CV75

That's a fine opinion in my opinion, and no ordination is involved, but there is a particular ordinance no matter what things are called.

Yes, through temple covenants women can be P/priestesses without ordination. If this means the New Testament text suggests Junia was endowed, 3 cheers for the Restoration! But I think it more suggests that the Restoration took place irrespective of biblical texts.

Yes, and that is what I suggested earlier in a broader, less ideologically-fueled exchange on this subject: Posted 18 hours ago and Posted 14 hours ago I still don't see the best discussion on this point as ideological at all (and some scholars do discuss whether she had keys https://people.brandeis.edu/~brooten/Articles/Junia_Outstanding_among_Apostles.pdf )

As far as I can tell, her exact status continues to be debated in scholarly discussion (whether she had the conferral of priesthood keys, or was simply well-regarded by those who did). I don't see the best discussion on this point as ideological at all. Some few of these scholars certainly look overly zealous (cray-cray?) and sound disappointingly ideological, though.

Using the old-fashioned/testament meaning, women are given an apostleship when they are sent out as missionaries. This is apostleship without priesthood office, but with priesthood power. But we call them missionaries, just as we do the young male missionaries who have the office of Elder. I think Joseph Smith started correcting the errors in the Bible (perhaps more accurately, our understanding of the Bible), and God started correcting the loss of priesthood power, authority and understanding.

I was going to say the same thing, that in some Bible text, "apostle" is describes an action or calling, perhaps less often a formal appointment or office, and nowadays in the Church, exclusively a priesthood office.

If the Catholic teaching excludes eternal marriage and families in the afterlife from the subset of oneness with God as the means of sealing His children to Him by covenant (beyond Creation and Atonement), then I can understand why LDS generally cannot believe that the Catholic teaching is perfectly true. However, accentuating the positive aspects by the light of Christ is enough, in my opinion, to draw people into an expanding relationship with God and each other, and in this regard I view the Catholic ideas on eternal family and heaven in a favorable way, in the spirit of, "...if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things (from Philippians 4:8)." I cannot speak for others here on finer points of theological debate, which to me is a productive exercise but a very different matter than finding charity and grace wherever they can be found. The commonality between LDS and Catholic teaching on oneness with God (John 17) is not unappealing at all, and I think you demonstrated that with your explanation. That marriage was instituted of God is another commonality that is also appreciated.

If the work were done for Stiller and Meara, would it be "post-humorous"?

Absolutely, I thought you were looking commentary as well as recognition of the significant parallels. I didn't realize some thought the theology of the nuptial relationships are bad, "period," unless now that you mention it, it was an unfortunate expression of difference over the one specific point of how long the institution of (husband and wife) marriage endures.

I think our Church teachings allow for both kinds of relationships in the Church of the Firstborn; they are not mutually exclusive. We are one eternal family with many smaller units for organization and action. I think the idea that there are many members but one body can be extended to this (there are many mansions but one house; there are many family subsystems but one family). There are various kinds of intimacy in connection with each, and each is integrated into the oneness Christ prays for in His Intercessory Prayer.

Condolences, Navidad and family. Per the Handbook, no one should do anything without your knowledge and consent. You can withhold permission. You can proactively let your wishes be known. If someone proceeds anyway and you find out, forgive them, which still leaves open the option to report it so his name can be removed from the online FamilySearch general index and the responsible member can be appropriately counseled and corrected. I wish you well and an added measure of faith and grace through this painful time.

Yes, that is how I took it.

Cool, thank you -- that wasn't too hard, was it? I don't like YouTube videos, but from I gather, he doesn't assert that God lied, only that immediate physical death did not happen, contrary to the wording as he treats it, and this leads some thinkers into complex interpretations of God's honesty or the text's meaning. By not concluding that "God lied" but that some may interpret an ostensibly unfulfilled warning as a lie, I think he balances a modern literal interpretation with an idiomatic or cultural understanding.

That's great -- who can you recommend I look up?

Which of these scholars are not associated with young earth creationism, in other words, who take this interpretation only as a strict reading of the text, and that the the idiom was not applied to it?

Given the hosting site's overall reputation for participants and sourcing rules, the community on the whole is more expert than me ! And Dan Fetterman is too! If you have experts by your estimation that either share or refute any in the links I listed, please provide them. This part of the thread was simply a mild indulgence since my main focus is that people can make and keep their covenants whichever conclusion they accept from whichever expert. And I try not to overindulge!

