Status of the Church 2.0

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

It is so weird to me because when I have an appointment or meeting I put it on my own calendar and set up a reminder.

Growing up we never got reminders and we got charged for missing appointments because we forgot.  I have adapted way too much to expecting a reminder as I found out when my psych office did not for some reason.  My guess is it is easier to send out reminders than to send out bills for missed appointments, but I bet the vast majority  remember their appts when they get billed if missed. 
 

And I am so grateful for our doctors who don’t charge for last minute changes given my daughter’s and my health is so unpredictable (and they really don’t want us there throwing up, do they?  Win win).

[sunstoned]

15 hours ago, Raingirl said:

I never got regular visits of any kind since I became a member ten years ago. Less than half a dozen of each kind in all that time.  And all the while members were bragging about how they were oh so busy and couldn’t possibly take time to reach out. It was like a badge of honor. 
 

I went on my own first visits to my assigned sisters without having ever received a visit. 

Since the change, there’s been not one single contact of any kind, much less an actual visit.  And lots of rejoicing from members about not having to visit anymore. Ironic, since they weren’t doing it anyway. 

Sadly, I believe VT and HT are failed programs.  Yes, good came from them, but overall there just wasn't support from the membership.  This might have been a reason for sunsetting these programs.

[Raingirl]

7 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Sadly, I believe VT and HT are failed programs.  Yes, good came from them, but overall there just wasn't support from the membership.  This might have been a reason for sunsetting these programs.

It’s really unfortunate. When it worked, it was very beneficial on both ends. As apprehensive as I was to venture out on my first visit without having ever received a visit, it became one of my favorite things to do. And with no family in the church (and just no family), living alone with significant medical challenges, the idea that someone was interested in my welfare was a very welcome idea. 

[sunstoned]

1 minute ago, Raingirl said:

It’s really unfortunate. When it worked, it was very beneficial on both ends. As apprehensive as I was to venture out on my first visit without having ever received a visit, it became one of my favorite things to do. And with no family in the church (and just no family), living alone with significant medical challenges, the idea that someone was interested in my welfare was a very welcome idea. 

Yes, it is unfortunate.  I have good memories of home teaching.  Several people I visited years ago in now far away wards are still my friends and we remain in contact with each other.

[Peacefully]

8 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

You're welcome, and no problem.

Literal descendants of Aaron have priesthood by birthright, but we wouldn't know that without Section 107.  Perhaps there is a revelation about women and the priesthood which we do not yet have.  "We believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (The final verse of Section 132 promises future a revelation which to the best of my knowledge was never received; I mention this as an example of at least one area in which we do not have the complete picture yet.)

Good question!

In my opinion the reason is the same as why Blacks couldn't hold the priesthood for so long:  Something which Joseph Smith intended was misunderstood or changed or suppressed by his successors.  See History of the Church, volume 4, pages 602-607, which is Joseph's second address to the Female Relief Society, in which he "gave a lecture on the Priesthood showing how the sisters would come in possession of the privileges, blessings, and gifts of the Priesthood." (From Joseph's journal entry on page 602).

Which is more likely:  That we do not yet have the complete picture, or that HALF of the people performing PRIESTHOOD ORDINANCES in the temple are NOT priesthood holders?   

I have no more rep points but two thumbs way up for this!

[MacGyver]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

Pres. Nelson. In the October 2019 general conference.  It was in one of those talks that you said you are familiar with.

Now, may I clarify several additional points with respect to women and priesthood. When you are set apart to serve in a calling under the direction of one who holds priesthood keys—such as your bishop or stake president—you are given priesthood authority to function in that calling.

Similarly, in the holy temple you are authorized to perform and officiate in priesthood ordinances every time you attend. Your temple endowment prepares you to do so.

If you are endowed but not currently married to a man who bears the priesthood and someone says to you, “I’m sorry you don’t have the priesthood in your home,” please understand that that statement is incorrect. You may not have a priesthood bearer in your home, but you have received and made sacred covenants with God in His temple. From those covenants flows an endowment of His priesthood power upon you. And remember, if your husband should die, you would preside in your home.

As a righteous, endowed Latter-day Saint woman, you speak and teach with power and authority from God.

Thank you for providing this statement. I guess in a sense women can have priesthood power, but they don't hold the priesthood, except in conjunction with their husbands. 

I also think that we have to be careful with quotes about women and the priesthood from the "ordain women movement" era. I believe some of these statements are designed to try and appease those who are sympathetic to this movement by blurring the difference between the power and authority all righteous individuals, male or female, in the church receive after being endowed or receiving a calling from the power and authority held by those who are ordained priesthood holders. 

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Thank you for providing this statement. I guess in a sense women can have priesthood power, but they don't hold the priesthood, except in conjunction with their husbands. 

I also think that we have to be careful with quotes about women and the priesthood from the "ordain women movement" era. I believe some of these statements are designed to try and appease those who are sympathetic to this movement by blurring the difference between the power and authority all righteous individuals, male or female, in the church receive after being endowed or receiving a calling from the power and authority held by those who are ordained priesthood holders. 

Why do we need to be careful? What is so taboo about discussing the possibility of women being ordained? How would you feel if there were a revelation that women could be ordained as priestesses and called as Bishops, Stake Presidents, etc.? Would that shake your testimony? It would strengthen mine. 

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, Raingirl said:

It’s really unfortunate. When it worked, it was very beneficial on both ends. As apprehensive as I was to venture out on my first visit without having ever received a visit, it became one of my favorite things to do. And with no family in the church (and just no family), living alone with significant medical challenges, the idea that someone was interested in my welfare was a very welcome idea. 

It's what church should be about!

When I was in the RS presidency I worked with a fabulous president! We were heavily involved in service, to a homeless shelter and to the needs of the women in the ward. I was also assigned to visit teach two women that had major medical needs and would drive them to appointments and help them shop or get food orders. And the one was in my neighborhood and we'd go walking. She was with a walker, and we went pretty slow and had lots of conversation. 

When I started struggling and couldn't accept a calling later on teaching primary after the presidency calling, and told the bishop of my testimony in Joseph Smith not being there, it was church history year. The bishopric had me help a young man in a wheel chair get to classes and help with a feeding tube etc. I felt they were truly inspired because I continued activity and didn't want to let the young man down, he was in Primary and then Young Men's, it was humbling and I felt the spirit with this wonderful awe inspiring brave boy/young man. 

And then he had major back surgery and could no longer go to church and I had no desire to attend. And for a year had no calls to find out where I'd been etc. The former RS president I worked with, would have been on it. She'd call or visit the women with no attendance in RS. They wouldn't go a month without a response. 

I hear you! 

Edited January 21, 2022 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Thank you for providing this statement. I guess in a sense women can have priesthood power, but they don't hold the priesthood, except in conjunction with their husbands. 

I also think that we have to be careful with quotes about women and the priesthood from the "ordain women movement" era. I believe some of these statements are designed to try and appease those who are sympathetic to this movement by blurring the difference between the power and authority all righteous individuals, male or female, in the church receive after being endowed or receiving a calling from the power and authority held by those who are ordained priesthood holders. 

I think we've got to be careful both directions.  I'm not personally interested in ordination but I am interested in understanding and accepting what God has for women.  I don't want to build a hedge around the topic out of fear that female ordination might come up, or someone might be encouraged it could happen.  Priesthood authority is sacred and given to us for a reason and God wants us to understand it and use it.

That's true for men and it's true for women.  The idea that the prophet would teach falsehoods to women to try to appease them, or would deliberately blur the lines for the same reason, is a serious accusation from my perspective.  If what he is teaching is from God then treating it in such a way comes way too close to calling good evil for my liking. 

Women and the priesthood isn't a taboo subject and men need to understand it correctly as much as women do.

[rongo]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think we've got to be careful both directions.  I'm not personally interested in ordination but I am interested in understanding and accepting what God has for women.  I don't want to build a hedge around the topic out of fear that female ordination might come up, or someone might be encouraged it could happen.  Priesthood authority is sacred and given to us for a reason and God wants us to understand it and use it.

That's true for men and it's true for women.  The idea that the prophet would teach falsehoods to women to try to appease them, or would deliberately blur the lines for the same reason, is a serious accusation from my perspective.  If what he is teaching is from God then treating it in such a way comes way too close to calling good evil for my liking. 

Women and the priesthood isn't a taboo subject and men need to understand it correctly as much as women do.

The "Silver Plates" can be edgy, but it often has good satirical content, in the same vein as the Onion or the Babylon Bee. It usually focuses on LDS cultural issues. 

https://thesilverplates.com/2021/04/20/hilarious-brethren-convince-women-they-hold-the-priesthood-without-letting-them-be-in-charge/

I do think that President Oaks effectively painted the issue into a corner with his "women serve with priesthood authority, but don't hold priesthood office" explanation. 

