'Priesthood' - an illusory concept?

[_sock puppet]

According to many religions, priesthood is authority of god, passed from one human being to another. It supposedly traces back, for example, all the way back to and through Peter to Jesus. Or, per Mormonism, all the way back to and through JSJr to Jesus.

Now, let's think about this authority or power to act for god. Is god only going to be benevolent with blessings on those that act the way god wants if one has had this baton pass to him? If someone without the priesthood does something charitable to another, is god displeased? Nonplussed? Indifferent? And going to treat that actor no differently than someone who does not either hurt nor help others?

Or, from another perspective, suppose the priesthood holder does something 'off the page' of god? Does god turn a blind eye to such action because the actor has the priesthood, but would count it against and punish another actor, one without the priesthood, for doing the same thing?

A third view: will god only help heal someone if a priesthood holder lays hands on that person's head and gives them a blessing?

The priesthood either renders god to be a respecter of persons, contrary to the New Testament*, or that god takes orders from priesthood holders as to when god will and how he will dispense his divine powers to assist mankind.

If you posit that god neither is a respecter of persons nor takes orders from men, even those with the priesthood, but that god is superior to man, then what is this 'priesthood'?

*A. Acts 10:34, 35 - "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

B. Rom. 2:9-11 - "Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; but glory, honor, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: for there is no respect of persons with God."

C. Eph. 6:8, 9 - "Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same thing unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

D. Col. 3:25 - "But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons."

E. 1 Peter 1:17 - "And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear."

Those 5 New Testament citations contrast these from the Old Testament:

i. Ex. 2:24, 25 - "And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them."

ii. Lev. 26:9 - "For I will have respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you."

iii. II Kings 13:23 - "And the Lord was gracious unto them, and had compassion on them, and had respect unto them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence as yet."

[_sock puppet]

So, 27 folks have taken a peek and no one can explain how priesthood means anything, at all, given that god is supposed to be no respecter of persons and superior to men, even those with 'the priesthood'?

[_The Dude]

So, 27 folks have taken a peek and no one can explain how priesthood means anything, at all, given that god is supposed to be no respecter of persons and superior to men, even those with 'the priesthood'?

Sorry sock, I just got here.

Many years back I proposed a thought experiment on the FAIR/MADD board (whatever you call it now). My angle was inspired by the Turing test - look it up if you don't know it.

Basically the question was "If you had before you two men who both claimed to have the true priesthood, what evidence could you look for to determine which one had the "real" priesthood and which one had a "false" priesthood?"

[_sock puppet]

So, 27 folks have taken a peek and no one can explain how priesthood means anything, at all, given that god is supposed to be no respecter of persons and superior to men, even those with 'the priesthood'?

Sorry sock, I just got here.

Many years back I proposed a thought experiment on the FAIR/MADD board (whatever you call it now). My angle was inspired by the Turing test - look it up if you don't know it.

Basically the question was "If you had before you two men who both claimed to have the true priesthood, what evidence could you look for to determine which one had the "real" priesthood and which one had a "false" priesthood?"

Suppose you were able to determine (a) there is a god, and (b) which one of the two men has the 'real' priesthood (which one god authorized to act on god's behalf). So what from that authorization?

Is god going to judge such a person's actions differently?

Is god more inclined to give divine help to people in need if a 'priesthood' holder asks god to?

Is god going to deny anyone an otherwise earned eternal reward because he or she did not have a 'real' priesthood dunk him in water after reciting an incantation?

The whole notion of priesthood makes the associated god simply unreasonable and ridiculous.

[_The Dude]

The whole notion of priesthood makes the associated god simply unreasonable and ridiculous.

Not if you;ve played Dungeons & Dragons.

[_Hades]

Priesthood is something that holy men came up with to make their religion the one with authority. It's like magic corn giving reindeer the ability to fly. It works for believers. For the rest of us, it's just a myth.

[_RockSlider]

Sorry rant ahead.

I've mulled over this topic for some time now as I've dealt with my illness. One of the beautiful concepts of Mormon Doctrine is that the highest order of the priesthood is the Patriarchal order (Book of Mormon refers to this as the Holy Order, see Alma Chapter 13 for one example). The beauty, to me of this is that it's all about being righteous parents.

The ecclesiastical priesthood (baton) is controlled by the Prophet on down through a Bishop with the key requirements for any supposed power in this priesthood being based on full tithe paying, WoW following, temple attending males. Period.

I remember years back in an AOL religious chat room first coming in contact with some RLDS males in their 30's that were only Deacons. Upon me telling them I was a High Priest, they marveled at how that must be. Well folks, upon automatic advancement based on nothing but age the useless ecclesiastical priesthood has all active males at Elder by 19 (18 now) and HP by 45.

Having no requirements for actual spirituality, or experience with things of God, this ecclesiastical priesthood, by itself, is useless.

Early in my illness I request my wards Relief Society President and my wife to give me a blessing, based on their spirituality and faith. I had no faith in the HPGL and home teacher's offers of their ecclesiastical blessing.

I have to admit, I was (am) a bit bitter about their (Church/ecclesiastical priesthoods) rejection of my Fatherly endowed rights/gifts in excluding me from my children's marriages etc. I was deemed unworthy, and yet now, it is I who deem them unworthy.

This does not mean that there are not men holding the church's priesthood who would not also be full of faith, charity, spirituality and love that would be perfect candidates for giving blessings, but any power in their blessings would not be coming from the baton.

[Guest]

It is illusory. Perhaps it acts as a sort of placebo for those that believe in a literal "priesthood" power, and maybe there is some unknown mind-body connection with that belief? Of course, the mind-body connection would manifest for the person receiving some aspect of a priesthood benefit, and not for the possessor of it.

I don't believe that Mormons claim exclusivity to healings and blessings. Mormons seem to recognize that they do manifest for other people in other faiths. However, Mormons do believe that the priesthood is exclusive to themselves in effectuating the saving ordinances; baptism, laying on of hands, temple endowments and temple ordinances etc.

It seems to me that the Priesthood, for more forward thinking members at least, is less a power to be wielded, as it is a symbol of becoming a conduit for God.

Ultimately it should be understood that any real power of a priesthood, or baptim, or laying on of hands, is how the symbolism is internalized by the recipient, and not as some sort of externalized power.

My .14 cents.

[_Harold Lee]

Here's the way healing blessings work:

Those who hold the Priesthood have the authority from God to bless the sick to be healed.

But you don't have to have the Priesthood to heal people, sometimes God does miracles through others based solely on their faith. For example, women can lay hands on a sick child's head and God can do miracles through them.

Remember though, when someone with the Priesthood blesses someone to be healed, it'll only work sometimes.

Thus concludes our lesson on how healing blessings work. Amen.

Oh, and also get them the medical care they need. God tends to heal those people more.

[_Racer]

The whole notion of priesthood makes the associated god simply unreasonable and ridiculous.

Not if you;ve played Dungeons & Dragons.

Maybe God uses 20 sided die when priesthood holders give priesthood blessing to the sick. The die roll coupled with modifiers determine whether the sick person gets healed or not. But, beware of debuffs that count against you if you are receiving a priesthood blessing and have recently masturbated, have more than one earring, or recently drank a McCafe Frappe.