Qs Concerning the Priesthood


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

My understanding as of yet:

I grew up thinking that first, a man gets the authority of the priesthood, and later then gets the power of the priesthood if he is righteous. But today I understand that authority and power are two completely separate things. Power is found in being true to the covenants we make and its primary role is to bless those that are obedient. Authority is found in the laying on of hands and its primary (and perhaps sole) job is to administer those covenants that provide those blessings to the obedient. This means that the power of the priesthood is accessible to women, but not the authority. Having the authority of the priesthood does not provide you any additional power in the priesthood, rather just allows you to administer the ordinances that provide power for others.

My questions:

- Can one say that there are no blessings missed out on when a priesthood holder is not in a home?
- Is the sole purpose of the priesthood authority purely just administering ordinances?
- If there is no man in the home, is there really no priesthood in the home?
- I have heard many times that in situations where a worthy priesthood holder is not present, the prayer of faith can have the same effect on healing the sick. If this is true, what is the purpose of blessing the sick and afflicted if a priesthood blessing isn't necessary? If the sole purpose of the authority of the priesthood is to administer ordinances for others to be obedient to, how do we look at blessings of comfort and counsel and blessing the sick and afflicted? No covenant is made there. What additional benefit does a blessing have that prayer does not? Is it just providing specific counsel from God? (Perhaps my premise is wrong or incomplete, that the solar purpose is for administering)
 



 

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great questions @Fether. Though in response I would further add to the role of the priesthood to what you have already said. It would appear that perfection, meaning completeness, is impossible as a single individual. It requires both male and female united in the marriage covenant. And beyond the unique physiological differences each brings to the table there also appears different roles that are played that are eternal in nature as well. I draw this as my conclusion to the fact that our Heavenly Mother's work seems to be totally behind the scenes during our mortal probation. Each is united in the task of creating and then the perfecting of their creation but the power to create appears to be different. Our Heavenly Father's creative power is called priesthood and our Heavenly Mother's power is called motherhood. Of course there is a lot of overlapping in their working together and neither work is totally separate from the other but these seem to be their individual primary responsibilities and it's not so very different from what we are taught about the nature or our marriage relationships here in this world. Now here's where I would add to what you stated as being the primary role of the priesthood. To say it's role ends with it's administration is like saying the role of motherhood ends at birth. The influence of holding of priesthood authority and the wielding of priesthood power goes far beyond the administration element. The act of ministering, as opposed to administering, as a priesthood holder has an ennobling and sanctifying effect on the one exercising it and can bring down eternal blessings upon the one being ministered to. So in response to your questions, you are correct in implying that no blessing will ever ultimately be denied the faithful whether "priesthood is in the home" or not. But the eventual reception of all blessings requires a priesthood holder who has, at some point, been fully sanctified by his work in the priesthood otherwise he is not a fit companion to carry on the work of creation in the eternities with his wife. So the importance of utilizing the priesthood when it is available is necessary to the establishment of eternal families and as such God has ordered "his house" to function in the way it does. 

My explanation may need some tweaking in places as my own understanding is still evolving as well but I think overall it's on the right track. (Hopefully 😀)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fether said:

- Is the sole purpose of the priesthood purely just administering ordinances?

JST - Genesis 14 heading states:

Quote

Melchizedek’s great ministry and the powers and blessings of the Melchizedek Priesthood are described.

some of those powers and blessings:

Quote

30 For God having sworn unto Enoch and unto his seed with an oath by himself; that every one being ordained after this order and calling should have power, by faith, to break mountains, to divide the seas, to dry up waters, to turn them out of their course;

31 To put at defiance the armies of nations, to divide the earth, to break every band, to stand in the presence of God; to do all things according to his will, according to his command, subdue principalities and powers; and this by the will of the Son of God which was from before the foundation of the world.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Fether said:

My understanding as of yet:

I grew up thinking that first, a man gets the authority of the priesthood, and later then gets the power of the priesthood if he is righteous. But today I understand that authority and power are two completely separate things. Power is found in being true to the covenants we make and its primary role is to bless those that are obedient. Authority is found in the laying on of hands and its primary (and perhaps sole) job is to administer those covenants that provide those blessings to the obedient. This means that the power of the priesthood is accessible to women, but not the authority. Having the authority of the priesthood does not provide you any additional power in the priesthood, rather just allows you to administer the ordinances that provide power for others.

My questions:

[1]- Can one say that there are no blessings missed out on when a priesthood holder is not in a home?
[2]- Is the sole purpose of the priesthood purely just administering ordinances?
[3]- If there is no man in the home, is there really no priesthood in the home?
[4]- I have heard many times that in situations where a worthy priesthood holder is not present, the prayer of faith can have the same effect on healing the sick. If this is true, what is the purpose of blessing the sick and afflicted if a priesthood blessing isn't necessary? If the sole purpose of the authority of the priesthood is to administer ordinances for others to be obedient to, how do we look at blessings of comfort and counsel and blessing the sick and afflicted? No covenant is made there. What additional benefit does a blessing have that prayer does not? Is it just providing specific counsel from God? (Perhaps my premise is wrong or incomplete, that the solar purpose is for administering)
 

Perhaps tangential; but re women and priesthood authority, President Oaks states the following:

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.

As to your specific questions, my own responses would be as follows:

1.  This feels like a semantical question to me.  What are we considering a “blessing”?  Sure, through ministers visiting her home, a single woman can obtain the same comforting liturgical rites that a woman who is married to a priesthood holder can.  But the married woman inherently has better access to a priesthood holder who can administer those rites almost immediately; whereas the single woman will have to do some extra work to make the logistical arrangements to get a priesthood holder out to her house.  Does the married woman’s superior access to a priesthood holder constitute a “blessing” in its own right?  If so, then the answer to your question must be “no”.  It has become fashionable in the Church of late, to suggest that we are all blessed more or less “equally”; but I think this narrative starts to unravel on closer inspection.  To my mind we are not blessed equally in this life, and that’s part of the plan (parable of the talents and whatnot).  

2.  Per the fifth article of faith, “priesthood” entails administering ordinances and preaching the gospel.  I think “priesthood” has also been understood to entail some measure of “presiding” authority; though my sense is that recent discourse renders much of this “authority” largely ceremonial in nature as it pertains to the family sphere.  And priesthood ministers constitute an independent source of revelation.  

3.  This, again, feels more like a semantical question.  What does “priesthood in the home” even mean?  Individuals who hold the priesthood?  People who are not ordained to the priesthood but are participants in covenants made through priesthood authority?  Something else?

4.  It is my belief that anointings of the sick, and blessings of comfort/counsel, have two manifestations of “healing” power—physical and spiritual.  With the physical component—yes, in a pinch, a mighty prayer can be just as effective (although the instruction the Church has been given, from New Testament times onward, has been to send for the elders).  But I believe that there is also a spiritual component to healings that can be bolstered by the words spoken during the course of the blessing itself (I am perhaps a bit apostate in this sense, as Elder Oaks seems to think the actual words used when anointings to the sick are sealed are relatively nonessential); and in these cases I think it helps with the spiritual facet of the healing to know that the blessing given, and the counsel offered, are coming with the imprimaturs of priesthood authority and priesthood revelation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some children don't have loving fathers at home. Some Primary presidents have decided that, in the interest of sparing the feelings of such children, the Primary will no longer sing "Daddy's Homecoming". Similarly, I have heard that some Primary programs won't sing "We Are a Happy Family" ("I Love Mommy" or whatever it's called) for the same reason.

This is ridiculous.

I sense many in the Church rushing to apply exactly this sort of non-reasoning to other areas, such as Priesthood availability. "You are not married to a Priesthood-holding husband? No problem at all! You have JUST EXACTLY AS MUCH ACCESS TO GOD'S POWER AND BLESSINGS as Sister Jones and her Priesthood-holding husband's family!"

No, she does not. This is obvious. Why would we lie to her? If people are truly so brittle that any mention of blessings that they do not or cannot currently enjoy just sends them off the deep end or breaks them to pieces, then they are simply not ready to embrace the gospel—or for that matter, to participate in adult society.

