Gaia

GAIA: As I quoted Joseph Smith previously (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 322) there are THREE GRAND ORDERS of Priesthood; And it is the Aaronic Order which administers in outward ordinances, and the offering of sacrifices.... BYU Relligion Professor emeritus Hyrum Andrus explains: The "different portions or degrees" of the Melchizedek Priesthood were arranged into systems called "orders of the priesthood," each structured according to a given organizational design and in possession of specific rights and powers. The Prophet taught that there were "three grand orders of priesthood"—the Melchizedek, the Aaronic or Levitical, and the Patriarchal. fn The first, with the second as an appendage, functioned as the basis of the Church and government of God, and the third was the perfected order in which man could receive a fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood and be exalted as a priest and a king [or as previously quoted LDS authorities stated, Priestess and Queen] in eternity. (Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrines of the Kingdom [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1973], 157.) ~Gaia

GAIA: First, as you would know if you'd actually read my posts, i've quoted a number of Prophets and apostles. Secondly, as Elphaba has already indicated, many of those we've quoted or referred to are AWARD WINNING EXPERTS in LDS history. It's very easy -- but well known as a logical fallacy -- to dismiss someone's argument on the basis of their personal issues or problems, real or imagined. Frankly, their personal issues or problems are none of our business -- unless we happen to be their Priesthood authorities -- and then only within the ecclesiastical (Church) context -- not on public discussion boards. In fact, that's one reason why the Church does not broadcast the reasons for excommunications -- so people will NOT contribute to personal gossip about them. ~Gaia

GAIA: I just want to confirm this. As anyone who actually reads what El wrote can tell for themselves, HER post was confined to a specific issue at a specific historical period in Church history; in fact she specified that she was NOT making any statements on current doctrine, women or Priesthood. For example, here's a quote from post #63 of the thread, "Did Women EVER Hold the Priesthood", posted on Sept 10: P.S. To be clear, I am not saying women have the priesthood today or should be activists to do so. I have no opinion on that. E. IN fact, and as i've already stated, I am the one who drew the discussion out into broader territory ; in fact, (in post # 68 of the same thread, also posted Sep 10) she asked me to avoid continuing in that manner: However, on this thread I am adamant that I want to stick with the Quorum of the Anointed in the late 1830s and early 1840s. I find your posts going far beyond this particular moment of history, and therefore going way off point. So, would you please, if you still wish to discuss women and the priesthood in the fashion you've posted here, start a new thread? Thank you, Elphaba And Elphaba, i want to formally, deeply apologize for drawing that thread off into other territory which you never intended and clearly did NOT wish to discuss. Sincerely -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Exactly so. :) GAIA: Please stop making assumptions about my beliefs, attitudes, experiences and intentions. The only "assertion" i made or was trying to make in that entire post is that that quote "says a lot about exaltation, the ph, etc." and i think it does. GAIA: There had been a lot of (heated and in some cases, somewhat confused) discussion on the nature and meaning of Priesthood. I thought that quote helped clarify some important information on the nature of Presthood, that had not been (explicitly) raised previously; And my "point" was to encourage people to prayerfully study the quote in the context of the entire discussion and the comments that had been made, and see what THEY get out of it . Sorta like: (Doctrine and Covenants 9:8 -- 8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. But ok, since you insist, i will offer a few more thoughts: however, I haven't much time tonight, i'll try to get some tomorrow to elaborate; but for now: Most of the discussion (with a few exceptions) has and in fact, usually does (for reasons that might be interesting to consider) focused upon Priesthood in terms of just Two of those Three Orders, as if all there was to or of PH was Aaronic (ie, blessing the Sacrament) or Melchizedek (ie, quorums or leadership positions). The fact that there is a Third Order, and that those holding it are kings and priests [or, as i quoted previously, from other current LDS leaders who have said, Queens and Priestesses -- - of the Most High God, holding the keys of power and blessings. In fact, that Priesthood is a perfect law of theocracy, and stands as God to give laws to the people, administering endless lives to the sons and daughters of Adam" - This is CENTRAL to any discussion on Women and Priesthood. For more on this, i would suggest a number of RESOURCES: First and most important: - Hyrum L Andrus, _Principles of Perfection_ and _Doctrines of the Kingdom_ See Also: - Hanks, M. ed. _Women and Authority_ - “Women in the Early Christian Movement,” in _WomanSpirit Rising_ Carol P Christ and Judith Plaskow, ed. - Scott H. Faulring, ed., An American Prophet’s Record: The Diaries & Journals of Joseph Smith, 2nd ed. - Andrew Ehat, “_Joseph Smith’s Introduction of Temple Ordinances_” - David John Buerger, “‘The Fullness of the Priesthood’: The Second Anointing in Latter-day Saint Theology and Practice,” _Dialogue: A Journal of MOrmon Thought_ 16 (Spring 1983):10-44. - David John Buerger, “The Development of the Mormon Temple Endowment Ceremony,” _Dialogue_ 20 (Winter 1987):33-76. - William G. Harwell, “_The Matriarchal Priestesshood and Emma’s Right to Succession as Presiding High Priestess and Queen_” - D MIchael Quinn, “Mormon Women Have Had the Priesthood Since 1843,” in _Women and Authority_ Maxine Hanks, ed. ON FEMALE PRIESTHOOD in Biblical times: - Antony Hutchinson, “Women and Ordination: Introduction to the Biblical Context,” in _Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought_ 14 (Winter 1981): 58-74; - Melodie Moench Charles, “Scriptural Precendents for Priesthood,” _Dialogue: A JOurnal of Mormon Thought_ 18 (Autumn 1985): 18-20; - Savina J. Teubal, _Sarah the Priestess_ and _Ancient Sisterhood_ - Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza, “Women in the Early Christian Movement,” in Carol P Christ and Judith Plaskow, ed. _WomanSpirit Rising_, 84-92; - Toscano and Toscano. _Strangers in Paradox_ Please note and be aware: Not all of these are LDS or contain official LDS doctrine. I'll try to get time tomorrow or this weekend, to elaborate -- (I have family visiting from out of state) -- Blessings -- ~Gaia

