Buckeye

Resurrecting this thread. As one who was surprised to learn of the size of the church's holdings and wonder if we really needed that large of a rainy day fund, well ... the fund is now certainly much smaller than it was before and I am glad for the resources the church has to weather the storm.

I’m currently a ward mission leader in Ohio. Our missionaries were put into a 2-week quarantine today. However, my son serving in the California Los Angeles Mission is not in quarantine (yet). It must be a mission president decision.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Are there no small children in your ward? Grape juice would be a disaster. But maybe help transition away from white shirts.

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.