tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1249869099945727276.post297978694603038353..comments2024-02-08T07:19:54.565-05:00Comments on Quantumleap42: The Keys of the Priesthood Held In the ChurchQuantumleap42http://www.blogger.com/profile/16711817313734546305noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1249869099945727276.post-62241704415388048332018-04-15T19:03:04.744-04:002018-04-15T19:03:04.744-04:00I should point out that I was not referring to bre...I should point out that I was not referring to brethren who do not go to Elder's Quorum because they "think the lessons are boring." I was referring to those who do not go because they do not recognize the authority of those who hold the keys.Quantumleap42https://www.blogger.com/profile/16711817313734546305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1249869099945727276.post-18305407575020700902018-04-15T18:54:58.131-04:002018-04-15T18:54:58.131-04:00Hi Darin,
Thanks for your comment. It is somethin...Hi Darin,<br /><br />Thanks for your comment. It is something that I should clarify.<br /><br />The standard in the Church is that priesthood holders have the authority to give blessings where ever, when ever, and to whom ever. In the most recent General Conference President Oaks reiterated that brethren who hold the priesthood have this authority especially when it comes to blessing their own families. This is a good example of a priesthood key or authority that is held loosely in the Church.<br /><br />In the case of something like baptism, that is more tightly held. You cannot do it without the express permission of the key holder such as the bishop. The same goes for blessing infants.<br /><br />My point is that when it comes to giving blessings to the sick or of comfort those who hold the keys have decided that that ability should be very, very loosely held. At present the only time that ability is rescinded is in cases of transgression or apostasy. But just because it is loosely held at the moment does not mean that the key holders cannot restrict the ability to give blessings. It is possible for them to restrict it much in the same way they restrict baptism and other ordinances or performances.<br /><br />Let me give an example where the ability to give blessings had been restricted, though not actively.<br /><br />In one ward I lived in the missionaries met a young man and began to teach him. Later we found out that his father had been baptized many years ago in another country. Before the father went inactive he received the priesthood. But he was not allowed to exercise the priesthood until we could establish that he actually was a member and we received his records. Until his priesthood ordination was established we did not ask him to give blessings, baptize, or bless and pass the sacrament.<br /><br />If the missionaries had found him preaching and giving blessings using the "Melchizedek Priesthood" then we in the ward would not have allowed him to exercise the priesthood until his membership, ordination, and worthiness was established. This doctrine is established in <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/20.84#p83" rel="nofollow">D&C 20:84</a>.<br /><br />When I said, "Technically if you have a member of your quorum who comes to sacrament meeting, and refuses to stay for priesthood, they are not active members of their quorum and do not have the authority to give blessings." I was referring to members who actively rebel against Church and quorum leaders. It is possible to have brethren who have been ordained to the priesthood, and show up at sacrament meeting, but refuse to accept any and all Church leadership beyond this. This is an exceptionally rare occurrence that I have only ever met one person that this applies to.<br /><br />If someone is actively rebelling against their priesthood leaders then they can have their ability to give blessings rescinded. It's just that this is an exceptionally rare occurrence that never comes up. Usually they just leave the church. But consider a hypothetical case. If someone didn't like their Elder's Quorum president and tried to set up their own Elder's Quorum, complete with counselors, ministering assignments, lessons, meetings, etc., all while still attending sacrament meeting and claiming to be a faithful member of the church, then their ability to exercise their priesthood would be removed very quickly.<br /><br />This is exceptionally rare but it could conceivably happen (and I assume it has happened).<br /><br />Anyway I hope that makes sense.Quantumleap42https://www.blogger.com/profile/16711817313734546305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1249869099945727276.post-31211580816618926222018-04-15T11:54:52.573-04:002018-04-15T11:54:52.573-04:00You state above, “Technically if you have a member...You state above, “Technically if you have a member of your quorum who comes to sacrament meeting, and refuses to stay for priesthood, they are not active members of their quorum and do not have the authority to give blessings.”