was left alone, the last remaining priesthood holder, he would not have the keys required to do the work of salvation...not for his family or for any others.

[The Folk Prophet]

One thing Elder Oaks said in the talk yesterday was that all ordinances were recorded. Stating it in these terms implies that things such as father's blessings are not ordinances, but merely priesthood blessings.  I've always thought of them as ordinances... I wonder if I have been incorrect in that or if Elder Oaks misspoke somewhat, or was using terms differently than at other times, or what. Hmm...must research...

[Wingnut]

One thing Elder Oaks said in the talk yesterday was that all ordinances were recorded. Stating it in these terms implies that things such as father's blessings are not ordinances, but merely priesthood blessings.  I've always thought of them as ordinances... I wonder if I have been incorrect in that or if Elder Oaks misspoke somewhat, or was using terms differently than at other times, or what. Hmm...must research...

Maybe he was referring to "saving ordinances" only.  All of those are recorded, and even some non-saving ordinances, such as naming and blessing, patriarchal blessings, and settings-apart.

[SpiritDragon]

I could be wrong; but I don't recall Elder Oaks talking about priesthood keys operating in the home. I'm familiar with the discourse about the husband presiding; but I think this is subject to President Kimball's "partnership" language (quoted by Oaks). "Presiding" in the home is a very different dynamic than "presiding" in the Church, methinks.

Also, I seem to remember a talk Elder Oaks gave sometime back about how, as a young deacon, he was a little affronted that his single mother didn't consult with him on some minor family matter (it might have been the selection of a prayer for a family meal, come to think of it) before finally understanding that his priesthood didn't trump her role as leader of the home, due to her parental authority over him. (I'm hazy on the details, though.)

 

Elder Oaks did not speak about the priesthood in the home, I was simply throwing out a possible extrapolation to get the discussion started. It appears to have worked.

[The Folk Prophet]

I could be wrong; but I don't recall Elder Oaks talking about priesthood keys operating in the home. I'm familiar with the discourse about the husband presiding; but I think this is subject to President Kimball's "partnership" language (quoted by Oaks). "Presiding" in the home is a very different dynamic than "presiding" in the Church, methinks.

 

Methinks I used the word methinks in one of my posts because my subconscious mind grabbed it from your usage. How shameful that I can't come up with my own fancy words. 

 

So I'm not entirely sure that presiding in the home is a very different dynamic than presiding in the Church. It comes down to the same thing.

 

 41 No ^apower or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the^bpriesthood, only by ^cpersuasion, by ^dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

 42 By ^akindness, and pure ^bknowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the ^csoul without ^dhypocrisy, and without ^eguile—

[SpiritDragon]

This doesn't really jibe with me.  Asking one of your children to offer the prayer at dinner or family prayer time doesn't really have much to do with the Priesthood at all.  To say that it does implies that non-LDS families who pray together, particularly under direction of the father of the family, are doing so without authority and therefore unrighteously.  Just doesn't work.

 

Hopefully the thought didn't offend you. My purpose is to explore these ideas, I didn't mean to imply that this is written in stone. What priesthood power and authority does a mother have in the home?

[Just_A_Guy]

Granted, FolkProphet, but I\'ve never been told that I\'m an equal partner with my bishop or stake president. In the one instance, we at least talk of theoretical equality; in the other, there\'s a clear hierarchy with a supervisor and a subordinate. I can visualize a situation at Church where I might say \"I respect your opinion, but this falls under my priesthood stewardship and I think this is the way it has to be\" with some degree of regularity. In eleven years of marriage, I think I\'ve used that line of argument twice--I felt (and still feel) that the instances were justified, but it was still a supremely uncomfortable experience that I hope never to repeat.