All other things being equal, it is ALWAYS better to have worthy Priesthood holder as a leader in the home than not to have such a man in the home. No exceptions. Why doesn't this go without saying?

I am baffled and, I confess, angered by the seemingly intentional obtuseness of many young adults. It sometimes looks like an entire generation of Saints insists that all the things we have preached for decades and centuries as of fundamental importance aren't actually important at all. God Loves You Just As You Are, so don't you dare change a thing, you wonderful unicorn, you! It might be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

If you want, I can tell you how I really feel.

(For the record, this is not in any sense directed at Fether, just a response to the general topic his questions brought up.)

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Vort said:

Some children don't have loving fathers at home. Some Primary presidents have decided that, in the interest of sparing the feelings of such children, the Primary will no longer sing "Daddy's Homecoming". Similarly, I have heard that some Primary programs won't sing "We Are a Happy Family" ("I Love Mommy" or whatever it's called) for the same reason.

This is ridiculous.

I see this in wards trying to get away from comments like 'Happy Mothers Day' or 'Happy Fathers Day'. Talks have started to become 'happy day to all women' vs. Mothers for example.

But, but, but some aren't mothers. Some can't be mothers. So... lets just ignore mothers all together and no longer celebrate them least we offend others. And in so doing we offend mothers instead.

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vort said:

All other things being equal, it is ALWAYS better to have worthy Priesthood holder as a leader in the home than not to have such a man in the home. No exceptions. Why doesn't this go without saying?

Whereas this is obviously true, it's somewhat like saying, "It is ALWAYS better to be in good health than in bad health." Or, "It is ALWAYS better to have electricity in the home." These things are self evident. But....they are also eternally less relevant. I think that's the important thing to understand. It is always better to have a worthy Priesthood holder as a leader in the home, but...if one does not, when we stand before God on judgment day, we will account for ourselves and what we did with that which was given to us. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude, I believe, that when we don't have the ideal, we are eternally, nonetheless, on equal footing.

Whenever there is a discussion of Priesthood power or purpose in church the discussion almost always turns to blessing the sick or giving father's blessings or the like. Just so we're clear, the following is not shouting at you (I know you know this, but for other's reading so it's clear), but simply shouting my own frustration as a general statement... (and I'll also clarify that I know YOU know this, so I'm not lecturing at you...just riffing off the topic at hand)........... THOSE AREN'T SAVING ORDINANCES!!!

One could go their whole life and never have a Priesthood blessing when they're sick or a father's blessing when they start school and it wouldn't really matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. These things are blessing to us from God, and they are advantages in the same way any blessing is. But they aren't the true purpose and power of the Priesthood. Sickness and sorrow are part of the mortal condition. It is truly wonderful that sometimes we can alleviate these things by the power of the Priesthood. But we will, nonetheless, continue on in sickness and sorrow until we die, because that's mortal life. But if we don't have the saving ordinances and the sealing power then we are all doomed.

If one does not have a worthy Priesthood holder leading in their home then it is another state of sorrow and sickness that isn't the ideal. True. But it is not "the" difference, (unless one is in that state by choice of wickedness without repentance, of course) as all this will be rectified if we have sufficiently humbled ourselves and chosen and followed Christ.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

JST - Genesis 14 heading states:

some of those powers and blessings:

 

To clarify, that question was specifying the authority,  it the power. I understand the power does all that. My question was whether the purpose of the AUTHORITY was just administration of the covenants that grant the power.

 

I’ll edit that I’m the main thread now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Vort said:

Some children don't have loving fathers at home. Some Primary presidents have decided that, in the interest of sparing the feelings of such children, the Primary will no longer sing "Daddy's Homecoming". Similarly, I have heard that some Primary programs won't sing "We Are a Happy Family" ("I Love Mommy" or whatever it's called) for the same reason.

This is ridiculous.

