What Can Faithful Non-Members Do in the Spiritual Life and Ministry of a Ward or Stake?

[pogi]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not so. I’m making a general observation on the decline of our board. Mock? Not at all.

This is quite concerning. You seem to have set yourself up as a moral mouthpiece of a New Wave movement that is going to bear the Kingdom out of its dark wilderness. Who is leading your quest? I would wish you luck with your errand, but it is something I cannot abide.

 

Who is my leader in spreading hope over doubt in the restoration?  Who is my leader in promoting faith?  I have and will continue to follow the prophets and the Spirit of the Lord in being anxiously engaged in a good cause.

I am also making general observations on the decline of faith, abandoned faith, and stagnant growth, not only in our church, but in religion in general.  I have seen many emerge stronger from their faith crisis as they choose to place hope above doubt and learn that faith can endure, and can be strengthened by crisis with the right tools that lead to Christ.  

We are all in a dark wilderness one way or another, Bernard.  We have many guides, the prophets, scriptures, the light of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and we are counseled to be a support and lift where we can.   
If you can’t abide my experience and approach to faith expressed in these forums, you are free to leave, but you can’t push me out with your judgment and mocking tones of phony applause, etc.  I am aware of a wave of people like me emerging with a strong online presence.  They are not going anywhere.  I hope you can learn to abide our presence, we are pretty good, active, temple worthy folk, from what I can see, and our faith/experience is an asset to the church.

Edited January 3, 2023 by pogi

[Navidad]

I wonder if there is a connection between this recent debate some of you are having and the subject of this thread? Is it a decline in the quality of the board to discuss the interpretation of what non-members may or may not do in a ward? I wonder how many folks here have ever even thought about non-members, non-investigators being active in a ward? Is the very idea of non-members desiring to be active representative of a decline in the quality of the discussions or a threat to the church? Do Mark's comments about the need for boundaries to preserve identity serve to protect? Would it be better if folks like me were more like our Catholic folks here who simply have an intellectual interest without desiring spiritual fellowship? I am trying to figure out if there is a connection between the recent comments and that which is being discussed on eight pages of this thread? I am always trying to make connections between ideas and thoughts! I don't quite understand the value in formidable defense being the foundation for a discussion and dialogue board? Doesn't formidable defense or formidable attack lessen dialogue and discussion and invite dogma?

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, no, that’s not the idea that “some posters” have nor does it indicate anything about their issues, whatever one thinks they might be. But it surely is an accurate long-term observation of the devolution of the board. More’s the pity.

 

 

For those posters who believe that the lack of people seeing things their way means the board has devolved, there is room for pity I guess.  I can see why that would be a very uncomfortable change for some.

 

[Rain]

On 1/1/2023 at 8:41 PM, Bernard Gui said:

I fear we will not become One as we have been commanded any time in the near future unless there are BoM-like changes. 

I have feared that for a couple of decades, long before I was on the board. I finally realized through numerous means like conference and reading 7 Habits of Highly Effective People that a large part of the problem was that people were not taking the time to understand each other, but would either pointedly ignore or put down other views.  

I saw this this last week while visiting my parents.  My dad will not listen to me in some matters.  He goes straight to the idea that I or others are being unfaithful before he has any understanding of what I think or feel. I can't tell you how much this hurts. I don't have any problem thinking differently than he does,  after all, we are very different (but also very similar) people with vastly different experiences.  I would just like it if he would try to understand where I'm coming from.

And that's my frustration with the board and the church and world in general.  Sometimes I think that we are so afraid that understanding will change us that we refuse to listen to the other side who we have already defined as wrong.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I wonder if there is a connection between this recent debate some of you are having and the subject of this thread? Is it a decline in the quality of the board to discuss the interpretation of what non-members may or may not do in a ward?

I don't think any is considering your participation as part of any decline in the quality of the board.  At least, I hope not. 

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I wonder how many folks here have ever even thought about non-members, non-investigators being active in a ward? Is the very idea of non-members desiring to be active representative of a decline in the quality of the discussions or a threat to the church?

It is not a decline and it is not a threat. I think you are right that most have never even considered the idea though.   I think you are somewhat of an anomaly. 

