Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, blueglass said:

It's a little odd, considering this is available only on the web or on the gospel library app, that they do not provide a link to the gospel topics essay in Lesson1 for 4 accounts of the first vision.  It says, (see Gospel Topics essay, “First Vision Accounts”).  Hyperlinks abound for everything under sun for all other scriptures and references, but for this one reference the link is removed.  If you find these accounts under gospel library under the church history tab first vision accounts, they also need to activate the link to "Read these accounts here" as it is also dead.   Can missionaries access the joseph smith papers - anyone know?   http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/accounts-of-the-first-vision  also see https://history.lds.org/story/first-vision?lang=eng

 

I would suggest giving feedback on the links, it may just be an oversight.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Right.  The priesthood is not conferred upon women. 

In the example I have about the relief society president, she has all the power and authority to accomplish the work of that calling.  When she is released that power and authority is given to another.

Both of the quotes from President Oaks and President Smith state this as well, they are given authority when they are set apart. 

Are you saying a RS Prez has a different kind of priesthood than a primary teacher or something?  We also have a calling to minister, each and every one of us. Not all callings require one to be set apart, BTW.  The days of boxing up and limiting priesthood as male are over. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, juliann said:

Are you saying a RS Prez has a different kind of priesthood than a primary teacher or something?  We also have a calling to minister, each and every one of us. Not all callings require one to be set apart, BTW.  The days of boxing up and limiting priesthood as male are over. 

I was using a relief society president as an example.  I said nothing about primary.  I also said nothing about ministering in my example.

Priesthood authority is given to all who are called to the work, whether they be in relief society, primary, or the elders quorum.

 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, bluebell said:

All I know is that, after the ward mission leader's study of the Preach My Gospel manual, I (as the YW president) no longer have to go to the missionary meeting on Sundays.  That's a win for me!

Ch13 is entirely revamped for ministering.  Looks like Relief society presidents assign YW 14 yo and up to serve as ministering sisters?  "Others who may be invited to attend this meeting include ward missionaries, a counselor from the elders quorum presidency, and a counselor from the Relief Society presidency."  YW presidency not on the list.  After Elder Oaks 2014 talk they changed the Come follow me lesson on Priesthood for the month of June.  "Do the young women in your class see themselves as essential participants in the work of the priesthood?",  "Make a plan to fulfill their responsibilities in the work of the priesthood."  "Keeping the covenants associated with these ordinances brings priesthood power—the power of God—into our lives."  For many these concepts are entirely new and foreign.  In 2014 when I asked the stake YW president about her thoughts about the changes to the lesson on Priesthood she wasn't aware of the difference.  I then read to her the changes and asked her how young women could help become participants in the work of the priesthood?  She responded, "Well for one they could dress more modestly."  She's a veteran member with an entire lifetime of service in many callings in the church.   God bless her as she did an awesome job helping organize and train yw presidencies

Edited by blueglass
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Ch13 is entirely revamped for ministering.  Looks like Relief society presidents assign YW 14 yo and up to serve as ministering sisters?  "Others who may be invited to attend this meeting include ward missionaries, a counselor from the elders quorum presidency, and a counselor from the Relief Society presidency."  YW presidency not on the list.  After Elder Oaks 2014 talk they changed the Come follow me lesson on Priesthood for the month of June.  "Do the young women in your class see themselves as essential participants in the work of the priesthood?",  "Make a plan to fulfill their responsibilities in the work of the priesthood."  "Keeping the covenants associated with these ordinances brings priesthood power—the power of God—into our lives."  For many these concepts are entirely new and foreign.  In 2014 when I asked the stake YW president about her thoughts about the changes to the lesson on Priesthood she wasn't aware of the difference.  I then read to her the changes and asked her how young women could help become participants in the work of the priesthood?  She responded, "Well for one they could dress more modestly."  She's a veteran member with an entire lifetime of service in many callings in the church.   God bless her as she did an awesome job helping organize and train yw presidencies

Oh my goodness, I think my head would have exploded.  

