Women recieving the priesthood

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, gav said:

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. 

Yes, i can see that point but I'm also trying to make friends here! 😀

[Ahab]

6 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.

"Dumbing down" has a negative ring to it so I would not characterize it that way.  It's more like there is a different speaker with his own way of saying things who replaced the other guy who said things another way previously.  Like when there is a change of elder missionaries sent to an area and the new ones have their own manner of speaking which is different than the way the other elder missionaries said things.  Or like how apostles don't sound exactly alike because they each have their own manner of speaking. I like that kind of thing, personally. I learn more from thinking about things in various ways than I do when trying to stick to a certain manner of speaking.

Oh, and the ushering in thing taking, what is it now, over 200 years, or 2000 years?  Ushers and those who usher usually have quite a bit of time to usher before the big event actually happens and the people who arrive early for the event usually have quite a bit of time to talk about all kinds of things including things that don't even pertain to the main event.  

[2BizE]

On 1/26/2021 at 7:58 AM, AtlanticMike said:

So I've studied more about church history in the past 6 weeks, then my entire life. I'm, shocked at the changes, but in a good way. I never knew a woman had never prayed at a general conference till 2013 and tell you the truth, I cant believe how naive I've been. Also, I've researched the Community of Christ and it seems to me we're usually  30 or so years behind them when it comes to fundamental changes in either our policies or doctrine. In their version of Mormonism,  women received the priesthood in 1998. Personally, I believe in the next 30 years women will receive the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Any thoughts?

I agree in 20-30 years women will hold the priesthood.  Why? Because they are already using the priesthood. Examples:

1) Blessings of healing: the Bible and BoM are quite clear that any person can have the gift of healing. The MP is not required to heal someone. It is a gift from God.

2) Ordinances- while this is currently nearly exclusive for Ordained priesthood holders, women are also currently exercising the priesthood to perform ordinances in the temple including initiatory blessings as well as the sacred second anointing only available to few people. In addition, in some church locations, women and young women are passing the sacrament.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/10/03/whats-this-mormon-girls/
3) My theory: A stake President of mine used to frequently state that our church is a church of primarily women and children. While it may not look like this in Utah, when you go out of this small geographical area, the church has a growing problem with having sufficient males who hold the priesthood. There was a reason 11 year old boys now can receive the priesthood, and why the HP and EQ were combined, and why the YM program was revamped. A growing decline in priesthood makes contributed to these changes.  Fast forward 30 years, and there will not be enough males to run the branches, wards, stakes and districts. Women will be called to the priesthood to fill these gaps.

4) there is no doctrinal reason for women not holding the priesthood.

[AtlanticMike]

2 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I agree in 20-30 years women will hold the priesthood.  Why? Because they are already using the priesthood. Examples:

1) Blessings of healing: the Bible and BoM are quite clear that any person can have the gift of healing. The MP is not required to heal someone. It is a gift from God.

2) Ordinances- while this is currently nearly exclusive for Ordained priesthood holders, women are also currently exercising the priesthood to perform ordinances in the temple including initiatory blessings as well as the sacred second anointing only available to few people. In addition, in some church locations, women and young women are passing the sacrament.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/10/03/whats-this-mormon-girls/
3) My theory: A stake President of mine used to frequently state that our church is a church of primarily women and children. While it may not look like this in Utah, when you go out of this small geographical area, the church has a growing problem with having sufficient males who hold the priesthood. There was a reason 11 year old boys now can receive the priesthood, and why the HP and EQ were combined, and why the YM program was revamped. A growing decline in priesthood makes contributed to these changes.  Fast forward 30 years, and there will not be enough males to run the branches, wards, stakes and districts. Women will be called to the priesthood to fill these gaps.

4) there is no doctrinal reason for women not holding the priesthood.

Great post, very informative. Can you tell me where young women are passing the sacrament, I'd like to learn more about that?

[AtlanticMike]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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?

Sorry, smac97  had my fingers doing double time yesterday, I'm typing this from a phone. I'll look at it in a few minutes, have a nail gun in one hand right.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

 

1) Blessings of healing: the Bible and BoM are quite clear that any person can have the gift of healing. The MP is not required to heal someone. It is a gift from God.

