The Folk Prophet

I like the article. It brings out what is, perhaps, the key point that most miss when discussing virtues. The virtue to end all virtues, as one might put it, is obedience! Yes, Love God is the most important commandment (or virtue). Love your neighbor as yourself is the second. But obedience is requisite even to these, because without obedience, a commandment, even to love, is meaningless -- in that obeying is part of the defining character of what makes a command a command (obey me = I command). Of all the examples set by our Savior, obedience was, perhaps, the foremost. Jesus did His Father's will in all thing.

Not sure why it couldn't be both. For more info on it plus a whole bunch of other info read here. I haven't read through this all yet, but maybe further info on your question is forthcoming. :)

Of course. Here's McConkie on it: "By what power and under whose authorization shall the work be done? There is only one place under the whole heavens where the keys of temple building are found. There is only one people who know how to build temples and what to do in them when they are completed. That people is the Latter-day Saints. The temple in Jerusalem will not be built by Jews who have assembled there for political purposes as at present. It will not be built by a people who know nothing whatever about the sealing ordinances and their application to the living and the dead. It will not be built by those who know nothing about Christ and his laws and the mysteries reserved for the saints. But it will be built by Jews who have come unto Christ, who once again are in the true fold of their ancient Shepherd, and who have learned anew about temples because they know that Elijah did come, not to sit in a vacant chair at some Jewish feast of the Passover, but to the Kirkland Temple on April 3, 1836, to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. The temple in Jerusalem will be built by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “They that are far off,” [Zech. 6:12-15.] they that come from an American Zion, they who have a temple in Salt Lake City will come to Jerusalem to build there another holy house in the Jerusalem portion of “the mountains of the Lord’s house.” (D&C 133:13.)

I think this is as unfair as thinking that the Lord will condemn her because of her failings.

I mostly agree here--though I think there's a fair amount of guessing going on and we don't really understand these things at all. But it argues for the point that women will never need the priesthood, because they can experience the blessings of it vicariously. It also argues (going back to an old thread debate with you) for the potential of polygamy, in that one celestial sister-wife would vicariously share in the joy of all her celestial sister-wives joy in progeny. I believe you argued before that celestial polygamy could not be fair because the husband's progeny would be greater than the wife's. According to this vicarious sharing theory, that would not be true.

You're right. Let's start having men do the washing and anointing of women immediately. I'm sure they won't mind.

Not to mention the traits of Gender. Men, even exalted, I think it's fair to say, will never bear children. :)

Off the top of my head....part of the restoration. But that's really just off the top of my head. It seems like some restoration events are scripturally set after the return of Christ...but, mayhaps there shall be an interim state between the return of Christ and the official start of the millennium. ???

Only if it's a turkey dinner with all the fixins.

This seriously conflicts with the concept of proper priesthood authority, which one does not receive simply through inheritance. Ultimately we all trace our lineage back to the 'priestly' families of Noah and Adam. And, to be clear, the teaching on animal sacrifice is specifically NOT a restoration of the Mosaic law, but a restoration of animal sacrifice as given to Adam.

Okay...I know Emma bashing is taboo it our current culture of Mormon-dom, so I'll be careful (sort of). Per "Whatever decisions she made after her beloved Joseph died, she never lost her testimony of the church and the divine restoration of it." Whereas there is obvious truth to parts of this statement, I think it needs to be qualified a bit. I'm not entirely sure that Emma had a testimony that the church as led by Brigham Young remained as the "true" church, this somewhat, perhaps, being supported by the support she threw behind the Reorganized church. To be fair, this may have been simple misunderstanding on her part, rather than evidence of testimony focus, but....well....there it is. Regardless, if I decided to leave the LDS church and go join the Community of Christ instead, I think it might be valid to say I lost my testimony of the church. Even if I claimed to believe that both churches were just as true as the other, that still falls into the category of loss of testimony at some level, imo. We are hardly as forgiving of others who went and joined or started other branches of LDS based groups. Whereas it would be fairly valid in their cases to also say that they never lost a testimony of Joseph Smith's divine mission and/or the early church, in determining that the current church was not the proper path to continue down, they still undoubtedly lost their testimonies at some level. I want to be clear, lest someone accuse me of something unfairly, I am not contending, nor do I believe one way or another, that Emma lost her salvation or became wicked or something. That is between Emma and God. But I do believe that we should look at Emma's later life as an example of what not to do, rather than some shining example of steadfastness.

The difference seems stunningly obvious to me. We simply cannot have men do the washing and anointings with any level of propriety. I did have another thought however...it's a bit out there...but.... Is it reasonably to accept that the washing and anointing of women is NOT a priesthood ordinance? It is an ordinance performed under the authority of the priesthood, yes. But the relief society also, as we know, functions under the authority of the priesthood. Could it reasonably be that where all ordinances require priesthood authority, some (at least one) does not require the performer to have the priesthood, but others do? I know this thought goes into a bit of wordplay, but... Well, it's a thought. There is some logic behind this in the idea that the washing and anointing is considered "initiatory" or preparatory to recieving the endowment. I know, I know...more word play...because all ordinances are preparatory to the higher ones. But....well....like I said, it's a thought.

I've read your views before. You like to see the Celestial kingdom as some sort of hive community it seems. I don't see it that way. I find your logic, in some cases, a bit askew.

We've acknowledged that God has given what? I'm not sure what you think is foregone here? I can see no reasoning behind the idea that someone could authorize a woman to do a baptism, for example. As to what's preventing the keys being turned? That would be the will and word of God.

I might contend (thought I'd have to think a bit more about it) that as men are "priests" in this life but anointed to become "priests" of a different nature in the hereafter, so women are priestesses to their husband in this life in like manner as they will be hereafter priestesses of a different nature to their husbands. Hmm....

Temple Recommend interviews are every 2 years now.

I don't see dominion in the same way as you are describing presiding. Jesus did the Father's will. Not the other way around. It's as simple as that. All things submit to the Father. Ownership is another way to look at dominion. God owns all His creations. We will not own all of His creations. We will own our creations. Per the scripture you use, I really think "all" has to be understood generally and not specifically. God, our Father, will still continue to create worlds and children without end. These will be under His dominion, but not ours. He will own them. We will not. Reasonably speaking, they could be under our dominion, if there was need, but as that need will not exist, they will not. And in a way we will share in the glory of those -- I agree with you there -- but...well...it's a bit beyond us to really understand, you know what I mean? It's interesting though, isn't it?

Okay...here's my take on it. The doctrinal standard is that the priesthood does per the example set by Jesus: "...he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the disciples and commanded that they should eat." (3rd Nephi 18:3, emphasis mine). I do not think that, "distributied to each individually" is inherent in the word "gave". But rather, He handed it to them generally, and then they distributed among themselves. Thus it is with our current practice. It would be doctrinally sound for a single priesthood holder (at least a Priest) to break and bless the bread and then to hand it to a congregation member, whereupon it was passed through the entire congregation and then handed back to that priesthood holder. For convenience, those passing the sacrament move it from row to row, however. On the other hand, it would be doctrinally unsound to have the priesthood holder break and bless the bread and then have just any old non-priesthood congregation member walk up and grab it without it being generally "given" it by the priesthood holder first. Reasonably speaking, therefore, it could be doctrinally sound for the priesthood to "give" the sacrament to a sister (or sisters) who then distributed it throughout the congregation. But this would make little sense for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that the practice of how the sacrament is distributed is partially doctrinal, but also partially policy as related to priesthood duties and training.

I honestly don't know, beyond that the Lord has said that all things must be restored.

This is an interesting question and brings up some interesting thoughts. From a certain perspective...not. They can become like our Heavenly Mother. From another perspective, yes, we can all become like Heavenly Father. But this is one specific way in which there has to be a literal difference and women will not become just the same as our Father. Gender is eternal. The Father is male. Women will never be male. So women will never be exactly like Heavenly Father. Yes. And no. I will never have dominion over Jesus, for example. God the Father does. We will never have the same dominion as the Father, but we will share in His full Glory. So "all" is an interesting idea in this regard.

More from Joseph Fielding Smith on the ongoing restoration: "We are living in the dispensation of the fullness of times into which all things are to be gathered, and all things are to be restored since the beginning. Even this earth is to be restored to the condition which prevailed before Adam’s transgression."

Because all things must be restored. “The sacrifice of animals will be done to complete the restoration when the temple spoken of is built; at the beginning of the millennium, or in the restoration, blood sacrifices will be performed long enough to complete the fulness of the restoration in this dispensation. Afterwards sacrifice will be of some other character.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:94.)

I don't know the full meaning. But I think it is significant to put it in terms of "...priestess to her husband", whereas the husband is not referred to in terms of "priest to his wife". If I was going to throw a guess, I'd put it something along the lines of this: Men become priests through ordination to the priesthood. Women become priestesses by marrying their husbands. There is no implication therein as to the power and authority the woman has,- that simply is what it is -- but there is, perhaps, a strong implication that ordination is not, and will not be, the means women become priestesses. Realistically, I also think that the usage of the term priest and priestess in the temple is much more universal than the way we use the term priest in the mortal order of the priesthood. Anyone who reaches the highest kingdom permanently joins the Celestial order and becomes a part of the "priesthood" (meaning an organization of priests and priestesses) of God, with all the attending power, glory, and dominion. Whereas on this earth we are only given authority to act for God, rather than actually holding any power ourselves. The ultimate requirement (as far as ordinances go) for achieving this is marriage, which responsibility is equal to men and women. Without marriage, neither qualify. But men have the additional requirement of being ordained to the priesthood in life to qualify, whereas women join the order when they marry.

Which brings up an interesting concept that I have been thinking about lately. How does one kill without also having negative emotions attend? Do we really envision the sons of Helaman chopping off Lamanite heads with no attending fury as they are in the midst of the heated battle? I think not. I would, rather, contend, that anger, just as killing, can be justifiable. Now, lest you think I am contemplating killing someone, let me apply the thought: In the latest CES fireside Elder Ballard pointed out how we are every bit as much at war in our day, but it is not a war with swords, but with truths. So I apply my question thusly: With the analogy of war and battle, does the attending idea of fury also cross over in the analogy, and if so, how? Certainly we know that we are meant to discuss things civilly. But sometimes it seems that the efforts to be kind lead to the righteous postilion being trampled upon. In fact, in my mind, there is a conflict of ideas herein. On one hand, turn the other cheek. On the other, defend your families, your liberties, your rights of worship, and you homes, even with your lives if necessary. Application of the two ideas can be difficult, particularly when the situation is not as physically extreme (death and dismemberment). But reasonably, we must accept that the situation(s) may be just as extreme for the souls (apostasy and sin).

Right. And if one is spending the time to research doctrinal concepts, even with the end goal being to refute an idea on the forum, it practically constitutes scripture study, in many a case. The same can be true of reading responses that have been well supported by scripture and other church materials. Of course, descending into incivility quickly renders even those efforts inappropriate...but that would be true of any day, not just Sundays.