"Full Membership"?????

[why me]

Single women (non missionaries) and those married to nonmembers were not only told to wait, they were not allowed to get endowments from what I was told by friends and relatives, there may have been an age limit for single women, but my memory of a great aunt says otherwise.

I remember this now. And I don't remember that it was a big deal. It was just something that was accepted by the general membership. It is strange how the old timers may now forget those times. But I do remember that it was applied to myself when I was a young adult. To wait going to the temple until one was married. Now I don't know if this was encouraged for people who were considered 'special interest' at that time. I think that there may have been an age limit.

[Stargazer]

I was told that until fairly recently "unmarried" women (of any race) could not attend Temple.

Not sure if an exception was made for female missionaries? Or, maybe, that's a fairly new program as well? (By "fairly new", I mean within the last 20-25 years or so?)..

I can only speak to my own time in the Church (since 1966), but as far as I know, as long as there have been sister missionaries there have been unmarried women attending the temple obtaining their endowment. I can't speak for times before sister missionaries were called, but I suspect that this has always been the case, that unmarried women could attend. There used to be an issue for women married to a non-member, however. That is something which has changed sort of recently. I remember that in 1973, the one time this came to my attention, that this was the case back then. At least I believe so.

[Stargazer]

I think that I also remember this from close to 40 years ago. But I also remember that unless one went on a mission, one should wait to go to the temple until one was married. But I can not be sure if my memory is serving me well.

That is my recollection as well. It was a "should wait", however, not a "must wait".

[Libs]

I can only speak to my own time in the Church (since 1966), but as far as I know, as long as there have been sister missionaries there have been unmarried women attending the temple obtaining their endowment. I can't speak for times before sister missionaries were called, but I suspect that this has always been the case, that unmarried women could attend. There used to be an issue for women married to a non-member, however. That is something which has changed sort of recently. I remember that in 1973, the one time this came to my attention, that this was the case back then. At least I believe so.

This is probably what I am thinking of, rather than unmarried women. I know, when I first went to the Temple, someone told me that, a few years back, I wouldn't have been able to do this. I guess, I assumed from that, that women had to be sealed in the Temple, at one time, in order to attend.

[Libs]

Single women (non missionaries) and those married to nonmembers were not only told to wait, they were not allowed to get endowments from what I was told by friends and relatives, there may have been an age limit for single women, but my memory of a great aunt says otherwise.

Ah, okay, so that was true for single women, who didn't go on a mission? (I just saw this)

[Libs]

Genetics can be quite interesting. For example, Joseph Chang, a statistician, has studied population genetics and suggests the following:

Now, what are the odds that one or a few of these "common ancestors" were of the same lineage that was forbidden from the priesthood?

As I've said before, I don't believe the priesthood ban came from God not because of any sense of fairness or racial equality, but because a ban based on supposed genealogy wouldn't work after more than a few generations (if it even worked that long). If President Monson stood in conference and said God had told him that people with red hair and freckles couldn't have the priesthood or get their Temple blessings, we would laugh at the absurdity of it all. But for some reason, we nodded our heads and had faith that somehow, God really didn't want people with dark skin and supposed African ancestry to have the priesthood, when it makes just as little sense.

This was interesting.

I couldn't believe that was from God, either. I can't believe a lot of things that man attributes to God, is actually from God.

[Calm]

Ah, okay, so that was true for single women, who didn't go on a mission? (I just saw this)

Certainly was for my great aunt.

As far as it not being a big deal, it likely wasn't controversial, but it made a huge difference to those who were not endowed who wanted to be...at least those I discussed it with.

As a side note, single older women are allowed to go on missions while single older men cannot. I don't know how long this has been available to older women, I would suspect that the earliest women missionaries very well might have been older women.

Addon: I was wrong, the first official were young ladies...

http://lds.org/ensign/1980/07/the-first-sister-missionaries?lang=eng

Edited December 27, 2011 by calmoriah

[One Clear Voice]

In the "For what it's worth" column, when you are baptised and confirmed a member of the church you are in Full membership! The only time I have heard the term "not in full membership was when someone had been "Disfellowshiped" for whatever reason or reasons and upon completion of his disciplinary time he was placed back into "Full Memebership". Just a thought!

[thesometimesaint]

The entire human race is out of Subsaharan Africa.

[katherine the great]

The entire human race is out of Subsaharan Africa.

Most likely. But don't say that at church....

[thesometimesaint]

I point it out to them every once in a while. Makes for very interesting discussions.

[selek1]

In the "For what it's worth" column, when you are baptised and confirmed a member of the church you are in Full membership! The only time I have heard the term "not in full membership was when someone had been "Disfellowshiped" for whatever reason or reasons and upon completion of his disciplinary time he was placed back into "Full Memebership". Just a thought!

Since we're down to arguing anecdotes on this one , I would offer my recollection to contradict your own .

I have never heard the phrase "full membership"-nor anything like unto it- used in relation to disciplinary issues.

The phrase I have encountered has always referenced "full fellowship". Which kinda makes sense when you pair it with someone having been "disfellowshipped" for transgression.

Those who were repentant, in my experience, were welcomed back into "full faith and fellowship", rather than "full membership".

[Libs]

Certainly was for my great aunt.

As far as it not being a big deal, it likely wasn't controversial, but it made a huge difference to those who were not endowed who wanted to be...at least those I discussed it with.

As a side note, single older women are allowed to go on missions while single older men cannot. I don't know how long this has been available to older women, I would suspect that the earliest women missionaries very well might have been older women.

Addon: I was wrong, the first official were young ladies...

http://lds.org/ensig...naries?lang=eng

Interesting. I didn't think Sister missionaries had been around that long! Over a hundred years...wow.

Also, didn't know that older, single men could not go on a mission.

I did know one older, widowed woman who went on a mission.

[ERMD]

Genetics and lineage are not necessarily the same thing.

[why me]

In the "For what it's worth" column, when you are baptised and confirmed a member of the church you are in Full membership! The only time I have heard the term "not in full membership was when someone had been "Disfellowshiped" for whatever reason or reasons and upon completion of his disciplinary time he was placed back into "Full Memebership". Just a thought!

This is true too. Like I said before, we need a definition just what full membership is. But I think that you are right when it comes to church discipline. They are denied full membership if excommunicated or disfellowshiped.