Except scripture specified we are to call for the Elders when sick.  So yes, MP.

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I agree in 20-30 years women will hold the priesthood.  Why? Because they are already using the priesthood. Examples:

1) Blessings of healing: the Bible and BoM are quite clear that any person can have the gift of healing. The MP is not required to heal someone. It is a gift from God.

2) Ordinances- while this is currently nearly exclusive for Ordained priesthood holders, women are also currently exercising the priesthood to perform ordinances in the temple including initiatory blessings as well as the sacred second anointing only available to few people. In addition, in some church locations, women and young women are passing the sacrament.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/10/03/whats-this-mormon-girls/
3) My theory: A stake President of mine used to frequently state that our church is a church of primarily women and children. While it may not look like this in Utah, when you go out of this small geographical area, the church has a growing problem with having sufficient males who hold the priesthood. There was a reason 11 year old boys now can receive the priesthood, and why the HP and EQ were combined, and why the YM program was revamped. A growing decline in priesthood makes contributed to these changes.  Fast forward 30 years, and there will not be enough males to run the branches, wards, stakes and districts. Women will be called to the priesthood to fill these gaps.

4) there is no doctrinal reason for women not holding the priesthood.

Semantics again.  Women hold and receive the priesthood.  What they don't do, currently, is get ordained to an office in the priesthood.  And the reason they don't get ordained to any office in the priesthood is because no man is authorized by our Lord to ordain a woman to an office in the priesthood.  

To change that, all it would take would be for a man to ordain a woman to an office in the priesthood, with the President of the Church saying that was okay.  And the reason approval from the President of the Church would be required is because he is the presiding high priest over all of the Church (and world) and as such he is the only man who has authority from our Lord to utilize all of the keys of the kingdom of heaven that our Lord has given to him/authorized him to use.

Edited January 28, 2021 by Ahab

[2BizE]

20 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Great post, very informative. Can you tell me where young women are passing the sacrament, I'd like to learn more about that?

I included a link to an article about the young women passing the sacrament. It says in Hyde Park ward in Chicago but also mentions being done in Utah County.

Here is another article on the expanding role of women, who are basically running the congregation, performing traditional male roles like collecting and receiving tithing and fast offerings, etc. all because of the absence of men.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/12/24/mormon-congregations-in-hong-kong-unlike-any-others-theyre-virtually-all-women-and-they-dont-just-hold-services-on-sundays/

 

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Interesting statement.

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

Let me tell you what happened the first time I went through an endowment after the changes of 1990. I was very disappointed and feeling let down over the changes, which were obviously not so much changes as outright eliminations of major portions of the sacred, ancient ritual.

The reason why I was so deflated is because the deeper meaning behind the excluded portions were revealed to me by personal revelation after much prayer and diligent study. I was also terribly saddened for those who had never gone through the endowment before because it was plain to see that critically important keys needed to enable them to understand why and how the endowment unfolds as it does, and what the symbols mean on a deeper level, were now eliminated, making the whole ritual and the meaning of the clothing extremely difficult to understand.

I was in deep shock while preparing to leave the temple that day and decided I would go downstairs and talk to the temple president, if at all possible.  After waiting for about 15 minutes the President invited me into his office and then, in a respectful but heartfelt manner, I “unloaded” on him for about 5 minutes while he listened intently. After I finished, he expressed that he was somewhat in a state of shock because I was the ONLY ONE of literally HUNDREDS of members who wasn’t relieved and positively delighted with the changes. He continued saying he had feedback that this sentiment of universal elation was common throughout the Church. I was dumbfounded and asked, ‘why in the world would the members be happy that some of the most critically important and profoundly enlightening portions of the holy endowment were eliminate?’ I also asked, ‘aren’t we supposed to be looking for further light and knowledge, not less?’ The president’s response was that he would make my feelings known to the brethren to whom he reports.

