Jump to content

rongo

Contributor
  • Content Count

    5,702
  • Joined

Everything posted by rongo

  1. And, there is not, to my knowledge, a single reference to women invoking the priesthood when healing. It has always been the prayer of faith --- which anyone can do. Even Eliza Snow's efficacious healing of people with cholera (in my family history, and in books) was pointedly (in her words) done through faith and not with the priesthood. Again, I am not aware of a single instance where a woman claimed to be performing healings with the priesthood. And I'll say it again: I don't understand mention of women performing very limited priesthood functions in the temple, only with other wo
  2. I think it also comes from the multiple statements about the return from the north, or lands of the north. And, D&C 133 talks of the "ice flowing down from their presence" when they return from "the north countries."
  3. Poorly worded on my part. The second one (#4) should read "separated from us in one body" (that is, not simply scattered among us). Hope that helps!
  4. I think we all understand this, but it isn't just presentation that has been changed (people may differ about what constitutes what, and to what extent). For some, it isn't just changes in presentation. And, after Covid hit, most of us haven't been able to go back and try to learn more and sort out our thoughts and feelings on this with additional "reps." And those who have been back have only been able to if they were a chaperone in an own-endowment session (I assume chaperones have been allowed. Maybe just the initiate and temple workers?).
  5. Back on Kobol --- how could I have forgotten that?
  6. I suspect that this is the default setting for most members and most of the Brethren. I think there is still a physical component, but as you say, it's mostly a spiritual designation. I do think that the northern Europeans that took to the gospel so readily in the early days of the Restoration had physical descent from renegades of Ephraim who made their way up and mixed with the Celtic tribes.
  7. That is an intriguing thought! I'm fascinated by languages, and am reading a bit about the fragmented, tiny language groups in northern Siberia, around Kamchatka, etc. Maybe there is more there than we realize. For me, that would work for "lands of the north."
  8. Do you think Joseph Smith had that in mind while dictating it (or, in reading it after)? I don't think he had a solid grounding on the cohenim priesthood, even from Joshua Seixas. I think he had English at his command to express your thought, rather than in terms of Mormon bishoprics.
  9. You are not alone. There are many faithful, sustaining members (some who have and have had leadership callings) who don't think that every action or claimed revelation is necessarily from God. These are not apostate or fundamentalist, don't attack the Church, and won't leave it (where would we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life), but are saddened by changes that they don't feel are God's will. They sustain the Brethren as holding the keys, but don't believe that they are remote-controlled automatons --- and, they see God as giving leeway for agency and preference within bounds (not crossi
  10. I see no reason why they would have to be bound to earth and couldn't be somewhere else. It's just a belief preference for me that they are still on the earth. I am inclined to reconsider, given these.
  11. I liked tormenting Jehovah's Witnesses on my mission by asking why Dan is missing from the tribes in Revelation (Dan is simply missing from the tribes listed among the 144,000; no idea why. But it really bothered them, because the 144,000 is an obsession for them). If he had been a "literal descendant of Aaron," he could have served without counselors (D&C 107:76). I've always been fascinated by that. It must be needed and applicable at some point, but imagine that today! I don't think it would be someone from the tribe of Levi, either --- I think it would have to be determined by t
  12. I don't think the Church ever would indicate that. Yes, I think that whenever God has to withhold or alter things because we can't abide them, we are the poorer for it. I know that when my son received his endowment for his mission (summer 2019), I explained to him in the celestial room the changes that he wouldn't know about. We talked about insights from our ancestors that have been handed down about the endowment, symbolism, meaning, etc. He won't ever personally experience these, but I wanted him to know about them. And then the endowment was further (and pretty significantly)
  13. I think what @bsjkki meant was that we will never know what ultimately was behind the decision. I think many of us think that the "system" (commissioners, attorney general, etc.) acquiesced with a settlement (from the outcome, not a formal, written one) that allows BYUPD to keep private what it wanted not to have to comply with, but with measures in place that will ensure that this won't be able to happen again. It seems (and I can't prove it with evidence) that the dominant LDS culture and institutions were accommodated in a one-time "mulligan" to prevent embarrassing information from having
  14. I think there is a literal descent component --- like, northern Europeans being a concentration of Ephraimites, and Central/South Americans and Pacific Islanders having a high concentration of Manassehites. But, it's not strictly a DNA thing, and transcends that (like with my ancestor from Zebulun).
  15. I do. Like the original Law, compared with the Law of Moses after the rejection of the higher. Still authorized and God's will, but with reduced blessings and privileges.
