Connecting Daughters of God to His Priesthood

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you think it is possible for a woman to begiven the priesthood authority to act as a bishop?

Do you think this move is monumental in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I don't personally see this move as monumental.  I think it's more of a fixing of misunderstanding and confusion than a move towards anything new.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Then you may want to reconsider.  The things given in the temple don't just have the word "priesthood" tacked on for poetic reasons.

Men and women alike receive garments, robes, signs, and tokens representing priesthood authority.  They are promised future offices but receive none there.

But what they are given provides keys to recognize good from evil, pierce the veil, receive real revelations and enter God's presence.  What more important keys are there?

I had this exact discussion with my Stake President about 5 years ago. He thought I was absolutely nuts to think women already had priesthood authority they could exercise. I view mode of thinking as a step towards official female ordination and it seems quite clear to me that the church and leaders and members are much more comfortable speaking about female priesthood authority now than just 5 years ago. 5 years is a pretty short period of time to change a theology and cultural expectation. Obviously, female ordination / priesthood authority isn't universally accepted in the church...yet. But it's moving that direction.

[JLHPROF]

29 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I had this exact discussion with my Stake President about 5 years ago. He thought I was absolutely nuts to think women already had priesthood authority they could exercise. I view mode of thinking as a step towards official female ordination and it seems quite clear to me that the church and leaders and members are much more comfortable speaking about female priesthood authority now than just 5 years ago. 5 years is a pretty short period of time to change a theology and cultural expectation. Obviously, female ordination / priesthood authority isn't universally accepted in the church...yet. But it's moving that direction.

Which is why the temple endowment gets changed and nobody thinks anything is lost.  Most apparently gave no idea what they actually receive in the temple so when it's taken away they don't miss it.

[Nofear]

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I had this exact discussion with my Stake President about 5 years ago. He thought I was absolutely nuts to think women already had priesthood authority they could exercise. I view mode of thinking as a step towards official female ordination and it seems quite clear to me that the church and leaders and members are much more comfortable speaking about female priesthood authority now than just 5 years ago. 5 years is a pretty short period of time to change a theology and cultural expectation. Obviously, female ordination / priesthood authority isn't universally accepted in the church...yet. But it's moving that direction.

Currently men are ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood by proxy. If women are in the future to be ordained to the priesthood, would we have to retroactively go and do the work for all the women who have passed?

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Which is why the temple endowment gets changed and nobody thinks anything is lost.  Most apparently gave no idea what they actually receive in the temple so when it's taken away they don't miss it.

Or, they just understand the endowment differently than you do.

[JLHPROF]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Or, they just understand the endowment differently than you do.

Probably.

D&C 84:20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.  21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

Brigham Young "Let me give you a definition in brief. Your endowment is to receive all those ordinances in the house of the lord which are necessary for you after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens pertaining to the holy priesthood and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth or hell."

"He (Joseph Smith) spoke of delivering the Keys of the Priesthood to the Church, and said that the faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them with their husbands, and the Saints whose integrity has been tried and proved faithful, might know how to ask and receive an answer.”

Brigham Young "There are four penal signs and four penal tokens and should I want to address the throne to enquire after Ancient things which transpired on planets that rolled away before this planet came into existence I should use my new name which is ancient and referred to ancient things. Should I wish to enquire for present things I should use my own name which refers to present things and should I want to enquire for future things I would use the third name which refers to the first token of the Melchizedek priesthood or is the third token that is given and refers to the Son."

Amasa Lyman told a group of newly endowed Saints: “You have now learned how to pray. You have been taught how to approach God, and be recognized. This is the principle by which the Church has been kept together, and not the power of arms” (Heber C. Kimball Journal, 21 Dec. 1845).

Joseph Smith - "I want every man that goes to be a king and a priest. When he gets on the mountain, he may want to talk with his God"

That's what I consider the endowment to be.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Currently men are ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood by proxy. If women are in the future to be ordained to the priesthood, would we have to retroactively go and do the work for all the women who have passed?

Maybe.

Or maybe proxy ordination isn't necessary at all?

After all, if God chose to give a person authority to do something on his behalf in the next world, do you think he would have to wait until that person had received a proxy ordination first?

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Probably.

D&C 84:20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.  21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

Brigham Young "Let me give you a definition in brief. Your endowment is to receive all those ordinances in the house of the lord which are necessary for you after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens pertaining to the holy priesthood and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth or hell."

"He (Joseph Smith) spoke of delivering the Keys of the Priesthood to the Church, and said that the faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them with their husbands, and the Saints whose integrity has been tried and proved faithful, might know how to ask and receive an answer.”