Not long after that memorable day, I received an answer to prayer as to why the eliminations and changes to the endowment were made, and was told it was because the inability to grasp the deeper meaning of the eliminated  and changed portions were creating a situation of diminishing returns, a condition where more harm was being done than good,  I also realize all  the other changes that have been made since then were made for the same reason.

When deeper spiritual knowledge is unable to be received because of unpreparedness and/or indoctrination caused by the receipt of false knowledge and wisdom from the secular world, God withdraws those things as an act of mercy to those who have been innocently mislead. Deep spiritual knowledge can be very destructive when given to those who are not prepared to receive it. 

Edited January 28, 2021 by teddyaware

[smac97]

1 hour 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.

Understood!

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

      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. 

Okay.  That seems to be the vibe I was getting, but I'll defer to you on that point.  I stand corrected, and I apologize.

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

    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. 

I believe the Church has a unique and profoundly significant and preeminent role to play in the winding up scene.  We hold the priesthood.  We are the Lord's Church. 

I've not given much thought to "ushering in" the Second Coming.  I think the Lord's plans are well under way, and that He will work through us as He sees fit.  Meanwhile, our job is to prepare ourselves as best we can, which we accomplish by following the counsel of the Brethren.  

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

    Next, let's talk about church money and the last days because it seems what I said really bothered you.

I was more "confused" than "bothered."

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

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 concept of smaller temples substantially altered the Church's approach to building temples.  

The temples are often smaller, and hence took less time and expense to build.  They can also be built much more frequently than before.  They can also be built in areas that, in the past, did not have membership numbers sufficient to keep a temple in operation.  

Also, the Church presently has the funds for the construction of temples, whereas we may have leaner days ahead (financial constraints often hindered the construction of temples in the earlier days of the Church).

In any event, you were not speaking of the Church spending money on temples, but on infrastructure for a mass return to Missouri.  That was confusing to me.  

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

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)

Yes.  Bleak times at the end.  I acknowledge that.

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

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!

I still don't understand.  What is this "sitting on a couch" stuff?  What is it that you think the Church should be doing that we are not now doing?  I have asked this several times, and you have not answered.

"Sitting on a couch" sure sounds like a derogatory insult to the Church, given all that it and its members are presently doing.  My parents have completed two 2-year missions (and my dad served another when he as 19).  I have family members who served missions in Argentina, Samoa, Texas, Zimbabwe, Brasil, the Philippines, Venezuela, Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Romania, Vanuatu, the MTC, and more.  My parents and siblings and in-laws have served and are serving in various callings in the Church.  We have done a lot of family history work, and a performed a lot of temple ordinances.   My siblings and siblings-in-law have married and had kids and are raising them as best they can (my kids have about 45 cousins on both sides).  

And none of this is unique to my family.  There are millions of members of the Church who are moving the Work forward in similar ways, as their circumstances allow.  And yet you ignore all that and say we are "sitting on a couch?"  And you also refuse to say what it is you think we should be doing that we are presently not doing.  That just seems . . . odd to me.

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

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.

Sure, I see it.  

But at present, what is it that you think the Church and its members should be doing that we are not doing already?

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

     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.

Okay.

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

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😁.      

I'm trying to understand.  But maybe it's best to just move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Let me tell you what happened the first time I went through an endowment after the changes of 1990. I was very disappointed and feeling let down over the changes, which were obviously not so much changes as outright eliminations of major portions of the sacred, ancient ritual.

The reason why I was so deflated is because the deeper meaning behind the excluded portions were revealed to me by personal revelation after much prayer and diligent study. I was also terribly saddened for those who had never gone through the endowment before because it was plain to see critically important keys needed to enable them to understand why and how the endowment unfolds as it does, and what the symbols mean on a deeper level, were now eliminated, making the whole ritual and included the meaning of the clothing extremely difficult to understand.

