What Do You Believe As Absolute?

[will227457]

 

I will give an example - there are people on this board arguing that either SSM or women being ordained to the priesthood can be revealed from heaven as acceptable.  There are others who state that these are absolutes and cannot be changed ever.

 

SSM I'm not so sure about, but ordaining women to the priesthood. Yeah that could happen,,,,,,it is a matter of policy that we do not ordain women, not doctrine.

[JLHPROF]

SSM I'm not so sure about, but ordaining women to the priesthood. Yeah that could happen,,,,,,it is a matter of policy that we do not ordain women, not doctrine.

 

There are many (myself included) who would disagree.

[will227457]

There are many (myself included) who would disagree.

That's ok, my understanding of what is doctrine and policy may differ from yours, I fail to find in our standard works where is says that women cannot hold the priesthood. 

[JLHPROF]

That's ok, my understanding of what is doctrine and policy may differ from yours, I fail to find in our standard works where is says that women cannot hold the priesthood. 

 

Once again we get the "if something's not forbidden it must be ok" argument.

It's very much the kid saying "well, you never told me I couldn't eat ice cream for dinner".

 

Where it's located in the scripture is in the precedent.  In our dispensation in no revelation ever received by a prophet did God call a woman to an ecclesiastical priesthood office.  He could have, but he didn't.

Now the temple order on the other hand...

[Gray]

 

Where it's located in the scripture is in the precedent.  In our dispensation in no revelation ever received by a prophet did God call a woman to an ecclesiastical priesthood office.  He could have, but he didn't.

Now the temple order on the other hand...

 

Sure, as long as you think that prophet and deacon aren't priesthood offices. 

[JLHPROF]

Sure, as long as you think that prophet and deacon aren't priesthood offices. 

 

Prophet isn't - Book of Revelation confirms that.

 

As for the "female deacon" - that has been hotly debated for decades - Was Phoebe a Deacon as we understand the office or merely a servant?

And Junia the "apostle" is even less reliable.

 

One and 1/2 highly debated reference to a female priesthood in ALL of ancient scripture, both canonized and abandoned, hardly makes a precedent.  Surely there would be a record somewhere of another...

 

Where are the female Bishops?  The female High Priests(priestesses)?  The female Elders?  Why did Christ call no female apostles either in the Bible or Book of Mormon or by revelation to Joseph Smith & his successors?  Women cannot hold ecclesiastical priesthood.

Edited March 20, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Gray]

Prophet isn't - Book of Revelation confirms that.

 

As for the "female deacon" - that has been hotly debated for decades - Was Phoebe a Deacon as we understand the office or merely a servant?

And Junia the "apostle" is even less reliable.

 

One and 1/2 highly debated reference to a female priesthood in ALL of ancient scripture, both canonized and abandoned, hardly makes a precedent.  Surely there would be a record somewhere of another...

 

Where are the female Bishops?  The female High Priests(priestesses)?  The female Elders?  Why did Christ call no female apostles either in the Bible or Book of Mormon or by revelation to Joseph Smith & his successors?  Women cannot hold ecclesiastical priesthood.

 

Great, so no reason to think any prophets or deacons in the Bible held the priesthood. Deacon means servant. So either Deacon is an office or it's not. Apostle means one who is sent. So I suppose we could argue whether or not Peter was an apostle or just an errand boy. But since he's male, I guess his apostleship is beyond reproach. 

 

The only deacon mentioned by name in the Bible is a woman. Two female prophets (who were prophets indeed) are also mentioned. That's pretty good considering the time frame. What else could you need? 

Edited March 20, 2015 by Gray

[stemelbow]

Then being Mormon has no benefit and gets you no closer to God than any other religion, or even no religion.

And how do we define "love"?

That is true. I like Gray's answer, but I would probably add the atonement--but as it is now I'd see that as central to the two great commandments.