That kind of deliberately obtuse challenge doesn't really work with me Gaia. You'll have to try it on someone else. GAIA: OK, i'll make this as pointed (un-obtuse) as possible: With all due respect, Snow -- If you cannot provide the specific quote wherein Elphaba actually SAID that her "knowledge of LDS doctrine was superior" to anyone else's, please stop making accusations that you cannot back up. ~Gaia

GAIA: Look, i can understand why you'd want to beleive / assert that, but please don't make (especially erroneous!) assumptions about what i "see" or don't see. FYI, I have been privileged and honored to know some wonderfully inspired Priesthood holders who evidenced not only in church callings or ministrations to others, but in their personal lives, the Spirit and Power of God. ~Gaia

GAIA: Hello Xhenli -- I gues i'm wondering why such dicussions so often are boiled down to offices (like Bishop) and duties (like passing Sacrament or baptizing others). The teachings of Joseph Smith relative to the Three "Orders" of Priesthood are particularly relevant to such discussions: Three Grand Orders OF PRIESTHOOD - TPJS (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith) p 322 "There are three grand orders of priesthood referred to here. 1st. The King of Shiloam (Salem) had power and authority over that of Abraham, holding the key and the power of endless life. .... What was the power of Melchizedek? 'Twas not the Priesthood of Aaron which administers in outward ordinances, and the offering of sacrifices. Those holding the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood are kings and priests of the Most High God, holding the keys of power and blessings. In fact, that Priesthood is a perfect law of theocracy, and stands as God to give laws to the people, administering endless lives to the sons and daughters of Adam." There is a LOT of inflormation and insight on the topics of PH, exaltation, and eternal progression, in that short paragraph :) .... GAIA: They are *similar and somewhat related*, but they are not the same thing. A simple definition of a "King or Queen" is "one who administers TEMPORAL blessings to others"; Similarly, a simple definition of "Priest" or "Priestess" is "one who administers SPIRITUAL blessings to others". A person may act as a Priest/ess to his or her own children, or to others to whom s/he is not at all related biologically. Blessings -- ~GAia

GAIA: Oh, Undoubtedly. But i respectfully disagree that it's "nothing more than a theory" -- As this discussion proves, It's enough to raise the hackles on a LOT of men, and most men don't respond so emotionally to mere "theories" Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hmm, i didn't see Elphaba say anywhere that her "knowledge of LDS doctrine was superior" to anyone else's -- where was that exactly, please? GAIA: I think most reasonable people -- including most Feminists -- would recognize that there are differences between men and women -- that's fairly obvious. Instead of "sameness", they advocate equality -- that is, equality of opportunity and rights: equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity for similar abilities, etc. And i think it's perfectly reasonable for both members and non to recognize that Priesthood is -- among other things -- institutionalized AUTHORITY and POWER in the Church. Blessings -- ~Gaia

With all due respect, i think it's only fair to let those who made their points, speak for themselves, and allow people to see what was actually said, as opposed to interpretations and critiques thereof. Anyone who wants to actually see what was said may do so by reading post # 1 Here: http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...c=9832&st=0 And post # 56, which was a response to it, HERE: http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...=9832&st=45 Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: I'm afraid some folks just aren't interested in the facts or quotes, ATrain. But it was a worthy effort, and i'm sure those who are interested and open, appreciated it. :) Thanks -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Not at all -- And i've never suggested anything like that. In fact, Healing is a GIFT OF THE SPIRIT, which Gifts are supposed to be available to all worthy members. However, it's also true that women are (and have been for over 50 years) DISCOURAGED from exercising that Gift by LDS leaders: In 1946, then-Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith wrote the letter to the RS Presidency, which ended the era during which women freely exercised the Gifts of the Spirit, including Healing --- to which they'd always had access and which Joseph Smith had vigorously approved. Instead, he said that women should "send for the elders of the Chruch to come and administer to the sick and afflicted." (Joseph Fielding Smith Letter to Belle Spafford, Marriane C Sharpe and Gertrude R Garff, 29 July 1946, in Clark, _Messages of the First Prsidency_ 4:314; also Derr, Cannon, Beecher, _Women of Covenant_ 220-221. If you want to know on what basis i think women do have Priesthood, please read Post # 56, here: http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...=9832&st=45 Blessings -- ~GAia GAIA: Hmm, i've always been told that Mormons do NOT beleive in the notion of Infallibility...... With all due respect to President Hinckley -- Are you suggesting that it's impossible for him to be in error? And are you suggesting that there is something wrong with questioning? Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other Prophets certainly didn't think so....

GAIA: I understand that is your position. I also think the evidence indicates differently. GAIA: Aw, a little "boggling" now and then might be healthy! And i'm relieved to see that you agree it's entirely possible to hold alternative views and still be "faithful" Blessings -- ~Gaia

SF, The Lord has blessed me with plenty of Priesthood, as far as myself goes. Asking women if they want to hold the Priesthood, meaning more than the Lord has already given or in her arms, is like asking men if they want to start bearing children! We all have our callings and responsibilities. The responsibilities the Lord has given me are plenty. I cannot handle my own responsibilities at times, let alone take on the mens too. Josie GAIA: Hi There, Josie -- With all due respect, the idea that Priesthood is somehow equivalent to Motherhood is a popular one that's even preached from the pulpit sometimes -- but it's bogus. It's an ERROR based upon a misunderstanding of both Parenthood and Priesthood. Priesthood is not equivalent with Motherhood; FATHERhood is equivalent with MOTHERhood. And obviously, men can be BOTH fathers and Priesthood holders. Once more, according to scripture and modern LDS teachings, women who eventually obtain exaltation are to become "Queens and PRIESTESSES" in the Kingdom of God. (See the quotes and references provided previously in POst # 50 of the "What God Thinks About Women And The Priesthood" Thread, Here: http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...=9872&st=45 So Priesthood and Motherhood are really two very different (but NOT mutually exclusive) things . :) Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hmm -- What woman -- and where , EXACTLY -- did anyone "complain" that they were "downtrodden, misunderstood woman"??? GAIA: Hi Isaac -- Thank you for the respectful reply, even though your view differs somewhat from my own. I can understand your point, but i think there are some fairly good and compelling reasons why it would NOT "be clearly taught openly" as you say..... Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Blood? Women can't stand blood, and men can? You're kidding, right? Men were the ones who came up with Menstrual taboos and the notion that blood is dangerous and "unclean". (I have lots more on that, if anyone is interested) GAIA: Geez, Are you always so angry, or is it just this topic?

Sure, EVERY LDS woman is perfectly happy just the way things are, or else they'd let everybody know, right? - After all, the women here who have just raised the issue have been so respectfully and considerately treated...... Why would any woman not make any questioning, unhappiness or displeasure known -- - It's not like her loyalty to the Church, her respect and appreciation for the Brethren, her belief in and committment to the Gospel, her honesty and integrity, her thought processes, her mental and spiritual health, or trust in Heavenly Father Himself would be questioned or anything....... RIGHT?

GAIA: Hello April --- I guess i just don't understand that sort of reasoning. The feminists i've known (and i've known many) were all DELIGHTED to be female, and would not want to have been anything different. They enjoyed and took both pleasure and pride in their femaleness and femininity. They NEVER said that men and women were "the same" -- that was a misunderstanding that the Press and PR folks seem to have perpetrated to stir up emotions, and it's obviously silly. What real feminists did say, is that men and women should have the same RIGHTS and OPPORTUNITIES -- for example, the same pay for the same work; the same chance for education or advancement if they performed the same (or better); etc. GAIA: AGain, most feminists would agree with you. What they would say is that only each woman herself and God, should make the decisions about WHAT women should be. If a woman was happy being a wife and (stay-home) Mother and Homemaker, that's GREAT - the idea is, it shoud be HER choice and not something that is forced upon her, by some outward "authority" or cultural influence. Feminists would say that when flawed, mortal men begin making pronouncements on "what women SHOULD be or do", those pronouncements invariably become influenced / corrupted by their own desires, needs, and benefits -- And isn't that pretty much just what Joseph Smith said in D&C 121, when he wrote -- We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. (Doctrine and Covenants 121:39) GAIA: So is Fatherhood -- but we don't force men to make a choice between Priesthood OR Fatherhood. Similarly, the Gospel says that women will be "Mothers (in Israel") AND "Queens and PRIESTESSES." What do you think that means? GAIA: What many question is NOT God, but those men who claim that they speak for God. And both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said that their greatest fear was that the Saints would STOP questioning, and begin simply accepting everything that was said from the pulpit -- For example, Joseph Smith said: ...That the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church -- that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls -- applied it to the present state [1842] of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- -- Said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall -- that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 237-38) Brigham Young said: "What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150) "How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves." (JD 4:368) "I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied... Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord ." (JD 3:45) "...Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will NEVER be capable of entering into the celestial glory , to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James,Peter, [or Bruce or Gordon] or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory,immortality, and eternal lives; never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven , who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer." (JD 1:312) So questioning is something we are TOLD to do -- and to "measure" everything against the Counsel and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: I don't think all women -- even all LDS women -- can be put into a single category and have their attitudes divined in that way. Women, like men, are individuals, with individual (and varying) attitudes, thoughts, feelings, analyses, opinions, etc. With all due respect, The very effort to homogenize them all into one single group and then distill out a single feeling or attitude seems disrespectful and trivializing itself -- LIke - "Hurry, let's demonstrate / prove how alike we all are, so we don't have to admit or recognize (let alone understand) differing views...." I think the more we try to understand each other, the better, don't you? ~Gaia

