rockpond Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 That is a change. I wonder if it stems from KK's disciplinary council, and if OW is trying harder not to rock the boat among members and to stay on the right side of the 'apostasy' charge? There are enough active members in the OW movement that I assume they are trying to make sure that they keep their dealings in a space where they won't face church discipline.
rockpond Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 The members of OW who are members of the church should think about how important their membership is. I think this latest announcement is evidence that they are.
bluebell Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 There are enough active members in the OW movement that I assume they are trying to make sure that they keep their dealings in a space where they won't face church discipline. Yes, that would make sense considering the changes to the discussions.
Calm Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 It appears there are even more "conversations" yet to come. From their website: "It has been suggested that the title “Six Discussions” was ill-conceived, particularly since Ordain Women does not seek members or followers. ."Right, the profiles are just of people interested in the topic, both pro and con. They keep redefining words whatever way they want, must be Alice through the Looking Glass fans. 4
cinepro Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) Right, the profiles are just of people interested in the topic, both pro and con. They keep redefining words whatever way they want, must be Alice through the Looking Glass fans. Wow, a bunch of Mormons redefining words to mean whatever they want. I've never seen that before... Edited August 1, 2014 by cinepro
mfbukowski Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 IF you actually listen in the temple, all that women actually promise is to listen to the counsel of their husbands IF and only if, he is following God in righteousness. Big deal. If someone wants to add that men should listen to the counsel of their wives under the same circumstances, that seems to go without saying. But I for one would not blink if that was added verbally. It would take a three or four word addition. 1
mfbukowski Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 Are they saying that these conversations are specifically for those who already support ordination of women?No one else would even listen to them.
Calm Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 Wow, a bunch of Mormons redefining words to mean whatever they want. I've never seen that before...And I think we err when it is done with outsiders because it adds to confusion.If someone wants to use a particular jargon among the group itself, where the group understands what the word connotes and denotes is fine. When it is used to communicate with outsiders to diminish the threat or legitimise the movement, there are times I think it highly problematic.To claim they don't have intend to have members or followers when they are constantly asking people to join them, send letters, donate money, put their profile up to show who is standing with them....to claim no members or followers is just silly.To claim they were just marching and not protesting when they entered grounds they were asked not to and they were posting memes like "stare down the Patriarchy" again just silly. 2
juliann Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 I think this is a step in the right direction. They need to bridge the gap they have created...the one that produces some of the ugly responses here no matter what they do. I could have done without the declaration that their story will eventually be told in church manuals, though. Bravery just isn't a convincing lable when attributed to oneself. But there wasn't much to object to in most of it. 2
cinepro Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 If someone wants to add that men should listen to the counsel of their wives under the same circumstances, that seems to go without saying. But I for one would not blink if that was added verbally. It would take a three or four word addition. That would be a huge change, and while it might not make you blink, I suspect for most Temple-going LDS (and especially the leadership), it would require big shift in the way the marriage relationship is viewed. That might be a good shift (which is what OW is advocating), but we shouldn't pretend it would be a minor or insignificant shift in Mormon culture and doctrine.
Calm Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 They would have done much better to start with this rather than the ordaining. These are some good ideas, but now they will be linked in some people's eyes with ordination and with OW. I only hope it doesn't slow down changes that were coming and could be considered. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 Does anyone have any info on how many members gave up the church over OW? I'd be interested in seeing the damage the group is doing.
Calm Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 That would be a huge change, and while it might not make you blink, I suspect for most Temple-going LDS (and especially the leadership), it would require big shift in the way the marriage relationship is viewed. That might be a good shift (which is what OW is advocating), but we shouldn't pretend it would be a minor or insignificant shift in Mormon culture and doctrine.They are already teaching an equal partnership. How would adding a man should listen to the counsel of his wife change anything? He is supposed to be doing that now. 1
rockpond Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 IF you actually listen in the temple, all that women actually promise is to listen to the counsel of their husbands IF and only if, he is following God in righteousness. That change was made around 1990 if I recall correctly.