My best experience was when a really great sister (who is in her 30s, very outspoken, and a take-charge-in-her-family kind of gal) taught this lesson last year (about participating in the work of the priesthood) and she went on and on about how we do that by supporting our husbands and helping Young men to serve worthy missions.  I spent a good part of that lesson just listening in shock.  This new focus on everyone being a part of the priesthood seems pretty simple but in reality it's a major shift in thinking and it's going to take a while for older women (who were taught something different in old YW lessons) to wrap their heads around it.

Our missionary meetings included just about everyone that they could get to go, including reps from YM and primary.  I never understood it, but I'm really glad the focus as been clarified.  

Link to comment
On 6/26/2018 at 2:21 AM, Mike Harris said:

I don't see any mention to the possibility to ascend higher “in the world to come”.  Where's it located?

Not sure why the search function is not activated yet on the webpage link, but it is working in the gospel library app.  you can't search local to a specific book but if you search the entire library it pulls up under missionary.   Just go to this link: https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-2-the-plan-of-salvation?lang=eng 

Continuing to reject the fullness of the gospel in the world to come will prevent ascension to any higher kingdom of glory. 

Link to comment
On 6/25/2018 at 2:22 PM, ksfisher said:

What is your basis for your edit in verse 57?  I'm not aware of anything in the scriptures or taught by the general authorities that would infer that reading.

There is support for reading a higher elevation of Priestess unto God and removing the coverture anomaly.  I found many others but here are a few:

Eliza R. Snow Aug 14, 1873
"You, my sisters, if you are faithful will become Queens of Queens, and Priestesses unto the Most High God. These are your callings. We have only to discharge our duties. By and by our labors will be past, and our names will be crowned with everlasting honor, and be had in everlasting remembrance among the Saints of the Most High God."

Melvin J. Ballard (1873-1939) Quorum of the Twelve Apostles 
"Whatever disappointments may come, still be true to him and I promise you, in the name of the Lord, that if not in time, in eternity, you shall have like honors and glory and privilege. If you are faithful over a few things here, you shall be ruler over many things there, and become kings and priests unto God. And you sisters who have dwelt in reflected glory will shine in your own light, queens and priestesses unto the Lord forever and ever." (Conference Report, October 1934) 

Spencer W. Kimball  (1895-1985)  President 
"We do not rear children just to please our vanity. We bring children into the world to become kings and queens, and priests and priestesses for our Lord." (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball [1982], p.331)

Edited by blueglass
Link to comment
On 6/25/2018 at 4:48 PM, blueglass said:

Lesson2 plan of salvation https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-2-the-plan-of-salvation?lang=eng

In the past Preach My Gospel taught rejection to the gospel in mortality as fatal.  The "one strike rule" as per  D&C 76:73–74.   The new preach my gospel is closer to the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, BH Roberts, James Talmage, Joseph F. Smith, J. Reuben Clark Jr., and James E. Faust.

As for DC 76:73-74:

73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;

74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.

I've always understood the word "received" to mean actual acceptance of the Gospel after having been taught it, meaning that if some person is taught the gospel in this life, rejects it here, but accepts/receives it in the spirit world, that person is worthy of the Terrestrial Kingdom, but not the Celestial.  And if one did not have a chance to hear it here, but hears it there and accepts it there, then it is possible for that one to be worthy of the Celestial Kingdom. As for the spirits of men kept in prison, that's the status of those who rejected the gospel here in this life, not a separate class of men, but are the ones who did not receive (i.e. rejected) the gospel in this life. 73 & 74 are one complete sentence.

Link to comment
On 6/25/2018 at 4:48 PM, blueglass said:

Lesson2 plan of salvation https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-2-the-plan-of-salvation?lang=eng

In the past Preach My Gospel taught rejection to the gospel in mortality as fatal.  The "one strike rule" as per  D&C 76:73–74.   The new preach my gospel is closer to the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, BH Roberts, James Talmage, Joseph F. Smith, J. Reuben Clark Jr., and James E. Faust.