Brigham Young "There are four penal signs and four penal tokens and should I want to address the throne to enquire after Ancient things which transpired on planets that rolled away before this planet came into existence I should use my new name which is ancient and referred to ancient things. Should I wish to enquire for present things I should use my own name which refers to present things and should I want to enquire for future things I would use the third name which refers to the first token of the Melchizedek priesthood or is the third token that is given and refers to the Son."

Amasa Lyman told a group of newly endowed Saints: “You have now learned how to pray. You have been taught how to approach God, and be recognized. This is the principle by which the Church has been kept together, and not the power of arms” (Heber C. Kimball Journal, 21 Dec. 1845).

Joseph Smith - "I want every man that goes to be a king and a priest. When he gets on the mountain, he may want to talk with his God"

That's what I consider the endowment to be.

I agree with that.  But what that means and how it's manifest and how God wishes it presented or taught, those are the things that we probably disagree on.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe.

Or maybe proxy ordination isn't necessary at all?

After all, if God chose to give a person authority to do something on his behalf in the next world, do you think he would have to wait until that person had received a proxy ordination first?

Ordination happens after baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost in the temple, right?  It makes sense to me that yes God would wait until someone had made covenants with Christ, received the Holy Ghost, and was given His authority, before authorizing that person to do something in His name.  But anything is possible and God doesn't always do what makes sense to me.  If He did, then He would not be a god worthy of worship.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ordination happens after baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost in the temple, right?  It makes sense to me that yes God would wait until someone had made covenants with Christ, received the Holy Ghost, and was given His authority, before authorizing that person to do something in His name.  But anything is possible and God doesn't always do what makes sense to me.  If He did, then He would not be a god worthy of worship.

In a way this doesn't surprise me, but in another way it really does.

I just want to make sure I understand. You are saying that you feel God would wait until a deceased person received a proxy ordinance granting God's authority, before God would directly give that authority to that person. Would that be because 1- God is a stickler for the rules and doesn't want to step on anyone's toes by granting his own authority directly to others thus bypassing the established order, 2- he enjoys the bureaucracy of proxy work and church government 3- He is somehow bound to follow the rule of proxy ordinations and couldn't override that process 4- doesn't know the person's heart until they have accepted proxy ordinances?

Have all the prophets gone through the process of baptism, confirmation, ordination before he called them to do their work? Moses? Joseph?

 

ETA: Question:

Is anyone aware of whether or not temple work has been completed for Jesus' original apostles? Is there record of them, either ancient or latter-day, receiving baptism, confirmation, priesthood, endowment, sealing etc? I don't recall any, but I do remember the well-known story about the founding fathers receiving their ordinances, but I don't remember any similar stories about past apostles. Anyone know?

Edited March 5, 2019 by HappyJackWagon

[bluebell]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

In a way this doesn't surprise me, but in another way it really does.

I just want to make sure I understand. You are saying that you feel God would wait until a deceased person received a proxy ordinance granting God's authority, before God would directly give that authority to that person. Would that be because 1- God is a stickler for the rules and doesn't want to step on anyone's toes by granting his own authority directly to others thus bypassing the established order, 2- he enjoys the bureaucracy of proxy work and church government 3- He is somehow bound to follow the rule of proxy ordinations and couldn't override that process 4- doesn't know the person's heart until they have accepted proxy ordinances?

Have all the prophets gone through the process of baptism, confirmation, ordination before he called them to do their work? Moses? Joseph?

From my perspective, God put the 'rules' in place for a reason and if that reason was important enough for God to make 'rules' around then I believe He would logically do what He believed was needful and important to do, under most circumstances (exceptions always exist).

If I make a rule that my children need my permission before leaving the school grounds, for example, then I am logically going to support that rule in my own actions, not because I am a stickler for rules, or because I enjoy having rules, or because I am bound to follow my own rules.  I am logically going to support that rule because I believe it is what is best for my children and if i didn't believe that, i wouldn't have the rule in the first place.

I don't believe that God makes up 'rules' for us to follow that He doesn't care about or that don't serve an important purpose.  And If He believes that something is important or serves an important purpose, then logically, He will support it.

[blueglass]

11 hours ago, Nofear said:

Currently men are ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood by proxy. If women are in the future to be ordained to the priesthood, would we have to retroactively go and do the work for all the women who have passed?

When was proxy ordination to the office elder started?  1890's.   Second anointing proxy ordinances were abandoned.  There is some flexibility in which ordinances are necessary.  

Edited March 6, 2019 by blueglass

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Have all the prophets gone through the process of baptism, confirmation, ordination before he called them to do their work? Moses? Joseph?

ETA: Question:

Is anyone aware of whether or not temple work has been completed for Jesus' original apostles? Is there record of them, either ancient or latter-day, receiving baptism, confirmation, priesthood, endowment, sealing etc? I don't recall any, but I do remember the well-known story about the founding fathers receiving their ordinances, but I don't remember any similar stories about past apostles. Anyone know?

