As is always the case my comments are my own, my personal reflections on topics of importance to me. I welcome your thoughts and challenges to my way of thinking.
God has given the priesthood to man so that His power can be manifested among the children of men in an orderly way—so that His purposes may be fulfilled. God never intended to give the authority to act and administer in his name to all people, but rather a reserved portion that made valiant decisions in this life and perhaps in their previous experience. Evidence for this can easily be found in every book of scripture in every age where the priesthood has been given by God to man. Even still, the priesthood is not solely a mark of personal valiance or honor. It is given to man for God’s purposes to be fulfilled, not man’s. Otherwise we speak of priestcraft, not priesthood. I have come to see great wisdom in God’s giving this priesthood to some and not all, for example His giving it to men and not women. By doing so we must rely upon one another to make it active in family units—the basic unit of the gospel. When the intact family unit is discarded by society the blessings of the priesthood go with it, as it is no longer readily accessible in the home. When families remain worthy and intact, however, the authority to preside and bless are efficacious and contribute to the strength and vitality of that family.
The gift of Christ’s gospel is not the priesthood, which some may have mistaken it to be. The gifts of His gospel include all of the gifts of the Spirit, which are made available to all of His children but are reserved for His faithful, seeking ones.
Unlike the priesthood, which has been reserved for a few, to suit God’s needs, the blessings of the gospel and the gift of the Holy Ghost are made available to all of God’s children, EVERY LAST ONE. We are only made partakers of these great gifts, however, as we humble ourselves before God and are baptized into His church and kingdom. All of those who humble themselves before God and are baptized and receive His word will be blessed by having continual access to the Holy Spirit of Truth. This is the greatest blessing that can come to mankind while in this earthly probation. Far greater blessings lay in the next estate, of course.
Giving the priesthood unto the children of men is God’s way of keeping order and bringing to pass His work in His vast kingdom and is an oath and covenant made to and with the human race. It is not expedient that every person hold the priesthood for it is not the holding of the priesthood that causes conversion in one’s breast. Rather it is an order of service through which God can bless His children, while maximizing the utility of the agency that has been given to mankind. Some must choose to serve, while others must choose to be served, regardless of who holds the priesthood.
Thoughts came to mind of certain metaphors such as the body of Christ where all members are needed, but do not perform the same function or have the same level of utility. I also have considered that while many hold the priesthood some hold the greater (Melchizedek) and some hold the lesser (Aaronic). Furthermore, there are many levels of duty and responsibility within the priesthood organization. There is obviously a need for great variety in this regard. The authority to act in God’s name never has been distributed evenly. It is given according to His wisdom, and His timing.
Any thoughts?
6 comments:
Given our theology, however, what is the desired end goal of mankind? It is to become like Him. And by what means are all things carried out and that goal attained? It is by and through the power of the Priesthood. The very power of God on Earth and in Heaven. So the very nature of our theology denotes the fact that we are striving to become worthy, able, and allowed to be not just partakers but holders of that same Priesthood with which God our Father governs the universe. Else how can we be like Him? So naturally, all devout members of this church would yearn for and strive to be given this sacred responsibility of holding the Priesthood. So though I agree that God has at times and for His purposes only given the Priesthood responsibility to certain individuals or groups (Levites for example), I believe, as I am sure you do as well, that it was always the intention of our Father to extend that blessing to all. I do not think that God's plans can be frustrated. I do however, believe that man is weakness and that God works, in His infinite wisdom, with and through our weaknesses. We learn, we grow, and are refined in the furnace of our afflictions. And God, in his love, allows for this, knowing the way in which it will stretch us and bring us to greater heights of understanding, both as individuals and as a church. Could the Priesthood ban have been the folly of men? Because that is what we are really getting at right? I believe it could have been. I will not say whether it was or not, but I believe it could have been. But the question is not whether it was a mistake of man but whether or not it was allowed by the Lord. I believe that everything went down as it was supposed to. Or rather, that none of God's purposes were frustrated, including the welfare of His church and it's members. Think of The Fall. Through Adam's transgression the Lord's purposes are carried out. Even through mankind's weakness God's will and purposes are made manifest and are never, ever, frustrated.
James, what do you mean by saying "active family units" are the "basic unit of the gospel"?
Can this be squared with Paul's encouraging of single people to stay unmarried in 1 Corinthians 7?(A passage which also seems awfully inconsistent with the doctrine of celestial marriage)
Also, since you say you see the wisdom of God in the way priesthood authority is distributed, what wisdom do you see in God denying the priesthood to blacks prior to 1978?
To touch on the first comment posted, I do believe the ban of blacks from the priesthood was human folly, likely born of pre-Civil War and pre-civil rights segregation culture rather than a Divine decree. If I'm right, an unavoidable implication of this is that the authority exercised by those who upheld that ban is not reliable.
If the whole premise of the "restoration" of the priesthood was to remedy the problem of religious leaders having bad judgment and teaching erroneous things about God, then I can't place any confidence in those leaders (and their successors) who continue to teach erroneous things, for example that blacks are (or at least were)the cursed descendants of Cain and thus unworthy of the priesthood.
The reliability of leaders who taught such things being called into question is something to be considered, however, I disagree that it unavoidably implies that they are entirely unreliable. If that were the case we might as well discount all religious leaders, because frankly they are all going to be found wanting. I still believe that though it may or may not have been folly, God's purposes are still carried out, even through men and women with weaknesses. Also in defense of members of the church in that time period, the idea of blacks being the "cursed seed of Cain" was not unique to the LDS church. This was common thought in that time period. Even among some blacks. I can find that reference if needed. And lastly, how sure are you that the "whole premise of the "restoration" of the priesthood was to remedy the problem of religious leaders having bad judgment and teaching erroneous things about God"? The Restoration is more complex than that and this could surely be debated. I would say that it was one mere aspect of the Restoration. The goal being the striving for an end result, not instant perfection. This Church does not claim perfection. Remember my stone analogy.