I was in deep shock while preparing to leave the temple that day and decided I would go downstairs and talk to the temple president, if at all possible.  After waiting for about 15 minutes the President invited me into his office and then, in a respectful but heartfelt manner I “unloaded” on him for about 5 minutes while he listened intently. After I finished, he expressed that he was somewhat in a state of shock because I was the ONLY ONE of literally HUNDREDS of members who wasn’t relieved and positively delighted with the changes. He continued saying he had feedback that this sentiment of universal elation was common throughout the Church. I was dumbfounded and asked, ‘why in the world would the members be happy that some of the most critically important and profoundly enlightening portions of the holy endowment were eliminate?’ I also asked, ‘aren’t we supposed to be looking for further light and knowledge, not less?’ The presidents response was that he would make my feelings known to the brethren to whom he reports.

Not long after that memorable day, I received an answer to prayer as to why the eliminations and changes to the endowment were made, and was told it was because the inability to grasp the deeper meaning of the eliminated  and changed portions were creating a situation of diminishing returns, a condition where more harm was being done than good,  I also realize all  the other changes that have been made since then were made for the same reason.

When deeper spiritual knowledge is unable to be received because of unpreparedness and/or indoctrination caused by the receipt of false knowledge and wisdom from the secular world, God withdraws those things as an act of mercy to those who have been innocently mislead. Deep spiritual knowledge can be very destructive when given to those who are not prepared to receive it. 

You may have a point here. But who's fault would it be if individuals are unprepared to receive what is being given? The individual who is blindsided by a very non-mormon like ritual with very violent overtones, or the church that didn't prepare that individual and thus blindsided them? And if people didn't adequately understand the symbolism, why is that?  I think the church's current approach of greater transparency is a benefit to the church and the people and specifically those going to the temple. If it had been as transparent in 1990 (and before) much of the confusion and angst could have been dealt with in a positive way instead of cutting stuff out people had not been prepared for. Is it possible that the 1990 changes (and perhaps others) reflect a failure of the church more than a failure of the individuals?

 

[AtlanticMike]

On 1/27/2021 at 1:41 PM, CV75 said:

No matter how many or few we may number the doctrines and policies we are obliged to sustain for membership, what do you offer as some examples of the role of divine revelation in either – i.e., not ordaining women now, or having lifting the ban on Blacks in 1978? I know I keep asking this…

I’m sure you have seen where others have made the case that ordaining women does indeed have historical precedent, and as you have pointed out, currently enjoys social precedence. You mentioned Heavenly Mother as a justification for female ordination – do you take that idea to be doctrine or policy, revelation or cultural / folk belief?

You refer to the Church’s money and movement as key to her expanding influence over a weakened Christianity, but what can you say about her divine revelations (the question I keep asking -- when you answer it, you’ll get a big THANK YOU!)?

Nice talkin to ya again CV75. First, let me just say, alot of what I post is just my opinion. I dont post alot scripture verses because I dont like reading the scriptures. I do read my scriptures at church, or if I'm filling in for a teacher, but not outside of church. But I've read or listened to every general conference talk on the church website, some 3 or 4 times. I also listen to the brethren on foreign speaking church websites, that's the best because most of the time they're off teleprompter and you really see who they are. Alot of the time they're with their wife so you get to hear her perspective also. So why am I telling you this? Just so you know most of my post won't be backed up like smac97 post. I love his post though, I learned alot yesterday, and one day I will learn how to break down post, just cant right now.

      So I'm very conservative,  and most people would think a conservative would be on the side of not giving women the priesthood. But I'm also a realist, and thats what I'm using to form my opinion. Utimately women will receive the priesthood because society will demand it. Now, I know what I just said is very very controversial, but let me explain. The brethren cant give women the priesthood right now because it's just to divisive of a time. Once it calms down, I think women will receive the priesthood and it will come through revelation. Personally,  I think the main problem is how most people envision what a revelation is. I think very few revelations come from and actual face to face with the lord. I think a lot of revelations are worked out over time. Plus, before everyone gets mad because I said society will demand it, how do you know God didn't plan it that way. You dont.

     As far as my view on Heavenly Mother. When I pray, I see Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, been like that since I was a kid. I could never see leaving her out of the picture.  So I personally think in the last days women will use the priesthood to help fight against evil. I've always felt that. And now going through a faith crisis I feel even stronger that will happen. I cant explain because it has to do with the temple, but I watched something through my research that made me realize women will one day receive the priesthood. And actually,  I think there's a handful of women on earth today that already have it. 

