Senator Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Epiphanies are the spice of life! What may be new to one person is old news to someone else, whether in concept or just in the wording. That is why discussion is so valuable. To be frank, I'm not sold yet that what this is is an epiphany or revelation. I'm struggling with this sensation that this "new" teaching is nothing more than a game of semantics - you know, it is, but it isn't - kind of thing, done in order to appease the throng.
CV75 Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 (edited) To be frank, I'm not sold yet that what this is is an epiphany or revelation. I'm struggling with this sensation that this "new" teaching is nothing more than a game of semantics - you know, it is, but it isn't - kind of thing, done in order to appease the throng. Some epiphanies are personal... From our lesson manual this year, these teachings were taught 40-50 years ago: https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-fielding-smith/chapter-24-the-work-of-latter-day-saint-women-unselfish-devotion-to-this-glorious-cause?lang=eng Take note of section 5. "Blesings of the priesthood" -- knowing God, having power, etc. Let's check some of of ther earlier prophets' sayings on the subject when we have tiime. Such terminology has also been had in the temples for a long, long time. ETA: https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-39?lang=eng “I will organize the women under the priesthood after the pattern of the priesthood. … The Church was never perfectly organized until the women were thus organized.” – Joseph Smith https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-19?lang=eng “Relieve the wants of every individual in need in your neighborhoods. This is in the capacity and in the power of the Female Relief Societies when it is not in the power of the Bishops (DBY, 218).” – Brigham Young Semantics maybe, but these statements assert that women indeed operate within the Church with priesthood power and authority. I don't think anyone ever implied that to mean conferral and ordination. Edited April 22, 2014 by CV75
Stone holm Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Some epiphanies are personal... From our lesson manual this year, these teachings were taught 40-50 years ago: https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-fielding-smith/chapter-24-the-work-of-latter-day-saint-women-unselfish-devotion-to-this-glorious-cause?lang=eng Take note of section 5. "Blesings of the priesthood" -- knowing God, having power, etc. Let's check some of of ther earlier prophets' sayings on the subject when we have tiime. Such terminology has also been had in the temples for a long, long time. ETA:https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-39?lang=eng“I will organize the women under the priesthood after the pattern of the priesthood. … The Church was never perfectly organized until the women were thus organized.” – Joseph Smithhttps://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-19?lang=eng“Relieve the wants of every individual in need in your neighborhoods. This is in the capacity and in the power of the Female Relief Societies when it is not in the power of the Bishops (DBY, 218).” – Brigham YoungSemantics maybe, but these statements assert that women indeed operate within the Church with priesthood power and authority. I don't think anyone ever implied that to mean conferral and ordination. Yeah, i tend to have the same wondering that the Senator had as to whether Elder Oaks was not just a "wee bit" engaging in semantics.
CV75 Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Yeah, i tend to have the same wondering that the Senator had as to whether Elder Oaks was not just a "wee bit" engaging in semantics.I acknowledge that "sensation" and "wondersing" have been expressed; I guess it can feel good to air them even if they are not effectively conveyed. You tried another short-lived thread about semantics--but you called it “dazzle”, and yes, you reminded us that Elder Oaks offended you (how long ago?). Engaging in semantics is very important when trying to convey spiritual truth (D&C 19:10-12).
Stone holm Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 I acknowledge that "sensation" and "wondersing" have been expressed; I guess it can feel good to air them even if they are not effectively conveyed.You tried another short-lived thread about semantics--but you called it “dazzle”, and yes, you reminded us that Elder Oaks offended you (how long ago?).Engaging in semantics is very important when trying to convey spiritual truth (D&C 19:10-12).Semantics is often employed by attorneys in lieu of an argument of substance, it is part of our training. I have noticed it frequently in sermons by Elder Oaks, that is not to say some of his sermons do not have substance. But arguing via definitions where serious social/religious doctrine is at stake just tends to confuse and distract from the real issue.
rockpond Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 I’m really not worried about what others believed or might have believed in Brigham Young’s day, or what I would have believed in his day or prior to the Race and Priesthood publication. I don't think you need to worry about what others believed or what you might have believed... But there is always opportunity to learn from past teachings and our own history. I would suggest that such preoccupation with blame as the fuel for one’s arguments and dreams of future revelations that might surprise himself, others, or the prophet receiving it is a form of sleeping through the Restoration (per Elder Uchtdorf’s recent talk). I'm not preoccupied with blame... not sure what you mean by that. And I am quite excited by the Restoration, not sleeping through it. You have to admit there are many “prerequisites” for revelation, only three of which are knowledge of, faith in, and obedience to that which has been revealed thus far. The condemnation of mistakes (whether perceived or real) with limited light and judgment is not a prerequisite for revelation. I think we have enough evidence to trust that God has shown us what to expect, since He leads the way line upon line, consistent with current prophets and canon, and not by surprise or in contention with past prophets or that which isn’t canon. I believe that there are expectations about what we do with existing revelation. But, our God can speak when He chooses without prerequisite. I am not condemning mistakes, quite the contrary, I believe that mistakes are a clear part of the plan. And that we do better by learning from them rather than pretending they didn't exist.
Recommended Posts