<br /><br />Are you aware of anything scriptural or doctrinally stated by a general authority that supports this statement? If not, could you please expound on your premise for this statement? I’m struggling to make the connection between not attending quorum meeting and losing the authority to give a blessing. Thank you in advance.<br /><br />Darinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1249869099945727276.post-10413242740814348192017-07-20T16:12:28.674-04:002017-07-20T16:12:28.674-04:00Thanks for your comment Mike. As an EQ presidents ...Thanks for your comment Mike. As an EQ presidents we hold more keys than we realize. As I explained in a comment above, we can technically restrict or selectively authorize priesthood blessings, but even more senior key holders would probably discourage that. The thing to remember is that for the members of your quorum, they only have the authority to give blessings because they are members of your quorum. Technically if you have a member of your quorum who comes to sacrament meeting, and refuses to stay for priesthood, they are not active members of their quorum and do not have the authority to give blessings.<br /><br />I have never seen that scenario in the US but I have seen in on my mission in Argentina. A member, a former bishop, who had a disagreement with the then current branch president, refused to attend anything other than sacrament meeting, yet would set up, and choose, his own home teaching routes and would act as a semi-independent ward mission leader. His "home teaching", "missionary work", and "priesthood blessings" were not authorized because he refused to be a member of a quorum, and thus were invalid. No matter how good his intentions, he was not authorized by the key holder to do any of that.<br /><br />Many elders in the church do not realized that the only reason why they are allowed to give blessings, even to the members of their own families, is because they are a member of a quorum and the Elder's Quorum president holds those keys.Quantumleap42https://www.blogger.com/profile/16711817313734546305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1249869099945727276.post-80363659716585483602017-07-18T21:49:03.374-04:002017-07-18T21:49:03.374-04:00Thanks for the post - came across this while tryin...Thanks for the post - came across this while trying to understand what keys I hold as a newly called EQ President. One minor correction: there are 2 more "key people" in each Ward that hold priesthood keys: the presidents of the Deacons' and Teachers' quorums. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07829612743920787477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1249869099945727276.post-3134501019811571842015-12-15T12:48:05.610-05:002015-12-15T12:48:05.610-05:00Thanks for stopping by Kieran. I'm glad you le...Thanks for stopping by Kieran. I'm glad you learned something. It's always good to know that what I write can help.Quantumleap42https://www.blogger.com/profile/16711817313734546305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1249869099945727276.post-52630200541902874852015-12-13T23:48:30.226-05:002015-12-13T23:48:30.226-05:00Thank you for taking the time to write this.
I fou...Thank you for taking the time to write this.<br />I found it insightful.<br /><br />two thoughts.<br /><br />I really enjoyed reading this. It did feel that at the start of the page, it was talking about 'power,' when in actuality, you were referencing authority. We must be careful that we don't use them synonymously as they are different and have different meanings.<br /><br />My second thought is your reference to The Seventy holding keys.<br />I share the following from a meeting I attended with Elder Bednar:<br /><br />"A Seventy holds NO Priesthood keys. <br />How can a Seventy who holds no keys set apart a Stake President and confer keys?<br />A 70 is an Apostolic office-not an Apostle. Functionally they do the same thing. Difference is that the 12 do so holding the keys but the 70 do so under the direction of the 12, and the 12 delegate Apostolic keys to the 70 in their specific assignments.<br />Once assignments are completed-the 70 don't have keys.<br /><br />The office of a 70 is a conduit for the exercise of the Apostolic keys.<br />As the church grows, we could have millions and millions of people but only 12 Apostles. We could have 100's of quorums of 70 and that is so the Apostolic keys can be exercised throughout the church despite it's growth.<br /><br />When a 70 attends your meetings, they do so with Apostolic keys.<br />A seventy who holds no keys can be authorized to act with keys belonging to others." <br /><br />Thank you for for teaching me today.<br /><br />KieranKierannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1249869099945727276.post-25773456914613642662015-08-05T13:09:14.043-04:002015-08-05T13:09:14.043-04:00Hi just me,
