Continuing with
the theme of terms we assume we understand but maybe don’t, let us look at a
rather nebulous term that over time has grown in importance in the LDS lexicon:
priesthood keys. First, though, let
me point out that the concept of priesthood keys exists only because of the
unique LDS definition of priesthood. If priesthood meant simply the state of
being a priest, we would have no such thing as keys. Keys exist only because
priesthood has become an abstract principle, a generalized authority. Keys
unlock this authority so that it can be used in various ways.
So, what exactly are
priesthood keys? According to Bruce R. McConkie, “The keys of the kingdom [which may not be the same as priesthood keys]
are the power, right, and authority to preside over the kingdom of God on earth
and to direct all of its affairs.”1 Joseph F. Smith taught that
every man ordained to the priesthood has authority, but “it is necessary that
every act performed under this authority shall be done at the proper time and
place, in the proper way, and after the proper order. The power of directing
these labors constitutes the keys of the Priesthood.”2 The Encyclopedia of Mormonism defines
priesthood keys as “the right to exercise power in the name of Jesus Christ or
to preside over a priesthood function, quorum, or organizational division of
the Church. Keys are necessary to maintain order and to see that the functions
of the Church are performed in the proper time, place, and manner.”3
Robert Millet and his coauthors explain that “the keys of the priesthood are
the right of presidency.” They also point out, “While such persons as the
Sunday School president, the Relief Society president, the Primary president,
the Young Women president, and the Young Men president all have the right to
inspiration and divine guidance because of the responsibility they bear, they
do not hold keys.”4 This last statement again tosses us into murky
definitional waters. Most presidents of auxiliary organizations in the Church
do indeed preside, as their title suggests, but they apparently preside without
keys, which indicates that keys are not really necessary in order to preside,
except in priesthood functions.
The notion that
the presiding officer in a ward or branch of the Church holds the keys
pertaining to the performance of ordinances in that unit was apparently not
understood as late as 1838. In the early Church, teachers were specifically
assigned to preside over congregations, so that high priests, elders, and
priests could travel and preach. Therefore teachers presided, even though they
did not have sufficient authority to baptize or bless the sacrament, which
suggests that they also did not possess priesthood keys regarding the performance
of ordinances in the branches over which they presided.5
Did Keys Exist Anciently?
Joseph Smith is
reported to have taught that “the fundamental principles, government, and
doctrine of the Church are vested in the keys of the kingdom,”6 and
“the keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent.”7
If this is true, we might well ask why there is no mention of this concept in
any ancient scripture. Not only does the term priesthood appear very infrequently and then only in a very specialized
usage in the Bible and Book of Mormon, but the word key appears even less frequently in ancient scripture. Key appears only one time in the entire
Book of Mormon and, interestingly, occurs in the setting of Jerusalem,
referring to the treasury of Laban (1 Ne. 4:20). This term appears only two
times in the Old Testament, once as a literal key to open a door (Judg. 3:25)
and once as a figurative expression: “the key of the house of David will I lay
upon his shoulder” (Isa. 22:22). Similarly, this term, in singular or plural
form, appears only six times in the New Testament, all of them used
figuratively—“the key of the bottomless pit” (Rev. 9:1; 20:1), “the keys of
death and hell” (Rev. 1:18), “the key of David” (Rev. 3:7), “the key of
knowledge” (Luke 11:52), and “the key of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19).
This last reference is the only one even loosely associated with priesthood
keys, where Jesus is telling Peter he will build his church upon “this rock”
and give him “the key of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind
on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven,” suggesting that this key involves making earthly
acts valid in heaven. Of course, this key is never directly connected to
priesthood in the New Testament, for Peter is never said to have priesthood.
This reference, however, is probably where Joseph Smith came upon the idea of
priesthood keys, even though this notion is far from clear in Matthew’s
account. In contrast to the infrequent use of the word key(s) in ancient scripture, it appears 63 times in the Doctrine
and Covenants, referring to the keys of the priesthood, of the kingdom, of
patriarchal blessings, of the ministering of angels, of mysteries, of spiritual
blessings, of salvation, and so forth, all usages being figurative.
This disparity in
usage raises an obvious question. Could it be that mention of figurative keys
is an indication of how prevalent literal keys might be in the society in
question? A literal key opens a lock, generally on a door. That is its
function. This sort of lock is
mentioned only four times in the Old Testament, all in the book of Nehemiah. Door(s), by contrast, is mentioned 198
times. In the New Testament, we find no lock(s),
although door(s) is mentioned 38
times. Could it be that most doors in ancient Palestine did not have locks and
therefore had no keys either? As mentioned, the word key appears only once in the Book of Mormon, referring to Laban’s
treasury, which understandably would have had a door and a lock. But the word lock does not appear in the entire Book
of Mormon, and door(s) appears only
eight times. One of these instances is a quotation from Isaiah (2 Ne. 16:4), so
it tells us nothing about Nephite society. Another is from the Savior’s New
World version of the Sermon on the Mount (3 Ne. 13:6), about praying in secret
with the door shut. Of the remaining six instances, two refer to prison doors
(Ether 7:18; Alma 14:27), two refer to tent doors (1 Ne. 16:10; Mosiah 2:6),
one refers to the door in the Jaredites’ barges (Ether 2:17), and one is a
figurative usage: “Yea, even at this time ye are ripening . . . for everlasting
destruction; yea, and except ye repent it will come unto you soon. Yea, behold
it is now even at your doors” (Hel. 8:26–27). From evidence in the book itself,
the only doors among the Nephites that would probably have had locks and keys
were prison doors. There is no direct evidence that the Nephite homes even had
doors, although the verse in Helaman suggests they did. But nowhere do we read
that those doors had locks or keys. Considering the scarcity of literal doors
and the absence of locks in the Book of Mormon account, it is not surprising
that the concept of figurative keys, especially keys to priesthood power or to
salvation, likewise does not appear in the record. The figurative usage of
words has little or no meaning where the literal usage is rare or totally
absent. It should be mentioned, however, that the Book of Mormon does not
include any other metaphor that might correspond to our modern concept of
priesthood keys. Certain individuals had authority from God, although not a
generic priesthood, and they did not apparently require keys or any other
metaphorical device to use authority themselves or give it to others. Alma1
and his descendants presided over the church, but none of them is said to have
exercised priesthood or keys.
