Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,021 Excellent


About Buckeye

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Cleveland, Ohio

Recent Profile Visitors

2,186 profile views
  1. Same here. Our newly called bishop has kept his beard. Members keep asking him when he will shave because they believe it’s a rule. It’s not.
  2. Not true. Only the designated witnesses have a right to make a correction. Others can speak up but their voice is not authoritative. It’s the same with the sacrament prayer. Anyone can listen and speak up when the words are not spoken correctly but only the bishop has authority to require the prayer be said again. If he deems it valid it is valid, regardless of what anyone else says. For old timers, allowing a 12 year old girl to serve as official witness for baptism seems as odd as allowing the same girl to exercise the bishops role to deem the sacrament prayer valid.
  3. I think most people see a strong connection between (i) performing an ordinance and (ii) serving as a formal witness of that ordinance. The two actions are not the same thing, obviously, but they are intertwined. In my view, both are beneficial in allowing people to build ties through shared spiritual experiences. That's why parents I know in the church want their sons and husbands to perform ordinances (yes, children do perform the ordinances of sacrament and baptism). Doing so gives them a spiritual experience that will bring them closer to Christ and help keep them rooted in the gospel. Likewise, I (and I imagine other parents) will now want their daughters to serve as witnesses. Doing so gives them something they would not otherwise have. Otherwise, why open this door and encourage them to participate? So I'm still puzzled as to why members would be encouraged that girls and women can now have more involvement in ordinances (by serving as witnesses), but would not also desire them to have a more complete involvement (by officiating). The common tie is that both actions are good. We want all people to have access to all good. As for arguments from silence, my reading of the scriptures suggests that God stays silent until we actively desire something and ask for it. That's how Joseph got the first vision, Emma got the WOW, the primary and YMMA were formed, temples are built, and on and on. If God wants women to be ordained, He's not going to direct that until we as a people actively desire it and ask. Sitting by passively will not cut it. We have to be actively engaged and wrestle with whether this is really a good thing.
  4. On my most recent youth temple trip we had a couple HS seniors who had just been ordained Elders and could perform confirmations. Literally the only thing the adults were need for was transportation (because church policy doesn't let youth drive other youth) and acting as the recorder.
  5. Are there no small children in your ward? Grape juice would be a disaster. But maybe help transition away from white shirts.
  6. Why do you think God wants women to be witnesses (now) but doesn't want them to perform ordinances? I haven't seen anything to suggest he doesn't want them to perform ordinances.
  7. Interesting point. But the better interpretation is that the brethren - not members - pushed for a foolish policy and the Lord let them see the consequence.
  8. As support for my view, consider this guidance from a recent FP letter regarding changes to temple policies: "Mothers with dependent children and brethren serving in certain callings may now serve as ordinance workers. Members should review their circumstances and avoid placing undue burdens on themselves and their families as they consider these service opportunities." https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/03/01/women-with-minor-children-can-now-serve-as-temple-ordinance-workers/ (emphasis mine) It is members who decide whether the burden is appropriate. Not a bishop or apostle.
  9. You take that counsel in good faith and recognize the limits of our church leaders' authority. Apostles, just like Bishops, have limited authority. They are to govern the church, but not our lives or our families. If they claim to receive revelation for what's best for your family, they overstep their bounds the same as if a young man tells a young woman he received revelation for her to marry him.
  10. Took me a while to realize this. The bishop has keys of revelation for how to guide the ward. You have keys of revelation for how to guide your life (and family if that applies). Both revelations need to happen for a calling to work well. sometimes they conflict. Just as it is inappropriate for a member to step into the bishops role, it is inappropriate for a bishop to take over a members role and claim he has revelation that a certain calling is the lords will for them.
  11. My son just got his mission call. Standard 24-month assignment. California Los Angeles Spanish speaking. He’s very excited As to the present topic, once his papers were submitted the rumors started pouring in from friends that “I heard the calls don’t list a length of service but say to listen to conference.” I told him to ignore the rumors but was surprised has wide-spread they were. These things take a life of their own.
  12. /snark on Personally, I'm looking forward to the day when the racially-based priesthood and temple restrictions can be restored to their proper order. We old line stalwarts know that the church had to cave to the pervasive equality movement. If we did not conceal the truths about the curse of cain and pre-existence choices, Satan would thwart out ability to proselytize, provide university-level education to our youth, and maybe even compromise our protected tax status. I believe that in some future day, when the saints are less carnally minded and less influenced by the wisdom of Babylon, the Lord will restore much, if not all, of the proper restrictions between the races that have been taken away. /snark off
  13. Thank you. I’m so happy to hear the sealing is being made equal as well.
  14. I agree with most all of this, up to the inference that the change of covenant wording was to accommodate social movements. I know many good couples (mostly older) who, like you, took the heartening language very seriously and worked to build a beautiful and successful marriage. Is your heart open to the possibility that a marriage of the same worth can be built through covenants where neither person presides over the other? This change need not be a rejection of your sacrifice and success. I certainly don’t see it that way.
  15. Yeah, he predicated a shorting of the ceremony. Other predictions included no more garments outside the temple and the SL temple shut down for renovations. Those are not currently on the table but, after today's news, who the heck knows anymore.
  • Create New...