GAIA: In the first thread on this topic (entitled, "Did women ever have the Priesthood") i posted an article (post #56) which demonsrtated that at least according to earlier GA's (who were taught on the Fulness of Priesthood from Joseph Smith, himself) the popular notion that women "receive the PH through their husbands" is FALSE; that (at least some) women have a birthright to PH which depends upon no man. Please see that article for specifics and references. GAIA: Ah, Good Question !!! Here's another: If women don't currently have some kind of PH, How is it they function as Priestesses in the Temple, administering ordinances? And another: If women currently have no PH, How is it they wear the "Robes of the Holy Priesthood"? B) Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: I understand. There certainly are many who hold to that position, and you and they are of course entitled to it, and to have it respected. I would like to make one commment: Those women who dissent or differ from your position do NOT necessarily "cry over" the matter; nor do they "dislike their roles", reject their femininity, or any such thing -- of which they are often accused. They dissent / differ. There is a difference, and i hope that difference is clear. :) Blessings -- ~Gaia

I'll take that as a nothing. GAIA: If i'd meant "nothing", i'd have said "nothing". I didn't. I said what i meant. If you're going to provide your own answers, why bother to ask questions or even discuss with others? BTW, you should know that's a rather disrespectful thing to do. ~Gaia GAIA: The first man to be given Priesthood (by Joseph Smith, in fact) was Elijah Abel. See: - www.blacklds.org/mormon/abel.html - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel - www.signaturebookslibrary.org/neither/neither4.htm