Women ordination (if it ever happened --- I'm more skeptical of that than other big changes) would be messier than people think, because I think it would be optional (I don't think it would be routine like it is with 11 year-old boys now). So you would have women seeking ordination, and women with no interest at all (the majority, I think). Would they "caucus" with the elders quorum, or would there be a small "women's quorum?" And then the real fun would start --- the drumbeats for the first "breakthrough" ordinations to high office (bishop+), and compounding frustration when these overwhelmingly or completely remain as men. 

I think this issue, other than the "legalization" of homosexuality in the law of chastity, would be more prone to creating doubt and faith crises in many because of a) a total lack of historical precedent, and b) it would seem and appear to be a naked pander to prevailing social winds and social issues, more than other issues. I think it would cause many to question many other things, and to look at decisions and policy/doctrinal changes in a different light. I think it would be far worse than the lifting of the priesthood ban was in 1978, and the Brethren know it --- even if they were inclined to do that. And, I'm not talking about mass defections or resignations, I'm thinking more along the lines of loss of enthusiasm, commitment, vitality, etc. among many members who don't leave. If many members who previously were energetically active lose their spark because of a feeling that the Church is being tossed to and fro with every wind of social change, I think the enthusiasm deficit will take a toll. The same is true of a lot of monumental changes like this (many of which the Church is conducting polling on, per Jana Reiss). 

 

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, rongo said:

The "Silver Plates" can be edgy, but it often has good satirical content, in the same vein as the Onion or the Babylon Bee. It usually focuses on LDS cultural issues. 

https://thesilverplates.com/2021/04/20/hilarious-brethren-convince-women-they-hold-the-priesthood-without-letting-them-be-in-charge/

I do think that President Oaks effectively painted the issue into a corner with his "women serve with priesthood authority, but don't hold priesthood office" explanation. 

Women ordination (if it ever happened --- I'm more skeptical of that than other big changes) would be messier than people think, because I think it would be optional (I don't think it would be routine like it is with 11 year-old boys now). So you would have women seeking ordination, and women with no interest at all (the majority, I think). Would they "caucus" with the elders quorum, or would there be a small "women's quorum?" And then the real fun would start --- the drumbeats for the first "breakthrough" ordinations to high office (bishop+), and compounding frustration when these overwhelmingly or completely remain as men. 

I think this issue, other than the "legalization" of homosexuality in the law of chastity, would be more prone to creating doubt and faith crises in many because of a) a total lack of historical precedent, and b) it would seem and appear to be a naked pander to prevailing social winds and social issues, more than other issues. I think it would cause many to question many other things, and to look at decisions and policy/doctrinal changes in a different light. I think it would be far worse than the lifting of the priesthood ban was in 1978, and the Brethren know it --- even if they were inclined to do that. And, I'm not talking about mass defections or resignations, I'm thinking more along the lines of loss of enthusiasm, commitment, vitality, etc. among many members who don't leave. If many members who previously were energetically active lose their spark because of a feeling that the Church is being tossed to and fro with every wind of social change, I think the enthusiasm deficit will take a toll. The same is true of a lot of monumental changes like this (many of which the Church is conducting polling on, per Jana Reiss). 

 

The priesthood = being in charge narrative always annoys me because I think it’s so obvious false. It seems like a good red herring. 

[Olmec Donald]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The priesthood = being in charge narrative always annoys me because I think it’s so obvious false. It seems like a good red herring. 

Back in the day I considered giving a blessing to be "exercising the priesthood".  I considered "being in charge" as an administrative thing - to be done prayerfully of course.  

Given that Joseph Smith defended the practice of women giving blessings, either priesthood is not actually necessary to do so, or the sisters had it.  Either one works for me.  

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Olmec Donald said:

Given that Joseph Smith defended the practice of women giving blessings, either priesthood is not actually necessary to do so, or the sisters had it.  Either one works for me.  

I have never been able to find any recorded instance of women invoking priesthood in blessings. Any time explanation or discussion of it ensued, it centered around the prayer of faith. 

Eliza Snow visited Morgan Utah in the 1880s during a cholera epidemic, and healed many people by the laying on of hands. She pointedly was not doing it by the authority of the priesthood (she invoked her faith). This is in family records, and a history of the Morgan Stake. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

I have never been able to find any recorded instance of women invoking priesthood in blessings. Any time explanation or discussion of it ensued, it centered around the prayer of faith. 

