Calm Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 37 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said: I can’t seem to find the actual source for the quote though so I’m getting suspicious. However, have witnesses for a baptism always been required in this dispensation? Now that I’m curious about. Ardis Parshall is an excellent researcher, so the quote is almost guaranteed to be authentic, imo. 3
SettingDogStar Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 3 minutes ago, Calm said: Ardis Parshall is an excellent researcher, so the quote is almost guaranteed to be authentic, imo. I didn’t recognize the name, that’s good to hear though!
Calm Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 2 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said: I didn’t recognize the name, that’s good to hear though! Her website going by memory is keepapitchinin.org She is a professional historian and digs up great stories.
Stargazer Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 On 10/2/2019 at 9:03 PM, Ahab said: Yeah, well, probably so. Seems like we're getting more and more whiners in this world, but that's what I served and what the members received in the other church I was a member of before I found and joined this church and I never heard anyone complain about that. Grape juice and matzo crackers! Tasty! I do like multi grain bread too though which is what we usually serve in our ward. We started serving exclusively gluten-free bread for sacrament, instead of putting a few scraps of it in tiny containers on a few trays. This was actually at MY suggestion! So now the bread is tasteless. Shot myself in the foot. But it's still better than individual scraps.
Stargazer Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 On 10/2/2019 at 9:21 PM, bluebell said: Again though, you don’t see a reason to celebrate when a wrong is corrected? I'm trying to see how it was wrong to restrict witnessing (validating) of priesthood ordinances to priesthood holders. Maybe it was unnecessary, but wrong?
JAHS Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Stargazer said: On 10/2/2019 at 1:21 PM, bluebell said: Again though, you don’t see a reason to celebrate when a wrong is corrected? I'm trying to see how it was wrong to restrict witnessing (validating) of priesthood ordinances to priesthood holders. Maybe it was unnecessary, but wrong? It wasn't wrong, but now it's just unnecessary. A once inspired policy that was changeable. Some things are only wrong if done at the wrong time. God could see we were ready for the change so He inspired his prophets to change it.
rockpond Posted October 3, 2019 Posted October 3, 2019 22 minutes ago, JAHS said: It wasn't wrong, but now it's just unnecessary. A once inspired policy that was changeable. Some things are only wrong if done at the wrong time. God could see we were ready for the change so He inspired his prophets to change it. This theory opens us up to all kinds of great changes in the future as we become ready for them!
bluebell Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 3 hours ago, Stargazer said: I'm trying to see how it was wrong to restrict witnessing (validating) of priesthood ordinances to priesthood holders. Maybe it was unnecessary, but wrong? I don’t believe it was wrong but sjdawg does, so I’m asking the question from his point of view.
JLHPROF Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 5 hours ago, 10THAmendment said: Women will have the priesthood within 30 years time. Women will be ordained, and sooner than that. Whether they'll hold priesthood is debatable. 1
SettingDogStar Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Women will be ordained, and sooner than that. Whether they'll hold priesthood is debatable. I mean techicnally they do because of the Temple, but not really in same way I guess. That’s another can of worms however. 1
JLHPROF Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 5 hours ago, Duncan said: https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/10/02/the-witness-of-women-historical-context/ Excellent article, thank you. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: ..................................... I got that idea from a lifetime of lessons both taught and learned in priesthood. Inevitably, the question would arise about why a priesthood holder was required to serve as a witness. The answer was never "it's just a church policy." The answer was always something to the effect of "A witness serves to ensure a priesthood function was carried out properly therefore a priesthood holder is required to review the ordinance performed by another priesthood holder". Just in passing, I might mention that only women are allowed to witness the mikveh (baptism by immersion) of a woman who is converting to Judaism, probably because she is naked. They must certify that her hair was fully immersed, just as we do. However, no priesthood is present, because it is a self-immersion. 7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: ....................................... I had to look up the definition of "diaconate". Why not just say deacon? But I don't think that that function is any more clearly a priesthood function than witnessing. It certainly doesn't exist as a priesthood duty of a deacon in D&C. My reason for using the technical term "diaconate" is that it is an ordained priesthood function in other churches (RC, Anglican, Orthodox, etc.), but which only "helps" the regular priests. In other words, it is not unique to the LDS Church. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 7 hours ago, SettingDogStar said: No problem. It’s the study of LDS historian Ardis Parshall. It was Joseph Fielding Smith, my bad. She says that Smith was surprised in 1959, when he heard that women witnessed temple marriages in Alberta, Parshall reports. “He asked for the temple president’s authority, and learned that it was a longstanding practice, based on ‘Item No. 53’ in the written instructions given to temple presidents.” To that, Smith replied, “Where the idea of having women for witnesses for marriages began I do not know, but my training convinces me that it is the proper thing to have the priesthood not only officiating but witnessing the ceremonies of the temple.” and it’s been that way since. It wasn’t a common practice but it did happen. Did Devery Anderson include it in his study? Development of LDS Temple Worship. https://www.amazon.com/Development-LDS-Temple-Worship-1846-2000/dp/1560852119 .