I sense many in the Church rushing to apply exactly this sort of non-reasoning to other areas, such as Priesthood availability. "You are not married to a Priesthood-holding husband? No problem at all! You have JUST EXACTLY AS MUCH ACCESS TO GOD'S POWER AND BLESSINGS as Sister Jones and her Priesthood-holding husband's family!"

No, she does not. This is obvious. Why would we lie to her? If people are truly so brittle that any mention of blessings that they do not or cannot currently enjoy just sends them off the deep end or breaks them to pieces, then they are simply not ready to embrace the gospel—or for that matter, to participate in adult society.

All other things being equal, it is ALWAYS better to have worthy Priesthood holder as a leader in the home than not to have such a man in the home. No exceptions. Why doesn't this go without saying?

I am baffled and, I confess, angered by the seemingly intentional obtuseness of many young adults. It sometimes looks like an entire generation of Saints insists that all the things we have preached for decades and centuries as of fundamental importance aren't actually important at all. God Loves You Just As You Are, so don't you dare change a thing, you wonderful unicorn, you! It might be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

If you want, I can tell you how I really feel.

(For the record, this is not in any sense directed at Fether, just a response to the general topic his questions brought up.)

I always felt the "woman have the priesthood!" talks were always a cop-out. I actually had a paragraph expressing my frustration with these... but I decided to leave it out since I felt there was some principle or doctrine I was missing.

But to expound on this. What exactly is a home without a priesthood holder missing out on? on-demand blessings by the laying on of hands is the only real thing I can think of. (NOTE:  I am not asking what a home without a good father is missing. Specifically, what is missed in a home where a righteous father is present, but he does not have the priesthood)

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Fether said:

Authority is found in the laying on of hands and its primary (and perhaps sole) job is to administer those covenants that provide those blessings to the obedient. This means that the power of the priesthood is accessible to women, but not the authority. Having the authority of the priesthood does not provide you any additional power in the priesthood, rather just allows you to administer the ordinances that provide power for others.

A bishop has the authority to extend callings. This is priesthood authority that is not administering covenants.

A relief-society president has priesthood authority as well to run the relief-society organization in her ward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Fether said:

My understanding as of yet:

I grew up thinking that first, a man gets the authority of the priesthood, and later then gets the power of the priesthood if he is righteous. But today I understand that authority and power are two completely separate things. Power is found in being true to the covenants we make and its primary role is to bless those that are obedient. Authority is found in the laying on of hands and its primary (and perhaps sole) job is to administer those covenants that provide those blessings to the obedient. This means that the power of the priesthood is accessible to women, but not the authority. Having the authority of the priesthood does not provide you any additional power in the priesthood, rather just allows you to administer the ordinances that provide power for others.

My questions:

- Can one say that there are no blessings missed out on when a priesthood holder is not in a home?
- Is the sole purpose of the priesthood authority purely just administering ordinances?
- If there is no man in the home, is there really no priesthood in the home?
- I have heard many times that in situations where a worthy priesthood holder is not present, the prayer of faith can have the same effect on healing the sick. If this is true, what is the purpose of blessing the sick and afflicted if a priesthood blessing isn't necessary? If the sole purpose of the authority of the priesthood is to administer ordinances for others to be obedient to, how do we look at blessings of comfort and counsel and blessing the sick and afflicted? No covenant is made there. What additional benefit does a blessing have that prayer does not? Is it just providing specific counsel from God? (Perhaps my premise is wrong or incomplete, that the solar purpose is for administering)
 



 

It is still correct that a man’s priesthood power in his priesthood office requires his righteousness. He cannot have a priesthood office until he is ordained. He can have priesthood power prior to ordination in the several ways recently described in the August Liahona, just as children and women can have priesthood power in their faith, sustaining, ordinances, callings and assignments.

- Can one say that there are no blessings missed out on when a priesthood holder is not in a home? Yes, but it requires faith on the part of the household members to access these blessings from someone other than a family member. Of course, having a priesthood holder in the home is a blessing.

 - Is the sole purpose of the priesthood authority purely just administering ordinances? It is to do whatever is delegated under the various keys. Most of these involve ordinances, and all are connected to ordinances in some fashion.