In addition to my previous comment, I found this in the lesson in question, relating to the Terrestrial Kingdom:

"People who do not accept the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ in this life or in the world to come but live honorable lives will receive a place in the terrestrial kingdom. This kingdom is compared to the glory of the moon."

That was rather problematic to me when I first read it.  But it seems to be a case of wordsmithing.  My very strong understanding of the gospel is that those who reject Christ in this life or in the next do not receive a place in the terrestrial kingdom, but must suffer for their own sins, and receive the Telestial Kingdom.  How can you reject Christ, yet be accorded a place where you receive the presence of the Son? 

DC 76:77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.

But it says "the fulness of the gospel", not merely "the gospel".  The fulness of the gospel is found only in the Celestial Kingdom.  Whew!  For a second there I thought I was going to have to write to President Nelson and tell him a big mistake had been made.

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

As for DC 76:73-74:

73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;

74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.

I've always understood the word "received" to mean actual acceptance of the Gospel after having been taught it, meaning that if some person is taught the gospel in this life, rejects it here, but accepts/receives it in the spirit world, that person is worthy of the Terrestrial Kingdom, but not the Celestial.  And if one did not have a chance to hear it here, but hears it there and accepts it there, then it is possible for that one to be worthy of the Celestial Kingdom. As for the spirits of men kept in prison, that's the status of those who rejected the gospel here in this life, not a separate class of men, but are the ones who did not receive (i.e. rejected) the gospel in this life. 73 & 74 are one complete sentence.

So you can see how that might be awkward in the context of the manual used to give people a chance to hear the gospel?

Link to comment
On 6/25/2018 at 9:35 AM, hope_for_things said:

I think most people would do a google search and find out the full story, and the reality about how the church does discriminate and treat these people as second class citizens.  

I really don't think that's fair.  They might be second-class citizens, but they're also first-class ministering angels!

Link to comment
7 hours ago, cinepro said:

So you can see how that might be awkward in the context of the manual used to give people a chance to hear the gospel?

No, actually.  What do you mean?  Or are you saying that the scripture I quoted isn't entirely obvious as to its meaning, and the wording in Preach My Gospel restates it more clearly?  I would agree with you, if so.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As for DC 76:73-74:

73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;

74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.

I've always understood the word "received" to mean actual acceptance of the Gospel after having been taught it, meaning that if some person is taught the gospel in this life, rejects it here, but accepts/receives it in the spirit world, that person is worthy of the Terrestrial Kingdom, but not the Celestial.  And if one did not have a chance to hear it here, but hears it there and accepts it there, then it is possible for that one to be worthy of the Celestial Kingdom. As for the spirits of men kept in prison, that's the status of those who rejected the gospel here in this life, not a separate class of men, but are the ones who did not receive (i.e. rejected) the gospel in this life. 73 & 74 are one complete sentence.

Here's a testimony glove to help people remember what the requirements are.  https://www.lds.org/friend/2008/10/testimony-glove?lang=eng

Link to comment
16 hours ago, cinepro said:

I really don't think that's fair.  They might be second-class citizens, but they're also first-class ministering angels!

Don't forget about Jesus.  There used to be hope for single Jesus to obtain exaltation someday, but then again maybe not.  “LDS doctrine does not endorse claims made in a popular book and movie (Dan Brown Da Vinci Code) that Jesus Christ was married.” , “the belief that Christ was married has never been official church doctrine”  Dale Bills spokesman for the Church, May 17, 2006    https://www.deseretnews.com/article/635208289/Claims-of-a-married-Jesus-arent-LDS-Church-doctrine.html

Link to comment
1 hour ago, blueglass said:

Don't forget about Jesus.  There used to be hope for single Jesus to obtain exaltation someday, but then again maybe not.  “LDS doctrine does not endorse claims made in a popular book and movie (Dan Brown Da Vinci Code) that Jesus Christ was married.” , “the belief that Christ was married has never been official church doctrine”  Dale Bills spokesman for the Church, May 17, 2006    https://www.deseretnews.com/article/635208289/Claims-of-a-married-Jesus-arent-LDS-Church-doctrine.html

No, it never has been church doctrine.  