SettingDogStar Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said: Did Devery Anderson include it in his study? Development of LDS Temple Worship. https://www.amazon.com/Development-LDS-Temple-Worship-1846-2000/dp/1560852119 . I’ve read that and I’m not sure. I don’t recall but it’d be near the end if it was.
HappyJackWagon Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Just in passing, I might mention that only women are allowed to witness the mikveh (baptism by immersion) of a woman who is converting to Judaism, probably because she is naked. They must certify that her hair was fully immersed, just as we do. However, no priesthood is present, because it is a self-immersion. My reason for using the technical term "diaconate" is that it is an ordained priesthood function in other churches (RC, Anglican, Orthodox, etc.), but which only "helps" the regular priests. In other words, it is not unique to the LDS Church. Interesting info about mikveh. I would imagine that most church members would consider all ordinances performed outside the LDS church as being done without priesthood. I keep thinking back to Elder Oaks' talk from a few years ago that spoke to the issue of female ordination. He essentially said that any work done by women under the direction of a priesthood holder is an exercise of priesthood. "What other power would it be?" But it has me thinking that comments like that, mixed with changes in policy to what is and isn't considered a priesthood function, or changing of ages for approved priesthood participation, continues to shift the issue of a person's individual priesthood. It feels like if any woman (or any person for that matter) is exercising priesthood when they are acting under the direction of a priesthood key holder, then the only priesthood that really matters is priesthood keys. Ordination doesn't seem quite as important. I mean, most/every ordinance that is performed with the exception of blessings (healing/fathers etc) is directed by a key holder; temple, baptism, confirmation, sacrament etc, so if a key holder would appear to be the only person really necessary in exercising a direct line of priesthood authority, whereas anyone else could simply function under the keyholder's assignment. It's all priesthood if the keyholder directs it. "What other power would it be?"
SettingDogStar Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Interesting info about mikveh. I would imagine that most church members would consider all ordinances performed outside the LDS church as being done without priesthood. I keep thinking back to Elder Oaks' talk from a few years ago that spoke to the issue of female ordination. He essentially said that any work done by women under the direction of a priesthood holder is an exercise of priesthood. "What other power would it be?" But it has me thinking that comments like that, mixed with changes in policy to what is and isn't considered a priesthood function, or changing of ages for approved priesthood participation, continues to shift the issue of a person's individual priesthood. It feels like if any woman (or any person for that matter) is exercising priesthood when they are acting under the direction of a priesthood key holder, then the only priesthood that really matters is priesthood keys. Ordination doesn't seem quite as important. I mean, most/every ordinance that is performed with the exception of blessings (healing/fathers etc) is directed by a key holder; temple, baptism, confirmation, sacrament etc, so if a key holder would appear to be the only person really necessary in exercising a direct line of priesthood authority, whereas anyone else could simply function under the keyholder's assignment. It's all priesthood if the keyholder directs it. "What other power would it be?" And of course there’s the massive debate of what is a preisthood function or not. Which has been talked about here and on LDSFreedomForum at length. Apparently it’s not that easy to separate somethings from priesthood, even if they originally could be performed by both sexes. Tradition is also a difficult thing to separate from truth since they often entangle greatly. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Interesting info about mikveh. I would imagine that most church members would consider all ordinances performed outside the LDS church as being done without priesthood. True, but then most LDS members don't realize that active, lineal priesthood among the Jews is explicitly acknowledged in the D&C. And we have DNA to back that up: Bob Smith, “Which is the oldest organization of the world?” Quora, May 16, 2018, online at https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-oldest-organization-of-the-world/answer/Bob-Smith-3106 4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I keep thinking back to Elder Oaks' talk from a few years ago that spoke to the issue of female ordination. He essentially said that any work done by women under the direction of a priesthood holder is an exercise of priesthood. "What other power would it be?" But it has me thinking that comments like that, mixed with changes in policy to what is and isn't considered a priesthood function, or changing of ages for approved priesthood participation, continues to shift the issue of a person's individual priesthood. It feels like if any woman (or any person for that matter) is exercising priesthood when they are acting under the direction of a priesthood key holder, then the only priesthood that really matters is priesthood keys. Ordination doesn't seem quite as important. I mean, most/every ordinance that is performed with the exception of blessings (healing/fathers etc) is directed by a key holder; temple, baptism, confirmation, sacrament etc, so if a key holder would appear to be the only person really necessary in exercising a direct line of priesthood authority, whereas anyone else could simply function under the keyholder's assignment. It's all priesthood if the keyholder directs it. "What other power would it be?" Correct. Merely setting someone apart can be as meaningful as ordination in some cases. Oaks realized the obvious: It is not turtles, but priesthood all the way down.