GAIA: With all due respect, the Church is an organization -- it doesn't "think". The men who RUN the Church do -- presumably. GAIA: I am in a unique position in that regard, my personal example is really beyond the scope of this discussion. However, if anyone likes, we could discuss what women *could* do that they cannot now do, .... Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hi Chicago Guy -- No need to apologize, as far as i'm concerned. I beleive that questions are at least as important as the answers - in fact, perhaps more; for they make us search and think and inquire. I think people often rush to provide answers before they've allowed the questions to really "percolate" and do all they can do for us. I think some people are uncomfortable with questions, because they are uncomfortable with their own unanswered questions.... AT any rate, i think you're to be congratulated for refusing to set aside, ignore or suppress your questions. I expect you'll get lots of answers; i will try to offer my own in the hope that they are helpful to you; but if not, just pass 'em by, ok? A. JOSEPH SMITH: I expect a lot of folks here will address several of your quesitons directly; i would rather address the subject in general. IMO, Joseph Smith was a fascinating, flawed, very human being. Even during his own lifetime, many of his own followers admitted that he behaved and spoke less like a Prophet than a backwoodsman. He had a definite appreciation for the ladies and collected as many as possible. Many of his own people thought his brother Hyrum made a better "prophet" than he did (meaning, was more serious). But it is as wrong to *demonize* a man as it is to "deify" him; and i think many make the mistake of doing exactly that -- focusing on the elements of his personality that are of most interest to "prove" their like or dislike of him. Joseph was a remarkable Mystic - and anyone who wants to be fair must view him in that light. By the reports of those who actually knew him, he frequently launched into extended visions -- some of which were SHARED by those around him. Now i s'pose someone could call that "mass hysteria" if they absolutely cannot bring themselves to imagine that a very flawed and fallible human being could possibly also have a spiritual-mystical side -- but then that's their issue, isn't it. Smith could be capricious, self-absorbed, egotistical, and abnoxious. He was not a great judge of character and frequently developed too-fast, too-close friendships that favored new acquaintances over older, "tried-and-true" friends. He could also be amazingly compassionate, warm, friendly, open, charismatic, convincing, and deeply, profoundly spiritual and mystical. Maybe as a psychologist i'm able to understand and appreciate paradox and contradiction in people (and issues) a bit -- because i see it all the time, including in myself, and i think it's incredibly unfair to judge a man and his entire life by a few very limited issues. Do you know of any man who is either all good or all bad??? Very few really are. I believe it's a sign of maturity and wisdom to *resist* either deifying or demonizing a person. To the degree that we can do so, i think it demonstrates that we've come to some peace about our OWN very complicated Shadows and Brightness, paradoxes and contradictions. Now, a word about some specifics: Masonry: Joseph Smith studied a number of different spiritual / metaphysical systems; in fact it's been suggested that a number of later doctrines (like Eternal Progression, Eternal Marriage, Heavenly Mother, and the plurality of Gods) came as a result of his thinking and studying in those systems. See for example: - www.gnosis.org/jskabb1.htm - www.gnosis.org/ahp.htm I have a friend who is a Mormon-Mason; if you're interested, i could put you in touch with him to answer any questions you might have related to FreeMasonry, just email me [email protected]. JOseph Smith as President: Many people have heard bits and pieces about this, and concluded that it must have been a manifestation of overweening egotism or a power-play; in fact it was not, it was consistent with all the other teachings of Joseph Smith and the vision of the Kingdom of God wich he had received in revelation. JS was told in revelation that he was to be both a spiritual and a political leader, and there is precedence in scripture supporting the idea. IN fact, in many cultures around the world, the Spiritual leaders were also political leaders. For more information on this and its relationship to the principles of the (political) Kingdom of God and the (economic) United Order or Law of Consecration and STewardship, see: - "Principles of Perfection" and "Doctrines of the Kingdom" by Hyrum L Andrus THE TEMPLE: What even many LDS don't realize is that the Temple is symbolic, mythic and metaphorical. Mormonism as a whole is generally symbol and myth -poor, so to go into an environment that is as symbol-rich as the Temple can be a real shock and confusion to people. To use the example you mentioned: What's important is not the specific name you're given, but the fact that you ARE given a NAME -- In nearly every ritual in nearly every metaphysical system created by humans, at a certain point in the ceremony, there is a kind of rebirth and a new name given. Think about what that means, what it signifies. What is a name? Why do we have/ use names? Why would one need a NEW name? There's much more. For example, the idea of going through symbolic purification has been part of the rituals and ceremonies of human spirituality from time immemorial, throughout many different eras, and cultures, all over the world. This purification can take the form of a full body bath, to a sprinkling over the head, and everything in between. Here are some good resources which help explain the Temple, its meaning and significance: - Allen H. Barber. Celestial Symbols: Symbolism in Doctrine, Religious Traditions and Temple Architecture, Bountiful: Horizon, 1990, ISBN 0-88290-344-6 - Paul Thomas Smith & Matthew B. Brown. Symbols in Stone: Symbolism on the Early Temples of the Restoration, American Fork: Covenant, 1997, ISBN 1-57734-134-1 - Todd Comptom, "The Handclasp and Embrace as Tokens of Recognition," in By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, 27 March 1990, John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., 2 vols. (Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1990), 1: 620 - 631.). - Cleon Skousen has an artilce on the meaning of the Temple Endowment. RE PGP: My friend the Mason has studied the PGP in depth, and can help with some of your questions relative to it. I hope this is helpful; let me know, OK? And don't stop questioning! Blessings to you -- [email protected]

GAIA: Beleive me, i can certainly understand that position. At one time, i had rather powerful reason to advocate it, myself. However, while it (at least to some degree) "solves" some questions, it also presents some real problems -- especially when modern and previous GA's disagree on major doctrinal issues, or when the "current prophet" is no longer current and his teachings are gradually questioned, phased out, even discredited. Few LDS realizle how little of Joseph Smith's teachings actually remain in the modern LDS church. How can we depend on the teachings of any leader -- especially after his death? Can anything ever be said to be unconditionally and consistently, dependably true and valid - independent of human circumstances? I think the position of "Head of Dispensation" trumps "current Prophet" -- your thoughts evidently differ. I think there is (doctrinally and historically supported) reason to beleive that there's a lot more going on here than a cut-and-dried doctrinal issue; you evidently differ. I think it's entirely possible for honorable, faithful people to (respectfully) differ on such issues -- ie, to "agree to disagree, agreeably". I hope there, you will agree. Blessings -- ~Gaia