The Folk Prophet

One thing Elder Oaks said in the talk yesterday was that all ordinances were recorded. Stating it in these terms implies that things such as father's blessings are not ordinances, but merely priesthood blessings. I've always thought of them as ordinances... I wonder if I have been incorrect in that or if Elder Oaks misspoke somewhat, or was using terms differently than at other times, or what. Hmm...must research...

I would think that priesthood authority in the home and presiding in the home are not exactly the same thing. A single mother absolutely presides in her home without priesthood. The father presides in the home under the patriarchal order, which is tied to the priesthood, but that order is appropriate even prior to the priesthood (as in a newly baptized family...were I hometeaching them I would still defer to the father to call on someone to pray, etc...). DHK is correct on keys. But of course there are other keys that are not ward level in the church. The sealing keys, for example, which are held by one man at any time on the earth (the Prophet). The father's priesthood authority is an extension of keys, methinks, in the same way that the relief society president's authority is an extension of priesthood keys. This is why the father, who does preside in the home independently, cannot baptize his children without approval from those with keys, cannot administer the sacrament, etc... If all priesthood holders in the world died suddenly and a father was left alone, the last remaining priesthood holder, he would not have the keys required to do the work of salvation...not for his family or for any others.

Welcome to CSS and browser differences. The bane of webdeveloper's existence.

Concluded if no one has more to discuss on the matter...I suppose. But certainly not every sensitive topic of all time was discussed in today's conference. (Maybe tomorrow we'll cover the rest. :) Heheh.) I agree there was some great bluntness today. And that was, as I suggested I believe, a very good thing. That being said, I do not see the same sort of bluntness as one might have heard by, say, Brigham Young. But perhaps that's a good thing. That is the discussion point, after all.

Another way to put it: Are not we all called to stand as witnesses of Christ, to take His name upon us, and to represent him in everything we do?

The absurdity of the scenario is what strikes me too. I don't think keeping 2 away makes much sense in terms of the idea that the Lord is leading the church and is pretty much not going to let the conference center get nuked while the 12 were there. But...maybe... In some cases the Lord does expect practical means to be used. However, I swear I've seen all of them there at conference before.

Did anyone else notice that Pres. Uchtdorf announced that a member of the Young Women's Presidency would be speaking at the priesthood session? My wife and I both did a double-take (we were watching together from home...and yes, I know I should have gone in person, but I didn't....) and looked at each other (we weren't listening that close, and so only heard Young Women, not the name), and I thought, "Well now, that's interesting." When it turned out to be the Young Men's Presidency, I went back on my DVR to see if we'd really heard what we thought we heard. Sure enough, he accidentally says Young Women's.

I think "smack down" is an appropriate phrase.

Hmm. I thought they were. My bad.

Watch it online. They are immediately available via lds.org.

He is a very good speaker. I enjoyed this one a lot. Interestingly he helped me see both sides of the issue. If my wife jumped out of a moving truck with our baby I'd be MAD! But, how courageous and thoughtless. Very thought provoking. I liked that he said it was their concern for each other's welfare that got them through the frustration.

As I see it, those exceptions are what I'm talking about. They are the sensitive subjects.

Sleep. I've discovered in my life that if I get enough sleep I handle life and if I don't I do NOT. So when I am really struggling, it's almost always because I need sleep.

It's not a policy related response. It's a logic based responds. By literally I mean "literally". If they "literally" can't, then they can't.

My favorite so far.

I thought it might be helpful if I posted the text I was reading that led me to start this thread. This is an excerpt from Gospel Doctrine by Joseph F. Smith. My feeling is that we would never hear or read something this "blunt" by church leaders in our day. Many would contend, I think, that this is because this sort of idea is dated and no longer entirely valid or supportable by church principles. I disagree with that however. Whereas there are some things we know to be dated, and even repudiated, this sort of thing (and many like it) are still concrete and valid gospel principles that have been diluted by nothing more than popular culture and politically correct ideology. I believe that the reason we don't hear this sort of thing is because it would offend people, and there is good, and valid, cause to not offend people. I think wingnut hit it on the head in saying, "...political correctness is important. Its absence can be a barrier in missionary work." The church is gathering. Offense may well be the greater evil in this time of gathering. The downside is, I believe, is that we have a whole host of LDS folk who do not actually understand the gospel because they write off anything potentially offensive as dated, and validate that because they no longer hear it spoken at the pulpit or written about, etc. Additionally, they may hear a simple quote akin to "men and women are equal" and use that in conjunction with the missing dialogue as seen below to misunderstand the nature of the gospel and God's order. You see what I'm getting at? Here's the excerpt: "The Father the Presiding Authority of the Family. There is no higher authority in matters relating to the family organization, and especially when that organization is presided over by one holding the higher priesthood, than that of the father. This authority is time honored, and among the people of God in all dispensations it has been highly respected and often emphasized by the teachings of the prophets who were inspired of God. The patriarchal order is of divine origin and will continue throughout time and eternity. There is, then, a particular reason why men, women and children should understand this order and this authority in the households of the people of God, and seek to make it what God intended it to be, a qualification and preparation for the highest exaltation of his children. In the home the presiding authority is always vested in the father, and in all home affairs and family matters there is no other authority paramount. To illustrate this principle, a single incident will perhaps suffice. It sometimes happens that the elders are called in to administer to the members of a family. Among these elders there may be presidents of stakes, apostles, or even members of the first presidency of the Church. It is not proper under these circumstances for the father to stand back and expect the elders to direct the administration of this important ordinance. The father is there. It is his right and it is his duty to preside. He should select the one who is to administer the oil, and the one who is to be mouth in prayer, and he should not feel that because there are present presiding authorities in the Church that he is therefore divested of his rights to direct the administration of that blessing of the gospel in his home. (If the father be absent, the mother should request the presiding authority present to take charge.) The father presides at the table, at prayer, and gives general directions relating to his family life whoever may be present. Wives and children should be taught to feel that the patriarchal order in the kingdom of God has been established for a wise and beneficent purpose, and should sustain the head of the household and encourage him in the discharge of his duties, and do all in their power to aid him in the exercise of the rights and privileges which God has bestowed upon the head of the home. This patriarchal order has its divine spirit and purpose, and those who disregard it under one pretext or another are out of harmony with the spirit of God's laws as they are ordained for recognition in the home. It is not merely a question of who is perhaps the best qualified. Neither is it wholly a question of who is living the most worthy life. It is a question largely of law and order, and its importance is seen often from the fact that the authority remains and is respected long after a man is really unworthy to exercise it."