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Do Mark's comments about the need for boundaries to preserve identity serve to protect? Would it be better if folks like me were more like our Catholic folks here who simply have an intellectual interest without desiring spiritual fellowship?

I think some of the resistance is that our doctrines and beliefs distinguish us from the rest of Christianity in unique ways.   What you seem to be desiring is for us to be like the Community of Christ, but I don't think that is what anyone feels is right.  That type of historical amnesia and abandonment of root restorationist principles would make us completely indistinguishable from them. 

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I don't quite understand the value in formidable defense being the foundation for a discussion and dialogue board? Doesn't formidable defense or formidable attack lessen dialogue and discussion and invite dogma?

Good points. 

[Chum]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

On 1/1/2023 at 7:47 PM, Chum said:

So basically ward council then.

That doesn’t describe any ward council I’ve attended or been a part of. 

I'd agree my comment wasn't the best offering for the setup I had. I strive for Charles Schulz (supernatural consistency) but often land closer to Piers Anthony (output everything including utter crap).

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Chum said:

Piers Anthony (output everything including utter crap).

So true, lol

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I wonder if there is a connection between this recent debate some of you are having and the subject of this thread? Is it a decline in the quality of the board to discuss the interpretation of what non-members may or may not do in a ward? I wonder how many folks here have ever even thought about non-members, non-investigators being active in a ward?

I've thought of it.  I've had non-members active in my wards for the last 3 decades though not as actively involved as you.   One man was even assistant stake executive secretary.  The difference seems to be that they all were married to a member spouse or were maybe wanting to be a part of the church, but not ready to join, but you are attending because your congregation is so distant from where you live and have no plans to ever join (as I understand it). 

I also think you might be much more extroverted than those that I am talking about being in my wards.  That will make a big difference in how active people are in wards.  

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Is the very idea of non-members desiring to be active representative of a decline in the quality of the discussions or a threat to the church? Do Mark's comments about the need for boundaries to preserve identity serve to protect? Would it be better if folks like me were more like our Catholic folks here who simply have an intellectual interest without desiring spiritual fellowship? I am trying to figure out if there is a connection between the recent comments and that which is being discussed on eight pages of this thread? I am always trying to make connections between ideas and thoughts! I don't quite understand the value in formidable defense being the foundation for a discussion and dialogue board? Doesn't formidable defense or formidable attack lessen dialogue and discussion and invite dogma?

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Rain

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

That answer doesn't offend me at all. I simply don't agree with you. As you don't with me.

Correct.

 

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

Based on simple dogma, you can't possibly know or understand the spiritual experiences I have known, the presence of the Holy Spirit in my life, or the joy of ministry I have known via the ministerial priesthood in my life.

I don't deny that you have had spiritual experiences in your life.

Nor do I deny that you have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit during your life of discipleship - including while you have served in a ministerial capacity in various denominations.

I simply reject the notion that those positive spiritual experiences equate to you having received any sort of valid priesthood authority.

 

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

You have not mentioned in our dialogue the role you do believe the Holy Spirit plays in the granting of priesthood authority in the LDS church.

Latter-day Saints believe that the Holy Spirit has a sanctifying role to play in the lives of those who have entered into the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood, but that oath and covenant is with the Father - not the Holy Spirit. The priesthood is the authority to act in the name of the Father, so ultimately its authority must be vested directly from and through Him.

 

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

Does every male who is baptized and confirmed in the LDS church hold the LDS priesthood regardless of a lack of commitment, faith, integrity, actual service, and consistency?

Baptism and confirmation by one holding proper authority is a necessary, but not sufficient, prerequisite to obtaining the priesthood.

 

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

An eight year old is baptized and confirmed, holds the priesthood, then becomes an Aaronic priest and then may or may not be granted the Melchizedek priesthood?

Those are all separate 'may or may not' steps, but yes - that's the basic order for those who grow up in the church.

At, or about the age of eight, one who is accountable may be baptized and confirmed a member of the church and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Then for males, at or about the age of 12, they are interviewed by the presiding high priest in the ward - the bishop - to determine whether or not they may receive the Aaronic Priesthood and be ordained to the office of Deacon in the Aaronic Priesthood. Then, at or about the age of 14, a similar process takes place to determine worthiness to be ordained to the office of Teacher in the Aaronic Priesthood. And then again, at or about the age of 16, the same process ensues to determine worthiness to be ordained to the office of Priest in the Aaronic Priesthood.