 - If there is no man in the home, is there really no priesthood in the home? Semantics. There may be no priesthood holder. There may be no faith to access priesthood power. On the other hand, there may be a single sister keeping her covenants with or without children doing the same. There may be a yet-unordained brother doing the same.

- I have heard many times that in situations where a worthy priesthood holder is not present, the prayer of faith can have the same effect on healing the sick. If this is true, what is the purpose of blessing the sick and afflicted if a priesthood blessing isn't necessary? Doing all we can to access the Lord’s grace under the terms He has set: either a priesthood blessing or the prayer of faith (and isn’t it most proper to do both simultaneously anyway?) are necessary depending on the circumstances.

If the sole purpose of the authority of the priesthood is to administer ordinances for others to be obedient to, how do we look at blessings of comfort and counsel and blessing the sick and afflicted? There are ways for the faithful to be obedient to the blessing for the sick. This is between them and the Lord, and why we have the Gift of the Holy Ghost. There are also ways for priesthood power to access the Lord's grace in behalf of those who cannot act. All is subject to the Lord's will, so much of this is part of the progression of aligning us individually and collectively with the Lord.

No covenant is made there. It falls under existing covenants.

What additional benefit does a blessing have that prayer does not? It is part of what the Lord expects us to do in doing all we can do to access His grace, given our circumstances.

Is it just providing specific counsel from God? No.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

How do you figure?

It seems to me like nowadays, to the extent that we talk about the priesthood-holder “presiding” in the home at all, we almost sound embarrassed about it and hasten to add that “of course, it should be an equal partnership . . . ”.

Yes, you want a healthy marriage characterized by listening and respect; but in any partnership there has to be a functional “final decider”—someone with veto power, if nothing else—and my sense (amongst my general acquaintance, at least) is that in most modern LDS marriages it is the wife, not the husband, who wields the unilateral power to say “our family is not going to do x because I don’t want to do it, period.” 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Whenever there is a discussion of Priesthood power or purpose in church the discussion almost always turns to blessing the sick or giving father's blessings or the like. Just so we're clear, the following is not shouting at you (I know you know this, but for other's reading so it's clear), but simply shouting my own frustration as a general statement... (and I'll also clarify that I know YOU know this, so I'm not lecturing at you...just riffing off the topic at hand)........... THOSE AREN'T SAVING ORDINANCES!!!

One could go their whole life and never have a Priesthood blessing when they're sick or a father's blessing when they start school and it wouldn't really matter all that much in the grand scheme of things. These things are blessing to us from God, and they are advantages in the same way any blessing is. But they aren't the true purpose and power of the Priesthood. Sickness and sorrow are part of the mortal condition. It is truly wonderful that sometimes we can alleviate these things by the power of the Priesthood. But we will, nonetheless, continue on in sickness and sorrow until we die, because that's mortal life. But if we don't have the saving ordinances and the sealing power then we are all doomed.

If one does not have a worthy Priesthood holder leading in their home then it is another state of sorrow and sickness that isn't the ideal. True. But it is not "the" difference, (unless one is in that state by choice of wickedness without repentance, of course) as all this will be rectified if we have sufficiently humbled ourselves and chosen and followed Christ.

I agree with this generally, but would note that there’s a potential wrinkle here.  James 5:14-15 states that when a person is healed pursuant to an anointing by the elders, the person’s sins are also forgiven.  We could probably have a looong discussion about how absolutely that verse should be read (if Hitler gets a sniffle and some well-meaning missionary blesses him to get well and he does in fact recover, he’s suddenly forgiven of the Holocaust?!?); but for the present it seems sufficient to note that there is a sacramental/salvational function inherent to anointing of the sick.  It’s certainly not an essential saving ordinance, because the salvific effect can also be obtained at the next Sacrament meeting—but it does seem to be a “saving” ordinance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It seems to me like nowadays, to the extent that we talk about the priesthood-holder “presiding” in the home at all, we almost sound embarrassed about it and hasten to add that “of course, it should be an equal partnership . . . ”.