 My view on the churches wealth is that one day it will be used to bring together all believing Christians and maybe even other faiths and some atheists possibly, and be used to push back the rising tide of evil. I think the brethren are set up perfectly to be leaders for the movement, just as the lord wants it to be. And if you think about, they already are. The prophet isnt the prophet of Mormons, hes the prophet of all Gods children, just like a bishop isnt the bishop of a few hundred people, hes the bishop of everyone in his Geographical area. The year, maybe months before the second coming is going to be days like we've never seen I suspect, that's when we as latter day Saints will understand why we are here and called Latter Day Saints.

    Sorry for all the opinions, but like I said, my testimony is built mainly on the love of people, watching and learning how they act, seeing their divine possibilities even if they dont. Ive used what Mormonism has taught me to put a smile on many a frowning face. I think our positivity is part of our glory and a divine influence. I hope I answered your questions. 

[AtlanticMike]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Understood!

Okay.  That seems to be the vibe I was getting, but I'll defer to you on that point.  I stand corrected, and I apologize.

I believe the Church has a unique and profoundly significant and preeminent role to play in the winding up scene.  We hold the priesthood.  We are the Lord's Church. 

I've not given much thought to "ushering in" the Second Coming.  I think the Lord's plans are well under way, and that He will work through us as He sees fit.  Meanwhile, our job is to prepare ourselves as best we can, which we accomplish by following the counsel of the Brethren.  

I was more "confused" than "bothered."

The concept of smaller temples substantially altered the Church's approach to building temples.  

The temples are often smaller, and hence took less time and expense to build.  They can also be built much more frequently than before.  They can also be built in areas that, in the past, did not have membership numbers sufficient to keep a temple in operation.  

Also, the Church presently has the funds for the construction of temples, whereas we may have leaner days ahead (financial constraints often hindered the construction of temples in the earlier days of the Church).

In any event, you were not speaking of the Church spending money on temples, but on infrastructure for a mass return to Missouri.  That was confusing to me.  

Yes.  Bleak times at the end.  I acknowledge that.

I still don't understand.  What is this "sitting on a couch" stuff?  What is it that you think the Church should be doing that we are not now doing?  I have asked this several times, and you have not answered.

"Sitting on a couch" sure sounds like a derogatory insult to the Church, given all that it and its members are presently doing.  My parents have completed two 2-year missions (and my dad served another when he as 19).  I have family members who served missions in Argentina, Samoa, Texas, Zimbabwe, Brasil, the Philippines, Venezuela, Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Romania, Vanuatu, the MTC, and more.  My parents and siblings and in-laws have served and are serving in various callings in the Church.  We have done a lot of family history work, and a performed a lot of temple ordinances.   My siblings and siblings-in-law have married and had kids and are raising them as best they can (my kids have about 45 cousins on both sides).  

And none of this is unique to my family.  There are millions of members of the Church who are moving the Work forward in similar ways, as their circumstances allow.  And yet you ignore all that and say we are "sitting on a couch?"  And you also refuse to say what it is you think we should be doing that we are presently not doing.  That just seems . . . odd to me.

Sure, I see it.  

But at present, what is it that you think the Church and its members should be doing that we are not doing already?

Okay.

I'm trying to understand.  But maybe it's best to just move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Dude!!! You will never understand how I think completely 🤣🤣 but honestly I think we made great progress,  this last post was great, I'm pumped! Let's quit now, my roofing calluses on my hands now have typing calluses, jeez🤣

[JLHPROF]

37 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Let me tell you what happened the first time I went through an endowment after the changes of 1990. I was very disappointed and feeling let down over the changes, which were obviously not so much changes as outright eliminations of major portions of the sacred, ancient ritual.

The reason why I was so deflated is because the deeper meaning behind the excluded portions were revealed to me by personal revelation after much prayer and diligent study. I was also terribly saddened for those who had never gone through the endowment before because it was plain to see that critically important keys needed to enable them to understand why and how the endowment unfolds as it does, and what the symbols mean on a deeper level, were now eliminated, making the whole ritual and the meaning of the clothing extremely difficult to understand.

I was in deep shock while preparing to leave the temple that day and decided I would go downstairs and talk to the temple president, if at all possible.  After waiting for about 15 minutes the President invited me into his office and then, in a respectful but heartfelt manner, I “unloaded” on him for about 5 minutes while he listened intently. After I finished, he expressed that he was somewhat in a state of shock because I was the ONLY ONE of literally HUNDREDS of members who wasn’t relieved and positively delighted with the changes. He continued saying he had feedback that this sentiment of universal elation was common throughout the Church. I was dumbfounded and asked, ‘why in the world would the members be happy that some of the most critically important and profoundly enlightening portions of the holy endowment were eliminate?’ I also asked, ‘aren’t we supposed to be looking for further light and knowledge, not less?’ The president’s response was that he would make my feelings known to the brethren to whom he reports.

Not long after that memorable day, I received an answer to prayer as to why the eliminations and changes to the endowment were made, and was told it was because the inability to grasp the deeper meaning of the eliminated  and changed portions were creating a situation of diminishing returns, a condition where more harm was being done than good,  I also realize all  the other changes that have been made since then were made for the same reason.

When deeper spiritual knowledge is unable to be received because of unpreparedness and/or indoctrination caused by the receipt of false knowledge and wisdom from the secular world, God withdraws those things as an act of mercy to those who have been innocently mislead. Deep spiritual knowledge can be very destructive when given to those who are not prepared to receive it. 

Very true.
I can't help thinking when Moses smashed the higher law on the mount and went back up and received the lesser law did the Children of Israel know anything was lost to them?  Were they even aware that they had less power, less of the fulness of the gospel, less authority?  As we see in Christ's day the Law of Moses became the basis of the entire culture.  Sometimes I wonder about the changes to the culture of the Church since the early days.  Do we even realize the things you have expressed?

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Very true.
I can't help thinking when Moses smashed the higher law on the mount and went back up and received the lesser law did the Children of Israel know anything was lost to them?  Were they even aware that they had less power, less of the fulness of the gospel, less authority?  As we see in Christ's day the Law of Moses became the basis of the entire culture.  Sometimes I wonder about the changes to the culture of the Church since the early days.  Do we even realize the things you have expressed?

It is very common for some members of the Church to receive revelations from God that other members haven't received yet.  Just as common I think for some members of the Church to read some books that other members of the Church haven't read yet.

Were you not aware of this before I just told you?  Would you like me to tell you some other things you may not have thought about yet?

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Let me tell you what happened the first time I went through an endowment after the changes of 1990. I was very disappointed and feeling let down over the changes, which were obviously not so much changes as outright eliminations of major portions of the sacred, ancient ritual.

The reason why I was so deflated is because the deeper meaning behind the excluded portions were revealed to me by personal revelation after much prayer and diligent study. I was also terribly saddened for those who had never gone through the endowment before because it was plain to see that critically important keys needed to enable them to understand why and how the endowment unfolds as it does, and what the symbols mean on a deeper level, were now eliminated, making the whole ritual and the meaning of the clothing extremely difficult to understand.

I was in deep shock while preparing to leave the temple that day and decided I would go downstairs and talk to the temple president, if at all possible.  After waiting for about 15 minutes the President invited me into his office and then, in a respectful but heartfelt manner, I “unloaded” on him for about 5 minutes while he listened intently. After I finished, he expressed that he was somewhat in a state of shock because I was the ONLY ONE of literally HUNDREDS of members who wasn’t relieved and positively delighted with the changes. He continued saying he had feedback that this sentiment of universal elation was common throughout the Church. I was dumbfounded and asked, ‘why in the world would the members be happy that some of the most critically important and profoundly enlightening portions of the holy endowment were eliminate?’ I also asked, ‘aren’t we supposed to be looking for further light and knowledge, not less?’ The president’s response was that he would make my feelings known to the brethren to whom he reports.