Subsequent to this, generally in adulthood (often before serving a mission), a young man will be interviewed by both the presiding high priest in his ward - the bishop - along with the presiding high priest in the stake - the stake president - to determine whether or not he may receive the Melchizedek Priesthood.

 

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

How many men or youth in good standing in the church are refused the advancement to the Melchizedek priesthood, by which authority, and for what reason?

Post Official Declaration 2, I would say that it is rare for an adult in good standing who wishes to receive the Melchizedek priesthood to be refused. Such refusal could conceivably come from any of the presiding authorities involved (i.e., bishop / stake president). As for reason(s) for such a refusal, that would depend on the person involved.

 

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

Can a bishop block someone from achieving the Melchizedek priesthood which I more or less gather is the priesthood you are talking about?

Yes. Generally this is done due to worthiness issues, but other circumstances could potentially result in a bishop failing to recommend a man to be ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood as well. 

 

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

Is there a way for such a person to remain in the church, lose his priesthood, but not his membership?

Generally, no. The sorts of things that would cause a Melchizedek priesthood holder to lose the priesthood would typically result in him losing membership in the church as well.

 

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would guess less than one percent of the folks in my churches have been blessed by the Holy Spirit with being granted the ministerial priesthood. What is the percentage in the LDS church (males)?

I don't know how to answer this question. I don't believe your conceptualization of ministerial priesthood really translates into the LDS paradigm.

 

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

You have not mentioned the Royal Priesthood (I don't think). Any room for a non-LDS member to hold the royal priesthood discussed in a letter written by the very Peter who held the keys?

Latter-day Saints do not believe in a "priesthood of all believers." What Peter is referring to in 1 Peter 2:9 is an Old Testament passage in which the Lord told the Israelites through Moses, “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation” (Exodus 19:5-6). Moses comments were made to everyone, yet only the Levites were authorized to exercise the priesthood at that time. Similarly, Peter's comment ought not to be understood as blanket authorization of priesthood authority to everyone.

 

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

Do faithful and devout female members hold the royal priesthood in your church?

No, but only because there is no "royal priesthood" separate from the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood for anyone - men or women - to hold.

Now, when a man and a women are sealed together in the temple, they enter together, by covenant, into an order of the priesthood. And I believe I am free to say without violating any board guidelines that women continue to officiate in sacred ordinances in our holy temples even to this day. But those who exercise the priesthood keys of administration in the church have never conferred the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood upon women nor ordained women to priesthood office.

Hope that helps to answer some of your questions.

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by Amulek

[manol]

On 1/1/2023 at 9:41 PM, Bernard Gui said:

I fear we will not become One as we have been commanded any time in the near future unless there are BoM-like changes. 

If by "One" you mean "our beliefs are in agreement", that's arguably a long shot as long as the Veil is in place because we have different personalities and different life experiences.  However once we have passed beyond the Veil, we will know and so there will be no more differing beliefs.  In other words, any disagreement in beliefs between sincere seekers of God is not only temporary, it is also evidently (and presumably intentionally) built into our mortal experience. 

 

But perhaps "Oneness" is not just about "being in agreement".  Perhaps Oneness is also an underlying truth which is not outwardly apparent, again because of the Veil.

By way of illustration, Finger may say to Opposing Thumb, "you and I are separate."   Seen at the level of Digits this is true, but at the level of Hand they are connected.

Likewise Branch may say to Other Branch, "you and I are separate", but at the level of Vine, they are connected.

And along similar same lines, Christ might teach "Love your neighbor as yourself", and on one level that means "treat others well", and on a deeper level it means... something deeper, shall we say. 

@mfbukowski, could you check the logic of the following if/then statement, drawn from Section 38?

IF it is true that "if ye are not one ye are not mine" (verse 27) AND "all flesh is mine" (verse 16), THEN "ye are [already] one". 

In other words, maybe we are already One, and maybe the injunctions for us to "become one" are telling us to become aware of something which is already true about one another, even if we do not yet agree in all of our beliefs.

Edited January 3, 2023 by manol

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

Correct.