Everything else are appendages and all appendages may need to be fixed or re-addressed as greater light and knowledge comes along, which light and knowledge can come from many avenues that God has created. If, for instance, our view of the nature of God is a bit askew, we may need to make an adjustment if ever He feels it necessary to correct us. In the end, as I see it, our eyes will be fully opened and we'll see and understand clearly where our understanding was wrong, perhaps in many cases, terribly wrong.

[stemelbow]

I would agree that being Mormon doesn't get you closer to God than other religions, but I would push back on the idea that there is no benefit.

 

I would define love as charity, acceptance and compassion and more

Excellent. I agree with this. You are nailing it. I keep seeing your posts around and your beating me to the punch, and saying it much better than I can.

I'd say many around the globe, not LDS are closer to God than most LDS. We suffer from a problem of almost worshipping ourselves, which is our Church.

[HappyJackWagon]

God loves ALL of his children and has a plan of happiness for ALL of them.

 

He desires for us to become compassionate, charitable individuals who uplift the downtrodden and value all of his family. If something leads us toward becoming these things, it is good. If something leads us away from becoming charitable and compassionate then it is bad.

Edited March 20, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[JLHPROF]

God loves ALL of his children and has a plan of happiness for ALL of them.

 

 

Agreed.  But if they do not follow the plan they cannot expect happiness.

There is no happiness planned for those who end up in hell, but instead weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.  God doesn't expect them to be happy.

[Gray]

Excellent. I agree with this. You are nailing it. I keep seeing your posts around and your beating me to the punch, and saying it much better than I can.

I'd say many around the globe, not LDS are closer to God than most LDS. We suffer from a problem of almost worshipping ourselves, which is our Church.

 

Thanks Stem, I feel the same about your posts. I've been just content to lurk for some time, and I always appreciate your perspective.

 

I feel that the idea that only one church can bring people close to God may be gratifying to the ego, but doesn't bear out in real life. And when you have that perspective ironically the focus of religious life becomes more church-centered than God-centered. At least that's how I perceive it. 

Edited March 20, 2015 by Gray

[Buckeye]

Agreed.  But if they do not follow the plan they cannot expect happiness.

There is no happiness planned for those who end up in hell, but instead weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.  God doesn't expect them to be happy.

 

One of the things I love most of Joseph's teachings is the idea that men can receive partial salvations for accepting part of the plan. Hence, multiple degrees of glory (and kingdoms within those degrees). If a man obeys the WOW but not the 10th commandment (covetousness), he will still obtain the blessings from living the WOW.

 

Based on that, it seems obvious that all other faiths at least have significant parts of the plan of salvation, even if not the entirety. And it's obvious (to me) that people in those churches can obtain a signficant amount of happiness by following those truths. If this is not true, I have no way to explain the fact that my non-mormon neighbors (99% of the neighbors where I live) appear to be on the same range of daily happiness as my family.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Buckeye

[HappyJackWagon]

 

And it's obvious (to me) that people in the churches can obtain a signficant amount of happiness by following those truths. If this is not true, I have no way to explain the fact that my non-mormon neighbors (99% of the neighbors where I live) appears to be on the same range of daily happiness as my family.

 

Buckeye,

 

Your neighbors probably only think they're happy.

[Buckeye]

Buckeye,

 

Your neighbors probably only think they're happy.

 

Yeah, and maybe their all part of some elaborate test meant just for me. Everyone but me is simply and actor placed here by God to run my test. Just like he placed dinosaur bones to see if I would still believe the earth is 6,000 years old, he placed Harry and Sally to see if I would hearken to their siren claims of happiness.

[Mormonmaniac]

I believe anyone in a stable relationship who obey the laws of the land are happy be they Islam, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, Atheist, etc. It just so happens that many of God's laws are also our laws of the land and what we see as moral and ethical.

[JLHPROF]

One of the things I love most of Joseph's teachings is the idea that men can receive partial salvations for accepting part of the plan. Hence, multiple degrees of glory (and kingdoms within those degrees). If a man obeys the WOW but not the 10th commandment (covetousness), he will still obtain the blessings from living the WOW.