Stargazer Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 18 hours ago, bluebell said: I don’t believe it was wrong but sjdawg does, so I’m asking the question from his point of view. Ah! Understood! 1
mfbukowski Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 On 10/3/2019 at 7:05 AM, HappyJackWagon said: Yes, but at least the witnessing of baptisms doesn't seem like women being given the opportunity to perform priesthood functions. For witnessing baptisms it doesn't appear priesthood is involved at all any more. Or are 8 year olds also exercising priesthood if they witness a baptism? The entire concept of priesthood seems to be turning on its head. I'm fine with that, but that's why I don't quite understand why some would be so willing to accept changes in definition and practice of priesthood to even involve small children, yet still be opposed to women receiving a more formal role. I suppose one must be able to think in shades of grey, a talent not too often found, I think.
mfbukowski Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: True, but then most LDS members don't realize that active, lineal priesthood among the Jews is explicitly acknowledged in the D&C. And we have DNA to back that up: Bob Smith, “Which is the oldest organization of the world?” Quora, May 16, 2018, online at https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-oldest-organization-of-the-world/answer/Bob-Smith-3106 That Bob Smith guy is awfully smart. Any relation? 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 4, 2019 Posted October 4, 2019 43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: That Bob Smith guy is awfully smart. Any relation? Just generic me, myself, and I. 1
JLHPROF Posted October 5, 2019 Posted October 5, 2019 5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: True, but then most LDS members don't realize that active, lineal priesthood among the Jews is explicitly acknowledged in the D&C. And we have DNA to back that up: Bob Smith, “Which is the oldest organization of the world?” Quora, May 16, 2018, online at https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-oldest-organization-of-the-world/answer/Bob-Smith-3106 If you are referring to D&C 68 that's not what it says. I see no evidence of valid priesthood authority among the Jews.
mfbukowski Posted October 5, 2019 Posted October 5, 2019 (edited) 25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: If you are referring to D&C 68 that's not what it says. I see no evidence of valid priesthood authority among the Jews. Hey I totally do not know ANYTHING about this as a scholarly topic, and really have no dog in this fight BUT obviously the Levitical Priesthood carried "authority" obviously AND it was restricted to Levites, and still exists. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/levites/ Quote Levites are members of the tribe of Levi, the third son of the patriarch Jacob. Members of the tribe are either priests (Kohanim) or Levites, their status being established by family tradition. The family name Levi or Levine generally denotes that the members of the family are Levites. In Temple times the offering of the sacrifices was the function of the priests. The function of the Levites was to provide the musical accompaniment to the sacrifices, vocally and with musical instruments, and to act as gate-keepers and general guards. Nowadays, a Levite is given the privilege of being called, second to the Kohen, to the reading of the Torah in the synagogue and a Levite washes the hands of the Kohanim before the latter deliver the priestly blessing. So we have a definition of authority to perform some religious rituals that are restricted to a single group/community, thereby defining their "authority", and this authority is acknowledge by other Jews that cannot perform the rituals because they do not belong to the group. I cannot imagine a better example of what can be seen as "priesthood authority". So what am I missing? Edited October 5, 2019 by mfbukowski
JLHPROF Posted October 5, 2019 Posted October 5, 2019 18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Hey I totally do not know ANYTHING about this as a scholarly topic, and really have no dog in this fight BUT obviously the Levitical Priesthood carried "authority" obviously AND it was restricted to Levites, and still exists. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/levites/ So we have a definition of authority to perform some religious rituals that are restricted to a single group/community, thereby defining their "authority", and this authority is acknowledge by other Jews that cannot perform the rituals because they do not belong to the group. I cannot imagine a better example of what can be seen as "priesthood authority". So what am I missing? The still exists part is debatable. Using that argument the Catholic church has priesthood authority. D&C 68 is clear on what is required for them to exercise actual priesthood.
mfbukowski Posted October 5, 2019 Posted October 5, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: The still exists part is debatable. Using that argument the Catholic church has priesthood authority. D&C 68 is clear on what is required for them to exercise actual priesthood. Disagree. Virtually any proposition is debatable except tautologies. Maybe you don't acknowledge their Authority but that doesn't mean they don't have authority. A school principal has Authority but no priesthood Authority. The popes and Bishops etcetera have authority for Catholics that they caught those priests in authority. Same thing obviously for the Levites among the Jews. The question was about who had Authority not if you acknowledge their Authority. The Bulgarian police have no authority over me in California, but if I were in Bulgaria it would be quite a different story. Incidentally seen from this perspective in order to get back to the o p, LDS women have priesthood Authority within their sphere since people acknowledge they have authority. Just ask your wife if the Relief Society president has Authority to organize and run the Relief Society. And where did that Authority come from? From the priesthood. Therefore sisters have priesthood authority to do what the priesthood sets them apart to do. Sounds just like the elders Quorum president to me. Edited October 5, 2019 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts