rockpond Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 35 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Did anyone catch this in the article linked by the OP? "The move comes at a time when, at least anecdotally, it appears more difficult to get adults to attend youth baptismal assignments, particularly on weeknights. This will not only remove the barriers to entry for getting the assignments done, it will also serve as a phenomenal opportunity for Mormon youth to be more engaged in the work of the temple." What do you think? Is it because there is less activity? I like that they get the youth involved, but did it come as a need because of the above quote or because they liked to give the youth more responsibility. Sometimes I think policy changes come about because of need. Our baptistry requires 7 endowed men (or at least they did before this announcement) for youth groups. We were usually able to get that many. But for those few times when we couldn't have, this would help. Here's the issue though -- You still need enough adults (over 21) to drive.
Jeanne Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 1 minute ago, rockpond said: Our baptistry requires 7 endowed men (or at least they did before this announcement) for youth groups. We were usually able to get that many. But for those few times when we couldn't have, this would help. Here's the issue though -- You still need enough adults (over 21) to drive. I forgot about that...they will need drivers.wow.hope this works!
rockpond Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 6 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I forgot about that...they will need drivers.wow.hope this works! Yeah, our ward has a large youth program and we often send youth groups numbering well into the 40's. With an average of 4 youth being put in a car (along with driver and spouse), we need 10 cars to make the trip. 1
Jeanne Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 14 minutes ago, rockpond said: Yeah, our ward has a large youth program and we often send youth groups numbering well into the 40's. With an average of 4 youth being put in a car (along with driver and spouse), we need 10 cars to make the trip. Having only belonged to very small wards, this is hard for me to comprehend. I hope for those youth that want to participate, get to do this.
Duncan Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: Did anyone catch this in the article linked by the OP? "The move comes at a time when, at least anecdotally, it appears more difficult to get adults to attend youth baptismal assignments, particularly on weeknights. This will not only remove the barriers to entry for getting the assignments done, it will also serve as a phenomenal opportunity for Mormon youth to be more engaged in the work of the temple." What do you think? Is it because there is less activity? I like that they get the youth involved, but did it come as a need because of the above quote or because they liked to give the youth more responsibility. Sometimes I think policy changes come about because of need. That's a concern here, we travel 6 hours and we have to cough up 7 guys to be involved in the baptistry. I was once sitting in the endowment room waiting and the came and got me so I guess Julio Castillo had to wait another day if you could get the kids involved you got the parents 1
LittleNipper Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 May I ask a simple question? How does a dead, deceased, kaput individual know that someone is being baptized in his/her behalf? I believe it is in Ecclesiastics where it is stated that the dead known nothing...
Duncan Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 1 hour ago, LittleNipper said: May I ask a simple question? How does a dead, deceased, kaput individual know that someone is being baptized in his/her behalf? I believe it is in Ecclesiastics where it is stated that the dead known nothing... it isn't in Ecclesiastes. In the next life they are alive and well, there is no such thing as a dead person to God
mfbukowski Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 On 12/14/2017 at 3:24 PM, JLHPROF said: The endowment sign used in baptism is the same for the living and dead and priests can use it so being endowed doesn't seem necessary. There are no "endowment signs" used in baptism---??! Do we use an "endowment sign" being sworn in in court?
JLHPROF Posted December 16, 2017 Author Posted December 16, 2017 6 hours ago, mfbukowski said: There are no "endowment signs" used in baptism---??! Do we use an "endowment sign" being sworn in in court? Of course there is. The most appropriate for such an Aaronic ordinance. And yes, endowment elements are found in many traditions. Just look at academic regalia at graduations.