Shelby
Thank you Mike and Shelby for your comments. I appreciate the openness with which both of you have approached my entry. My hope is to keep each entry focused, so I will respond to Mike's comments about the priesthood in this entry and will start a new entry soon that deals with the issue of celestial marriage in relation to scriptural teachings. Thank you for understanding my desire to keep this from becoming a checkerboard of unchecked thought.
While Mike has pointed out the historical fact that members of other nationalities have not always held rights to the priesthood in this dispensation (I use the word "nationalities", because the limitations were broader than just our brothers of black ancestry and the 1978 revelation extended the priesthood to every worthy male, not just our black brothers.) My initial entry was much broader. I refer to race, gender, age, religion and bloodline factors. To focus the issue solely on race sidesteps the bigger picture. For still women and children do not hold priesthood, nor do you Mike, where in many respects, I am sure you are more diligent and righteous than some who hold it. To answer your question, when I say that "I have come to see great wisdom in God’s giving this priesthood to some and not all" I refer to the manner in which it requires us to work together to make it an active force in our lives, and also provides humbling experiences to those who otherwise might not humble themselves before God.
A pattern I have come to see very clearly in all scriptural and modern accounts is that the priesthood has never, ever been distributed evenly amongst the children of men. Never. So before we begin to work on latter-day justification for the seeming partiality, how might we justify God's actions in all the rest of history? Prior to 1830? Throughout Israelite history authority was only given to one bloodline (Levi), denied to the rest. We have little New Testament record of who got it and who didn't. The Book of Mormon depicts righteous God-fearing men as obtaining such a right, and such is the determining factor in these last days, with the exception of those who won't accept the fulness of the Gospel but still fear God.
Since your entries show your disbelief in the governors of the Church of Jesus Christ I will infer that you also disbelieve in the authority of the priesthood. So I would like to end with one thought.
I have experienced unrecitable things due to the authority which I have been given to bless others. My own belief and faith in its power had been challenged at one time. I was prompted by the Lord to "Make great promises, and give great blessings and then trust the Lord to honor the authority that he had given me". I have seen undeniable miracles. I have felt heavenly powers flow through me. I have seen the manner in which the blessings of the priesthood have influenced my home for good. To try and persuade one who has experienced and witnessed the blessings of the priesthood as I have that they are built on a false pretense would be akin to a blind man trying to convince one who can see that there is no such thing as color. I have seen the color...and have come to see God's wisdom in allowing some people to remain blind. All glory be to God, for He accomplishes all that He purposes in his heart.
So if the authority is real (which I will personally attest it is) then how do we reason through the seeming partiality. As I have prayed and studied this issue I have been impressed that the blessings of the gospel are the companionship of the Holy Ghost and the attending gifts of the spirit, which are available to all (race, gender, age, etc.) The priesthood is not so. So there is no need to argue on its behalf of ever needing to have been distributed fairly. Rather it is an order of service through which God can bless His children, while maximizing the utility of the agency that has been given to mankind. Agency being the key word of that sentence.
In response to Shelby's post:
You are right in saying all religious leaders are flawed to some extent, but the colossal issue here--and I can't emphasize this enough--is that no other religious leaders claim to hold the restored authority of God, which was supposed to remedy the problem of erroneous theological teaching. Regardless of whether this was the "whole premise" of the restoration, it was definitely a central premise, and an idea that's been emphasized in almost every LDS sacrament meeting I've ever attended and everything I've read on the subject from LDS authorities.
Please see the recent entry on my blog aletheiaquest.blogspot.com regarding this for a more thorough explanation. The probelem with saying that the theological points made by LDS general authorities have not always been completely right is that this contradicts what those general authorities themselves have said about the nature of their authority. Please see the quotes cited in my blog entry on this.
Also, when you say the idea of blacks being the cursed seed of Cain was not unique to the LDS Church, to me this is another way of saying the LDS authorities did not have sufficient discernment to see through the sinful beliefs of the larger culture. Given the idea of priesthood authority taught by the LDS Church, those outside the Church would naturally expect LDS general authorities to always have the discernment and moral fortitude to rise above the culturla norms (like racism) that are so inconsistent with Christian teaching. It is a horrible shame that so many Protestant and Catholic leaders bought into the status quo at the time.
In response to James' post:
I single out blacks from other nationalities because it was blacks whom Brigham Young singled out in saying the black skin and flat nose were a result of the curse of Cain, and that a white and black person should be killed if ever they married each other. It was also specifically blacks who were the object of Young's decision to legalize slavery in Utah in 1852.
Regrading miraculous confirmation, the fact that something is miraculous does not mean it is from God. This is why Christians have always emphasized the importance of checking the validity of spiritual/supernatural experiences by their consistency with the Bible.
So what you are saying is that you don't expect them to be supermen, but you do. Where did the idea come from that just because we profess to be the true and living church we are not allowed to remain human? Your leaders are allowed their foibles but ours are not simply because they are Prophets? The Priesthood is a real and working power and despite our follies Christianity does remain true. We hold that stand point just as you do. Those that hold the Priesthood of God and govern this church should have perfect discernment at all times? Maybe in a perfect world. I am certainly not going to pretend to know all of the answers. As I stated before, It may or may not have been a folly of men. I cannot say. There are other theories as well that are perhaps more widely held. James will talk about those. But answer me one thing. Why do they join? Why do they stay true despite the persecution they endure from the rest of the black community and the difficulties they face even within the church. Why would they choose this for themselves? If you want those answers you really should talk to some of these people. They know why they are here.
Post a Comment