Eliza Snow visited Morgan Utah in the 1880s during a cholera epidemic, and healed many people by the laying on of hands. She pointedly was not doing it by the authority of the priesthood (she invoked her faith). This is in family records, and a history of the Morgan Stake. 

It is interesting that women (maybe just endowed women?  I really don't know how it used to work) were capable of creating the same result with a prayer of faith that men needed the priesthood to create.

[rongo]

Just now, bluebell said:

It is interesting that women (maybe just endowed women?  I really don't know how it used to work) were capable of creating the same result with a prayer of faith that men needed the priesthood to create.

There is no doubt that the blessings worked. 

I don't feel comfortable advocating or encouraging it because of Church culture, and I haven't actually asked God about it, but I personally would love it if mothers and women felt like they could lay hands on and heal (sans priesthood). I think it ought to be something that is discussed and taught, and correction given, where needed. 

I think we all know that the Brethren are uncomfortable with the topic, and what the Brethren would say, though --- especially if it were asked in a Q&A if women can heal by the prayer of faith. I think that would be one of those "You have a GA here, and you can ask anything, and this is what you ask about?" Some are better than others, but I think most would steer away from addressing it. Maybe it's because they don't feel comfortable addressing something that hasn't been nailed down. 

[sunstoned]

14 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Why do we need to be careful? What is so taboo about discussing the possibility of women being ordained? How would you feel if there were a revelation that women could be ordained as priestesses and called as Bishops, Stake Presidents, etc.? Would that shake your testimony? It would strengthen mine. 

I agree.  Being careful is not what is needed. In a 1997 interview with Australian reporter David Ransom, President Hinckley said that there was “no agitation” for women to receive the priesthood.

We need to not be careful.  We need to agitate.  Apparently agitation is one of the genesis of revelation.

 

https://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2014/08/20/insideroutsider-language-in-president-hinckleys-theres-no-agitation-statement/

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, rongo said:

There is no doubt that the blessings worked. 

I don't feel comfortable advocating or encouraging it because of Church culture, and I haven't actually asked God about it, but I personally would love it if mothers and women felt like they could lay hands on and heal (sans priesthood). I think it ought to be something that is discussed and taught, and correction given, where needed. 

I think we all know that the Brethren are uncomfortable with the topic, and what the Brethren would say, though --- especially if it were asked in a Q&A if women can heal by the prayer of faith. I think that would be one of those "You have a GA here, and you can ask anything, and this is what you ask about?" Some are better than others, but I think most would steer away from addressing it. Maybe it's because they don't feel comfortable addressing something that hasn't been nailed down. 

Our temple president relayed a story, the last time that we were in the temple together as a stake and he was saying a few words before the session, a story about his daughter and her newborn baby.  She called him while he was in the temple one day (and he answered because she knew where he was so he assumed it was important) and she was in a panic.  The baby had stopped breathing and she was home alone. 

He told her to hang up and call 911 and he would get there as soon as he could.  She called him back a few minutes later and said that it came into her mind to use the power she had been endowed with in the temple to bless her baby.  She held him and prayed, invoking that power of God, and commanded the baby to breathe.  And he did.  If I remember right, by the time the ambulance showed up he was fine.

I thought it was a really cool story to share.

[MacGyver]

16 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Why do we need to be careful?

It's important to remember the context in which these statements were made. They are made largely to defuse the hostility and confusion created by the ordain women movement. Similar to "blood atonement" statements made by Brigham Young and others during the Mormon Reformation, we have to view them in the context in which they were given. 

16 hours ago, Peacefully said:

What is so taboo about discussing the possibility of women being ordained?

I don't think that talking about it is taboo, but it's important to recognize truth from error. If women are ordained to the priesthood it would go against the order God has established, which would be a bad thing. 

16 hours ago, Peacefully said:

How would you feel if there were a revelation that women could be ordained as priestesses and called as Bishops, Stake Presidents, etc.? Would that shake your testimony?

If women were ordained and made Bishops, Stake Presidents, etc., it would not shake my testimony. But I would consider this to be a sure sign that the church is out of order and in a state of apostasy. In which case I would still have a testimony of the restoration and the principles of the restored gospel, but likely would no longer attend church. 

 

[MacGyver]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I am interested in understanding and accepting what God has for women.  I don't want to build a hedge around the topic out of fear that female ordination might come up, or someone might be encouraged it could happen.  Priesthood authority is sacred and given to us for a reason and God wants us to understand it and use it.

I think this is a reasonable approach. But I also think that relying on quotes from the "ordain women movement" era is not the best way to understand priesthood authority and what God has for women. 