[The Folk Prophet]

Granted, FolkProphet, but I\'ve never been told that I\'m an equal partner with my bishop or stake president. In the one instance, we at least talk of theoretical equality; in the other, there\'s a clear hierarchy with a supervisor and a subordinate. I can visualize a situation at Church where I might say \"I respect your opinion, but this falls under my priesthood stewardship and I think this is the way it has to be\" with some degree of regularity. In eleven years of marriage, I think I\'ve used that line of argument twice--I felt (and still feel) that the instances were justified, but it was still a supremely uncomfortable experience that I hope never to repeat.

 

I would disagree that we are not equal partners in presidencies and bishoprics. The church clearly teaches that all callings are of equal value, and that we all work towards the same goal. But there is a hierarchy when need arises. So it is in the home. We are equal partners working towards the same goals. But when the need arises, there is a hierarchy.

[SpiritDragon]

Thank you for your thoughts so far.

 

I can't cite a clear quote that suggests men hold the keys of presidency in the family, although I'm sure I have heard as much. Furthermore it seems fitting that as the presiding authority in the home he would hold keys to that effect.

 

However we do know that for instance in the case of the relief society president, she has been given power and authority to officiate and regulate the relief society activities and visiting teaching assignments, but does not hold the keys of said presidency.

 

Thus it is also possible and perhaps even plausible that a husband does not hold the keys of presidency in the family, but holds the position of presiding out of respect and reverence.

 

Fathers do at the very least hold keys to bless their family as we can read here: https://www.lds.org/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-b/priesthood-and-church-government/lesson-2-the-keys-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[Guest]

Faramir and I have been teaching the Marriage and Family Relations class for a little over a year. When I was struggling with my role as a woman, I came across this parable in the participants' guide. 

 

 

 

Parable of the Treasure and Keys

I close with a parable.

Once a man received as his inheritance two keys. The first key, he was told, would open a vault which he must protect at all cost. The second key was to a safe within the vault which contained a priceless treasure. He was to open this safe and freely use the precious things which were stored therein. He was warned that many would seek to rob him of his inheritance. He was promised that if he used the treasure worthily, it would be replenished and never be diminished, not in all eternity. He would be tested. If he used it to benefit others, his own blessings and joy would increase.

The man went alone to the vault. His first key opened the door. He tried to unlock the treasure with the other key, but he could not, for there were two locks on the safe. His key alone would not open it. No matter how he tried, he could not open it. He was puzzled. He had been given the keys. He knew the treasure was rightfully his. He had obeyed instructions, but he could not open the safe.

In due time there came a woman into the vault. She too held a key. It was noticeably different from the key he held. Her key fit the other lock. It humbled him to learn that he could not obtain his rightful inheritance without her.

They made a covenant that together they would open the treasure and, as instructed, he would watch over the vault and protect it; she would watch over the treasure. She was not concerned that, as guardian of the vault, he held two keys, for his full purpose was to see that she was safe as she watched over that which was most precious to them both. Together they opened the safe and partook of their inheritance. They rejoiced, for, as promised, it replenished itself.

With great joy they found that they could pass the treasure on to their children; each could receive a full measure, undiminished to the last generation.

Perhaps some few of their posterity would not find a companion who possessed the complementary key, or one worthy and willing to keep the covenants relating to the treasure. Nevertheless, if they kept the commandments, they would not be denied even the smallest blessing.

Because some tempted them to misuse their treasure, they were careful to teach their children about keys and covenants.

There came, in due time, among their posterity some few who were deceived or jealous or selfish because one was given two keys and another only one. “Why,” the selfish ones reasoned, “cannot the treasure be mine alone to use as I desire?”

Some tried to reshape the key they had been given to resemble the other key. Perhaps, they thought, it would then fit both locks. And so it was that the safe was closed to them. Their reshaped keys were useless, and their inheritance was lost.

Those who received the treasure with gratitude and obeyed the laws concerning it knew joy without bounds through time and all eternity.

I bear witness of our Father’s plan for happiness, and bear testimony in the name of Him who wrought the Atonement, that it might be.

From an address by Elder Packer in the October 1993 general conference of the Church (see Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 27–31; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 21–24).