 

Totally agreed.  We can never forget that

D&C 1: 31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

32 Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;

 

We still have to deal with those sins either through cessation or repentance (or both), but progression is definitely line upon line.

 

 

 

Based on that, it seems obvious that all other faiths at least have significant parts of the plan of salvation, even if not the entirety.

 

True again, but without authorized baptism they cannot be saved in the Celestial Kingdom and must be saved in a lesser kingdom.

 

 

And it's obvious (to me) that people in those churches can obtain a signficant amount of happiness by following those truths. If this is not true, I have no way to explain the fact that my non-mormon neighbors (99% of the neighbors where I live) appear to be on the same range of daily happiness as my family.

 

The unhappy may come when they realize (assuming they never accept the gospel) the blessings they miss out on.  If you don't know what you are missing you aren't going to be unhappy about it I suppose.  Ignorance IS bliss.

[Sleeper Cell]

Great, so no reason to think any prophets or deacons in the Bible held the priesthood. Deacon means servant. So either Deacon is an office or it's not. Apostle means one who is sent. 

 

Isn’t that sort of like saying: “either ‘Teacher’ is a priesthood office or it isn’t?”

 

The only deacon mentioned by name in the Bible is a woman. Two female prophets (who were prophets indeed) are also mentioned. That's pretty good considering the time frame. What else could you need? 

Revelation.  Failing that, some evidence that they actually did anything that could only have been done by someone holding the priesthood. 

[Ahab]

If you don't know what you are missing you aren't going to be unhappy about it I suppose. Ignorance IS bliss.

That's debatable and worthy of a big thread.

I'm absolutely sure that the amount of happiness/joy we feel is directly related to how much we know about how to be happy/filled with joy, so if or whenever someone doesn't know as much about how to be happy/filled with joy as someone else does the one with less knowledge is ipso facto less happy, even if he/she is ignorant about how much happier someone else is.

So basically there is a happiness/unhappiness ratio and the only way to be 100% happy/0% unhappy is to know and accept and be living in total compliance with all that it takes to be happy.

I think most if not all of us mortals have only a fraction of happiness, like for example 30% happiness with 70% unhappiness, and because they feel some happiness they say they are happy, basically ignoring or oblivious to how unhappy they are. Some are more than 30% happy, of course, but how many are really, truly, honestly 100% in nothing but happiness?

[Gray]

 

Isn’t that sort of like saying: “either ‘Teacher’ is a priesthood office or it isn’t?”

 

 

Revelation.  Failing that, some evidence that they actually did anything that could only have been done by someone holding the priesthood. 

 

 

Well, that's the thing. We're applying modern LDS notions about priesthood to the Bible, but ideas about what priesthood is have not been static. It's unlikely that any of the OT prophets were understood at the time as holding any priesthood. Priesthood was for the Levites. 

 

So if we're now saying Deacon is a priesthood office, then there is strong support for women holding the priesthood in the Bible. If we're thinking prophets must also hold priesthood, then there is even stronger support for women holding priesthood in the Bible. 

 

What direct evidence is there really for most of the figures in the Bible holding the priesthood?

 

The evidence for male vs female ordination is on pretty much equal grounds. 

Edited March 20, 2015 by Gray

[Ahab]

Having the priesthood is not the same thing as being ordained to an office of the priesthood.

Women in the Church have the priesthood. Little children do too, as well as people who are not members of the Church. But only men and boys past a certain age are being ordained to an office of the priesthood.

[JLHPROF]

Well, that's the thing. We're applying modern LDS notions about priesthood to the Bible, but ideas about what priesthood is have not been static. It's unlikely that any of the OT prophets were understood at the time as holding any priesthood. Priesthood was for the Levites. 