mfbukowski Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 My point was not whether OW is right or wrong. I was just pointing out that the endowment has changed. You said only the presentation has changed. If that's true in light of the changes we've seen thus far, then what OW is asking for would also fall under a "presentation change" as well.My point was not about them being right or wrong, it was about them being Left. As far as the distinction between the endowment and the presentation of the endowment- that is a major discussion getting down to trees falling in the forest and whether or not they make a sound. The church makes that distinction, not me. And I think there are many good justifications for the distinction. We act as if the Brethren are not familiar with the idea that the endowment doesn't change, while they make changes in ignorance. That is simply an absurd idea. Obviously the reason they CAN make changes is that they are making a mental distinction between the "endowment" and the "presentation". In the last 10 years there have been major changes in the initiatories, but heck no one does those anyway so that doesn't even seem to register. If you go back to 1990, there were huge changes in the presentation, which people criticized. I find it astounding that people actually think that the brethren would be so stupid as to affirm that the endowment cannot be changed and then make changes, as if no one will notice or something! It's absurd! OBVIOUSLY there is something quite different going on in their minds, and CLEARLY they must have some idea of what is the unchangeable "core" of the ordinance and what is not. Second guessing them is pointless. So if they think something is core doctrine and something else is just "presentation" they are clearly the ones to make that call, not us. It reminds me of the old supposedly shocking idea that the endowment derived from Masonry and is therefore spurious. You see that stuff everywhere in the anti- literature. No one stops to think that the very brethren who were around when Joseph restored the endowment WERE THEMSELVES MASONS, and members of the same lodge Joseph was. IF THEY WERE NOT SHOCKED BY THE SIMILARITIES, WHY SHOULD WE BE? Obviously there is something happening here that those who criticize the endowment are just not seeing. 2
mfbukowski Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 That change was made around 1990 if I recall correctly.Possibly- I am not sure. 1990 was when all the big changes were made to this part of the endowment, so you are probably right.
VideoGameJunkie Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 Why are there similarities between the endowment session and Masonry?
mfbukowski Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 They are already teaching an equal partnership. How would adding a man should listen to the counsel of his wife change anything? He is supposed to be doing that now.I agree. Elect me prophet, and I will make that change. (ducking for cover from lightning strikes. I knew I should not have gone to the beach the other day.....)
mfbukowski Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) Why are there similarities between the endowment session and Masonry?There are various explanations- Joseph and all the early members were Masons. There is evidence that certain elements of masonry have survived from extremely early times, in an apostate form. My understanding was that Joseph was able to discern which elements were part of the original endowment as taught to Adam, and which parts were not, and adjust them to return them to the original understanding, sort of like how he "translated" the bible, adding sections here, and deleting words or phrases there. There have been many threads on this topic in this forum- they would be easy to find by searching for them. I have read much about Masonry and have studied the endowment for the last 35 years and have concluded that ultimately there are some similarities in the presentation, but the endowment teaches the plan of salvation again and again on different symbolic levels and literal levels, whereas Masonic rituals totally miss that. One could say that there is a similarity between graduation ceremonies and the endowment also- and there is. Obviously though, the intent and what is taught in each is totally different, using some of the same devices. Think of the gowns used in graduation, the mortar board hat and switching the tassel from one side to the other, and the whole idea of "graduation" itself- moving from one state of being to a higher one. But no one thinks Joseph stole the endowment from high school graduation! There are fractured fragments of truth everywhere in the world- Joseph's great gift was to put those puzzle pieces together by using inspiration, to restore the true gospel. Edited August 1, 2014 by mfbukowski
Calm Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 VGJ, there are a couple of Masons that Re FairMormon members. There should be some good stuff there, plus you can ask through the question service and get responses from them.
