SettingDogStar Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 48 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Which requires the patron to be at least an Elder. All men have to receive the Melchizedek priesthood prior to being endowed. Living or dead. In order to allow elders to perform endowment for the dead the deceased patron can be ordained an Elder. If we ordained them High Priest or Apostle only High Priest or Apostles could be the proxy. And if we ordained to priesthood without limitation of office the patron would likewise need to be unlimited in office. You cannot be a patron for a higher ordinance than you yourself have received. What's confusing? All I'm saying is that we seemingly don't need to ordain them to any office at all. Just bestow the priesthood without an office at all. Let those in the spirit world assign them duties and roles. The office of Elder has not always existed, (seemingly only in our church and the primitive church) so why ordain the dead to it? Just bestow the Melchizedek Priesthood, as any Elder in our church can, and then move on. I just don't understand what the purpose of giving them an office in the Mortal LDS Church is since they can't fulfill their earthly duties in it.
mfbukowski Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: I agree. But I wonder if we understand it the same way. Well I guess we will never know unless we discuss that. I'll show my mine if you show me yours.
JLHPROF Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 1 hour ago, SettingDogStar said: All I'm saying is that we seemingly don't need to ordain them to any office at all. Just bestow the priesthood without an office at all. Let those in the spirit world assign them duties and roles. The office of Elder has not always existed, (seemingly only in our church and the primitive church) so why ordain the dead to it? Just bestow the Melchizedek Priesthood, as any Elder in our church can, and then move on. I just don't understand what the purpose of giving them an office in the Mortal LDS Church is since they can't fulfill their earthly duties in it. You can't do that. Priesthood without limitation of office is higher than any Elder holds. It's related to the keys of priesthood and provides authority to function in any needed office. An Elder can't authorize such an ordination.
HappyJackWagon Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 11 hours ago, JLHPROF said: You can't do that. Priesthood without limitation of office is higher than any Elder holds. It's related to the keys of priesthood and provides authority to function in any needed office. An Elder can't authorize such an ordination. It seems like Priesthood office means less and less. The only priesthood that seems to matter is the priesthood keys and the holders who can direct other priesthood holders, non-priesthood holders, and even children to perform priesthood functions. Priesthood keys have always been important but now they seem to be all that really matters. Don't have enough priesthood holders to be witnesses in the temple, no problem. A woman can accomplish the task under the direction of the keyholder. An 8 year old wants to witness her sister's baptism, no problem. If the key holder authorizes it, we're golden. I think we've only seen the beginning. I suspect in the next few years we may see YW passing and preparing the sacrament too since it's largely a function based on policy. I suspect the same to be true of some typically all-male/priesthood callings like clerks, SS Pres. etc as women are allowed to fill those roles. I'm torn on this because I think a lot of these changes are really good and I hope for more. But I think it minimizes the important role women serve when children are similarly authorized. I feel like it changes teachings about priesthood, which is fine, yet leaders and members alike act as if nothing significant has changed. It's just a policy. What's the big deal. IMO "it" (change in doctrine) is a big deal and should be treated as such. 1
SettingDogStar Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 11 hours ago, JLHPROF said: You can't do that. Priesthood without limitation of office is higher than any Elder holds. It's related to the keys of priesthood and provides authority to function in any needed office. An Elder can't authorize such an ordination. Actually it’s possible because the Melchizedek priesthood exists outside of any office. An office restricts an individual in the church from performing certain functions in order to create a hierarchy and assigns them duties among the members. There is no portion of the Melchizedek priesthood, you have it all the moment youre given it. However, you are restricted from doing certain things in the church by your office. You’re not granting the dead more “prieshood” then you have, because you have it all. You’re just leaving it up to the leaders in the Spirit world to give them a Role/duty/office, or whatever that consists of in that world (it obviously isn’t organized like our side.)
CV75 Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: It seems like Priesthood office means less and less. The only priesthood that seems to matter is the priesthood keys and the holders who can direct other priesthood holders, non-priesthood holders, and even children to perform priesthood functions. Priesthood keys have always been important but now they seem to be all that really matters. Don't have enough priesthood holders to be witnesses in the temple, no problem. A woman can accomplish the task under the direction of the keyholder. An 8 year old wants to witness her sister's baptism, no problem. If the key holder authorizes it, we're golden. I think we've only seen the beginning. I suspect in the next few years we may see YW passing and preparing the sacrament too since it's largely a function based on policy. I suspect the same to be true of some typically all-male/priesthood callings like clerks, SS Pres. etc as women are allowed to fill those roles. I'm torn on this because I think a lot of these changes are really good and I hope for more. But I think it minimizes the important role women serve when children are similarly authorized. I feel like it changes teachings about priesthood, which is fine, yet leaders and members alike act as if nothing significant has changed. It's just a policy. What's the big deal. IMO "it" (change in doctrine) is a big deal and should be treated as such. Keys are all that ever really mattered, and ever will! They are the fundamental basis and means for doing anything in the kingdom by proper authority. And there are also priesthood orders and priesthood endowment to consider in addition to the priesthood keys and priesthood office. No one -- man, woman or child -- is forced to participate (or to allow their child to participate) as invited if they feel slighted.
blueglass Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 On 10/11/2019 at 1:16 PM, ksfisher said: A high priest holds the same priesthood as an elder. The only difference between the two offices is the right to preside at different levels of church organization. Proxy ordination of the dead to the office of elder seems sufficient at this point. Wilford Woodruff journal: March 30, 1877 This is the first day I ever went [to] the [Temp?]le to get Endowments for the Dead. I got Endowments to day for the Prophets Robert Mason. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgVUBQMDVu8] We gave Endowments to 150. There was 52 Elders ordained. W Woodruff ordained 2. 1 was ordained a High Priest & Patriarch for the Prophet Mason. There was 152 of the dead of the Hart family baptized for to day. Bulah A Woodruff Beatie was Baptized for 60 of them. July 12, 1896 I was Adopted to my Father Aphek Woodruff. He was ordained a High Priest & Patriarch. 1
Calm Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, blueglass said: Wilford Woodruff journal: March 30, 1877 This is the first day I ever went [to] the [Temp?]le to get Endowments for the Dead. I got Endowments to day for the Prophets Robert Mason. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgVUBQMDVu8] We gave Endowments to 150. There was 52 Elders ordained. W Woodruff ordained 2. 1 was ordained a High Priest & Patriarch for the Prophet Mason. There was 152 of the dead of the Hart family baptized for to day. Bulah A Woodruff Beatie was Baptized for 60 of them. July 12, 1896 I was Adopted to my Father Aphek Woodruff. He was ordained a High Priest & Patriarch. This was when they weren’t sealing to parents, correct? If so, why assume they were completely correct in other areas? (Not making the claim we have it perfect now) add-on: looks like the 1896 is post revelation Edited October 12, 2019 by Calm
ksfisher Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 3 hours ago, blueglass said: Wilford Woodruff journal: March 30, 1877 This is the first day I ever went [to] the [Temp?]le to get Endowments for the Dead. I got Endowments to day for the Prophets Robert Mason. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgVUBQMDVu8] We gave Endowments to 150. There was 52 Elders ordained. W Woodruff ordained 2. 1 was ordained a High Priest & Patriarch for the Prophet Mason. There was 152 of the dead of the Hart family baptized for to day. Bulah A Woodruff Beatie was Baptized for 60 of them. July 12, 1896 I was Adopted to my Father Aphek Woodruff. He was ordained a High Priest & Patriarch. Our understanding of the temple and the associated ordinances has increased as the restoration has continued.
JLHPROF Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 8 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Our understanding of the temple and the associated ordinances has increased as the restoration has continued. That is such an assumption of facts not in evidence.
SettingDogStar Posted October 12, 2019 Posted October 12, 2019 28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: That is such an assumption of facts not in evidence. I’d say it’s greatly decreased if anything, my opinion though. 1
ksfisher Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: That is such an assumption of facts not in evidence. The evidence is that those who hold priesthood keys and are authorized to use them have been inspired, from time to time, make changes. I realize that you don’t hold with this.
JLHPROF Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 1 minute ago, ksfisher said: The evidence is that those who hold priesthood keys and are authorized to use them have been inspired, from time to time, make changes. I realize that you don’t hold with this. Only because the man to whom they were revealed taught their eternal unchanging nature. And if more light is revealed why is less taught?
SettingDogStar Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: Only because the man to whom they were revealed taught their eternal unchanging nature. And if more light is revealed why is less taught? They went from multiple days of instruction (depending on the company) to 90 minutes of script. I think we lost a ton. Plus just because change is made you can’t actually confirm it’s correct, that’s what happened with the Catholic Church. Edited October 13, 2019 by SettingDogStar 1
JLHPROF Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 24 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said: They went from multiple days of instruction (depending on the company) to 90 minutes of script. I think we lost a ton. Well I don't think actual length was ever more than 5ish hours. The multiple days were often putting into practice what they'd been taught. Which is sadly something we aren't officially permitted to do anymore. Which makes the whole process a little bit of a dead work. Why learn and then not do? Quote Plus just because change is made you can’t actually confirm it’s correct, that’s what happened with the Catholic Church. I've yet to see anyone who completely agrees with the changes break the loop of circular reasoning used to justify it.
SettingDogStar Posted October 13, 2019 Posted October 13, 2019 8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Well I don't think actual length was ever more than 5ish hours. The multiple days were often putting into practice what they'd been taught. Which is sadly something we aren't officially permitted to do anymore. Which makes the whole process a little bit of a dead work. Why learn and then not do? I've yet to see anyone who completely agrees with the changes break the loop of circular reasoning used to justify it. I believe it took multiple days in Nauvoo, the first time. Lemme see if I can find that source. Or at the very least after the ceremony Joseph continued instruction for another few days. Also I’m not sure of any true injunction stopping members from “practicing” outside the temple. That one letter only discontinued stake held circles, but didn’t specify individual members...technically.
Recommended Posts