[Steve-o]

Does anyone know how many of the disaffected returned AFTER Joseph’s death?

It could be interesting to see if there’s a correlation between the disaffection and JS as opposed to disaffection with the entire church.

[Steve-o]

Ray,

I agree. Endowed women already possess the power but leadership is not authorizing them to engage that power via performance of ordinances. All it would take is for authorization to be given. In some ways it seems like such a simple step that seems inevitable. It’s just a matter of timing.

[Steve-o]

SilentDawning wrote:

nibbler wrote:

Good call.

That certainly lends itself to the interpretation of including truth, wherever it may be found, into the “great whole.”

To me, it’s nonsensical. I just read a passage in Rough Stone Rolling that made a lost of sense. Bushman quoted one of Joseph’s revelations in Kirtland, and made this comment:

Quote:

The exact meaning of the passage is elusive, and interpretations differ”

To me, coming from a genius like Bushman, it means the particular passage he quoted may well have been gibberish. Just because something is elusive, doesn’t meant its got hidden truth in it. It can sometimes be nonsense.

I will say this — Ghandi made a comment that all aspects of a person’s life — their work, family, friendship, are “one”. That made a lot of sense to me, as they are all based on similar principles of respect, kindness, trust, positive investment, standards, mutual benefits, etcetera. If you want to connect that statement about all truth being circumscribed into one “whole”, then that makes sense to me — a lot of sense.

I agree to a point. We would either need to accept that JS was speaking jibberish or we would have to conclude that there was some intended meaning behind the things he said, or the language used to teach us a higher knowledge. I don’t like dropping things into the “mysteries of God” bucket and letting it drop. That “mysteries” shelf gets pretty heavy.

[Steve-o]

Is there any Aaronic Priesthood ordinance that is administered in the temple? I can’t think of anything. So that would indicate that women would be prepared to officiate outside the temple, even if it requires approval. That would also indicate that we’re simply waiting for that approval to be given. It’s not a question of if, but when.

[Steve-o]

nibbler wrote:

When people say “prepared to officiate” I think they mean:

1) Holding the priesthood is assumed.

2) The person is worthy enough to perform the ordinance.

3) The person knows the ordinance mechanics. Like what to say when consecrating oil, what to say and do when performing a baptism, etc.

Some ordinances require people with the proper priesthood keys to delegate the ability to another person to perform an ordinance. Perhaps that’s what it would mean in the context of women. Women have been delegated the ability to perform certain ordinances in the temple by the proper priesthood channels… which opens things up to all kinds of really interesting questions.

This is an interesting take. But if women are prepared to officiate in Aaronic or Melchezidek Priesthood ordinances it would tend to imply that they could be assigned to perform ordinances in those priesthoods, not just in the temple. Restricting practice of priesthood to temple ordinances only seems to be a limitaion on the wording.

Men must already hold the priesthod before entering the temple. Women do not. So it would seem that the temple equalizes their positions.

[Steve-o]

nibbler wrote:

The words “will be” stand out to me. They imply something that takes place in the future. It acknowledges that all truth is not currently circumscribed into one great whole.

So, is there a point in time where we will be able to say all truth has been circumscribed into one great whole? Or all truth is circumscribed into one great whole?

“Will be” can also be a continual present tense as a command so perhaps it is a continuing process in which we’re all involved. Perhaps this is partly what is meant by Uchtdorf’s talk about the continuing restoration.

[Steve-o]

Thanks.

So how would endowed women be “prepared to officiate” in ordinances of the A or M Priesthood?

[Steve-o]

Old-Timer wrote:

I go with “contained” – meaning there is one great whole within which all truth exists.

So would this mean that when new truth is discovered that doesn’t fit inside the gospel, that the gospel must expand to include the new truth like Nibbler stated?

If so, it would seem we do it backwards in the church, trying to cram truth within the box that already exists instead of expanding to encompass the greater truth.

