The last major development in LDS priesthood is even less recognized today. In 1843 Smith extended the Melchizedek priesthood to LDS women through an “endowment ceremony” rather than through ordination to church office.
For example, in 1843 Presiding Patriarch Hyrum Smith blessed Leonora Cannon Taylor:
“You shall be bless[ed] with your portion of the Priesthood which belongeth to you, that you may be set apart for your Anointing and your induement [endowment].”
Thirty-five years later, Joseph Young (a patriarch and senior president of the Council of Seventy) blessed Brigham Young’s daughter:
“These blessings are yours, the blessings and power according to the Holy Melchi[z]edek Priesthood you received in your Endowments, and you shall have them.”
The decline in women’s awareness that the endowment ceremony gives them Melchizedek priesthood corresponds to the decline in women’s status in the LDS church during those same years. In the process, twentieth-century Mormons–both male and female, conservative and liberal–have identified priesthood with male privilege and hierarchical administrative power. Therefore, some recent writers regard as insignificant the concept that endowed Mormon women had (and continue to have) the Melchizedek priesthood without ordained office and hierarchical status.
Moreover, power, or the gifts of the spirit are incoherently conflated with priesthood. Now there is no question, as you note, that some have tried to say that priesthood is the power of God or the authority to act in God’s name; however, every day people pray in the name of Jesus that don’t hold the priesthood and no one seriously believes all spiritual gifts are constrained to priesthood office.
cwald wrote:I'm saying if that if I claim to have the priesthood from God, and not some church leader, and that I can administer the sacrament, and that I could start baptizing folks without permission from my BP/SP ---- that I'm going to be up for excommunication. I call that getting in trouble.
if jwald, who DOES have the priesthood (at least according to everyone on this site I think) was to anoint and lay hands on someone and give them a blessing --- would she get disciplined by the church today?
"As a disciple of Jesus Christ (your mother / a mother in Zion / etc.), I lay my hands on you and pray a blessing upon you . . ."
anyone, female or male, member or not, has the right to perform these types of blessings. Women do it today, but often surreptitiously because of the discomfort you mention in the OP.
“someone apparently reported to Joseph that the women were laying their hands on the sick and blessing them. His reply to the question of the propriety of such acts was simple. He told the women in the next meeting “there could be no evil in it, if God gave his sanction by healing.., there could be no more sin in any female laying hands on the sick than in wetting the face with water.” He also indicated that there were sisters who were ordained to heal the sick and it was their privilege to do so. “If the sisters should have faith to heal,” he said, “let all hold their tongues.”6
cwald wrote:Okay, good enough Ray.
I'm just wondering here, but if jwald, who DOES have the priesthood (at least according to everyone on this site I think) was to anoint and lay hands on someone and give them a blessing --- would she get disciplined by the church today?
SamBee wrote:I am pretty sure the priesthood is simply a mechanism men use to to say they have authority.
I was thinking you meant males rather than mankind here.
Cadence wrote:I was just saying the concept of the priesthood is just a man made concept so how can you keep or lose something that does not really exist. really was not referring to men or women.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot]