Women recieving the priesthood

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I really think this goes both ways. I've seen some of the very staunch, traditional kinds of people, who happen to also be staunch conservative politically have major issues and start falling out over the church's reaction/response over recent political statements by the church. And what it comes down to is that for many, whether on the liberal or conservative side politically and religiously, is whether or not they really trust prophets to be reliable or not. If they are deemed unreliable whether it's about an election outcome or vaccinations etc, then people struggle.

Just as there are people in the "it's a comin camp" may struggle if it doesn't, people in the "it will never happen" camp will also struggle if it does.

 

It may go both ways, but my observation is it is far more likely among those who get disappointed after they ultimately realize they can’t remake the Church into what they think it should be in conformity with the changing whims of society. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Quote

If that happens, if the Brethren present it, then I'll be on board with it (subject to personal ratification via revelation).

My concern is for those who are in the "it's a comin'" camp if it does not happen.  Will they remain faithful? 

I really think this goes both ways.

I agree.  My dad said that he had friends who left the Church prior to 1978 because of the Priesthood Ban, and others who left the Church after 1978 because of OD-2.

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've seen some of the very staunch, traditional kinds of people, who happen to also be staunch conservative politically have major issues and start falling out over the church's reaction/response over recent political statements by the church.

Yep.  I am sociopolitically quite conservative, but my political leanings and ideology and preferences are segregated from my posture towards the Church.  I want the Church to do its thing, and my political representatives to do their thing.  

I've also known quite a view politically leftist/liberal members who, as you put it, "have major issues and start falling out over the church's reaction/response" to various things (same-sex marriage and LGBT issues being the biggie, but also other sociopolitical issues).

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And what it comes down to is that for many, whether on the liberal or conservative side politically and religiously, is whether or not they really trust prophets to be reliable or not.

Yep.  I don't think such reliability is an all-or-nothing proposition.  I've previously summarized my approach reliance on prophets (both past and present) here.  An excerpt:

Quote

So my rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren.  To give them the benefit of the doubt.  To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit.  Again, I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  

However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption.  That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith above, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."  That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works."  That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works."  We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility.  So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it.  To think about it.  To study it.  To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy.  To weight it against the Standard Works.  And most of all, to pray about it.  

So if I find the statement to be "beyond" what it is the Standard Works, then I generally either reject it or label it in my mind as a person opinion of the speaker (and hence I am not bound by it).  If I find the statement to contradict the Standard Works, then I reject it altogether.  

This has helped me a lot in not veering too far to one side or the other.

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If they are deemed unreliable whether it's about an election outcome or vaccinations etc, then people struggle.

That can happen, yes.

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Just as there are people in the "it's a comin camp" may struggle if it doesn't, people in the "it will never happen" camp will also struggle if it does.

I'm in the "I'm quite open to the possibility, but I doubt it'll happen 'cuz I don't think it's part of the Plan" camp.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think the Church ever would indicate that. 

Yes, I think that whenever God has to withhold or alter things because we can't abide them, we are the poorer for it. I know that when my son received his endowment for his mission (summer 2019), I explained to him in the celestial room the changes that he wouldn't know about. We talked about insights from our ancestors that have been handed down about the endowment, symbolism, meaning, etc. He won't ever personally experience these, but I wanted him to know about them. 

And then the endowment was further (and pretty significantly) changed January of 2020, wasn't it? Some of this was doctrinal, in my opinion, even though the statement announcing them led off with "these are not doctrinal changes." I found it interesting that they felt the need to even say that.  

I do think we are the poorer for symbolism that is simply gone now, yes. 

I will be profoundly saddened and disappointed if garments are ever done away with (which I formerly could never have conceived of, but can now. It would be in keeping with and in an trajectory with the more recent changes, in my opinion). 

I agree completely.  100%.  I'd give this two rep points if I could.

I'm just surprised to see you and Teddy expressing this.  I thought the general consensus was that nothing has been lost from the endowment despite the numerous changes.
I wonder how many other members like myself believe in God's Church and the restored gospel and believe that this is the one true Church on the earth but at the same time feel like we have taken numerous wrong turns that God will have to correct?
You make me feel less alone when you express these thoughts (unlike those who want to label me a fundamentalist).  It's good to hear of people explaining things to their children and carrying on these eternal truths despite things preventing it.

I think there is ample evidence in the teachings of the early Church prophets to support what you are saying, including those of Joseph who was given the endowment from heaven.  And I would feel the same about the garment.

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree completely.  100%.  I'd give this two rep points if I could.

I'm just surprised to see you and Teddy expressing this.  I thought the general consensus was that nothing has been lost from the endowment despite the numerous changes.
I wonder how many other members like myself believe in God's Church and the restored gospel and believe that this is the one true Church on the earth but at the same time feel like we have taken numerous wrong turns that God will have to correct?
You make me feel less alone when you express these thoughts (unlike those who want to label me a fundamentalist).  It's good to hear of people explaining things to their children and carrying on these eternal truths despite things preventing it.

I think there is ample evidence in the teachings of the early Church prophets to support what you are saying, including those of Joseph who was given the endowment from heaven.  And I would feel the same about the garment.

You are not alone. There are many faithful, sustaining members (some who have and have had leadership callings) who don't think that every action or claimed revelation is necessarily from God. These are not apostate or fundamentalist, don't attack the Church, and won't leave it (where would we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life), but are saddened by changes that they don't feel are God's will. They sustain the Brethren as holding the keys, but don't believe that they are remote-controlled automatons --- and, they see God as giving leeway for agency and preference within bounds (not crossing the "leading the Church astray" threshold; if it ever were crossed, then He would deal with it). 

Both sides of my family consist of gospel scholars. My Journal of Discourses belonged to my great-grandmother (one of the first female missionaries in the Church), and it is well-marked by her. I made my own index to it over a ten-year span. Family gatherings and reunions on both sides always have deep gospel and Church history discussions, and so we were all inoculated from any "gotchas!" that could have been sprung on us. We already knew, and had heard it all before, and had hashed out those things in an atmosphere of faith. My Comprehensive History of the Church is from my grandfather, and it is far better than "Saints," and Documentary History of the Church is good in other ways (my second mission president let me borrow DHC to read in my last area).  

I think we have an unhealthy culture in the Church of tacit "infallibility" for the Brethren. While insisting that they believe the Brethren are fallible, if asked to name one example of something fallible that was done, crickets. The difference is that people like you are describing are faithful and have testimonies, but they can readily name some (non-essential, in the scheme of things) examples. 

The best thing for people to do is to be able to discuss things in a faithful environment. 

ETA: Going back to the OP and other similar things we have been discussing, there are possible/potential changes on the horizon that could conceivably happen, and without explanation. That's why a) having one's own testimony, and b) understanding all of the factors involved is important. What would happen, if? What would that mean? Why? Etc. 

Edited January 28, 2021 by rongo

[gav]

16 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I will now demonstrate how today’s prophet’s are disseminating revelation to the Church, but doing so “under the radar” so that members who have “ears to hear” may learn and understand what the Lord is saying to the Church without generating great controversy.

In the April 2020 General Conference President Russell testified...

We live in the day that “our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation.” We have front-row seats to witness live what the prophet Nephi saw only in vision, that “the power of the Lamb of God” would descend upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory.

In preceding excerpt from his conference address, Hear Him (yes that’s right — hear HIM!), President Russell quotes the prophet Nephi who learned in his great apocalyptic vision that at a certain point in time in the latter-days the power of the Lamb of God would descend upon the members of the Church in great power and glory. Most significantly, President Russell told his listeners that THEY are going to be the generation who would see the literal fulfillment of what Nephi saw only in vision, for they will see the fulfillment with their own eyes. Here is the verse as it appears in the Book of Mormon:

14 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory. (1 Nephi 14:14)

But here’s the thing: for those members with the Spirit of revelation who are familiar with Nephi’s vision (I’m one of them), they realize that the verse immediately prior to verse 14 says...

13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God. (1 Nephi 14:13) 

Those with ears to hear (unlike those who insist on being spoon fed) immediately realized that if President Nelson is testifying that we are going to be eye witnesses to the literal fulfillment of the events in verse 14, that means we are also going to be eye witnesses to the literal fulfillment of the dreadful prophecy found in verse 13 which states that the nations of the entire world are going to unite in the common cause of the destruction of the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

By flying under the radar, as it were, President Nelson was able to inform the members of Church with the Spirit of revelation to prepare themselves and their families for the long prophesied day of persecution and tribulation that would descend upon the saints to test their faith, courage and resolve before the day when those who successfully endure the persecution in righteousness will be endowed with power of the Lamb of God in great glory. .

So there you have it. But be warned, this is the only time I’m going to allow you to see what I see. You’re on your own from here on out.

The ascendancy of post modernism an its illegitimate woke abomination comes to mind.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

You are not alone. There are many faithful, sustaining members (some who have and have had leadership callings) who don't think that every action or claimed revelation is necessarily from God. These are not apostate or fundamentalist, don't attack the Church, and won't leave it (where would we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life), but are saddened by changes that they don't feel are God's will. They sustain the Brethren as holding the keys, but don't believe that they are remote-controlled automatons --- and, they see God as giving leeway for agency and preference within bounds (not crossing the "leading the Church astray" threshold; if it ever were crossed, then He would deal with it). 

Both sides of my family consist of gospel scholars. My Journal of Discourses belonged to my great-grandmother (one of the first female missionaries in the Church), and it is well-marked by her. I made my own index to it over a ten-year span. Family gatherings and reunions on both sides always have deep gospel and Church history discussions, and so we were all inoculated from any "gotchas!" that could have been sprung on us. We already knew, and had heard it all before, and had hashed out those things in an atmosphere of faith. My Comprehensive History of the Church is from my grandfather, and it is far better than "Saints," and Documentary History of the Church is good in other ways (my second mission president let me borrow DHC to read in my last area).  

I think we have an unhealthy culture in the Church of tacit "infallibility" for the Brethren. While insisting that they believe the Brethren are fallible, if asked to name one example of something fallible that was done, crickets. The difference is that people like you are describing are faithful and have testimonies, but they can readily name some (non-essential, in the scheme of things) examples. 

The best thing for people to do is to be able to discuss things in a faithful environment. 

Wow.
That describes me and my position almost perfectly.  Perhaps I have acquired a few more so-called fundamentalist beliefs from following this exact path than you have.

But this post summarizes my thoughts brilliantly.
- out of order but not led astray (ie apostate)
- keys of priesthood with the Church
- good scholarship and a family that studied the gospel and history
- inoculation and no real concern over gotchas
- testimony of the Church and restoration
- acceptance of revelations and doctrine that may no longer be widely accepted

You've made my day.  

[AtlanticMike]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am a lawyer, yes.  I think my training and experience in practicing law has had a big impact on how I approach the Gospel.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  You seem to be shifting the goal posts.  Like, a lot.  Let's recap:

1. You started out by apparently denigrating and demeaning the Church and its members because we want others to know we believe in Jesus Christ, and hence are "Christians" (saying we are "obsessed" with "asking Christians to pretty pretty please accept us as Christians so we can join in under the 'big tent' of Christianity..."), and also because we are - in your view - lagging behind the Community of Christ ("we're usually  30 or so years behind them when it comes to fundamental changes...").

2. I disagreed with these characterizations (pretty mildly, IMO) because I think they are substantively inaccurate and incorrect.  

3. The discussion then transitioned over to you talking about the Church's "money" and "the fight that's coming," which you used to further malign the Church by suggesting that the Church isn't doing its job.  That it isn't fulfilling its mandate, that the Church is not properly using sacred funds, which in your view seem to be "just sitting there for no reason."  You then continued with seemingly (but still ambiguous) militaristic/violent rhetoric:

• "And in the end, I truly believe many Christian churches will rely heavily on Mormonism for strength. We're more organized, have more money and just all around badass individuals..."
• "{Other Christian groups} dont have enough money to fight what's coming..."
• "We are more organized and most importantly have more money, which I believe will play a huge role in the last days. You cant mobilize a movement without money in the last days..."
• "As far as what I said about money and the fight that's coming,  I believe logistically, we will need a crap ton of money to fight the onslaught of attacks mormons and more broadly Christians will experience in the future..."
• "Not many other Christian churches are set up to do that. As latter day Saints, in the end, we won't be sitting on the couch watching mayhem, will be fighting it on our feet..."

4. I found this a bit disconcerting.  You seemed to implying that the Church is building a war chest.  That it is holding money with the intention of arming its members for physical, perhaps even militaristic, violence.  That's a pretty wild and dangerous suggestion, so I asked for clarification, at which point you said:

"No I'm not saying actual war as in weapons.  But back in the day mormons believed we were walking to Missouri with carts. I believe at some point we will be called upon to mobilize, not to kill people,  but to let our voices be heard."

and

"And again I'm not talking military anything, as far as church money goes. I just think at some point will be called as LATTER DAY SAINTS to mobilize with other religions to protect the gospel."

5. So I then started asking you about A) what you meant by "walking to Missouri," B) what "let our voices be heard" means (particularly in the context of the Church's funds), and C) what you think the Church should be doing and/or spending its money on that it is not doing now.

You responded with stating you don't know what you mean when you are talking about what the Church should spend its money on ("You asked 'money spent on what?' Again I dont know!"  You then reverted back to maligning the Church and its members again by saying that we are not doing what we are supposed to be doing ("if this is the restored gospel and we are here as latter day Saints, then what does that mean in the latter days, is there no action involved in being latter day Saint in the latter days?") (emphasis added).

6. I responded by summarizing much of the "action involved in being latter day Saint{s}."  We have thousands of stakes and tens of thousands of wards and branches that have been organized and are administered and are actively functioning every single day.  We have millions of members who are helping each other and others.  We have nearly a hundred thousand missionaries (full-time and Church service).  We have thousands of chapels.  167 operating temples.  Universities and seminary/institute programs.  Huge welfare and food production programs.  Huge humanitarian programs. Huge family history and geneology programs.  Hundreds of millions of volunteer hours are poured into Church activities, worship services, etc.  Untold hours of members worshipping the Lord in public and in private, in studying and praying, in repenting and forgiving, in serving family and friends and neighbors, in exercising faith in Christ in ways large and small.

And yet here you come, declaring that the Church and its members are sitting on couches, not doing anything.  That "there is no action involved in being latter day Saint{s}."  And when our extensive efforts are pointed out to you, your response is "so what!"

7. Well, I'm not quite sure how to respond to that.  The really terrible thing about faultfinding is that you can always succeed at it.  Always.  

I've asked this a few times now: What is it that you think the Church and its members should be doing that we are not doing now?

"Physical action?"  What does that mean?

In your view, the current efforts of the Church and its members can be distilled and summarized as "sitting behind a computer or on a couch."

Wow.  I'm genuinely confused at what it is you are thinking here.  You

• slander the Church and its members by suggesting we are not engaged in the "action involved in being latter day Saint in the latter days," and then you 
• summarily dismiss and denigrate all the current extensive efforts of the Church and its members with "so what!", and then you
• accuse the Church and its members of merely "sitting behind a computer or on a couch," and all the while you
• continue to refuse to explain or describe what it is you think the Church and its members should be doing that we are not doing now.

I think you're in major faultfinding mode here, Mike.  I hope you snap out of it.

I think the Church is a wonderful organization, and that it and its members are working very hard to fulfill our collective and individual mandates from God.

I think those mandates have come through revelation, to us collectively through prophets acting on revelation under restored priesthood authority, and to us individually through inspiration and obedience to the laws and commandments of the Gospel.

I think the Church has gone to great lengths to develop and deploy various efforts and initiatives to make the world a better place.

I think the active and observant members of the Church are doing a lot to fulfill the fourfold mission of the Church: perfect the Saints, proclaim the Gospel, redeem the dead, and care for the poor and needy.

You, meanwhile, think so little of these efforts as to blow them off with "So what!"  

I'm saying a lot of folk rumor and myth has arisen in relation to it, yes.  I provided a number of resources that help dispel rumor/myth from actual prophecies and prophetic utterances.

I did not mean to offend.  But I think it is important that we periodically re-examine what we believe and why.  Faith-promoting rumors and myths can have a very damaging impact.  We need to listen to the Brethren, and take speculations and rumors with several grains of salt.

I don't know what you are referencing here ("what millions upon millions of mormons believed").  If you can point me to what it is you have in mind, I'll certainly reconsider what I have said.  But I feel no obligation to stick with "folk" or speculative doctrines/beliefs.

Well, I have some similar recollections.  So if you can point me to where have have been told by prophets and apostles, speaking in their official capacities, that members of the Church "will be walking to Missouri," I'm all ears.  But if this idea has become overgrown with rumor and myth and exaggerations and speculations, then I think we need to correct such things.

A few that come to mind:

• Some of the plot elements of Saturday's Warrior.
• Rumors that the BYU Jerusalem Center was secretly designed so as to be able to be converted into a temple.
• Rumors about Del Parson's Christ in Red Robe painting.
• Elder Packer's comment about youth being "generals in the War in Heaven."
• The one about the Japanese pilot being unable to bomb the Hawaii Temple during the attack on Pearl Harbor.
• The one about Yoda being modeled after Spencer W. Kimball, and Luke in Jabba's palace being modeled after Arnold Frieberg's painting of Abinadi before King Noah.
• The one about Brigham Young's hearse being parked in front of the Haunted Mansion at Disneyland.
• The one about Steve Martin joining the Church.
• Cain as Bigfoot.
• Various "Hitchhiking Nephite" stories.
• The "Nephites protected sister missionaries from a serial killer" story.
• Most or all of the "White Horse Prophecy."
• The one about the mobbers that killed Joseph all met untimely/gruesome ends.
• Betty Eadie's stuff.
• Julie Rowe's stuff.
• Denfer Snuffer's stuff.
• Chad Daybell's stuff.
• Virtually all of the "Preparing a People" stuff.

I believe in all sorts of amazing, miraculous things.  But not every item that floats down the Mormon Rumor River is true.  Some (many, even) are rumors and myths.

Maybe.  I'm ambivalent about it.  See here, here and here.

No.  But you may be wrong about the "Hill Cumorah" in New York State being the "Hill Cumorah" referenced in the Book of Mormon.  See, e.g., here.

I believe strongly in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but I think the most likely location was in Mesoamerica, not New York.

Sure.  But it's not an all-or-nothing deal.  The loss of priesthood authority, and those holding such authority, and the administration of saving ordinances, these things all happened.  But plenty of people continued to believe in Christ.  Plenty of people were "Christian."

Sounds like we essentially agree on this point, then.  I'm glad we cleared that up.

Agreed.

I think the meaning is fairly self-evident.

I'm not particularly inclined to take doctrinal cues from anti-Mormons like Rocky Hulse, who culls 19th-century quotes and presents them for shock value.  Hence the wisdom in Elder Andersen's remarks: "There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find."

How often has this "hatched in hell" quote been used by the Church?  Is the JoD an authoritative source of doctrine?  Do you believe the above quote is a revealed doctrine that is binding on us?  If so, why do you think that?

You were speaking of the Church needing to spend "billions of dollars" for "houses, roads, sewers, water, hospitals, schools, and so on and so on" in order to facilitate "Saints" moving to "Utah or Missouri."  This is what I called "fanciful" ("I'm content to let the Brethren manage the finances of the Church.  What you are alluding to here seem way to speculative and fanciful.").

By "fanciful" I meant "led by fancy rather than by reason and experience."  You presented the foregoing ideas without any citation to any prophet or apostle.  Not a one.  And your own wording made it sound like you were just speculating, and nothing more:

I grew up listening to pres Benson telling us that we will be called upon in the latter days to protect the gospel, I dont know what that means, if I did I wouldn't be a roofer on the east coast, I would probably be sitting in the church office building. But whatever it means, it will involve money and also people with great organizational skills until christ returns.   To take a guess, at one option, maybe instead of Missouri like they thought 60 years ago, maybe Saints and other Christians will be called to move to , I dont know, let's say Utah or possibly still Missouri.

If you can point me to statements by prophets and apostles about what you are saying here, I'm happy to take a look.  But as it is, I took your comments as rank speculation and guesswork.  As "fanciful."  I said that not to offend, but to differentiate your speculations from actual prophetic/apostolic statements and guidance.

It can be difficult to let go of cherished rumors, embellishments, fabrications, etc., particularly when they look like they are intended to promote faithfulness.  But I think we need to be vigilant and not allow inaccuracies and falsehoods to take up residence in our sentiments about the Restored Gospel.  The Restoration has more than enough amazing things about it.  We need not gild the lilly.

The speculative / embellished / rumor-ish / unsubstantiated stuff, yes.  But I'm pretty keen on the beliefs that the Brethren are teaching us.  As Elder Andersen put it, "Our doctrine is not difficult to find," so why rely on questionable/doubtful stuff when there is so much good, substantive truth out there?

I would refer you to the last several chapters of the Gospel Principles manual.

Mike, I really love the Church.  A lot.  I am not sure why you feel the need to rag on it publicly.  I'm also not sure why you are upset about me trying to differentiate between the doctrines espoused by the Church and the speculative, unsubstantiated, homespun folklore that may be not just embellished / inaccurate / untrue, but also actually injurious to an abiding and resilient faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

🤣🤣🤣 I knew you were a lawyer. I've been through a few depositions in my life and I feel like I'm going through one now when talking to you🤣🤣. That was humor by the way.

      First, I never denigrated or demeaned the church or its members. The "proof" is that I'm still talking to you, moderators dont agree with you apparently. 

    Yes I personally do not like that,  we're trying to be seen more as Christians than mormons. That's my opinion, and I stand by it, I love Mormonism and think in the end, we will be successful with help from Christians ushering in the 2nd coming, not the other way around. 

    Next, let's talk about church money and the last days because it seems what I said really bothered you. Since your a lawyer, let me give you proof the brethren will spend alot of money when they think the latter days are close. From 1877 to 1997 we had a total of 51 temples dedicated. Average of 1 temple every 2 years. From 1998 to the year 2000, we had 51 temples dedicated.  In other words someone thought there  might be a chance christ was coming, unless you can give me a better explanation of why the brethren would dedicate 51 temples in 3 years.  The last days will not be peaceful, I also think that bothers you, let me explain what I meant about not being able to sit on couches before the 2nd coming, here's what Brigham Young said, " "all we have yet heard, and we had experienced is scarcely a preface to the sermon that is going to be preached. When the testimony of the elders ceases to be given, and the Lord says to them, come home I will now preach my own sermons to the nations of the Earth, all you now know can scarcely be called a preface to the sermon that will be preached with fire and sword, Tempest, earthquakes, hail, rain, thunder, lightning, and fearful destruction. What matters the destruction of a few Railway cars?You will hear of Magnificent cities, now idolized by the people, sinking in the earth, entombing the inhabitants. The sea will heave itself beyond its bounds, engulfing Mighty cities. Famine will spread over the nations, and nation will rise up against Nation, Kingdom against Kingdom,and State against state, in our own country and in foreign lands and they will destroy each other, caring  not for the blood and lives of their neighbors of their families or for their own lives." (DBY 111-112) Sir, that doesn't sound like it can be lived through by sitting on a couch, exactly what I'm saying, we're not in the latter days yet! The latter days are going to xxxxing suck, big time. When we hear from the prophet there will be movement, actual physical, getting off your couch, movement. If you cant see that, then I dont know what else to say.

     Right now as we speak, we're not doing any thing different than other churches. They have buildings, money, leaders, advertising, pr department, they baptize, they minister to wayward souls, their charitable with their money also. All the same things we do. Are we bringing our brothers and sister into the true church, the restored gospel, of course! But, the ""latter day Saints"" in the name "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", means we are here to be people of action at a certain time right before the actual 2nd coming. We were chosen before we came to earth for this very purpose. We were chosen because we're not COUCH SITTERS!! We're people of action. So stop trying to paint me as some kind of warmonger, that's a cheap lawyer trick and I object, sustained😁. 

    

    

    

     

[gav]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Interesting statement.

Do you believe that with reduced knowledge or reduced willingness to accept these mysteries comes reduced blessings?

Or it was just for increased emphasis on the most important parts...

[mfbukowski]

56 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree completely.  100%.  I'd give this two rep points if I could.

I'm just surprised to see you and Teddy expressing this.  I thought the general consensus was that nothing has been lost from the endowment despite the numerous changes.
I wonder how many other members like myself believe in God's Church and the restored gospel and believe that this is the one true Church on the earth but at the same time feel like we have taken numerous wrong turns that God will have to correct?
You make me feel less alone when you express these thoughts (unlike those who want to label me a fundamentalist).  It's good to hear of people explaining things to their children and carrying on these eternal truths despite things preventing it.

I think there is ample evidence in the teachings of the early Church prophets to support what you are saying, including those of Joseph who was given the endowment from heaven.  And I would feel the same about the garment.

The PRESENTATION of the endowment is not the endowment.

The presentation changes but the endowment does not.

The differences are mere theatrics

Think of remaking an old movie.

Adam and Eve still fall, take on the same Covenants and return to Father.

 If the presentation is dumbed down it is our fault not anyone else's.

Edited January 28, 2021 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

Hopping in late but wanted to address a few comments, or rather sentiments expressed ( @teddyaware, @rongo, @JLHPROF ) It is interesting to me to characterize the endowment changes as a reduction of the power from on high the endowment affords us. I think of two things:

“It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.” (Alma 12:9). This would support the idea that the Brethren change the degree of power accessible from on high through the endowment.

“For behold, the Lord doth grant unto ball nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true.” (Alma 29:8). This would support the idea that the Brethren maintain the power from on high by changing the presentation of the endowment to fit the “nation and tongue” (figuratively speaking) of the times. Or, somewhat in line with the above, “all that [God] seeth fit that [we] should have” is adjusted (the expressed concern being, reduced but can also allow for an increase) according to the Lord’s wisdom.

Applying the parable of the laborers in the field, those who receive the endowment receive the same power from on high, whether they receive it earlier or later in the roll-out of the Restoration, the circumstances of a globalizing Church, the increasing power of the opposition (we are increasing, too), etc.

So I am inclined to believe the changes are inspired policy that facilitate the maximization of access to power from on high. As Joseph Smith said, according to Brigham Young as quoted by L. John Nuttall, “This [the temple ceremonies as first administered to him and others in the temporary ordinance set-up in the upper room of the Prophet’s store] is not arranged right but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies with the signs, tokens, penalties and key words.” Later, Brigham Young acknowledged, I did so, and each time I got something more, so that widen we went through the temple at Nauvoo I understood and knew how to place them there. We had our ceremonies pretty correct.”(The Journal Of L John Nuttall, February 7, 1877) (https://archive.org/details/TheJournalOfLJohnNuttall/page/n3/mode/2up

So, I see no material loss at all. I think we all see the changes differently according to our personalities and styles (and even circumstances), and regardless, may through faithfulness obtain the actual power from on high that is extended to us through good-faith participation in these ordinances through grace.

Edited January 28, 2021 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The PRESENTATION of the endowment is not the endowment.

The presentation changes but the endowment does not.

The differences are mere theatrics

Think of remaking an old movie.

Adam and Eve still fall, take on the same Covenants and return to Father.

 If the presentation is dumbed down it is our fault not anyone else's.

I agree presentation can and does change.
I don't agree for a second that presentation was the only thing that changed.

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The PRESENTATION of the endowment is not the endowment.

The presentation changes but the endowment does not.

The differences are mere theatrics

Think of remaking an old movie.

I think we all understand this, but it isn't just presentation that has been changed (people may differ about what constitutes what, and to what extent). 

For some, it isn't just changes in presentation. 

And, after Covid hit, most of us haven't been able to go back and try to learn more and sort out our thoughts and feelings on this with additional "reps." And those who have been back have only been able to if they were a chaperone in an own-endowment session (I assume chaperones have been allowed. Maybe just the initiate and temple workers?). 

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Hopping in late but wanted to address a few comments, or rather sentiments expressed ( @teddyaware, @rongo, @JLHPROF ) It is interesting to me to characterize the endowment changes as a reduction of the power from on high the endowment affords us. I think of two things:

“It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.” (Alma 12:9). This would support the idea that the Brethren change the degree of power accessible from on high through the endowment.

“For behold, the Lord doth grant unto ball nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true.” (Alma 29:8). This would support the idea that the Brethren maintain the power from on high by changing the presentation of the endowment to fit the “nation and tongue” (figuratively speaking) of the times. Or, somewhat in line with the above, “all that [God] seeth fit that [we] should have” is adjusted (the concern being, reduced) according to the Lord’s wisdom.

Applying the parable of the laborers in the field, those who receive the endowment receive the same power from on high, whether they receive it earlier or later in the roll-out of the Restoration, the circumstances of a globalizing Church, the increasing power of the opposition (we are increasing, too), etc.

So I am inclined to believe the changes are inspired policy that facilitate the maximization of access to power from on high. As Joseph Smith said, according to Brigham Young as quoted by L. John Nuttall, “This [the temple ceremonies as first administered to him and others in the temporary ordinance set-up in the upper room of the Prophet’s store] is not arranged right but we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies with the signs, tokens, penalties and key words.” Later, Brigham Young acknowledged, I did so, and each time I got something more, so that widen we went through the temple at Nauvoo I understood and knew how to place them there. We had our ceremonies pretty correct.”(The Journal Of L John Nuttall, February 7, 1877) (https://archive.org/details/TheJournalOfLJohnNuttall/page/n3/mode/2up

So, I see no material loss at all. I think we all see the changes differently according to our personalities and styles (and even circumstances), and regardless, may through faithfulness obtain the actual power from on high that is extended to us through good-faith participation in these ordinances through grace.

As I said to mfbukowski concerning the second part of your comment, the presentation (how things were "arranged") can and does change.  That's not all that was changed.
The first part of your comment is true, God can see fit to adjust how much we are given at any point.  The question is whether the same blessings and power are attached if less is given.  Joseph indicated they wouldn't be.

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree presentation can and does change.
I don't agree for a second that presentation was the only thing that changed.

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think we all understand this, but it isn't just presentation that has been changed (people may differ about what constitutes what, and to what extent). 

For some, it isn't just changes in presentation. 

And, after Covid hit, most of us haven't been able to go back and try to learn more and sort out our thoughts and feelings on this with additional "reps." And those who have been back have only been able to if they were a chaperone in an own-endowment session (I assume chaperones have been allowed. Maybe just the initiate and temple workers?). 

The power from on high (the actual endowment) has not changed, though many aspects pf the presentation, comprising such things as "signs, tokens, penalties and key words" and so forth, have.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, CV75 said:

The power from on high (the actual endowment) has not changed, though many aspects pf the presentation, comprising such things as "signs, tokens, penalties and key words" and so forth, have.

I'm sorry, but those are NOT the presentation and constitute much of the actual power.

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As I said to mfbukowski concerning the second part of your comment, the presentation (how things were "arranged") can and does change.  That's not all that was changed.
The first part of your comment is true, God can see fit to adjust how much we are given at any point.  The question is whether the same blessings and power are attached if less is given.  Joseph indicated they wouldn't be.

Yes, there is no "less" in the power from on high promised the faithful covenant-maker. From my experience, and I've been through more than a couple of changes, no matter how the covenants are "reduced" the blessing is the same. Grace and personal revelation have a good deal to do with that, even from the earliest original presentations onward.

What Brigham received from Joseph in the store was no less powerful than what anyone has received subsequently.

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm sorry, but those are NOT the presentation and constitute much of the actual power.

Yes, our indidivual personality and style do inform our semantics.

I would say the "power from on high" constitutes the actual power.

Edited January 28, 2021 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, there is no "less" in the power from on high promised the faithful covenant-maker. From my experience, and I've been through more than a couple of changes, no matter how the covenants are "reduced" the blessing is the same. Grace and personal revelation have a good deal to do with that, even from the earliest original presentations onward.

What Brigham received from Joseph in the store was no less powerful than what anyone has received subsequently.

As I told Rongo and Teddy, I am glad I am not alone among members in believing otherwise.  But your idea is more in keeping with standard member belief which is why I was surprised by their comments.

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, our indidivual personality and style do inform our semantics.

I would say the "power from on high" constitutes the actual power.

That's a tautology if ever I read one.
God told Joseph here is the key to unlock the door.  We cannot unlock the door if piece of the key are removed.  The lock won't turn.  Therefore the power is reduced.
All that remains is to occasionally get to peer in the window.

[rchorse]

I was endowed after 1990. I have no idea what was in there before. I know the information is out there, but I have avoided looking it up because it felt wrong to me. 

So am I missing out on blessings because of something I was never even given the chance to accept or reject? Are all future generations that will receive the endowment doomed to a "lesser" endowment because they happened to be born later? That doesn't square with anything else I know or have experienced in the church.

Having seen the endowment before and after the recent changes, many negative reactions to the changes sound like "Things were better in my day. These youngsters are too soft!" I felt a clear spiritual confirmation that the recent changes were inspired and clarified things that some members were misunderstanding, rather than "dumbing down" the endowment. But to each, his/her own.

[AtlanticMike]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

If that happens, if the Brethren present it, then I'll be on board with it (subject to personal ratification via revelation).

My concern is for those who are in the "it's a comin'" camp if it does not happen.  Will they remain faithful?  Or will they take cues from Kate Kelly, who disregarded the role and function of the exercise of the priesthood, made peremptory my-way-or-the-highway demands of the Lord's annointed, and ultimately left the Church and became a vocal and critical opponent of it?

Some have already done this.  Others, I'm hoping, will be more circumspect and let the Lord and His servants address such matters via inspiration.

Yes, I think that could be a necessary component.

So am I.  But if particular things don't turn out they way we expect or prefer, I hope we stay the course.

Or even if "any of this" will happen.  Right?

So men will use the priesthood, but only to benefit other men?  And women will also use the priesthood, but only to benefit other women?

Will we split up wards?  Segregate them by gender?

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry, instead branches,  I probably should of said women quite possibly might have their own office or quorum under the same priesthood. No dividing of anything. 

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As I told Rongo and Teddy, I am glad I am not alone among members in believing otherwise.  But your idea is more in keeping with standard member belief which is why I was surprised by their comments.

That's a tautology if ever I read one.
God told Joseph here is the key to unlock the door.  We cannot unlock the door if piece of the key are removed.  The lock won't turn.  Therefore the power is reduced.
All that remains is to occasionally get to peer in the window.

I assure you that you are not alone. There are so many permutations of personalities and styles that one might feel isolated from time to time (depending on their personality or style). Semantics follow that, whcih is why I can confidently say that the key (which is not a literal key) and the presentation are the same thing, and the power from on high and the endowment are the same thing. Any why you can confidently say those statements are tautologies.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, rchorse said:

I was endowed after 1990. I have no idea what was in there before. I know the information is out there, but I have avoided looking it up because it felt wrong to me. 