 

 

I don't agree with that.  I think Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc all new full well they held the priesthood (and the fullness of what we call the Melchezidek priesthood at that).  D&C 84:6-17

 

6 And the sons of Moses, according to the Holy Priesthood which he received under the hand of his father-in-law, Jethro;

7 And Jethro received it under the hand of Caleb;

8 And Caleb received it under the hand of Elihu;

9 And Elihu under the hand of Jeremy;

10 And Jeremy under the hand of Gad;

11 And Gad under the hand of Esaias;

12 And Esaias received it under the hand of God.

13 Esaias also lived in the days of Abraham, and was blessed of him—

14 Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah;

15 And from Noah till Enoch, through the lineage of their fathers;

16 And from Enoch to Abel, who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother, who received the priesthood by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man—

17 Which priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning of days or end of years.

 

and

 

Abraham 1:2 And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

 

The priesthood has always been the same.  Either Pheobe was a Deacon in the Aaronic priesthood or she was merely a servant.  And that is the extent of actual priesthood office mentioned in the Bible with a woman's name attached.

Prophet is NOT a priesthood office.  Judge is NOT a priesthood office.  And Junia was NOT an apostle.

Edited March 20, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Gray]

I don't agree with that.  I think Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc all new full well they held the priesthood (and the fullness of what we call the Melchezidek priesthood at that).  D&C 84:6-17

 

The priesthood has always been the same.  Either Pheobe was a Deacon in the Aaronic priesthood or she was merely a servant.  And that is the extent of actual priesthood office mentioned in the Bible with a woman's name attached.

Prophet is NOT a priesthood office.  Judge is NOT a priesthood office.  And Junia was NOT an apostle.

 

 

Again, I was referring to priesthood as it was understood in the distant past, not as it has been understood in the church modernly. 

 

Either deacon is a priesthood office or it isn't. All of the titles we associate with priesthood (deacon, priest, teacher, elder, high priest, etc) can be read as meaning something different from what we think of them today. Elder simply means an aged person. Priest also originates from the word elder. So all male elders and priests don't necessarily have the priesthood, if we're going to play it that way. You seem to wish to divorce these terms from the way we read them today only when they've been applied to women. 

 

Regarding a prophet, can you find an example of a prophet in the modern church who doesn't hold the priesthood? 

 

If we're going to say these offices/titles/callings required the priesthood anciently, then we should either ordain women, because they must have been ordained anciently. If we think they don't require the priesthood, then we can set apart women as prophets and deacons without the necessity for priesthood.

[will227457]

Once again we get the "if something's not forbidden it must be ok" argument.

It's very much the kid saying "well, you never told me I couldn't eat ice cream for dinner".

 

Where it's located in the scripture is in the precedent.  In our dispensation in no revelation ever received by a prophet did God call a woman to an ecclesiastical priesthood office.  He could have, but he didn't.

Now the temple order on the other hand...

So just because he hasn't that means he won't? isn't that the same argument you are using against me? "if something's not forbidden it must be ok" 

 

I never said it was ok, I am not stating that it's not ok. I am stating that there is room for it in our church. We don't know at this point it hasn't been revealed 

[Teancum]

Teancum, I am glad to hear that hope is still alive.  I think questioning is healthy, but might I suggest that to live in skepticism and hope simultaneously is to live in discord.  A skeptic is inclined to doubt which cannot exist in true hope.  Questioning does not require doubt or skepticism.  One cannot be a true skeptic and have pure hope at the same time.  Man cannot serve two masters. 

 

It reminds me of the old Cherokee parable:

 

An old Cherokee chief was teaching his grandson about life...



 

"A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy. 
"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves.

 



"One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt, and ego.



 

"The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. 



 

"This same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."



 

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, 
"Which wolf will win?"



 

The old chief simply replied, 
"The one you feed."

 

One wolf is doubt, the other is hope.  Which will you feed?

 

 

I agree that what you listed does not require a belief in God if you claim that it is only true for you (relative morality).  Once you cross into absolute truths however, it either 1) requires a belief in God, or 2) requires universal human values (which doesn't exist).

 

 

Oh yes I have lots of discord inside me! 

 

I do believe DO NO HARM is an absolute that can exist without God.  I have read the wolf parable before. It is good food for thought.