 

I don't deny that you have had spiritual experiences in your life.

Nor do I deny that you have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit during your life of discipleship - including while you have served in a ministerial capacity in various denominations.

I simply reject the notion that those positive spiritual experiences equate to you having received any sort of valid priesthood authority.

 

Latter-day Saints believe that the Holy Spirit has a sanctifying role to play in the lives of those who have entered into the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood, but that oath and covenant is with the Father - not the Holy Spirit. The priesthood is the authority to act in the name of the Father, so ultimately its authority must be vested directly from and through Him.

 

Baptism and confirmation by one holding proper authority is a necessary, but not sufficient, prerequisite to obtaining the priesthood.

 

Those are all separate 'may or may not' steps, but yes - that's the basic order for those who grow up in the church.

At, or about the age of eight, one who is accountable may be baptized and confirmed a member of the church and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Then for males, at or about the age of 12, they are interviewed by the presiding high priest in the ward - the bishop - to determine whether or not they may receive the Aaronic Priesthood and be ordained to the office of Deacon in the Aaronic Priesthood. Then, at or about the age of 14, a similar process takes place to determine worthiness to be ordained to the office of Teacher in the Aaronic Priesthood. And then again, at or about the age of 16, the same process ensues to determine worthiness to be ordained to the office of Priest in the Aaronic Priesthood.

Subsequent to this, generally in adulthood (often before serving a mission), a young man will be interviewed by both the presiding high priest in his ward - the bishop - along with the presiding high priest in the stake - the stake president - to determine whether or not he may receive the Melchizedek Priesthood.

 

Post Official Declaration 2, I would say that it is rare for an adult in good standing who wishes to receive the Melchizedek priesthood to be refused. Such refusal could conceivably come from any of the presiding authorities involved (i.e., bishop / stake president). As for reason(s) for such a refusal, that would depend on the person involved.

 

Yes. Generally this is done due to worthiness issues, but other circumstances could potentially result in a bishop failing to recommend a man to be ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood as well. 

 

Generally, no. The sorts of things that would cause a Melchizedek priesthood holder to lose the priesthood would typically result in him losing membership in the church as well.

 

I don't know how to answer this question. I don't believe your conceptualization of ministerial priesthood really translates into the LDS paradigm.

 

Latter-day Saints do not believe in a "priesthood of all believers." What Peter is referring to in 1 Peter 2:9 is an Old Testament passage in which the Lord told the Israelites through Moses, “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation” (Exodus 19:5-6). Moses comments were made to everyone, yet only the Levites were authorized to exercise the priesthood at that time. Similarly, Peter's comment ought not to be understood as blanket authorization of priesthood authority to everyone.

 

No, but only because there is no "royal priesthood" separate from the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood for anyone - men or women - to hold.

Now, when a man and a women are sealed together in the temple, they enter together, by covenant, into an order of the priesthood. And I believe I am free to say without violating any board guidelines that women continue to officiate in sacred ordinances in our holy temples even to this day. But those who exercise the priesthood keys of administration in the church have never conferred the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood upon women nor ordained women to priesthood office.

Hope that helps to answer some of your questions.

 

Thanks so very much. That took you a lot of time and I appreciate it. If you can think of a book or article length document that goes into some detail on clarifying the LDS concept of the priesthood, I would appreciate it. Conference talks and paragraph-length discussions don't usually contain enough "meat" to answer my questions. You have done a great job. I would love to know what the similarities and differences are between the LDS and the Catholic/other non-LDS Christians interpretation of that office. Thanks again and best wishes.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

other circumstances could potentially result in a bishop failing to recommend a man to be ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood as well. 

If it is a worthiness issue, they would not be a member in good standing, would they?

The only circumstance I can think of for a member in good standing is if it was obvious they lacked the mental or emotional development to be accountable for their actions.  

Are there any other circumstances you are aware of that have prevented someone…perhaps you are thinking they might not be prepared as they are not familiar enough with the teachings on what priesthood and its duties are?  This could be quickly remedied surely if the young man/man was interested in making the commitment.

