The Folk Prophet

By which you mean to say.... ??

Teachers do not administer the sacrament. They set it up so the Priests can. The work Teachers do is not a priesthood ordinance, and yes, theoretically, anyone could do it. But it is assigned to the teachers by the proper channel and organization as established by God.

*shrug* only 80 people having to relocate isn't so bad.... ....oh...wait......

We also have Abraham 1:26-27 26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood. 27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry; In the past these scriptures have been used specifically related to why the blacks didn't have the priesthood. That has been disavowed...meaning that we no longer accept the idea that black Africans are descendants from this Pharaoh (and/or Ham). That is backwards explanation and we have no evidence that there is any connection between the latter-day church priesthood bans and other bans mentioned in the scriptures. However, it cannot be denied, and should not be denied, that there are, as JAG has pointed out, scriptural examples of priesthood rights being tied to lineage. We do not know why priesthood rights are tied to lineage sometimes. But we have concrete evidence that priesthood rights are, indeed, tied to lineage in past history. What we can focus on is how wonderful it is that all such restrictions have been lifted and that every worthy male, regardless or lineage, may now have these rights. We live in the fullness of times. It's pretty cool.

I would share the church essay and leave it at that. Let others draw their own conclusions. Testimony and faith cannot be entirely supported by evidence, explanation and perfect alignment with current cultural understandings of right and wrong. I do not think it can be explained better than the church essay does, and trying to explain it further runs the risk of stepping beyond the bounds of truth into speculation. We do not know why the ban was instituted. Anything more is guesswork.

or....perhaps sin disgusts the masses, but they enjoy being disgusted.

I'll be interested to hear your report.

Last time I said something was [explative] up I was called a bigot. :) "Messed" up...I said "messed up". what did you think I said?!

That's funny. I always feel like I was too brief and should have explained myself better. :)

I think it could be very beneficial to read it this way as an addition to other reading and studying. I would not make this an exclusionary means of reading it.

Mmmm. Bubblicious.

Did you miss the part of where I agreed with you? I'm asking for help, not debating.

I think it needs to be clearly understood what is and what is not "the endowment". The endowment itself is not everything said and spoken in the endowment room. There are specific bits that are the actual ordinance. Those are the parts that I question having once been different. The rest...as you say, is only presentation.

Yeah they did.

I wouldn't. It's an easy mistake. We have a history of seeing things differently, and it is, theoretically, something that one like me might have said, were I in the right (or, rather, wrong) sort of mood. I suppose you could call it politically correct to try and fit something Joseph taught into historical context -- though it would be a stretch, I think, of the use of the phrase.

Exactly. If the Lord tells you to jump off a cliff you jump. Otherwise, it's a pretty stupid thing to do. Walking around with an, "I have faith so I can walk into busy traffic without looking" attitude is a pretty severe misunderstanding. As it applies to the OP, the cost of living is increasing. My suggestion for an application of faith is to look for legitimate means to increase income. Make wise choices in those regards and then dig-in, sacrifice, and go to work to do so with faith that the Lord will assist.

No stealth edits. Just a misread.

I accept this thinking as potentially correct. But I don't believe it to be so. It will be interesting to find out in the next life, eh?

My conclusion comes from the idea of not relying upon the arm of flesh or the those who think they are wise (or, "scholars", in other words). :) Even if scholars found "proof" of the source of Masonry, showing it to be tied into something entirely separate from the temple, I wouldn't trust that. I don't really think it much matters, so it's just an opinion. The temple ceremony is as it is meant to be, regardless of the means whereby it came to be. However, as I have increased experience and knowledge in and of the temple (I am currently an ordinance worker), I am learning more and more that there is greater meaning and depth behind what is in the temple than what I ever imagined before...and I'm only brushing the surface of these meaning I'm sure. Ultimately, as there is no proof one way or the other, I choose to believe that God gave the temple ceremony to Joseph as it was meant to be, not in accordance with Joseph's preferences or learning, but in accordance with absolute, pure, and eternal truths. I do not think we'll get to the other side and find that the things given therein were merely symbolism. I know that symbolism is an important part of of it all. But that is not ALL there is to it, imo. There are, I believe, concrete things behind what is given and taught in the temple as well. And the details matter very much. I cannot see simply replacing these symbols - as if they were different in ye olden days than today. That would be akin to replacing the symbol of baptism with something else representative of being re-born. Sure, you could find something else that carried the symbolism. But I'm pretty sure Adam and Eve and their posterity were all baptized in water by immersion the same as we are. I do not believe God just used what Joseph knew to fill out the ceremony. I believe very firmly that what was given and taught to Adam and Eve via the ordinances of God is the same thing that is given and taught to us.

Not to mention that it is easily scripturally supportable that God has withheld ordinances due to race.

But can you provide sources for this? I'd say, btw, that exercising faith and being tested are equivalent.

To be fair...and perhaps this is a shameful confession...but were I put on the spot to recall what the duties of a teacher was, I'm not sure I'd come up with more than "prepare the sacrament" without looking it up myself.

Hi anatess. I agree with you. However, was wondering if you could back up the idea that we exercised faith and were tested in the pre-mortal existence. I seem to recall learning or reading or hearing something along those lines at some point in my life, but whether it was a quote from an official teaching or just a folk doctrine...that I cannot recall.

For what it's worth, I adamantly and firmly disagree with this. :)

It does not matter whether you agree. D&C 137:10 - And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.