[SpiritDragon]

Granted, FolkProphet, but I\'ve never been told that I\'m an equal partner with my bishop or stake president. In the one instance, we at least talk of theoretical equality; in the other, there\'s a clear hierarchy with a supervisor and a subordinate. I can visualize a situation at Church where I might say \"I respect your opinion, but this falls under my priesthood stewardship and I think this is the way it has to be\" with some degree of regularity. In eleven years of marriage, I think I\'ve used that line of argument twice--I felt (and still feel) that the instances were justified, but it was still a supremely uncomfortable experience that I hope never to repeat.

 

I would disagree that we are not equal partners in presidencies and bishoprics. The church clearly teaches that all callings are of equal value, and that we all work towards the same goal. But there is a hierarchy when need arises. So it is in the home. We are equal partners working towards the same goals. But when the need arises, there is a hierarchy.

 

Great thoughts team. In my understanding both of these thoughts are correct. This is precisely why we are given keys.

 

"We also hold the keys of the kingdom of God on earth, which kingdom is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

These keys are the right of presidency; they are the power and authority to govern and direct all of the Lord’s affairs on earth. Those who hold them have power to govern and control the manner in which all others may serve in the priesthood. All of us may hold the priesthood, but we can only use it as authorized and directed so to do by those who hold the keys."

- Joseph Fielding Smith

 

So while we are all equals in our various positions, assignments, and callings, we do not all share the same stewardship and we do not have the same capacity to act as others do who currently hold the keys designated for sustaining order. Without keys authorizing action I fear it would not be long at all until the church simply moved by the voice of popular opinion, since as equals no one voice would have any more impact than another.

[Wingnut]

Maybe he was referring to "saving ordinances" only.  All of those are recorded, and even some non-saving ordinances, such as naming and blessing, patriarchal blessings, and settings-apart.

The Sacrament is another I thought of that is most definitely an ordinance, but not a saving one.

 

Hopefully the thought didn't offend you. My purpose is to explore these ideas, I didn't mean to imply that this is written in stone. What priesthood power and authority does a mother have in the home?

You didn't offend me.  I just didn't agree with that part of your OP.  :)

 

Your question here, though, is a good one, worthy of discussion (though I think it would be better worded "...does a wife have...").  It is something I cannot currently answer, but something about which I am current seeking answers.

 

Thus it is also possible and perhaps even plausible that a husband does not hold the keys of presidency in the family, but holds the position of presiding out of respect and reverence.

I like this thought.

[SpiritDragon]

Fantastic link to Elder Oaks other talk...

 

I really found this excerpt useful:

 

There are many similarities and some differences in the way priesthood authority functions in the family and in the Church. If we fail to recognize and honor the differences, we encounter difficulties.

Keys. One important difference between its function in the Church and in the family is the fact that all priesthood authority in the Church functions under the direction of the one who holds the appropriate priesthood keys. In contrast, the authority that presides in the family—whether father or single-parent mother—functions in family matters without the need to get authorization from anyone holding priesthood keys. This family authority includes directing the activities of the family, family meetings like family home evenings, family prayer, teaching the gospel, and counseling and disciplining family members. It also includes ordained fathers givingpriesthood blessings.

However, priesthood keys are necessary to authorize the ordaining or setting apart of family members. This is because the organization the Lord has made responsible for the performance and recording of priesthood ordinances is the Church, not the family.

[The Folk Prophet]

Fathers do at the very least hold keys to bless their family as we can read here: https://www.lds.org/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-b/priesthood-and-church-government/lesson-2-the-keys-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

I'm just not entirely sure that the word "keys" here is being used consistently to other keys in the church.

[SpiritDragon]

I'm just not entirely sure that the word "keys" here is being used consistently to other keys in the church.

 

In what way do you see it as different?

 

My main take away is that while we all hold the same priesthood, we do not all have the same permissions (keys) allowed to use that power. 