Maybe lack of interest expressed in fulfilling the duties of the Priesthood?  For me I guess it is hard to imagine a member in good standing not wanting to do so, but thinking about it now, I can see a few circumstances that might cause someone to reject the opportunity even if prepared for it, as in they may feel they are incapable of feeling the Spirit even though worthy of the Gift of the Holy Ghost*** and see the experience of hearing the Spirit as necessary to fulfill priesthood duties.  A leader making that decision for another when the other wanted to accept the opportunity and still try is hard to imagine though.

***I had a few years in this state due to medication, makes sense this might occur for some even without medication.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Calm

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, manol said:

If by "One" you mean "our beliefs are in agreement", that's arguably a long shot as long as the Veil is in place because we have different personalities and different life experiences.  However once we have passed beyond the Veil, we will know and so there will be no more differing beliefs.  In other words, any disagreement in beliefs between sincere seekers of God is not only temporary, it is also evidently (and presumably intentionally) built into our mortal experience. 

 

But perhaps "Oneness" is not just about "being in agreement".  Perhaps Oneness is also an underlying truth which is not outwardly apparent, again because of the Veil.

By way of illustration, Finger may say to Opposing Thumb, "you and I are separate."   Seen at the level of Digits this is true, but at the level of Hand they are connected.

Likewise Branch may say to Other Branch, "you and I are separate", but at the level of Vine, they are connected.

@mfbukowski, could you check the logic of the following if/then statement, drawn from Section 38?

IF it is true that "if ye are not one ye are not mine" (verse 27) AND "all flesh is mine" (verse 16), THEN "ye are [already] one". 

In other words, maybe we are already One, and maybe the injunctions for us to "become one" are telling us to become aware of something which is already true about one another, even if we do not yet agree in all of our beliefs.

Wow, what a significant post. Thanks so much. There is much there to consider. You may not agree with me, but I think we are much more "one" than many non-LDS and LDS Christians would like to acknowledge. That would threaten a whole lot of paradigms!

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Do Mark's comments about the need for boundaries to preserve identity serve to protect?

Where did I say that? CFR, por favor.

I have reason to think I have been hacked

 

Edited January 3, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If you can think of a book or article length document that goes into some detail on clarifying the LDS concept of the priesthood, I would appreciate it.

While these are very basic, they might help fill in some gaps and are a quick read.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-a/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-b?lang=eng

Edited January 3, 2023 by Calm

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

If it is a worthiness issue, they would not be a member in good standing, would they?

The only other circumstance I can think of is if it was obvious they lacked the mental or emotional development to be accountable for their actions.

One of the things I do not understand is if the only reason a male member in good standing would be denied the Melchizedek priesthood is for something that would also keep them from being a member in good standing, then how is holding the priesthood a sign of anything except being a male member in good standing? What a long sentence. I hope it makes a modicum of sense?

It just seems like for 90-some percent of men, if they join the church, they get the ministerial priesthood. I can't get my head around that . . . but that may simply be because it is the exact opposite of what my faith culture teaches and practices - the exact opposite. Doesn't make it wrong . . . nor does it make my faith culture wrong. It simply requires a lot of exposure and learning to figure it out.

I know people in my faith, men and women who are from a to z in the spectrum of faithfulness, Godliness, and spirituality. I know people in the LDS church, men and women who are from a to z in the spectrum of faithfulness, Godliness, and spirituality. Yet, the differences in the practice of to whom is granted and receives a vital priesthood within the group are humongous. Gotta get my head around that! 🙃 - nope! That isn't it! Take care!

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Where did I say that? CFR, por favor.

I have reason to think I have been hacked

 

I think you said that in your recent post about circles, groups, identity and the like! Perhaps my punctuation didn't make the meaning clear. You emphasized the need for groups to draw lines in order to, in actuality have a group. I was asking if there might not be a protective nature to those boundaries. Not only do they identify, they may serve to keep members in and non-members (speaking generically in a sociological way) out! That is a protective function - then the group doesn't weaken through loss of membership or through dilution of the similarity of thought or doctrine (in the case of religious groups).

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I think you said that in your recent post about circles, groups, identity and the like! Perhaps my punctuation didn't make the meaning clear. You emphasized the need for groups to draw lines in order to, in actuality have a group. I was asking if there might not be a protective nature to those boundaries. Not only do they identify, they may serve to keep members in and non-members (speaking generically in a sociological way) out! That is a protective function - then the group doesn't weaken through loss of membership or through dilution of the similarity of thought or doctrine (in the case of religious groups).