  16. Yes, there are people from all tribes, but nowhere near numbers that would fulfill D&C 133 in my view. Ephraim and Manasseh (the overwhelming --- very overwhelming --- bulk of the Church) was and is being found through missionary work and patriarchal blessings, as per Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33. I'm talking more about Reuben, Gad, Asher, Dan, Naphtali, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Benjamin, Issachar, and Zebulun. I think most assume that modern Jews would all be from Judah, or that modern cohenim would all be Levi, but I don't think this is necessarily the case with patriarchal blessings
  17. I would say that most of the time, we don't need to seek confirming revelation because we readily accept it and don't have a problem with it. That is the vast majority of things. It's where and when we do have a problem, or don't readily accept it that we would need to, and this differs by person just as every person is different. There are **really** good insights and counsel from the Brethren on this. I really like Brigham Young's statement: "If I do not know the will of my Father, and what He requires of me in a certain transaction, if I ask Him to give me wisdom concerning any r
  18. This is one of those "it doesn't really matter, and our salvation doesn't depend on it" topics, but it sure is interesting and fun to discuss and think about. My choice is #4. I believe that they are separated as a body, and will be gathered (gathering in process to a degree, but not largely) as per D&C 133. I don't think they are under the ice caps, and I think they are on the earth. I think that the default belief of most Church leaders (and I'm guessing, most member at large) is the "safe" and "least weird" option #1: that they are scattered among the known peoples of the e
  19. Strongly agree. I think that's almost always the case. It becomes an issue when there is disagreement with a policy or the doctrinal reasons given for the policy (or both). Or when one disagrees with the "disavowal" of the same. Or the elimination of a policy that one feels should have remained. >>>If we remove that need/desire from the equation, does it really matter what is what or for how long it is taught? <<< Sorry --- it wouldn't let me multi-quote you. Just when I thought I had figured out how to, too. I think it matters when one has a conce
  20. I think both of you are right. There are policies, and there are Policies (policies that are much more fundamental, doctrinally). I think the policies regarding polygamy and the priesthood ban are much different in type an scope than, say, policies regarding scheduling the building. These policies had doctrinal foundations behind them, and they directly affected the lives (pre-mortal, mortal, and post-mortal) of members. That's why discontinuing or "disavowing" them is much different (and much messier) than changing mundane, day-to-day policies. So, you are correct that policies a
  21. My children's patriarchal blessings discuss their grandchildren in quite a bit of detail, and I trust them, so I don't think the 2nd Coming is "imminent." Jesus said it in New Testament times, and at the time, He said that not even He or the angels knew. I don't think that's true right now, though. I think post-Resurrection He knew more than He did while still in mortality --- more so after 2000 years (our time) and everything He's been involved in. While I also don't think that the prophets have yet been told the specific time of His coming, don't you think that when that time
  22. I think then-Elder Oaks' statement in 1988 makes your point. Hair-splitting between doctrine and policy, like we tend to do over the last several years. I think trying to split hairs as a means of fending off concerns or criticism causes other concerns and criticisms. “I don’t know that it’s possible to distinguish between policy and doctrine in a church that believes in continuing revelation and sustains its leader as a prophet.” Dallin H. Oaks, interview with the Times-News, June 9, 1988. ETA: e.g., the current position that the priesthood ban was never doctrine in the Church, but
  23. A boy from my stake (former student of mine) received his call to the Ukraine Kiev Mission, Moldova, Romanian speaking. He will be assigned to Idaho Falls after home MTC, with no ETA yet on when he might report to his original area. All missionaries have currently left the area (attrition), so he and a companion would re-open the area. The target is to get to four missionaries there. I served in the deacons quorum in my old ward in Gilbert with a man who served in Romania. He said that Moldova is quite different from Romania in many respects (it belonged to the Romanian mission when he was the
  24. I think you're mostly back in the 80s and 90s, for the most part. This is still a hot issue for some, but I don't think it's on most Mormons' and evangelicals' radars any more (I've had evangelicals I interact agree on this). It is a major concern and annoyance for President Nelson, and has been since the late 1980s, but the "heyday" for being overly self-conscious about not being thought as Christian passed long ago, I think. I wonder if part of this is his experience in China? "Mor-mon" isn't a Chinese word, so it is sounded out in Chinese, and the characters for the name can literal
  25. It has been changed again. I had the reference (Section 38 rings a bell now that it was posted), but I couldn't find it in my notes today (I thought it was by the quote from Elder Oaks in 1988 I posted earlier). I remember being struck by it because, while the current wording is largely the same, it had a clause that said while the full name of the Church is preferable, it is also acceptable to say "Mormon" if that ends up being the best in that situation (something like that). That would have been around a year ago (I remember because it was fairly close to when schools were shut down in earl
×
×
  • Create New...