Women recieving the priesthood

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Also, the quote you shared is nothing new. Not even remotely. My patriarchal blessing is filled with similar language. I was always told as a youth that my generation would be the generation that ushers in the second coming. It could still happen I suppose, but my father's generation was told the same thing. So was my grandfather's.  So listening to that as some kind of dog whistle that the Second Coming is right around the corner really doesn't mean much to me. You may say that I don't have ears to hear, but I did for many decades. Every generation seems to think they are the special and elect generation that will usher in the 2nd coming but it hasn't happened yet, which makes Pres. Nelson's words simply a repeat of past teachings that have yet to be realized.  

My children's patriarchal blessings discuss their grandchildren in quite a bit of detail, and I trust them, so I don't think the 2nd Coming is "imminent."  

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Besides, doesn't the scripture say that "no man will know" the time of His coming?

Jesus said it in New Testament times, and at the time, He said that not even He or the angels knew. I don't think that's true right now, though. I think post-Resurrection He knew more than He did while still in mortality --- more so after 2000 years (our time) and everything He's been involved in. 

While I also don't think that the prophets have yet been told the specific time of His coming, don't you think that when that time comes they will be told? i.e., when it really is right at the door? Surely the Lord will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret to the prophets . . . 

[rongo]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I have to disagree with Elder Oaks on this one.
Even if a prophet is being led by revelation it's no indication that policies enacted came as a result.  I guarantee God lets them make administrative decisions without revelation in all things.
You have 15 wise experienced Apostles consulting on policies and making the best decisions they can.  Sometimes God intervenes, sometimes they do the best they can.

So yes, there's a distinction.

I think both of you are right.  

There are policies, and there are Policies (policies that are much more fundamental, doctrinally). I think the policies regarding polygamy and the priesthood ban are much different in type an scope than, say, policies regarding scheduling the building. These policies had doctrinal foundations behind them, and they directly affected the lives (pre-mortal, mortal, and post-mortal) of members. That's why discontinuing or "disavowing" them is much different (and much messier) than changing mundane, day-to-day policies. 

So, you are correct that policies are not doctrine, but I think Elder Oaks was/is also correct that "in a church that believes in continuing revelation and sustains its leader as a prophet," cavalierly chalking up doctrinal policies as "just policies" is problematic. 

[rongo]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yeah, it's messy.  Life is like that. It was hugely messy back when JS was alive and I don't see any reason to assume it should be less messy with us. 

Strongly agree. 

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't understand the angst of the "some policies are just policies and some policies are doctrine and some policies are revelation" concept.  What does it really matter (sincere question)? 

Is it only a problem when we are trying to justify why we don't have to follow this policy or believe in this doctrine or agree with this revelation?  

I think that's almost always the case. It becomes an issue when there is disagreement with a policy or the doctrinal reasons given for the policy (or both). Or when one disagrees with the "disavowal" of the same.  Or the elimination of a policy that one feels should have remained. 

>>>If we remove that need/desire from the equation, does it really matter what is what or for how long it is taught? <<<

Sorry --- it wouldn't let me multi-quote you. Just when I thought I had figured out how to, too.  

I think it matters when one has a concern over a) whether something really is God's will or not (i.e., whether it was God's actual will, or just administrative prerogative but short of God's will). The extent of a person's concern drives the extent to which it matters (everyone is different on this and has to hammer that out for oneself). 

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not every revelation has man's fingerprints.  There are those that are open to interpretation and those that are direct communication that don't rely on interpretation anymore than a face to face conversation.  (Even if face to face communication still can lead to misinterpretation.)

Yeah that's the problem.

The prophet may be "face to face" but we are not.

Words cannot replace spiritual testimony.

That's my face to face experience.

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I have to disagree with Elder Oaks on this one.
Even if a prophet is being led by revelation it's no indication that policies enacted came as a result.  I guarantee God lets them make administrative decisions without revelation in all things.
You have 15 wise experienced Apostles consulting on policies and making the best decisions they can.  Sometimes God intervenes, sometimes they do the best they can.

So yes, there's a distinction.

That's MY point above!

[HappyJackWagon]

36 minutes ago, rongo said:

My children's patriarchal blessings discuss their grandchildren in quite a bit of detail, and I trust them, so I don't think the 2nd Coming is "imminent."  

Jesus said it in New Testament times, and at the time, He said that not even He or the angels knew. I don't think that's true right now, though. I think post-Resurrection He knew more than He did while still in mortality --- more so after 2000 years (our time) and everything He's been involved in. 

While I also don't think that the prophets have yet been told the specific time of His coming, don't you think that when that time comes they will be told? i.e., when it really is right at the door? Surely the Lord will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret to the prophets . . . 

Even if God WILL tell a prophet before the 2nd coming (eg- all the Adam ondi Ahman events) prophets haven't really proven themselves to be reliable in making such claims. Faithful people have had the ears to hear for many generations, yet have been disappointed when what they hear doesn't come to pass.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Also, the quote you shared is nothing new. Not even remotely. My patriarchal blessing is filled with similar language. I was always told as a youth that my generation would be the generation that ushers in the second coming. It could still happen I suppose, but my father's generation was told the same thing. So was my grandfather's.  So listening to that as some kind of dog whistle that the Second Coming is right around the corner really doesn't mean much to me. You may say that I don't have ears to hear, but I did for many decades. Every generation seems to think they are the special and elect generation that will usher in the 2nd coming but it hasn't happened yet, which makes Pres. Nelson's words simply a repeat of past teachings that have yet to be realized. Time will tell if Nelson is right. But let's be honest, the brethren don't really have a great track record in anticipating the 2nd coming. Besides, doesn't the scripture say that "no man will know" the time of His coming?

 

47 minutes ago, rongo said:

My children's patriarchal blessings discuss their grandchildren in quite a bit of detail, and I trust them, so I don't think the 2nd Coming is "imminent."  

Jesus said it in New Testament times, and at the time, He said that not even He or the angels knew. I don't think that's true right now, though. I think post-Resurrection He knew more than He did while still in mortality --- more so after 2000 years (our time) and everything He's been involved in. 

While I also don't think that the prophets have yet been told the specific time of His coming, don't you think that when that time comes they will be told? i.e., when it really is right at the door? Surely the Lord will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret to the prophets . . . 

Joseph Smith agreed with you Rongo.

"Christ says no man knoweth the day or the hour when the Son of Man cometh (Matt 24:36). …Did Christ speak this as a general principle throughout all generations? Oh no, he spoke in the present tense. No man that was then living upon the footstool of God knew the day or the hour. But he did not say that there was no man throughout all generations that should not know the day or the hour. No for this would be in flat contradiction with other scripture for the prophet (Amos 3:7) says that God will do nothing but what he will reveal unto his Servants the prophets." 

[Rain]

36 minutes ago, rongo said:

Strongly agree. 

I think that's almost always the case. It becomes an issue when there is disagreement with a policy or the doctrinal reasons given for the policy (or both). Or when one disagrees with the "disavowal" of the same.  Or the elimination of a policy that one feels should have remained. 

>>>If we remove that need/desire from the equation, does it really matter what is what or for how long it is taught? <<<

Sorry --- it wouldn't let me multi-quote you. Just when I thought I had figured out how to, too.  

I think it matters when one has a concern over a) whether something really is God's will or not (i.e., whether it was God's actual will, or just administrative prerogative but short of God's will). The extent of a person's concern drives the extent to which it matters (everyone is different on this and has to hammer that out for oneself). 

I don't know if you are on phone or computer so this may not help.

I have discovered on my phone that it won't let me break the quote if I am right next to a line of text.  So I usually press enter 3 times and go to the middle line of blank lines. 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

 I think it matters when one has a concern over a) whether something really is God's will or not (i.e., whether it was God's actual will, or just administrative prerogative but short of God's will). The extent of a person's concern drives the extent to which it matters (everyone is different on this and has to hammer that out for oneself). 

I think my question is less "what does it matter" to the person and more "what does it matter" in the grand scheme of things.  I bothered/annoyed by all sorts of stuff in all genres of issues or actions, but a lot of the time I know that it really doesn't matter in the big picture.  I just have to get over it (which isn't always easy at all) and move on.

If the 2015 policy wasn't actually revelation like Pres. Nelson said and that's why it was changed, what does that matter in the grand scheme of things?  What is at stake if we go on believing it was revelation?

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think my question is less "what does it matter" to the person and more "what does it matter" in the grand scheme of things.  I bothered/annoyed by all sorts of stuff in all genres of issues or actions, but a lot of the time I know that it really doesn't matter in the big picture.  I just have to get over it (which isn't always easy at all) and move on.

If the 2015 policy wasn't actually revelation like Pres. Nelson said and that's why it was changed, what does that matter in the grand scheme of things?  What is at stake if we go on believing it was revelation?

What's at stake is the credibility of prophets claiming revelation.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

My children's patriarchal blessings discuss their grandchildren in quite a bit of detail, and I trust them, so I don't think the 2nd Coming is "imminent."  

Jesus said it in New Testament times, and at the time, He said that not even He or the angels knew. I don't think that's true right now, though. I think post-Resurrection He knew more than He did while still in mortality --- more so after 2000 years (our time) and everything He's been involved in. 

While I also don't think that the prophets have yet been told the specific time of His coming, don't you think that when that time comes they will be told? i.e., when it really is right at the door? Surely the Lord will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret to the prophets . . . 

If the earth is millions of years old, and if the Fall happened thousands of years ago, then what is imminent is really relative.  With a history like that, something happening in the next 1000 years would probably seem 'soon'.  With such short lifespans, we mortals are not good at comprehending the timing of things measured in millennia.    

I'm reminded of when I told my 3 year old that we were going to grandma's and grandpa's in a couple of weeks.  That was soon to me (it had been planned for months).  It was not soon to him. "Soon" was what was happening after lunch.  It was a looooong 14 days for that little guy.  

Edited January 28, 2021 by bluebell

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What's at stake is the credibility of prophets claiming revelation.

Is a fallible prophet less of a prophet though?  Does God excuse us from following him if he gets something wrong?

Edited January 28, 2021 by bluebell

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think my question is less "what does it matter" to the person and more "what does it matter" in the grand scheme of things.  I bothered/annoyed by all sorts of stuff in all genres of issues or actions, but a lot of the time I know that it really doesn't matter in the big picture.  I just have to get over it (which isn't always easy at all) and move on.

If the 2015 policy wasn't actually revelation like Pres. Nelson said and that's why it was changed, what does that matter in the grand scheme of things?  What is at stake if we go on believing it was revelation?

 

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What's at stake is the credibility of prophets claiming revelation.

I don't believe anything's revelation until I have a revelation to study and pray about.  It's what the Church teaches concerning the Book of Mormon.  I don't think any claim of other revelation gets a pass from the same standard.
If no revelation is presented I chalk it up to inspiration or fuzzy feelings and hope it wasn't misinterpreted as being from God.
 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

If no revelation is presented I chalk it up to inspiration or fuzzy feelings and hope it wasn't misinterpreted as being from God.
 

I see things a little differently.  I don't believe I can really do any harm in following the prophet, even when he's wrong, while I do believe I can do a great deal of harm by not following him when he's not.  So err on that side.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I see things a little differently.  I don't believe I can really do any harm in following the prophet, even when he's wrong, while I do believe I can do a great deal of harm by not following him when he's not.  So err on that side.

Two separate issues.  Following the prophet vs accepting his instruction as revelatory.
Like Isaac Barlow and the buggy whip sometimes we do what the prophet says without evidence of revelation.  But at the same time the prophet shouldn't attribute things to revelation that weren't.
I think members are far too likely to assume revelation where none exists.  And I think critics are far too likely to question following the prophet without revelatory proof.

[smac97]

18 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Oh well, I'll go in time out tomorrow, I have to respond😁. First, I have a question, please dont respond if you dont want to. Are you an attorney? You write like an attorney. That's a compliment by the way.

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.

Quote

      First, I'm not talking about our daily lives as latter day Saints. You started out with listing church holdings and what we do as members, so what!

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.  

Quote

All churches do the same. The seventh day Adventist started out roughly the same time period and they have 4 million more members worldwide, they also have buildings and hospitals, billions of dollars, not that bid of a deal.

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?

Quote

What I'm talking about is the latter days, months or maybe a year before the 2nd coming. At some point there will come a time when we will have to take some kind of physical action, I dont know what it will be.

"Physical action?"  What does that mean?

Quote

The Jews had to physically move, so did the early Saints, multiple times. Sitting behind a computer or on a couch will not be enough to usher in the latter days.

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.

Quote

If you think it is, then we're just another religion, or possibly a big expensive social club. 

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!"  

Quote

    You say Missouri is almost entirely myth or rumor.

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.

Quote

Your down playing what millions upon millions of mormons believed for most of Mormonisms existence,  people like my mom and dad.

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.

Quote

As a kid I remember thinking at some point I will be walking to Missouri. This was a major part of the mormon experience, to write it off as a myth I dont understand.

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.

Quote

What else do you want to consider myth?

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.

Quote

How about zelph, is that a myth?

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

Quote

When I looked at the hill cumorah as a teenager and wondered how many people died on that hill, should I consider that a myth?  Maybe its actually in south America, who knows, right?

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.

Quote

   Correct Christians-  what I mean is when christ died, soon after, the gospel was taken from the earth. We believe that the true gospel of jesus christ had to be restored obviously.

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."

Quote

I also believe a robust Christianity exist in many religions.

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

Quote

I also believe we can learn alot from other religions.

Agreed.

Quote

But Brigham young did say that  "Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell.The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth". Can you tell me what that quote means please?

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?

Quote

   You say my belief that there might be a huge event that might cause the brethren to have to spend a lot of money because of the turmoil before the second coming, really?!?! You called it fanciful, really?

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.

Quote

You seem to be writing off a lot of older mormon beliefs.

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?

Quote

Can you tell me what the second coming will look like? Is it going to be peaceful?

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

Edited January 28, 2021 by smac97

[teddyaware]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Two separate issues.  Following the prophet vs accepting his instruction as revelatory.
Like Isaac Barlow and the buggy whip sometimes we do what the prophet says without evidence of revelation.  But at the same time the prophet shouldn't attribute things to revelation that weren't.
I think members are far too likely to assume revelation where none exists.  And I think critics are far too likely to question following the prophet without revelatory proof.

With the input of the Spirit, I can normally discern instantaneously when a prophet, seer, and revelator is speaking by the power of the Spirit, and 99.9% of the time there’s no need for me to pray about whether or not what’s being said is true because I know right away. So rather than pray to know if what’s said is true, I for pray for faith strength to do as the Lord commands through the prophets.

Now don’t interpret what I’m saying is I accept anything the prophets say as inspired without question. All I am saying is the Spirit nearly always confirms the truth of what they are saying as they speak, much like what I experience when reading the scriptures.

There have been rare moments when I have wondered — like when the endowment was significantly truncated and otherwise modified in 1990 — but I later had it confirmed to me that the changes made were due to the fact that a lot of members were unprepared to receive and comprehend the deeper mysteries of God.

Edited January 28, 2021 by teddyaware

[smac97]

4 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Your an interesting fellow, and I still love ya buddy! Again, my opinion is in the next 30 years women will receive the priesthood, they will hold priesthood offices and give priesthood blessings. A year ago women were allowed to become official witnesses at baptisms, they play a more prominent role in the temple. It's already started my man. It's going to be baby steps at first, but at some point, there will be women with priesthood authority.

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.

Quote

There's a good chance current church history or current written scripture will not play a role in the final decision to give women priesthood Authority. I think it will come through new scripture personally, not contradicting current scripture but clarifying or just plain adding to what we know now.