Depends what you mean by "record"?  Not as we keep ordinance records, but the scripture gives ample indication as far as I'm concerned.

Joseph said all must be saved on the same principles.  I have no reason to doubt that.

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

When was proxy ordination to the office elder started?  1890's.   Second anointing proxy ordinances were abandoned.  There is some flexibility in which ordinances are necessary.  

Thanks. The point of my original post wasn't to advocate a position but to simply point out female priesthood ordination would involve an evolving understanding of some practices and understanding of doctrines beyond just the superficial let's just ordain women to priesthood offices. For the record, I'm not personally opposed at all. Alas, but I do know that doing so would involve some changes the Lord has not seen fit to make known to me. So, here I sit luke warm good for nothing but to be spit out. 😐

[Calm]

11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You are saying that you feel God would wait until a deceased person received a proxy ordinance granting God's authority

This assumes that in eternity time works the same way as it does in mortality.  I am unsure if that is true or not.  If not, perhaps several thousands years of earth time is registered as that moment God decides in heaven so there is no waiting.

[pogi]

On 3/5/2019 at 9:05 AM, JLHPROF said:

Probably.

D&C 84:20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.  21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

Brigham Young "Let me give you a definition in brief. Your endowment is to receive all those ordinances in the house of the lord which are necessary for you after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens pertaining to the holy priesthood and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth or hell."

"He (Joseph Smith) spoke of delivering the Keys of the Priesthood to the Church, and said that the faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them with their husbands, and the Saints whose integrity has been tried and proved faithful, might know how to ask and receive an answer.”

Brigham Young "There are four penal signs and four penal tokens and should I want to address the throne to enquire after Ancient things which transpired on planets that rolled away before this planet came into existence I should use my new name which is ancient and referred to ancient things. Should I wish to enquire for present things I should use my own name which refers to present things and should I want to enquire for future things I would use the third name which refers to the first token of the Melchizedek priesthood or is the third token that is given and refers to the Son."

Amasa Lyman told a group of newly endowed Saints: “You have now learned how to pray. You have been taught how to approach God, and be recognized. This is the principle by which the Church has been kept together, and not the power of arms” (Heber C. Kimball Journal, 21 Dec. 1845).

Joseph Smith - "I want every man that goes to be a king and a priest. When he gets on the mountain, he may want to talk with his God"

That's what I consider the endowment to be.

Thanks for these quotes. 

I hope this isn't too much of a side track, but what do you think Brigham Young meant by "penal" in reference to the signs and tokens?  I have never heard that word used in connection with the signs and tokens before.  I have also never heard of using different names for different purposes in prayer.  Finally, do you think this order of prayer is intended to be used in the temple only?  Because as practiced in the temple, it doesn't seem to be a very personal type of prayer intended for personal revelation, yet these quotes seem to suggest it should be used for personal inquiry and revelation.  Just curious to what your thoughts are on that. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Thanks for these quotes. 

I hope this isn't too much of a side track, but what do you think Brigham Young meant by "penal" in reference to the signs and tokens?  I have never heard that word used in connection with the signs and tokens before.  I have also never heard of using different names for different purposes in prayer.  Finally, do you think this order of prayer is intended to be used in the temple only?  Because as practiced in the temple, it doesn't seem to be a very personal type of prayer intended for personal revelation, yet these quotes seem to suggest it should be used for personal inquiry and revelation.  Just curious to what your thoughts are on that. 

Direct reference to the penalties that were removed.  They were connected to the signs, and without them the signs are made incompletely.

We no longer have the penal signs and tokens, just part of the sign the tokens.

And I think there is a time and place outside of the temple where this kind of prayer is appropriate.  Still very limited, but it is meant to be used. This is what the endowment is all about.  Coming into God's presence in this life.

Edited March 7, 2019 by JLHPROF

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I hope this isn't too much of a side track, but what do you think Brigham Young meant by "penal" in reference to the signs and tokens?  I have never heard that word used in connection with the signs and tokens before.  I have also never heard of using different names for different purposes in prayer.  Finally, do you think this order of prayer is intended to be used in the temple only?  Because as practiced in the temple, it doesn't seem to be a very personal type of prayer intended for personal revelation, yet these quotes seem to suggest it should be used for personal inquiry and revelation.  Just curious to what your thoughts are on that. 

As JLHProf noted, there were until 1990 penalties tied to the signs and tokens. These came out of masonry. There are two theories about them. One is that they were simply a trapping of masonry not essential to the endowment. The other is that they represented the way ANE covenants were made. Typically a covenant or oath in the ANE included a curse if it was broken. It's common even in the OT. Take for example Leviticus 26:14-39 or Nehemiah 5:13. There are even a few suggestions that the elements in Masonry/endowment were echoes of ancient tests. (It's not at all clear how the curses got into Masonry) Simile curses were quite common as well - those are symbolic curses representing a punishment. The Masonic elements are examples of this.