Please give me a link to that post?

I recall no such post; perhaps I am senile

I was speaking about the LOGIC of what constitutes a circle or group- Is that what you meant?

It had nothing to do with protection as I rcall.

How can there be a "group" without definitions?

Edited January 3, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

While these are very basic, they might help fill in some gaps and are a quick read.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-a/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/duties-and-blessings-of-the-priesthood-basic-manual-for-priesthood-holders-part-b?lang=eng

When reading through that information, I can't help but think the priesthood which is held by the vast majority of male members of the LDS church is described therein in the exact same way (almost) in those lessons, that I was taught about the royal priesthood of I Peter 2 which is granted to all believers. The biggest difference is that in my tradition, both males and females are granted it at the point (aorist) of time of salvation.

In the LDS community it seems that the priesthood is granted after or as a part of confirmation (to the male) prior to the person becoming a priest in either an Aaronic or Melchizedek sense. In both cases the vast majority if not all of those who qualify, receive that priesthood. It is the priesthood by which Christians minister, teach, reach out to the unbeliever, receive revelation from God, etc. Perhaps in the LDS world it is combined with what we and our Catholic friends think of the ministerial priesthood which is reserved in our worlds for a tiny percentage of believers to administer the ordinances, including baptisms and marriages. Dumb question, but I have never thought of it before . . . can a female missionary sister baptize someone? I have never seen that, but my population is certainly limited. Take care.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Please give me a link to that post?

I recall no such post; perhaps I am senile

Sure . . . I don't know which thread it was in or how to search, but I will give it a go! It wasn't very philosophical, maybe that is why you forget it! It was downright sociological! Ha! Give me a few minutes. I don't even know how to quote it here if I find it! I will do my best by copying and pasting. I think I know how to do that!

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Please give me a link to that post?

I recall no such post; perhaps I am senile

I was speaking about the LOGIC of what constitutes a circle or group- Is that what you meant?

It had nothing to do with protection as I rcall.

That is the post and those that followed with thoughts from others. I didn't say you implied it had anything to do with protection. you called it a "set." I added the thought later on that the concept of a circle or set so as to identify a group, might indeed also serve a protective function for the group - a boundary that keeps members in and non-members out. That ensures the integrity, purity, and sustaining of the group over time. All of those were my musings about the idea of boundaries and a set or lines drawn around the circle. It never dawned on me that your post had anything to do with logic! Ha! That was a broma! a joke! 😀

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Sure . . . I don't know which thread it was in or how to search, but I will give it a go! It wasn't very philosophical, maybe that is why you forget it! It was downright sociological! Ha! Give me a few minutes. I don't even know how to quote it here if I find it! I will do my best by copying and pasting. I think I know how to do that!

Go up to the three dots in the upper right hand corner, click on them and then click on “share”.  That will give you the url for the post.  Copy that and then paste in your post.  You will get the option to show it as a link which looks less cluttered to me, but leaving it as showing the whole box that one can then click on the backspace arrow in the upper right corner to go to the thread if desired works as well.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

can a female missionary sister baptize someone?

A female missionary does not hold an office of priesthood, so no.  No female can, even in the temple where we may perform some priesthood ordinances, again without being set apart in a priesthood office (Deacon, Teacher, Priest, Elder, etc).

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Give me a few minutes. I don't even know how to quote it here if I find it!

Highlight it and then hit "quote". A link will automatically be established for you. Then "save" it.

The quote automatically goes to heaven!

 

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I didn't say you implied it had anything to do with protection. you called it a "set." I added the thought later on that the concept of a circle or set so as to identify a group, might indeed also serve a protective function for the group - a boundary that keeps members in and non-members out. That ensures the integrity, purity, and sustaining of the group over time. All of those were my musings about the idea of boundaries and a set or lines drawn around the circle. I

Ah, ok, fergitaboutit!  No need to go further 

YOU made it about protection, not me.

That is your major point in being here, so now it is clear; misunderstanding!

Discussing sets is about logic

Edited January 3, 2023 by mfbukowski