I'm not entirely sure this was a pure and honest threadjack, as it goes to the point and is definitely helpful to me in understanding and learning about the changes in approach to bluntness.

Technically I did both. :) I can threadjack my own thread though, right? Heheh.

I just noticed that. Thank!

Hooray! There's a New Posts button!!!

Excuse me. To exercise unrighteous dominion one has to actually exercise dominion. Expressing an opinion on a forum is in no way even close to dominion. I did not say it was up to the bishop or a therapist or me. You're putting words into my mouth unfairly. I stand by my opinion that there is a spirit of the law that can be broken even within marriage. Calling that opinion unrighteous dominion is ridiculous. Moreover, all instances of whether or not we are sinning are up to the Lord. That has no bearing on a discussion as to whether behavior is appropriate or not. Of course it's between them and the Lord. Same thing if a couple lies to each other or says mean things or ignore each other. And I would feel perfectly comfortable advising against such behavior whether you call it judgmental or not.

Well, first of all, (and this is a bit argumentative) all of the references to the equality of men and women are qualified in the link you provided. Men and women are obviously equal in many regards, the most important being in their potential standing before God according to their faith and obedience. But that does not mean they are equal in all regards. And that's okay. :) I agree with you overall though. I do not think those complaining about equality are saying the same thing as what the church is saying. And, accordingly, they're talking past each other. Still...the equality thing wasn't meant to be the point of the discussion (though I'm all for thread hijacks). The point is that I feel that there are things that are not being said that should be said because if they were said they would offend others. I want to be clear -- I am not suggesting the church change. Their approach is their prerogative, and the leaders are better men than me to make these distinctions. I am only talking theory and philosophy for the sake of learning (as you and I have done before).

Great post! Just the sort of discussion I wanted. The discussion at hand is what is considered tempered with love. A call to repentance is, for example, one of the most loving things we can do. It is usually taken as hateful though. Hmmm. Apparently your in-laws never read The Miracle of Forgiveness. :) Not using archaic terms is not really the point though. That is good, clearly. Sort of. Not really. More closely aligned to "frank" or "straight-forward". Actually you're getting right at what I'm trying to say...in that -- what is considered rude because of the PC culture cannot be said anymore. People use offense to dissuade others from speaking clearly, and in cases, any straight-forward talk is responded to as offensive. So I mean blunt. I mean Paul blunt. I mean Captain Moroni blunt. I mean Brigham Young blunt. I mean Spencer W. Kimball blunt. But my point is that I do not feel that this sort of bluntness should be considered rude. But nowadays, it is. Hmm. Actually, truth be told, from certain crowds, such bluntness was always taken as rude (take Nephi and Laman and Lemuel). So I suppose I wonder wherein previous generations of prophets spoke this way and it was called standing up for the truth, but nowadays such expressions are considered not "tempered with love".

If they literally can't, they literally can't, and then, yes, baptism for the dead would be the only solution.

As often pointed out by those in support of feministic ideas, the idea of equality is related to opportunity. And that is where the inequality undoubtedly must be acknowledged. Women do not have the opportunity to baptize their children. They do not have the opportunity to serve in certain rolls. Etc. Etc... We can go back and forth with a discussion of whether they ought to want such opportunities or not, and I suspect we would largely agree there, but the desire is not relevant to the literal fact of equality. If women did not desire to vote (as I suspect many of them did not due to cultural forces about them) it would not mean that suddenly the women were equal politically. The lack of desire to be equal does not change the reality of the inequality. My opinion is that it would be much clearer for everyone if the church said, "We don't believe in full equality. In some regards men and women aren't meant to be equal. And that's okay." This would not change the feelings of those who demanded equality...because they already feel that this is what the church really means anyhow...but it would, I think, help to fix some of the confusion around the discussion. Such bluntness concerning these subjects would also deflate some of the arguments being made by those who are inclined to support outlying ideas.