mfbukowski Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Of course there is. The most appropriate for such an Aaronic ordinance. And yes, endowment elements are found in many traditions. Just look at academic regalia at graduations. Thanks I think I get what you are saying but there is a thumb problem and left and right? But the connection is similar Edited December 16, 2017 by mfbukowski
JLHPROF Posted December 16, 2017 Author Posted December 16, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Thanks I think I get what you are saying but there is a thumb problem and left and right? But the connection is similar Not at all. The signs are identical because they are the same sign. The same sign was previously used in the Aaronic ordinance of the sacrament, which had been discontinued. Edited December 16, 2017 by JLHPROF Io
mfbukowski Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Not at all. The signs are identical because they are the same sign. The same sign was previously used in the Aaronic ordinance of the sacrament, which had been discontinued. Incorrect. There are two Aaronic signs, and this doesn't match either one "identically". Left and right are reversed, if you are seeing it as one sign, or if you are seeing it as the other possible sign, there is no similarity due to thumb position. I demonstrate both signs in the temple weekly as an officiator, and this is close but not exact. Thumbs are highly significant in duplicating and doubling the symbology of the rest of the gesture. One sign is also significant in the public prayer portion of the endowment, at a time when one would expect a Melchzadek reference instead of an Aaronic one. Edited December 16, 2017 by mfbukowski
Damien the Leper Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 On 12/14/2017 at 4:03 PM, Scott Lloyd said: Baptism has always been an Aaronic Priesthood ordinance. That is to say, the office of priest has always entailed the authority to baptize. Confirmation after baptism, on the other hand, is a Melchizedek Priesthood ordinance. I doubt this change allows Aaronic Priesthood holders to do confirmations. This is what I was thinking also, Scott. I'd be curious to know why the priests weren't doing this since the beginning of the ordinance. I don't think anything malicious but it is curious.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Valentinus said: This is what I was thinking also, Scott. I'd be curious to know why the priests weren't doing this since the beginning of the ordinance. I don't think anything malicious but it is curious. The reason might be as simple as it not having occurred to anyone in power. But I hasten to add I have no way of knowing. Perhaps it has something to do with the proliferation of temples in recent years. When I was a youth, there were only a handful of temples, and we only went for baptisms once in a blue moon. 4
Damien the Leper Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The reason might be as simple as it not having occurred to anyone in power. But I hasten to add I have no way of knowing. Perhaps it has something to do with the proliferation of temples in recent years. When I was a youth, there were only a handful of temples, and we only went for baptisms once in a blue moon. Solid reasoning. There is definitely a surplus of priests. Well, there is in the ward I attend. I believe we currently have 15-17 priests. I've personally never seen such a large priest quorum in a ward until this one.
Calm Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 My son's age group was like that (we were there for 13 years)...anywhere from 13-16 boys at a time and only 2 girls.
Five Solas Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 One of the LDS explanations given for the absence of evidence of baptisms for the dead in the Second Temple was the absence of Melchizedek Priesthood authority. But within a month of that thread we learn from LDS leadership in Salt Lake City that Melchizedek Priesthood authority wasn't actually necessary for such temple ordinances. If I were clarkgoble, I might feel a little vexed by this sudden & awkwardly timed development... On 11/16/2017 at 9:18 AM, clarkgoble said: I can't see it being in the second temple period. First off there's no evidence for it that I'm aware of. Secondly there was no Melchizedek Priesthood authority in general distribution in the second temple period. You can argue for it at least up to Elisha and the School of the Prophets. But I don't see it being in the second temple period beyond perhaps individual prophets potentially being directly ordained by angels... But he'll take it on the chin, I suspect. ;0) --Erik _______________________________________________ Watching the reel as it comes to a close Brutally taking its time People who change for no reason at all It's happening all of the time Can I go on with this train of events? Disturbing and purging my mind Back out of my duties, when all's said and done I know that I'll lose every time --Joy Division, 1980
mfbukowski Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 9 hours ago, Valentinus said: This is what I was thinking also, Scott. I'd be curious to know why the priests weren't doing this since the beginning of the ordinance. I don't think anything malicious but it is curious. Not really when you think about it. Notice , that John the Baptist obviously WAS a "Baptist" (not in the modern sense- lol) under the Aaronic priesthood. But baptism for the dead is not mentioned in the scriptures until Paul mentions it in 1 Cor. Paul and the apostles in the meridian of time were operating not as Aaronic priests but as Melchizadek priests. The Mosaic law was fulfilled with the atonement and so the Levitical priesthood was no longer needed I do not believe that baptism for the dead was practiced- ever before- under the Aaronic Priesthood- yet as an appendage to the Melchizadek Priesthood, of course A. priests can assume the delegated authority from M priests as the Lord desires.