So if the
ancients had no abstract concept of priesthood similar to the LDS notion of
priesthood today, and if they had no figurative concept of keys connected to
priesthood, where did this idea of priesthood keys come from? Michael Quinn
suggests that “the doctrine of ‘the keys of the priesthood’ (and the related
‘keys of the kingdom’) became central to the question of presidential succession.”8
The concept of presiding, of being at the pinnacle of a power structure,
requires some sort of mechanism for maintaining order. Priesthood keys serve
that function in Mormonism. But hierarchies have existed and continue to exist
without any concept like priesthood keys. As long as established patterns of
granting authority and providing for orderly succession are in place,
organizations can and do thrive. As an aside, it is interesting to note that
the presence of priesthood keys did not prevent multiple relatively credible
claims to succeed Joseph Smith after his death. So apparently this concept was
not widely understood (or perhaps not understood the way we view it today)
prior to Joseph’s death.
Organizational Imbalance
One circumstance
that arises from the LDS view of authority is that lesser (local) priesthood
keys are bestowed upon leaders in one branch (male) of the organization, but
they are not bestowed in the other branch (female), thus creating a situation
in which there are presiding officers who have keys and there are other
presiding officers who do not have keys. This produces not only organizational
confusion but also inequalities that cannot be easily explained away.
Perhaps Joseph
Smith would have eliminated these inequalities if he had lived long enough. We
cannot know. As mentioned earlier, Joseph saw the Relief Society as having some
part in the priesthood, and on April 28, 1842, “he spoke of delivering the keys
to this Society and to the church.”9
What keys these might be he did not explain clearly, but he did say “that the
keys of the kingdom are about to be given to them [the Relief Society], that
they may be able to detect every thing false—as well as to the Elders.”10
If this seems confusing, it is likely because Joseph used many terms loosely, keys included. For Joseph, a particular
word could mean many things, and meanings often shifted over time. For
instance, in 1842 Joseph, speaking about the keys of the kingdom, explained
that “the keys are certain signs and words by which false spirits and
personages may be detected from true, which cannot be revealed to the Elders
till the Temple is completed.”11 Regardless of the several meanings
he may have attached to the word keys,
the general figurative idea of keys was obviously important to him.
So, where does
this leave us? I’m not sure. Priesthood keys serve a purpose in the Church—of maintaining
order, particularly in terms of succession at the top—but they also add a layer
of complexity and of perplexity to the lower levels of the organization. For
instance, we make a big deal of the fact that a deacons quorum president holds
priesthood keys. But what do those keys do? Frankly, nothing. They purportedly permit
the deacons president to assign other deacons to pass the sacrament and collect
fast offerings (activities that were not always priesthood functions), but he
could just as easily do this without the concept of keys. According to our
standard explanation, these keys permit the deacons president to preside over
his quorum. But how is this different from what the Beehive class president
does?
So, just for the
sake of asking the obvious, what would happen if we removed the term priesthood keys from our LDS vocabulary?
Would the organization, in practice, function any differently? Would the Church
become more simple, or more chaotic? Would the absence of this concept open the
door to greater equality? These are questions we perhaps ought to examine more
carefully.
_______________________
1. Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 411,
italics in original.
2. Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine: Selections from the Sermons and Writings of Joseph F.
Smith, 5th ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1919), 136.
3. Alan K. Parrish, “Keys of the Priesthood,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H.
Ludlow, 4 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 2:780.
4. Robert L. Millet, Camille Fronk Olson, Andrew C.
Skinner, and Brent L. Top, LDS Beliefs: A
Doctrinal Reference (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2011), 361.
5. Gregory A. Prince, Power from On High: The Development of Mormon Priesthood (Salt Lake
City: Signature Books, 1995), 52–53
6. Joseph Smith Jr., History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B.
H. Roberts, 2d ed., rev. 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1971), 1:338
(hereafter cited as History of the Church).
7. History of
the Church, 3:385–88.
8. D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Salt Lake City: Signature
Books, 1994), 16.
9. Nauvoo
Relief Society Minute Book, 36, April 28, 1842.
10. Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book, 37, April 28,
1842.
11. History of
the Church, 4:608.
No comments:
Post a Comment