Interesting that some experts hold the position I shared and others hold the position you shared about the word “day” in the warning about death (2:17). Here’s what I have: "In the day" (bəyôm): This phrase often functions idiomatically in the Old Testament to mean "when" or "at the time that," rather than a literal 24-hour day. Other biblical examples use this phrasing for events that did not occur within a single calendar day (e.g., 1 Kings 2:37, where Solomon warns Shimei that "on the day you go out... you shall surely die," but Shimei was executed later upon his return). https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/85628/in-genesis-217-some-translations-omit-in-the-day-while-some-contain-the-phra#:~:text=In%20Gen%202:17%2C%20the,would%20die%20the%20same%20day. You shall surely die" (môt tamût): This is a Hebrew idiom using the infinitive absolute with the imperfect verb from the same root ("dying you shall die"). This repetition is a grammatical way to convey the certainty and inevitability of the consequence, rather than the immediacy of a single, instantaneous event. https://biblicalhebrew.org/use-of-infinitive-absolute-emphasis-through-verb-repetition.aspx#:~:text=The%20infinitive%20absolute%20serves%20multiple%20functions%20depending,frequency%2C%20or%20severity%20of%20the%20verb's%20action. https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/94279/what-is-the-significance-of-the-term-die-die-%D7%9E%D7%95%D6%B9%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%95%D6%B9%D7%AA-m%C3%BB%E1%B9%AF-m%C3%BB%E1%B9%AF-at-genesis-2#:~:text=As%20this%20article%20explains%2C%20repetitions,(year%20year)%20=%20each%20year What do you have that indicates what the writer originally meant? I thought there was no definitive writer of the text as it is by now a compilation of multiple authors, editors and scribes long after Moses lived, the earliest being those from 9th (southern kingdom) and 8th (northern kingdom) centuries BC (all Hebrew nonetheless, explaining the two idioms).

Adam was commanded to subdue the earth (1:28), a hint at some future opposition to the relative ease of keeping the garden (2:15). Adam was created in the earth and brought into Eden (2:8). He and Eve did not have anything to do with the earth outside the garden, eating only its fruits (2:16, 3:2), including that of the tree of life, implying to me that they were immortal within whatever gerontological phase range within which they could tend a garden or subdue an earth as long as they did not eat the forbidden fruit. The warning about death (2:17) in the day the forbidden fruit is eaten uses a Hebrew idiom, which emphasizes the certainty of the unhappy consequence of spiritual and physical death, a process immediately effected upon eating the forbidden fruit, rather than referring to expiration within a strict 24-hour period. Perhaps these details are not important in comparison to the covenants when the story is figurative for conveying the temple ordinances in the first place. For me, a "figurative immortality" represents the spiritual freedom and liberty we can enjoy in mortality that come from living the principles of eternal life. Some people believe in a literal story, and I think that's OK since the covenants and outcome are the same either way.

You just convinced me to watch it! I was reading Moroni 8 this morning and Mormon used the terms "an endless hell" and "an endless torment". This got me to recollecting the ancient Hebrew concept of time as as place where things happened versus when things happen, or for how long they happen. Time for them was sequential event-filled spaces, some in front, as in the space between them and the visible ahead (representing the past* which they could recall) and some behind, an unknown horizon beyond the present stop an the journey (representing the future). This sets the stage for the world being a place to travel or progress toward a divine fulfillment, with both remembering and anticipation as key elements. The cycle of time (as found in days, seasons, years and other periods) has an added dimension of themes and types, adding pre-existing (God's will) meaning and purpose. I say all that because in Alma 36, Alma the younger was saved from the pains of hell, which he perceived within his experience to be "everlasting." But that was cut short as he remembered his father's prophecies of Christ and acted in faith. It also offers some context for the article @JVW shared earlier about God's name. Posted Wednesday at 10:58 AM (edited) Now who in hell is Stanley? * Two quick examples from the Book of Mormon; it seems the Nephites shared this concept of time. "And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to [remember] the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people. And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to [remember] his Son for redemption... Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord." (Alma 13: 1, 2, 16). And: "And now let us be wise and look forward to [i.e., remember, see verse 18] these things..." (Mosiah 9:10)

Good point, God would need to judge these finer situations and eventually punish the unrepentant (in the D&C 19 sense). I'm trying to think of a real-life situation where some accountable person would have evil intentions and intentionally lie to get someone else to make and keep covenants in good faith. Whatever I come up with are real rabbit holes/threadjacks, but just might make a good Tubi movie plot! Funny how we moved from interpretations of God's name to false doctrine and lying to this !