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

The idea that the prophet would teach falsehoods to women to try to appease them, or would deliberately blur the lines for the same reason, is a serious accusation from my perspective. 

Why is that a serious accusation? The brethren are obviously trying to defuse the demand to ordain women to the priesthood by saying that women already have the priesthood and don't need to be ordained. I think this is problematic because prior to the ordain women movement this not what they were saying. It doesn't mean what they are teaching is false, but there statements may be intended to blur the lines in order to appease those calling for women to be ordained.

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

Women and the priesthood isn't a taboo subject and men need to understand it correctly as much as women do.

I agree. And the statements from the ordain women era are probably not the best ones to rely on to understand this correctly.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

I think this is a reasonable approach. But I also think that relying on quotes from the "ordain women movement" era is not the best way to understand priesthood authority and what God has for women. 

Why is that a serious accusation? The brethren are obviously trying to defuse the demand to ordain women to the priesthood by saying that women already have the priesthood and don't need to be ordained. I think this is problematic because prior to the ordain women movement this not what they were saying. It doesn't mean what they are teaching is false, but there statements may be intended to blur the lines in order to appease those calling for women to be ordained.

I agree. And the statements from the ordain women era are probably not the best ones to rely on to understand this correctly.

When does the era end though?

It's almost been 10 years since that group was lobbying the church for ordination.  I reject the notion that listening to the prophet and apostles teach about women and the priesthood in general conference is not the best way to understand priesthood authority and what God has for women.  

I say this with all due respect and I'm not trying to be snarky but what you are telling me is that I shouldn't listen to the prophet on the topic but that I should listen to you.  I'm hoping that you can understand why I'm not going to take your interpretation--a stranger on the internet--over their teachings.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I say this with all due respect and I'm not trying to be snarky but what you are telling me is that I shouldn't listen to the prophet on the topic but that I should listen to you.

Perfect summary of this entire thread! 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, MacGyver said:

It's important to remember the context in which these statements were made. They are made largely to defuse the hostility and confusion created by the ordain women movement.

Please share a reference for this. Not a general reference. A reference specific to the idea of why the statements were made.

1 hour ago, MacGyver said:

Similar to "blood atonement" statements made by Brigham Young and others during the Mormon Reformation, we have to view them in the context in which they were given. 

I don't think that talking about it is taboo, but it's important to recognize truth from error. If women are ordained to the priesthood it would go against the order God has established, which would be a bad thing. 

If women were ordained and made Bishops, Stake Presidents, etc., it would not shake my testimony. But I would consider this to be a sure sign that the church is out of order and in a state of apostasy. In which case I would still have a testimony of the restoration and the principles of the restored gospel, but likely would no longer attend church. 

 

 

Edited January 22, 2022 by Rain

[MacGyver]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

When does the era end though?

It will end whenever there are no longer a good amount of members lobbying that women be ordained or complaining that women are marginalized because they don't hold the priesthood.

Which I doubt will happen until the church either caves and begins ordaining women or the tribulation which proceeds the second coming happens. 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I reject the notion that listening to the prophet and apostles teach about women and the priesthood in general conference is not the best way to understand priesthood authority and what God has for women.  

The best way to understand priesthood authority and what God has for women" is to look at more than just a handful of conference talks from the ordain women movement era. The best way is to look at all of the statements by prophets and apostles on the subject. This includes the scriptures and all statements by modern prophets and apostles throughout the restoration. 

You wouldn't just look at "blood atonement" statements made by prophets and apostles in General Conference from the Mormon Reformation to understand how to repent of serious sin would you?

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I say this with all due respect and I'm not trying to be snarky but what you are telling me is that I shouldn't listen to the prophet on the topic but that I should listen to you.  I'm hoping that you can understand why I'm not going to take your interpretation--a stranger on the internet--over their teachings.  

I'm not telling you to listen to me over the prophets. I'm saying listen to all the prophets, not just a handful of statements from the ordain women movement era. 

[MacGyver]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

Please share a reference for this. Not a general reference. A reference specific to the idea of why the statements were made.

Why else would they all of a sudden make these statements?

The context is that there are a lot of members who are crying about "inequality" and "sexism" against women in the church and calling for women to be ordained and/or given more authority in the church.

[MacGyver]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Perfect summary of this entire thread! 

A better summary would be people getting defensive when someone suggests that all is not well in Zion and that we may be moving farther away from God as a people instead of closer.