 

The lesson point blank says that a father has the keys to use his priesthood for blessing his family. He has no need to get authorized by another to do so, so long as he worthily holds the higher priesthood.

[The Folk Prophet]

In what way do you see it as different?

 

My main take away is that while we all hold the same priesthood, we do not all have the same permissions (keys) allowed to use that power. 

 

The lesson point blank says that a father has the keys to use his priesthood for blessing his family. He has no need to get authorized by another to do so, so long as he worthily holds the higher priesthood.

 

Well, I think I see it thus: Keys are not "permissions". That is authority. That is part of what Elder Oakes was saying. We can have authority without actually having keys.

 

I guess the way I see it as different is that keys, in most situations, are carefully and specifically designated. I'll re-iterate for emphasis. Specifically designated.

 

Referring to keys in terms more generally is not necessarily wrong...the wording of "key" is in many ways synonymous with authority or ability. It's an analogy for being able to access something. So we could use the term key to mean authority interchangeably, and perhaps sometimes it is used that way (as in said article, perhaps).

 

So I'm not necessarily saying the article is wrong or that a father does not hold keys. I'm still trying to figure this all out too...but I do feel like the usage of the word keys is inconsistent if it only means "doesn't have to seek permission". I think that is only part of keys. But it is not specific enough. The EQ president, for example, holds keys, and yet, he still must have the bishop's "permission" for many things he does in his calling, and defers to the bishop in pretty much all cases.

[SpiritDragon]

I guess I see it slightly differently, and I'm not sure I can explain it well, but I'll try.

 

It seems to me that keys are in very deed permissions, which is also authority, but different in that the key holder may "loan" keys to others by which they gain authority to act in those positions, while those who have keys on loan are unable to further distribute those keys or authority because only the master key holder can do so.

[The Folk Prophet]

I guess I see it slightly differently, and I'm not sure I can explain it well, but I'll try.

 

It seems to me that keys are in very deed permissions, which is also authority, but different in that the key holder may "loan" keys to others by which they gain authority to act in those positions, while those who have keys on loan are unable to further distribute those keys or authority because only the master key holder can do so.

 

And you could well be correct. In fact, my EQ example didn't work at all because any permission the EQ pres must seek is simply outside the domain of his keys.

 

I'm not sure on this. Maybe I'll research and see what I can figure. But..later...conference watching now. :)

[The Folk Prophet]

From Handbook 1. I'm not sure it answers our question on father's and keys related to their homes.

 

 2.1.1

Priesthood Keys

Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood leaders to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth. The exercise of priesthood authority is governed by those who hold its keys (see D&C 65:2; 81:2;124:123). Those who hold priesthood keys have the right to preside over and direct the Church within a jurisdiction.

Jesus Christ holds all the keys of the priesthood pertaining to His Church. He has conferred upon each of His Apostles all the keys that pertain to the kingdom of God on earth. The senior living Apostle, the President of the Church, is the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys (see D&C 43:1–4; 81:2; 107:64–67, 91–92; 132:7).

Seventies act by assignment and by the delegation of authority from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Area Presidents are assigned to administer areas under the authorization of the First Presidency and the Twelve. The Presidency of the Seventy are set apart and are given the keys to preside over the Quorums of Seventy.

The President of the Church delegates priesthood keys to other priesthood leaders so they can preside in their areas of responsibility. Priesthood keys are bestowed on presidents of temples, missions, stakes, and districts; bishops; branch presidents; and quorum presidents. This presiding authority is valid only for the designated responsibilities and within the geographic jurisdiction of each leader’s calling. When priesthood leaders are released from their callings, they no longer hold the associated keys.

Counselors to priesthood leaders do not receive keys. They are set apart and function in their callings by assignment and delegated authority.

All ward and stake auxiliary organizations operate under the direction of the bishop or stake president, who holds the keys to preside. Auxiliary presidents and their counselors do not receive keys. They receive delegated authority to function in their callings.