Sometimes faith and hope are so strong we say "know" -- I hope that's another topic! I said, "oops!" as an attempt at humor. I think God does punish people, per D&C 19. I'm saying that God would not punish me (in the D&C 19 sense, not the story of the Fall sense) for being tricked into making and keeping covenants, but He would punish someone for tricking me into making and keeping covenants. I see the story of the Fall showing God punishing Satan for beguiling Eve, and the so-called "punishment" of Adam and Eve as a starting point for their mortal pathway to redemption (and better than even redemption because the merits of Christ place them far ahead of what they had in Eden). I'm not sure how this or the belief that God lies relates to His name, but I'll put my thinking cap on! I guess we being what we are opposes God being what He is if it were not for Jesus Christ.

I'm realizing this question is a good example of semantics, perceptions and bias, both in sending and receiving the information. I intended it to be a direct question to The Nehor so I could better understand his view and personal experience. But I can see how it comes across as academic, or even rhetorical, depending on the reader. And I'm making my own assumptions in the question, that he likely does not believe God lies in the overall scheme of things.

Yes, believing that God has lied could impact an individual’s making and keeping covenants in good faith, or in bad faith, for that matter. As with your example of the story about the Fall, I think beliefs are formed with the influence of semantics, perceptions and bias, both in sending and receiving the information, none of which are inherently evil (when not intentionally evil by the user), just a function of our mortal weakness. They are also formed with the influence of the Holy Ghost, and impacted by other beliefs, priorities and foci. Can the person who concludes that God has lied, or lies, also believe He has not lied, sufficient to make and keep covenants in good faith? [Yes] Can he hear the voice of forgiveness and blessing, and know it is God’s, and assume this is a lie? [Yes] This is why I think personal experience, personality (in the broad sense) and agency trumps even the soundest theology, doctrine, witness and practice.

I would also say that tenure is a horrible indicator of truth, and irrespective of what we don’t know, we can say we collectively know some things, even if they are working models for the time being. The things we know, even vaguely or inaccurately, and act upon in good faith will bring blessings of progress and advancement. So, the doctrine that there are happiness and punishment, both here and now and in the afterlife, produces a stronger practical motivation than imagery about heaven and hell, depending on how deep we allow these things to sink (back to the previous sentence). I agree that the “trust nothing” approach is a false one 😊. I see how an endless duration of hell can be interpreted from the scriptures and the header to D&C 76. The use of “eternity” does indicate that we teach it within the narrow scope of Perdition: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/sons-of-perdition?lang=eng “Hell” in D&C 76 comes across as temporary while in D&C 29 it comes across as never-ending. So, we build upon the revelations. I’m not seeing any particular teaching, then or now, impeding our making and keeping covenants (other teachings and overriding personal spiritual experience support that), so if someone is focused on hell in a detrimental way, I believe the Lord will lead them out of it. As I asked earlier, how do your conclusions that God is lying affect your good faith in making and keeping the covenants? Regarding making and keeping covenants under false pretense, I spoke of “false premises.” Making and keeping covenants in good faith requires me to accept an array of premises, some of which may be an erroneous assumption or misunderstanding on my part, or doctrinally incorrect through no one’s fault (does that include what we teach about hell?). God does not condemn me for that, for correcting myself later, or even for someone tricking me into making and keeping covenants, for whom there is a special place in hell (oops!).

I think where some may stumble is the prioritization of ineffability over what we can and do know. For some reason that gets a lot of attention. Not that I think this is what is going on in the Catechism; I think documents like this catalog and thus serve to increase what we can and do know as we nurture our relationship with God. This I why I think things like "tweaking" -- good word! --, correcting and building (deepening, expanding, advancing, etc.) upon previous and current a priori reasoning and experience are expressions of God's grace rather than the basis for criticism and punishment. After all, God "winks"! And then when we are ready, reveals more and even commands us to repent (which is not criticism or punishment either).