Not long after that memorable day, I received an answer to prayer as to why the eliminations and changes to the endowment were made, and was told it was because the inability to grasp the deeper meaning of the eliminated  and changed portions were creating a situation of diminishing returns, a condition where more harm was being done than good,  I also realize all  the other changes that have been made since then were made for the same reason.

When deeper spiritual knowledge is unable to be received because of unpreparedness and/or indoctrination caused by the receipt of false knowledge and wisdom from the secular world, God withdraws those things as an act of mercy to those who have been innocently mislead. Deep spiritual knowledge can be very destructive when given to those who are not prepared to receive it. 

Get used to it.  And realize it is just going to be a common thing in your life probably for the rest of your life.  We don't all learn at the same rate, and even when people are told something that doesn't mean they will all remember what they are told.

So if you're going to go on learning some things that other people haven't learne yet just get used to the fact that you will learn some things before other people learn those things.  It's not necessarily anything to be sad or frustrated about.

We do not all learn everything at the same rate.

[bluebell]

4 hours 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.

It does seem like that is what they are saying.  JLH, Rongo, and everyone else that was pre 1990 got to go into the building, but we just get to look in the windows.  

[carbon dioxide]

On 1/26/2021 at 7:58 AM, AtlanticMike said:

So I've studied more about church history in the past 6 weeks, then my entire life. I'm, shocked at the changes, but in a good way. I never knew a woman had never prayed at a general conference till 2013 and tell you the truth, I cant believe how naive I've been. Also, I've researched the Community of Christ and it seems to me we're usually  30 or so years behind them when it comes to fundamental changes in either our policies or doctrine. In their version of Mormonism,  women received the priesthood in 1998. Personally, I believe in the next 30 years women will receive the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Any thoughts?

God can give the priesthood to dogs and cats if he wants to.   I could accept any revelation on that subject as long as it comes through the proper channels and right way.  God is not going to inspire outside organizations like Ordain Women to agitate general authorities to make changes.   God's house is on of order and not confusion or contention.   Plus one can just imagine how many other outside groups would start petitioning the Church on their own pet causes if the Church was to initiate change from outside groups.   Personally I don't think it will happen but it is a billion times more likely than those that claim the church will accept gay marriage. 

[carbon dioxide]

On 1/26/2021 at 8:30 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Since we're doing women and priesthood, let's do same-sex sealings in the temple too!

I'm about 6-7 years into a 30 year bet with an Atheist buddy.  He figures the church, like any business, absolutely has to keep growing.  And since same-sex marriage gained majority acceptance in the US and we're currently on the shrinking minority, the church is forced to change one of it's core doctrines and practices, or it'll start to shrink, and that's intolerable.    I figure God has made it pretty clear about the eternal and unchangeable nature of marriage, which consists of a man and a woman, and won't be changing, even if it means our membership shrinks in a world that believes differently.

At the end of 30 years, loser of the bet has to put on a pink tutu and sing "I'm a little teapot"

Tell your friend if the church was really concerned about growth, it would end the word of wisdom requirements.  Just make it counsel or a suggestion like it was originally given.  Getting rid of the WOW restrictions affects far more potential converts than gay issues. Unless your friend believes over time the population is become majority gay, the majority of people will not care as gay marriage issues do not affect them personally.  Plus most converts to the church come outside of the US where gay marriage is still not looked on too fondly.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

God can give the priesthood to dogs and cats if he wants to. . 

No, actually he couldn't.

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It does seem like that is what they are saying.  JLH, Rongo, and everyone else that was pre 1990 got to go into the building, but we just get to look in the windows.  

Actually I was post 1990, but I also have studied the endowment extensively.  I know what I missed out on.  I know what Joseph restored and was later removed. I know it's purpose and design. And it saddens me more than any other change.

To have the greatest possible blessings withheld by policy.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 hours ago, rchorse said:

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!"

People whose gaze is turned backwards pine for the past. This can be an OK thing when the present is a period of apostasy (though such people are apt to miss the future the Lord has planned unless they eventually turn around; cf most of the Jews in Jesus's day). It's a deadly thing when the present is a period of restoration.