Good question. In Doctrine and Covena...Hi just me,<br /><br />Good question. In <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/42.43-44%2C48-52?lang=eng#42" rel="nofollow">Doctrine and Covenants Section 42</a> the Elders of the Church are given the duty to bless the sick. This ability is of course an action taken by the priesthood and is restricted to worthy Melchizedek priesthood holders. Like any other priesthood ordinance or blessing the ability to perform the blessing requires authorization from those who hold priesthood keys.<br /><br />For example, when I blessed my youngest child I was not in my home ward. I had to carry a recommend signed by my Bishop stating that I was worthy and authorized to perform the blessing, and I needed the approval of the Bishop in the ward where I was performing the blessing, as explained in <a href="https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng#20.1.3" rel="nofollow">the Church Handbook of Instructions</a>. The reason why we do this is because the blessing of a child is recorded and kept on the records of the Church. In order to prevent overzealous priesthood holders (I've known a few) from trying to start their own branch (again, something I've seen), the ability to perform a blessing or ordinance that is recorded on the records of the Church must receive express written approval from the presiding priesthood authority, such as the Bishop or Branch President.<br /><br />A blessing on the sick is not under the same strict rules since the performance of those blessings are not recorded. But, because it is still an act of the priesthood it is still under the control of the presiding authority. Currently the presiding key holder of the Church (i.e. the president of the Church) has not directed otherwise so the blessing of the sick has no restriction. As noted in the <a href="https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng#206" rel="nofollow">the Church Handbook of Instructions</a> "a father who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood normally should administer to sick members of his family." But while that policy may hold, there is nothing in the scriptures that restricts the presiding key holder of the Church from changing it, and requiring blessings of the sick to be restricted to members of your own ward, in the same way baby blessings and other ordinances are currently restricted. All other key holders in the Church (Stake Presidents, Bishop etc.) may change that policy for individual members of their quorums/ward, but usually only because of unworthiness.<br /><br />If there was a general problem such that a Stake President had to restrict the ability of members of his ward from giving blessings to the sick, then generally there are some other things going on that have to be address at a regional or Church wide level by a higher authority.<br /><br />So to sum up. Because you derive your authority to perform ordinances and blessings from the fact that you are part of a quorum in an established ward or branch, your quorum president/Bishop/Stake President can restrict your ability to perform any ordinance or blessing for any reason. Currently, that means only for reasons of unworthiness, but if things got out of hand then the quorum president/Bishop/Stake President could instruct all priesthood holders that they are not allowed to perform ordinances or give blessing, even to the sick, anywhere in the world. As long as you are a member of that quorum/ward/stake then you are bound by that decision.<br /><br />Quantumleap42https://www.blogger.com/profile/16711817313734546305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1249869099945727276.post-33126877971621113362015-08-04T20:52:35.451-04:002015-08-04T20:52:35.451-04:00I dont mean to question your writing, but I am cur...I dont mean to question your writing, but I am curious about your statement that the keys are held by the e.q. president or the stake president to allow or deny an elder to give a priesthood blessing to a member of his family. I thought an elder could go anywhere in the world and give a priesthood blessing if worthy. An eq pres or stake pres have authority only in a given juristiction. Could you provide references that you base this statement on. Again, not to contend, just to learn. Thanksjust mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09510525438613824669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1249869099945727276.post-26354919705456466942014-06-23T07:19:56.922-04:002014-06-23T07:19:56.922-04:00Great post. I want to clarify that the 1st quorum ...Great post. I want to clarify that the 1st quorum of the seventy do not individually hold keys. Collectively, they do but all they do for the church individually is through the authority of the President's keys. The apostles, of course, do have keys.Jaredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08452906212149716503noreply@blogger.com