But if the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom is reserved for those who have entered into the new and everlasting covenant, how can Christ be single, ultimately?  He said in John 5:19: "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."  Does this apply in eternity? 

Are we ourselves not expected, in order to do what the Father has done, to be sealed in the temple with a worthy spouse?  What of Jesus then?  It's not necessary, in my opinion, for Jesus to have been married in mortality.  There are plenty of people who lived upon this earth and were never married at all, through no fault of their own, who will ultimately be worthy of exaltation, but it seems to me that they will all, without exception, be exalted with an eternal spouse.  So, unless there is a principle not yet revealed to us that makes it unnecessary, it seems to me that Christ will, or has already been, sealed to a spouse for all eternity.

This is somewhat in the nature of speculation, of course, but it is based on scripture, and I think it is logical.

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

That's nice, but I don't think it's responsive to what you were commenting on.

I think your interpretation of the scripture is in line with President Spencer Kimball, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie and many others.  It also speaks to the historical context upon which President Joseph F Smith was seeking for further revelation after the sudden death of his son to appendicitis, as well as all the young people in their prime dying in world war I and to spanish flu.  It is definitely how I was taught growing up and what I preached on the mission field and for many today.  Then I found this beautiful quote by Lorenzo Snow, that seemed to push back against an "unhappy heaven".  When your loved ones family and friends leave the church it is very painful and it's my hope that there's opportunity to be reunited again.    https://religionnews.com/2018/02/27/when-your-child-resigns-from-mormonism/

Edited by blueglass
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

No, it never has been church doctrine.  

But if the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom is reserved for those who have entered into the new and everlasting covenant, how can Christ be single, ultimately?  He said in John 5:19: "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise."  Does this apply in eternity? 

Are we ourselves not expected, in order to do what the Father has done, to be sealed in the temple with a worthy spouse?  What of Jesus then?  It's not necessary, in my opinion, for Jesus to have been married in mortality.  There are plenty of people who lived upon this earth and were never married at all, through no fault of their own, who will ultimately be worthy of exaltation, but it seems to me that they will all, without exception, be exalted with an eternal spouse.  So, unless there is a principle not yet revealed to us that makes it unnecessary, it seems to me that Christ will, or has already been, sealed to a spouse for all eternity.

This is somewhat in the nature of speculation, of course, but it is based on scripture, and I think it is logical.

Just as a note the three celestial heavens and marriage requirement for exaltation have been added to the 2018 preach my gospel.  

Here are the two paragraphs added for lesson2 2018:

"The celestial kingdom has three heavens or degrees (see Doctrine and Covenants 101:1) and only those who have an eternal marriage, sealed by the Holy Spirit, can enter into the highest, which is exaltation (see Doctrine and Covenants 131:2). They will live in God’s presence, become like Him, and receive a fulness of joy.

Those in the celestial kingdom who do not have an eternal marriage can enter into another “heaven” or “degree” in the celestial kingdom, but in that place they are ministering angels who “remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, … angels of God forever and ever” (Doctrine and Covenants 132:17; see also Doctrine and Covenants 131:4; Russell M. Nelson, “Celestial Marriage,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2008, 92)."

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I think your interpretation of the scripture is in line with President Spencer Kimball, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie and many others.  It also speaks to the historical context upon which President Joseph F Smith was seeking for further revelation after the sudden death of his son to appendicitis, as well as all the young people in their prime dying in world war I and to spanish flu.  It is definitely how I was taught growing up and what I preached on the mission field and for many today.  Then I found this beautiful quote by Lorenzo Snow, that seemed to push back against an "unhappy heaven".  When your loved ones family and friends leave the church it is very painful and it's my hope that there's opportunity to be reunited again.    https://religionnews.com/2018/02/27/when-your-child-resigns-from-mormonism/

I'm kinda in a rush at the moment, so didn't look at your link, but as you may not know, I have plenty of descendants who have strayed. So this affects me.