Yes, you want a healthy marriage characterized by listening and respect; but in any partnership there has to be a functional “final decider”—someone with veto power, if nothing else—and my sense (amongst my general acquaintance, at least) is that in most modern LDS marriages it is the wife, not the husband, who wields the unilateral power to say “our family is not going to do x because I don’t want to do it, period.” 

I won't quote this to you, as I know you're well familiar, but I will quote it here for anyone reading along for consideration:

"No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile"

It strikes me, accordingly, that the responsibility and attitude of who presides in the home is squarely on the shoulders of those being presided over. 'Tis true, the rhetoric has been shaped so as to to not offend the weak among us. But those who know and understand know and understand.

The authority of a father in his home is not ceremonial. But neither is is taken by the father as an act of dominance. It is given by way of respect when the father exercises his priesthood by persuasion, gentleness, meekness, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I agree with this generally, but would note that there’s a potential wrinkle here.  James 5:14-15 states that when a person is healed pursuant to an anointing by the elders, the person’s sins are also forgiven.  We could probably have a looong discussion about how absolutely that verse should be read (if Hitler gets a sniffle and some well-meaning missionary blesses him to get well and he does in fact recover, he’s suddenly forgiven of the Holocaust?!?); but for the present it seems sufficient to note that there is a sacramental/salvational function inherent to anointing of the sick.  It’s certainly not an essential saving ordinance, because the salvific effect can also be obtained at the next Sacrament meeting—but it does seem to be a “saving” ordinance.

Once could argue that ALL we do in God's name is 'salvific'. Because it is. But that, I believe, misses my point. ;)

But...no...by definition, healing the sick is not a saving ordinance.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/true-to-the-faith/ordinances?lang=eng

(Edit: the definition of a "saving ordinance" is one that is required for exaltation.)

(Edit 2: I realize that by putting the "saving" in quotes at the end there that you're playing semantics. But that's actually, I think, detrimental to clarity. When we talk of saving ordinances in the church it has a specific meaning.)

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Once could argue that ALL we do in God's name is 'salvific'. Because it is. But that, I believe, misses my point. ;)

But...no...by definition, healing the sick is not a saving ordinance.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/true-to-the-faith/ordinances?lang=eng

(Edit: the definition of a "saving ordinance" is one that is required for exaltation.)

(Edit 2: I realize that by putting the "saving" in quotes at the end there that you're playing semantics. But that's actually, I think, detrimental to clarity. When we talk of saving ordinances in the church it has a specific meaning.)

Fair point.  :) 

Interestingly, TTTF doesn’t seem to weigh in on whether the sacrament is a “saving ordinance”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Fair point.  :) 

Interestingly, TTTF doesn’t seem to weigh in on whether the sacrament is a “saving ordinance”. 

It's kind of in the between, right? It's really a "renewal" ordinance for our baptismal covenant. But....really...no, it is not. Here's how you tell. Do we do said ordinance for the dead? No? Then it's not a required ordinance. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

FWIW, I do not believe this to be true.

FWIW this was the OP's statement. Mine is in bold:

- I have heard many times that in situations where a worthy priesthood holder is not present, the prayer of faith can have the same effect on healing the sick. If this is true, what is the purpose of blessing the sick and afflicted if a priesthood blessing isn't necessary? Doing all we can to access the Lord’s grace under the terms He has set: either a priesthood blessing or the prayer of faith (and isn’t it most proper to do both simultaneously anyway?) are necessary depending on the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can one say that there are no blessings missed out on when a priesthood holder is not in a home?

No. If there wasn't anything to the sons of God receiving the priesthood then the Lord wouldn't command it. There must be something that is received, unseen/unknown, with the priesthood in the home presiding that otherwise is not there. Otherwise the priesthood is simply an ornament, and we know it isn't.

Is the sole purpose of the priesthood authority purely just administering ordinances?

No. Priesthood also hold the keys and responsibilities for administration and ministering duties. The Church organization and all that it encompasses is accomplished through the priesthood. Without the priesthood -- as you already know -- ordinances aren't valid so that is important.