[Steve-o]

From CHI 1

Quote:

Time between Transgression and Confession

If a transgression occurred many years before it was confessed, the presiding officer carefully considers the intervening circumstances. If the sin was not repeated and the member has lived righteously in the interim, his conduct during the intervening time can show that he has forsaken the sin. In this instance, confession may complete rather than start the process of repentance.

[Steve-o]

Late 30’s.

I’ve also wondered if there’s a relationship between age and faith crisis and while I see many people similar to me it appears to happen for different people at different stages of life. At first I wondered if I was just having a midlife crisis. I don’t think so.

I’m also interested if there’s a more definite relationship between events and culture surrounding an individual instead of merely age.

For example, I would assume that there have been many more faith crisis’ this past year. Would those be related to a person’s age or would it be more likely related to the lds.org essays or the Kate Kelly/John Dehlin dust up. I”m guessing that the faith crisis is no respecter of age.

[Steve-o]

Old-Timer wrote:

Steve-o, I don’t mind Utah-focused statements (especially since I think these statements address the ultra-conservative tendencies of Utah politics), since the Church also issues nation- and world-focused statements – including about healthcare, immigration and other similar issues.

I don’t live in Utah so it would be nice to have them take the same interest in my area as they do in Utah. By focusing as much as they do on Utah it makes it appear like Utah is more important than the rest of the country and world. Again, health care has been a big issue in the US so why only address it to Utah? Is Utah the only place with Ultra conservative politics among members? No. It’s often as if they don’t notice these issues until it’s on their front doorstep.

[Steve-o]

The church is weighing in on more of these issues, illegal immigration and now healthcare. It can be argued that any political/social issue is also a moral issue. It is interesting that many ultra-conservatives find themselves at odds with the church on these issues, yet they would never admit it.

What perplexes me is their timing and their limitation of the statement to Utah. At the very least this issue is relevant for everyone in the US, if not the world. I think this is evidence of the Utah-centric nature of the church and I’d like to see it go away.

[Steve-o]

A lot of hard nosers (I consider myself a recovering hard noser) view their role as a teacher via tough love. This came naturally to me, maybe because my parents were also hard nosers or maybe I viewed God as a nard noser (think Old Testament fire and brimstone). Being forgiving, compassionate, non-judgemental has been harder for me because I felt it was weak and unfaithful. I was a handbook kind of guy because it provided structure and direct answers. It is much harder to be work issues case by case instead of a one size fits all set of rules that must be followed at all costs.

I love Brown’s comment. It’s one that stuck out to me as well when I listened to that podcast. Tough love might work for some people but I think the majority just need compassionate love. The world is tough enough as it is.

[Steve-o]

This is an interesting question and I think you’d get a wide variety of responses if you asked in Gospel Doctrine class if it was a physical visitaion or a vision. I had always been taught it was a physical visitation. Was it a vision while he was awake or was he sleeping? Did he “awake” to find Moroni hovering above his bed or was it a dream?

I am much more likely to accept the account as a vision instead of a physical visitation. Dreams are more open to interpretation and confusion so there is less clarity with a dream versus a physical visitation but I think I prefer the less absolute version, especially when considering the multiple versions of the vision.

However, Joseph seems to have later claimed that God touched physically touched his eye which made it possible for him to see Christ so…

Quote:

God touched his eyes with his finger and said “[Joseph] this is my beloved Son hear him.” As soon as the Lord had touched his eyes with his finger he immediately saw the Savior. After meeting, a few of us questioned him about the matter and he told us at the bottom of the meeting house steps that he was in the House of Father Smith in Kirtland when Joseph made this declaration, and that Joseph while speaking of it put his finger to his right eye, suiting the action with the words so as to illustrate and at the same time impress the [occurrence] on the minds of those unto whom He was speaking.

—Diary of Charles Lowell Walker (Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1980), 2:755–56 [recorded 2 February 1893]

[Steve-o]

Be aware that whether he takes your recommend or not he IS likely to ask you if you’ll commit to paying a full tithe going forward. Again, you’ll need to decide how you define a “full tithe” and whether or not you’re willing to do that. If you are not willing, the chance of losing the recommend is much higher.

[Author]

Posts