I tend to see them as an accurate reflection of the ancient world that as our world became so alienated from the ancient world stopped functioning. So they were removed more because of how they were functioning (being interpreted). Personally I like the ancient aspects but I understand why they were removed.

Edited March 7, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Rain]

On 3/6/2019 at 8:21 PM, clarkgoble said:

As JLHProf noted, there were until 1990 penalties tied to the signs and tokens. These came out of masonry. There are two theories about them. One is that they were simply a trapping of masonry not essential to the endowment. The other is that they represented the way ANE covenants were made. Typically a covenant or oath in the ANE included a curse if it was broken. It's common even in the OT. Take for example Leviticus 26:14-39 or Nehemiah 5:13. There are even a few suggestions that the elements in Masonry/endowment were echoes of ancient tests. (It's not at all clear how the curses got into Masonry) Simile curses were quite common as well - those are symbolic curses representing a punishment. The Masonic elements are examples of this.

I tend to see them as an accurate reflection of the ancient world that as our world became so alienated from the ancient world stopped functioning. So they were removed more because of how they were functioning (being interpreted). Personally I like the ancient aspects but I understand why they were removed.

And personally, I am grateful that they were removed so others do not have to experience what I did because it was so jarring for me the first time and the few times I went before I went on my mission that decades later I still cringe when I think of going.

Last night was healing for me as I kneeled across the altar from my husband and did sealings while hearing the new wording. It was like the words had caught up to what I felt marriage was all about with my dear husband who has always treated me this way. I did not expect to be so affected and filled with ....worth. I'm not sure how to describe that because in my marriage I've never had to worry about that even though I have seen that problem in many other marriages so why should this make me feel like it did?

Edited March 8, 2019 by Rain

[bluebell]

On 3/6/2019 at 8:21 PM, clarkgoble said:

As JLHProf noted, there were until 1990 penalties tied to the signs and tokens. These came out of masonry. There are two theories about them. One is that they were simply a trapping of masonry not essential to the endowment. The other is that they represented the way ANE covenants were made. Typically a covenant or oath in the ANE included a curse if it was broken. It's common even in the OT. Take for example Leviticus 26:14-39 or Nehemiah 5:13. There are even a few suggestions that the elements in Masonry/endowment were echoes of ancient tests. (It's not at all clear how the curses got into Masonry) Simile curses were quite common as well - those are symbolic curses representing a punishment. The Masonic elements are examples of this.

I tend to see them as an accurate reflection of the ancient world that as our world became so alienated from the ancient world stopped functioning. So they were removed more because of how they were functioning (being interpreted). Personally I like the ancient aspects but I understand why they were removed.

Do you believe that without the penalties the signs and tokens are made incomplete?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Do you believe that without the penalties the signs and tokens are made incomplete?

No. Without getting into things inappropriate to talk about I think the endowment we go through is a preparatory endowment much like our washings and anointings are preparatory for the real ones. I thus think the particular signs and tokens are largely placeholders. There's more to it than that but I'd prefer not to get into the other details. So to my eyes the keys of the endowment is learning how to receive and how to pass by angels after we die.

If I found out the signs and tokens that Jesus gave Peter, James and John were somewhat different I wouldn't be at all surprised and most of the endowment is symbolic of heavenly ascents. I think people take it too literally despite it being clear how symbolic it all is. It's orienting you in a way. That's also why while I understand why they removed the various more ancient elements, I also think we've lost a way of getting into the mindset of ancient prophets.

However again the reality is most people can't make heads nor tails out of the symbolism so it just wasn't functioning the way it should. I think a lot of that could be drastically improved by a better temple prep class that focused on ancient symbols and how the ancients oriented themselves in the cosmos. A little reference to Mircea Eliade's work on the phenomenology of these things from the ancient world would help people a ton. (And perhaps one day we could add a few things back into the endowment that were taken out)

Edited March 8, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Jeanne]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

And personally, I am grateful that they were removed so others do not have to experience what I did because it was so jarring for me the first time and the few times I went before I went on my mission that decades later I still cringe when I think of going.

Last night was healing for me as I kneeled across the altar from my husband and did sealings while hearing the new wording. It was like the words had caught up to what I felt marriage was all about with my dear husband who has always treated me this way. I did not expect to be so affected and filled with ....worth. I'm not sure how to describe that because in my marriage I've never had to worry about that even though I have seen that problem in many other marriages so why should this make me feel like it did?

I am happy for you and others here.