If there is no man in the home, is there really no priesthood in the home?

Yes, as in their isn't a priesthood holder who holds the priesthood; however, the priesthood is also not the man. I find it important that the Lord tells us if we are sick to call the Elders, which then correlates with not having the priesthood -- one who holds the authority and has been ordained -- in the home.

Priesthood "power" though can still be in the home.

I have heard many times that in situations where a worthy priesthood holder is not present, the prayer of faith can have the same effect on healing the sick.

This is accurate, but with caution a caveats (when the priesthood is not available and not around). I know of a lady who believed she could bless her children -- laying on of hands -- by her husband's priesthood. Actually give a blessing through her husband's priesthood/ordination. When we can call upon the priesthood body and choose not to we enter in the realm of pride, because the Lord himself has commanded us to call upon his Elders.

The easiest example is a widower or a single mother. If a woman is in an area where the priesthood body is not available or around she can exercise faith in the priesthood and call upon the Lord. This is the Lord's grace and mercy through our faith.

If this is true, what is the purpose of blessing the sick and afflicted if a priesthood blessing isn't necessary?

Refer to answer #3, if there is no man in the home. In this case though "isn't necessary" isn't the correct term. The priesthood is necessary otherwise the sons of God wouldn't be commanded to receive the Oath and Covenant of the priesthood. If we are in a position where we can't, then the Lord is merciful. Very similar to an anointing for the sick and afflicted. The anointing requires two individuals, and that is the way it should be done. But if there is only one present, there is understanding that the one individual can move forward and do both. Does this mean because we can perform this blessing with one person that two isn't necessary. No. We still seek to have two.

If the sole purpose of the authority of the priesthood is to administer ordinances for others to be obedient to, how do we look at blessings of comfort and counsel and blessing the sick and afflicted?

It isn't the sole purpose of priesthood authority. There are many functions to the priesthood, one of which is presiding. The second part answered above already.

What additional benefit does a blessing have that prayer does not? Is it just providing specific counsel from God?

I think this is a great question, and I think this is one where our faith is required. We do not know, and we do not see, but we exercise faith in God's words and his commandments. There must be something -- yet to be known that is true -- as to why the priesthood is necessary for God's kingdom to run and to be on the earth.

So in reality the greatest benefit is obedience to God. This is the way he commanded it. We are also informed that the "power of God" is manifest through his ordinances. So, this tells us there is some additional, some benefit, that otherwise would not be there if we simply prayed or did not have.

My mind draws me back to this scripture, "For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified;" These three aren't possible without the priesthood -- as we are given and to the knowledge we currently have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

I think this is a great question, and I think this is one where our faith is required. We do not know, and we do not see, but we exercise faith in God's words and his commandments. There must be something -- yet to be known that is true -- as to why the priesthood is necessary for God's kingdom to run and to be on the earth.

👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Anddenex said:

What additional benefit does a blessing have that prayer does not? Is it just providing specific counsel from God?

I think this is a great question, and I think this is one where our faith is required. We do not know, and we do not see, but we exercise faith in God's words and his commandments. There must be something -- yet to be known that is true -- as to why the priesthood is necessary for God's kingdom to run and to be on the earth.

I think you make some great points in your post @Anddenex. I think a key element in all of this is that if we try to analyze the reasons why behind what God does merely in light of our mortal probation we will most certainly come up short. There is so much about this earth life that is temporary. For instance, we are talking about homes and families without a father or at least a father without the priesthood. But in the eternities that situation does not exist. There is no family without a faithful father and there is no father who does not hold and faithfully exercise the priesthood. But because we live in a fallen world God extends many great mercies to help us through it. But God has his eye on eternity and that is what he is preparing us for. To that end I think He wants us to practice exercising power rather that simply asking Him to. A faithful priesthood holder already has, through covenant and worthiness, access to this power. That is why he says "I/we bless you..." whereas in prayer we are petitioning God to. If we ever hope to become like Him we must learn to exercise righteously the power that He does and thus life is a perfect training ground for that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share