rockpond Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 My point was not about them being right or wrong, it was about them being Left. As far as the distinction between the endowment and the presentation of the endowment- that is a major discussion getting down to trees falling in the forest and whether or not they make a sound. The church makes that distinction, not me. And I think there are many good justifications for the distinction. We act as if the Brethren are not familiar with the idea that the endowment doesn't change, while they make changes in ignorance. That is simply an absurd idea. Obviously the reason they CAN make changes is that they are making a mental distinction between the "endowment" and the "presentation". In the last 10 years there have been major changes in the initiatories, but heck no one does those anyway so that doesn't even seem to register. If you go back to 1990, there were huge changes in the presentation, which people criticized. I find it astounding that people actually think that the brethren would be so stupid as to affirm that the endowment cannot be changed and then make changes, as if no one will notice or something! It's absurd! OBVIOUSLY there is something quite different going on in their minds, and CLEARLY they must have some idea of what is the unchangeable "core" of the ordinance and what is not. Second guessing them is pointless. So if they think something is core doctrine and something else is just "presentation" they are clearly the ones to make that call, not us. It reminds me of the old supposedly shocking idea that the endowment derived from Masonry and is therefore spurious. You see that stuff everywhere in the anti- literature. No one stops to think that the very brethren who were around when Joseph restored the endowment WERE THEMSELVES MASONS, and members of the same lodge Joseph was. IF THEY WERE NOT SHOCKED BY THE SIMILARITIES, WHY SHOULD WE BE? Obviously there is something happening here that those who criticize the endowment are just not seeing. Umm... okay. I'm not really arguing most of the points you added into your reply to me. In any case, then do you agree that what the OW group is asking for would be a change to the endowment or the presentation? Because you seemed certain that previous changes were only part of the presentation. Or, are you saying that we don't know which it is, only the Brethren would know? Because that seems to be the case you are making here.
rockpond Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 There is evidence that certain elements of masonry have survived from extremely early times, in an apostate form. Do you have a reference for this evidence? I've actually heard the opposite... that there is no evidence of ancient (Old Testament times) origins for Masonry but I don't have a source either way.
mfbukowski Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 Umm... okay. I'm not really arguing most of the points you added into your reply to me. In any case, then do you agree that what the OW group is asking for would be a change to the endowment or the presentation? Because you seemed certain that previous changes were only part of the presentation. Or, are you saying that we don't know which it is, only the Brethren would know? Because that seems to be the case you are making here.Yes that is the case I am making. Yes, previous changes obviously must have been only part of the presentation for the brethren to have made them. Yes, only the brethren can define what is core and what is presentation. Does that help? The bottom line is that it is not up to us, so speculation becomes pretty pointless. I was just pointing out that changing the presentation is consistent with the idea that the endowment itself does not change, because they have made that distinction, but there isn't much we can do about it to suggest further changes.
mfbukowski Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) Do you have a reference for this evidence? I've actually heard the opposite... that there is no evidence of ancient (Old Testament times) origins for Masonry but I don't have a source either way.Well Nibley wrote an entire book on the "Egyptian Endowment", and of course we have the temple of Solomon, which by legend was where Masonry originated. (yes I know that is widely disputed) http://deseretbook.com/Message-Joseph-Smith-Papyri-Egyptian-Endowment-Vol-16-Hugh-Nibley/i/4952652 Masons themselves believe that it originated in Solomon's temple and that is part of their Lore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry Symbols known to be "Masonic" appear in the Facsimilies in the Book of Abraham and regardless of what you think of those, the sources for those symbols and their meaning is clearly ancient. What complicates the issue of course is the oaths of secrecy- one would not expect to find the endowment in the Old Testament word for word even if it was practiced in those times. (I am not arguing it was or was not- I am point out an argument in favor of why it is NOT found there) Edited August 1, 2014 by mfbukowski
rockpond Posted August 1, 2014 Posted August 1, 2014 Yes that is the case I am making. Yes, previous changes obviously must have been only part of the presentation for the brethren to have made them. Yes, only the brethren can define what is core and what is presentation. Does that help? The bottom line is that it is not up to us, so speculation becomes pretty pointless. I was just pointing out that changing the presentation is consistent with the idea that the endowment itself does not change, because they have made that distinction, but there isn't much we can do about it to suggest further changes. Seems circular, but fair enough. So, if the Brethren feel inspired to make the change that OW is requesting, it means that it is part of the presentation and not the endowment.
Recommended Posts