Quote

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.

I am a temple officiator. After my first time time officiating subsequent to recent changes, I was asked by a temple leader what my thoughts were. My honest reaction: 'It's the endowment'. I'm happy for the Lord to shift the way He speaks to His sheep as needs and contexts change. That's one of the central benefits of a living God. For me, the experience was exactly the same -- and that includes the revelation that flowed throughout.

And as I have mentioned on this forum too many times now, we were warned by Elder Bednar in a priesthood leadership meeting about six or seven years ago that the Lord, having finally finished laying the foundation of the Restoration, was preparing the Church to finally build the structure that that foundation was designed to support. Everything but doctrine, he said, was going to change, and those most wedded to Church culture (he specifically identified American Saints) more than to the doctrine are really going to struggle, and some of them will fall away.

Edited January 29, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[rongo]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Except scripture specified we are to call for the Elders when sick.  So yes, MP.

And, there is not, to my knowledge, a single reference to women invoking the priesthood when healing. It has always been the prayer of faith --- which anyone can do.

Even Eliza Snow's efficacious healing of people with cholera (in my family history, and in books) was pointedly (in her words) done through faith and not with the priesthood. Again, I am not aware of a single instance where a woman claimed to be performing healings with the priesthood.

And I'll say it again: I don't understand mention of women performing very limited priesthood functions in the temple, only with other women, as somehow Exhibit A that women should be able to perform priesthood ordinances outside the temple. This has only ever been strictly limited to a specific time and place, and only with other women.  

[rongo]

6 hours ago, 2BizE said:

3) My theory: A stake President of mine used to frequently state that our church is a church of primarily women and children. While it may not look like this in Utah, when you go out of this small geographical area, the church has a growing problem with having sufficient males who hold the priesthood. There was a reason 11 year old boys now can receive the priesthood, and why the HP and EQ were combined, and why the YM program was revamped. A growing decline in priesthood makes contributed to these changes.  Fast forward 30 years, and there will not be enough males to run the branches, wards, stakes and districts. Women will be called to the priesthood to fill these gaps.

What you say is true as far as gender disparity in the small branches abroad (and even increasingly in North America, although not to the same extent), but I think that the Church's own strong consolidation actions head this off. Small branches in outlying areas have been and are being largely consolidated into "centers of strength" in population centers, which isn't good for spreading and growing the Church, but is good for consolidation of priesthood and "critical mass" of active members. I, personally, would like us to venture out and try blowing on some coals in the branches, but the consolidation of branches over the last 20 years has been breathtaking. 

Our landlord and her husband lived in her native Malaysia when we were housesitting for them, and the problem there is as stark as in Hong Kong. Almost all of the men have had to be disciplined because of a larger culture of rampant adultery in Malaysian society (according to her. This included her ex-husband and many branch presidents). The priesthood consists of missionaries, especially the husband in missionary couples. She was immediately called as a Relief Society president, and carried a heavy share of the burden of running the branch (her husband was very welcome and needed as a high priest), but even in those circumstances, resorting to ordaining women wasn't necessary. I don't think conditions in the branches themselves will drive the change, if it happens. It will be solely due to social pressure and leader preference, in my opinion.  As I've said before, and as others in this thread have anecdotally agreed with, the desire for women ordination in the Church is actually very small, numerically. Whether or not circumstances will dictate that it becomes influential remains to be seen, but I don't think it will --- in part, because of the large number of men and women who would be upset by it, and for the problems it would cause (cognitive dissonance, explanations or lack thereof for the past, etc.). 

Edited January 29, 2021 by rongo

[mfbukowski]

7 hours 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.

Well I have been a temple worker for 16 years if you want to count 2020, but we have been closed since March 2020 of course.  Have not been back, we are still closed. I was endowed in 1979, so know all the changes from then on and have pretty much memorized them all.

You are probably speaking of the second covenant taken on, especially as it applies to sisters, but I see that as only a re-wording.

I have have heard that there may be some changes in presenation of ordinances necessitating physical contact, but have not experienced that for myself.

I can't wait to get back!