mfbukowski Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: The reason might be as simple as it not having occurred to anyone in power. But I hasten to add I have no way of knowing. Perhaps it has something to do with the proliferation of temples in recent years. When I was a youth, there were only a handful of temples, and we only went for baptisms once in a blue moon. I don't think it was possible to do work for the dead until after the atonement when Jesus "unlocked" the "gates of hell" for preaching to the dead- bridging the gulf between God and the "Bosom of Abraham" The gates of hell did not prevail against the church because Jesus broke those "gates" and opened the door for the salvation of the dead. And that of course was by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood- not the Levitical priesthood. But that is I think the theological answer and yours is the social answer. Prophets can authorize anything they have the power to authorize, and delegate, and clearly this is one example of that. 1
mfbukowski Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Five Solas said: One of the LDS explanations given for the absence of evidence of baptisms for the dead in the Second Temple was the absence of Melchizedek Priesthood authority. But within a month of that thread we learn from LDS leadership in Salt Lake City that Melchizedek Priesthood authority wasn't actually necessary for such temple ordinances. If I were clarkgoble, I might feel a little vexed by this sudden & awkwardly timed development... But he'll take it on the chin, I suspect. ;0) --Erik _______________________________________________ Watching the reel as it comes to a close Brutally taking its time People who change for no reason at all It's happening all of the time Can I go on with this train of events? Disturbing and purging my mind Back out of my duties, when all's said and done I know that I'll lose every time --Joy Division, 1980 I think you do not understand that we have an open canon and that doctrine can change according to social needs, and was not declared once for all times and seasons. Jesus had to go preach "to the spirits in prison" before they could be baptized- that just is common sense and of course the Law of Moses stopped there. If those spirits could not hear the gospel they could not decide to accept it and be baptized. So the work could not be done during that temple period as Clark says- because Jesus had not yet made it possible to do. On the other hand NOW as part of the New Covenant all things are restored and certainly this work can be delegated to whomever the prophet feels would be appropriate. Clearly that is what is happening here and even delegating these assignments to women, as slight as the improvement may be, is a huge leap exactly AGAINST the direction you are arguing- that once these doctrines are created they cannot be changed to anything that has never been done before. Women were never permitted to do those tasks before- and that is a legitimate change, no matter how appearingly slight it may be. If that may be changed- then anything may be changed. We practiced polygamy and now we no longer do so. Practices like this change all the time in church- it is not about some "unchanging TRVTH" cast in stone above the temple doors. It is about whatever works to carry on the work of the Lord in a reasonable way. That is precisely why we need prophets in the first place- to change doctrine as it needs to be changed as history marches on. Edited December 17, 2017 by mfbukowski 1
kiwi57 Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 5 hours ago, Five Solas said: One of the LDS explanations given for the absence of evidence of baptisms for the dead in the Second Temple was the absence of Melchizedek Priesthood authority. But within a month of that thread we learn from LDS leadership in Salt Lake City that Melchizedek Priesthood authority wasn't actually necessary for such temple ordinances. If I were clarkgoble, I might feel a little vexed by this sudden & awkwardly timed development... But he'll take it on the chin, I suspect. ;0) --Erik _______________________________________________ Watching the reel as it comes to a close Brutally taking its time People who change for no reason at all It's happening all of the time Can I go on with this train of events? Disturbing and purging my mind Back out of my duties, when all's said and done I know that I'll lose every time --Joy Division, 1980 Why do you insist on derailing every possible thread with your short list of obsessions? Work for the dead did not begin until the event spoken of in 1 Peter 3:19. 2
JLHPROF Posted December 17, 2017 Author Posted December 17, 2017 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Clearly that is what is happening here and even delegating these assignments to women, as slight as the improvement may be, is a huge leap exactly AGAINST the direction you are arguing- that once these doctrines are created they cannot be changed to anything that has never been done before. Women were never permitted to do those tasks before- and that is a legitimate change, no matter how appearingly slight it may be. If that may be changed- then anything may be changed. I didn't realize the restriction on baptismal witnesses to melchizedek priesthood holders was very recent, only starting in 1976. Prior to that for the first 140 years of the Church women could stand as witnesses. Perhaps this legitimate change is a move towards a return to the original policy and practice. Makes me wonder why the changed it in the first place. 1
mfbukowski Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 4 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I didn't realize the restriction on baptismal witnesses to melchizedek priesthood holders was very recent, only starting in 1976. Prior to that for the first 140 years of the Church women could stand as witnesses. Perhaps this legitimate change is a move towards a return to the original policy and practice. Makes me wonder why the changed it in the first place. I was baptized in 1979 and so had no clue about the first change and agree with you. Pretty odd that it was changed in the first place. I just chose that as an example of how practices and even "doctrines" can change over time But yes you have raised an interesting question.
kiwi57 Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 17 hours ago, Five Solas said: One of the LDS explanations given for the absence of evidence of baptisms for the dead in the Second Temple was the absence of Melchizedek Priesthood authority. But within a month of that thread we learn from LDS leadership in Salt Lake City that Melchizedek Priesthood authority wasn't actually necessary for such temple ordinances. If I were clarkgoble, I might feel a little vexed by this sudden & awkwardly timed development... But he'll take it on the chin, I suspect. Incidentally, your remarks also show a failure to understand the rather significant concept of Priesthood keys. The most regular application of this is seen in the weekly administration of the Sacrament. Every priest who kneels at the Sacrament table has the Aaronic Priesthood authority to administer that ordinance, but the ordinance is still not valid unless it is conducted with the express permission of the bishop, who holds the keys of that ordinance due to his position as the President of the Aaronic Priesthood in his ward. In the same way, it appears that the authority to perform Baptisms for the Dead is indeed invested in the Aaronic Priesthood, but the keys of the vicarious work for the Dead are not. 2
The Nehor Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 On 12/15/2017 at 11:36 PM, LittleNipper said: May I ask a simple question? How does a dead, deceased, kaput individual know that someone is being baptized in his/her behalf? I believe it is in Ecclesiastics where it is stated that the dead known nothing... Ecclesiastes in that chapter is written from the perspective of godlessness. Or do you also subscribe to the idea that everything on earth is vanity?
Recommended Posts