So am I missing out on blessings because of something I was never even given the chance to accept or reject? Are all future generations that will receive the endowment doomed to a "lesser" endowment because they happened to be born later? That doesn't square with anything else I know or have experienced in the church.

Having seen the endowment before and after the recent changes, many negative reactions to the changes sound like "Things were better in my day. These youngsters are too soft!" I felt a clear spiritual confirmation that the recent changes were inspired and clarified things that some members were misunderstanding, rather than "dumbing down" the endowment. But to each, his/her own.

I don't want to get myself in trouble or get this thread locked.
So I'll just say this.  In our current Church environment the things that were removed from the endowment are not permitted to be used as they were in the early days.
So even if the removed access to power were to be put back the Church no longer allows its use.

In that way I suppose nothing is actually lost.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't want to get myself in trouble or get this thread locked.
So I'll just say this.  In our current Church environment the things that were removed from the endowment are not permitted to be used as they were in the early days.
So even if the removed access to power were to be put back the Church no longer allows its use.

In that way I suppose nothing is actually lost.

For what it's worth, I believe many members view this the way you do. I know my parents do. I don't know how old you are but it seems to me there was a significant generational shift between my parents and my generations. I won't claim to know the cause but it does seem to loosely follow the correlation movement.

[CV75]

43 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

🤣🤣🤣 I knew you were a lawyer. I've been through a few depositions in my life and I feel like I'm going through one now when talking to you🤣🤣. That was humor by the way.

      First, I never denigrated or demeaned the church or its members. The "proof" is that I'm still talking to you, moderators dont agree with you apparently. 

    Yes I personally do not like that,  we're trying to be seen more as Christians than mormons. That's my opinion, and I stand by it, I love Mormonism and think in the end, we will be successful with help from Christians ushering in the 2nd coming, not the other way around. 

    Next, let's talk about church money and the last days because it seems what I said really bothered you. Since your a lawyer, let me give you proof the brethren will spend alot of money when they think the latter days are close. From 1877 to 1997 we had a total of 51 temples dedicated. Average of 1 temple every 2 years. From 1998 to the year 2000, we had 51 temples dedicated.  In other words someone thought there  might be a chance christ was coming, unless you can give me a better explanation of why the brethren would dedicate 51 temples in 3 years.  The last days will not be peaceful, I also think that bothers you, let me explain what I meant about not being able to sit on couches before the 2nd coming, here's what Brigham Young said, " "all we have yet heard, and we had experienced is scarcely a preface to the sermon that is going to be preached. When the testimony of the elders ceases to be given, and the Lord says to them, come home I will now preach my own sermons to the nations of the Earth, all you now know can scarcely be called a preface to the sermon that will be preached with fire and sword, Tempest, earthquakes, hail, rain, thunder, lightning, and fearful destruction. What matters the destruction of a few Railway cars?You will hear of Magnificent cities, now idolized by the people, sinking in the earth, entombing the inhabitants. The sea will heave itself beyond its bounds, engulfing Mighty cities. Famine will spread over the nations, and nation will rise up against Nation, Kingdom against Kingdom,and State against state, in our own country and in foreign lands and they will destroy each other, caring  not for the blood and lives of their neighbors of their families or for their own lives." (DBY 111-112) Sir, that doesn't sound like it can be lived through by sitting on a couch, exactly what I'm saying, we're not in the latter days yet! The latter days are going to xxxxing suck, big time. When we hear from the prophet there will be movement, actual physical, getting off your couch, movement. If you cant see that, then I dont know what else to say.

     Right now as we speak, we're not doing any thing different than other churches. They have buildings, money, leaders, advertising, pr department, they baptize, they minister to wayward souls, their charitable with their money also. All the same things we do. Are we bringing our brothers and sister into the true church, the restored gospel, of course! But, the ""latter day Saints"" in the name "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", means we are here to be people of action at a certain time right before the actual 2nd coming. We were chosen before we came to earth for this very purpose. We were chosen because we're not COUCH SITTERS!! We're people of action. So stop trying to paint me as some kind of warmonger, that's a cheap lawyer trick and I object, sustained😁. 

    

    

    

     

Hey there I thought ou split. I know you're engaged with smac here but when you a change please adress my question from here: Posted yesterday at 01:41 PM

Don't mean to badger you so if you don't feel like addressing it just let me know. iIm not one for subtlety!

What do you offer as some examples of the role of divine revelation in not ordaining women now, or having lifting the ban on Blacks in 1978? related to that, do you take the teaching of Heavenly Mother to be doctrine, policy, revelation or cultural / folk belief?

[gav]

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, there is no "less" in the power from on high promised the faithful covenant-maker. From my experience, and I've been through more than a couple of changes, no matter how the covenants are "reduced" the blessing is the same. Grace and personal revelation have a good deal to do with that, even from the earliest original presentations onward.

What Brigham received from Joseph in the store was no less powerful than what anyone has received subsequently.

Less, I see as a compliment. Those who receive less have more that the Spirit can tutor directly on. I may also be similar to the Saviours parables, protecting the weaker hearers but providing sufficient for the diligent to work with. 

Edited January 28, 2021 by gav