However, I am not one of those who believes that, assuming I'm ultimately in the CK and they're in the TK, that I can't visit with them or otherwise communicate with them.  Maybe they can't come over and visit me in the CK, but so what.  In an analogy, I am actually living in the UK at this time, having remarried to a British lady after my wife's death.  All of my children and grandchildren are in the USA.  The thousands of miles and the airfare separate us to a degree, but I am perfectly free to write them letters, send email, call them on the phone, see what they post on Facebook, or using Facetime, talk with them face to face.  I don't imagine that the kingdoms of glory that we will all ultimately inhabit will not have even better means of communication than we have here on this benighted earth.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Just as a note the three celestial heavens and marriage requirement for exaltation have been added to the 2018 preach my gospel.  

Here are the two paragraphs added for lesson2 2018:

"The celestial kingdom has three heavens or degrees (see Doctrine and Covenants 101:1) and only those who have an eternal marriage, sealed by the Holy Spirit, can enter into the highest, which is exaltation (see Doctrine and Covenants 131:2). They will live in God’s presence, become like Him, and receive a fulness of joy.

Those in the celestial kingdom who do not have an eternal marriage can enter into another “heaven” or “degree” in the celestial kingdom, but in that place they are ministering angels who “remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, … angels of God forever and ever” (Doctrine and Covenants 132:17; see also Doctrine and Covenants 131:4; Russell M. Nelson, “Celestial Marriage,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2008, 92)."

OK, but that doesn't contradict anything I said, or is found in D&C 76.  I should anticipate that an angel of God will have been faithful in his or her covenants entered into in the temple, even if they have not entered into the new and everlasting covenant.  

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

OK, but that doesn't contradict anything I said, or is found in D&C 76.  I should anticipate that an angel of God will have been faithful in his or her covenants entered into in the temple, even if they have not entered into the new and everlasting covenant.  

I'm not trying to contradict you or oppose you.  I just don't believe Christ is a ministering angel because he's single.  Please select from the following 4 choices.  a)  Jesus is single and happy serving others as a ministering servant.  b)  Resurrected Jesus married Mary Magdalene in heaven after she died and God the father performed the sealing personally at his house near Kolob.  c)  In 2006 after Dale Bills announced that Jesus being married was not doctrinal, President Hinckley and his wife Marjorie were disturbed by the deseret news article checked church records and sure enough - the sealing of Jesus to Mary magdalene had not been performed.  Quickly they performed the proxy sealing in the St. George temple on April 6, 2007.  d)  There is a loop-hole to D&Cov 131:2 for Gods.  Jesus is God from eternity to all eternity and does not need marriage or sealing to receive the highest exaltation.  

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I'm kinda in a rush at the moment, so didn't look at your link, but as you may not know, I have plenty of descendants who have strayed. So this affects me.

However, I am not one of those who believes that, assuming I'm ultimately in the CK and they're in the TK, that I can't visit with them or otherwise communicate with them.  Maybe they can't come over and visit me in the CK, but so what.  In an analogy, I am actually living in the UK at this time, having remarried to a British lady after my wife's death.  All of my children and grandchildren are in the USA.  The thousands of miles and the airfare separate us to a degree, but I am perfectly free to write them letters, send email, call them on the phone, see what they post on Facebook, or using Facetime, talk with them face to face.  I don't imagine that the kingdoms of glory that we will all ultimately inhabit will not have even better means of communication than we have here on this benighted earth.

congratulations on remarriage - love is beautiful.  With a focus on truth, relief, love, friendship, beauty and goodness, many diverse communities can contribute to and lift one another.  [THE GRAND FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF MORMONISM],  https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/141-32-41.pdf  Hopefully, "that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there".  

Edited by blueglass
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...