Yes, I think that could be a necessary component.

Quote

That's the ultimate benefit of an open canon, not making little policy changes here and there. Personally I'm exited for what's instore for the future.

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

Quote

   I love the women in my life. I dont know how any of this priesthood stuff will happen in the future.

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

Quote

Personally, just my opinion, I think they have a unique priesthood a branch of ours, something we haven't been introduced to yet. They are potential Goddesses, 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

Edited January 28, 2021 by smac97

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

With the input of the Spirit, I can normally discern instantaneously when a prophet, seer, and revelator is speaking by the power of the Spirit, and 99.9% of the time there’s no need for me to pray about whether or not what’s being said is true because I know right away.

I would say that most of the time, we don't need to seek confirming revelation because we readily accept it and don't have a problem with it. That is the vast majority of things. It's where and when we do have a problem, or don't readily accept it that we would need to, and this differs by person just as every person is different. 

There are **really** good insights and counsel from the Brethren on this. I really like Brigham Young's statement:

"If I do not know the will of my Father, and what He requires of me in a certain transaction, if I ask Him to give me wisdom concerning any requirement in life, or in regard to my own course, or that of my friends, my family, my children, or those that I preside over, and get no answer from Him, and then do the very best that my judgment will teach me, He is bound to own and honor that transaction, and He will do so to all intents and purposes." (Brigham Young, February 17, 1856. Journal of Discourses 3:205)

For the things we don't need revelation for, or even for things we do need revelation for that God in His wisdom doesn't give it to us (I've had that happen, and that can be very valuable, though it's frustrating at the time), then we do the best we can and God "is bound to own and honor that." 

But, the reality is that we don't pray for confirmation about everything or even most things. We don't need to. The things we do need to seek revelation for are different for each person. 

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

There have been rare moments when I have wondered — like when the endowment was significantly truncated and otherwise modified in 1990 — but I later had it confirmed to me that the changes made were due to the fact that a lot of members were unprepared to receive and comprehend the deeper mysteries of God.

Interesting statement.

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

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Interesting statement.

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

I do. Like the original Law, compared with the Law of Moses after the rejection of the higher. Still authorized and God's will, but with reduced blessings and privileges. 

[HappyJackWagon]

27 minutes 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

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.

 

Edited January 28, 2021 by HappyJackWagon

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If the earth is millions of years old, and if the Fall happened thousands of years ago, then what is imminent is really relative.  With a history like that, something happening in the next 1000 years would probably seem 'soon'.  With such short lifespans, we mortals are not good at comprehending the timing of things measured in millennia.    

I'm reminded of when I told my 3 year old that we were going to grandma's and grandpa's in a couple of weeks.  That was soon to me (it had been planned for months).  It was not soon to him. "Soon" was what was happening after lunch.  It was a looooong 14 days for that little guy.  

We have a family story about a young one, who, three weeks into extended month long tour of the US in an RV with his family, said to his mom "Mommy remember when I was little, and we lived in a house?"

I recall things that happened half a century ago, as if it was yesterday!

Edited January 28, 2021 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Quote

  45 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

There have been rare moments when I have wondered — like when the endowment was significantly truncated and otherwise modified in 1990 — but I later had it confirmed to me that the changes made were due to the fact that a lot of members were unprepared to receive and comprehend the deeper mysteries of God.

Quote

 17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Interesting statement.

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

I do. Like the original Law, compared with the Law of Moses after the rejection of the higher. Still authorized and God's will, but with reduced blessings and privileges. 

That's a very bold take on this topic given what @teddyaware described.
So do you believe those receiving their endowments in the Church today are missing out on some of the blessings and privileges those who received their endowments pre-1990 received?
The Church certainly has never indicated that.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

That's a very bold take on this topic given what @teddyaware described.
So do you believe those receiving their endowments in the Church today are missing out on some of the blessings and privileges those who received their endowments pre-1990 received?
The Church certainly has never indicated that.

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).