More "restoration" to come

[The Folk Prophet]

“We're witnesses to a process of restoration,” said the prophet. “If you think the Church has been fully restored, you're just seeing the beginning. There is much more to come. … Wait till next year. And then the next year. Eat your vitamin pills. Get your rest. It's going to be exciting.” 

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/latter-day-saint-prophet-wife-apostle-share-insights-global-ministry

[JohnsonJones]

Well, he's certainly making changes.

It is probable that 6-8 years from now one won't recognize the church as the same vehicle (policy wise) as it is today if the changes keep coming as regularly as they have been coming over the past year and a half.

Is that progress?

So far, the only changes have been policy changes though.  It should be interesting if they actually add something/restore something (ala the lost pages of the Book of Mormon, the writings of another tribe of Israel, the Second Anointing  as a standard temple ordinance, etc...etc...etc).

With reactions to the policy changes thus far, I'm not sure what would happen if they actually restored something...aka...brought something more for the actual doctrine from the ancient church that we had not seen yet or that has been very rare for us or others to experience.  Some probably would rejoice and others might react differently.

What would we think of more scripture study and doctrinal emphasis.

Overall, I think people are seeing advantages to many of the changes that have occurred under the current Prophet.  It is definitely showing how ready we may be to accept new ideas.

It is certainly making things interesting in our time.

 

PS: Yes, I tried to do a sort of chiasmus there. 

Edited October 31, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Anddenex]

39 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

“We're witnesses to a process of restoration,” said the prophet. “If you think the Church has been fully restored, you're just seeing the beginning. There is much more to come. … Wait till next year. And then the next year. Eat your vitamin pills. Get your rest. It's going to be exciting.” 

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/latter-day-saint-prophet-wife-apostle-share-insights-global-ministry

Well, we know there are prophecies regarding Zion and these last days that have not been fulfilled as of yet. I think Elder Bednar's talk highlighted this portion also.

[The Folk Prophet]

47 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

the Second Anointing  as a standard temple ordinance

Doubtful. Maybe. But doubtful, imo.

[JohnsonJones]

58 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Doubtful. Maybe. But doubtful, imo.

Most likely, very doubtful.  IF we are guessing big on policy changes (much less additions/restoration of things) might as well go big though (admittedly, this one could be a more minor thing than some of the things people could guess at though).

If it's just the beginning, it means that there is a LOT more to go and a LOT more drastic changes probably will come out eventually (though by saying it's the beginning he could just mean that there is a lot more to go that will be revealed over the next 200 years, 1000 years, or even more).

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Most likely, very doubtful.  IF we are guessing big on policy changes (much less additions/restoration of things) might as well go big though (admittedly, this one could be a more minor thing than some of the things people could guess at though).

Wouldn't going big on a restoration of things imply, you know...polygamy! 

The reason I say doubtful is because as far as I understand it, it's not a saving ordinance.

[JohnsonJones]

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Wouldn't going big on a restoration of things imply, you know...polygamy! 

The reason I say doubtful is because as far as I understand it, it's not a saving ordinance.

Depends on one's interpretation of doctrine.  That ordinance is like any ordinance, in and of itself not a saving ordinance.  Each needs the Spirit to validate it and of course, priesthood authority to perform it.

Even more fully, depending on how one interprets the ordinance (2nd anointing), it is even more so not a saving ordinance in and of itself.  One way to see it is that in order for the ordinance to be completely fulfilled, after the ordinance is granted one still needs the personal audience of the Lord.  It is he who personally then affirms the ordinance as given and grants all the blessings thereof. (that is my personal opinion, there are those that would also disagree with my assessment of it).

Some say that the Lord doing so is necessary for anyone (whether in this life or the next) for exaltation.  The question one could ask is if the ordinance is the necessary order of this, or if there is no need for the order on this manifestation or in this way.

My OPINION is that the ordinance itself is not necessary, but there are some that indubitably probably would disagree with me.

I do know it used to be far more prevalent (I believe the requirements were faithfulness in the church for...what was basically almost one's whole life, at least 55 years of age, and a recommend granted specifically for this ordinance by one with the authority to grant it.  Today I think it has been relegated to normally just requiring the last of these, but normally nomination is only gained by someone else suggesting your name, not you personally requesting it or thinking you deserve it) than it is today, at least publically. 

As you said, so was polygamy.  That is a little more drastic than I was going to suggest though (and one of many restoration/changes that would be far greater than what I think I gave) but, yes, if you are going to guess big at what changes may be coming, might as well guess BIG changes.

Edited October 31, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Wouldn't going big on a restoration of things imply, you know...polygamy! 

The reason I say doubtful is because as far as I understand it, it's not a saving ordinance.

C'mon, animal sacrifice!!!

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Wouldn't going big on a restoration of things imply, you know...polygamy! 

My guess is a return to the Patriarchal Order from the current Ecclesiastical Order, and this in a decentralized way--i.e. continued shift in responsibility from church headquarters to local leadership and particularly the home. Come Follow Me home study program is "just the beginning.

Either way, I will be taking my vitamins.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mordorbund]

Quote

Wait till next year. And then the next year. Eat your vitamin pills. Get your rest. It's going to be exciting.

PROPHET ANNOUNCES HOW SAINTS WILL LIVE TO THE "AGE* OF A TREE" DURING MILLENNIUM!!!!!!!!

 

*100 years.

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

PROPHET ANNOUNCES HOW SAINTS WILL LIVE TO THE "AGE* OF A TREE" DURING MILLENNIUM!!!!!!!!

 

*100 years.

I am wondering how that 100 year lifespan came around.  I had thought it would be 120.  This actually tends to be the (rounded) record lifespan of a human being who is perfectly healthy in all respects, but their cells finally end their reproductive cycle.

[Traveler]

I am going to guess that there will be changes in donations and that we will move towards a church economy more like the United Order but with more emphasis on the law of consecration.

 

The Traveler

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I am wondering how that 100 year lifespan came around.  I had thought it would be 120.  This actually tends to be the (rounded) record lifespan of a human being who is perfectly healthy in all respects, but their cells finally end their reproductive cycle.

It starts with Isaiah:

Quote

There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.

And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.

And then the Doctrine and Covenants changes "the days of a tree" to the "age of a tree"

Quote

In that day an infant shall not die until he is old; and his life shall be as the age of a tree;

 

[Just_A_Guy]

I’m surprised there hasn’t been anre-emphasis on childbearing and large families, a la the 1970s.  President Oaks mentioned declining family sizes at the last Women's Conference, so the leadership is clearly aware of the issue.  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

On 10/31/2018 at 10:56 AM, Anddenex said:

Well, we know there are prophecies regarding Zion and these last days that have not been fulfilled as of yet. I think Elder Bednar's talk highlighted this portion also.

I've been pondering and praying about what Pres. Nelson was referring to, and your answer seems like a good direction for me to look.  Thanks! 

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

The changes we are seeing seem to be directed toward us being more Christlike

1. Ministering. 

2. Combined Priesthood Quorum. 

3. Shorter meetings to encourage teaching gospel topics at home.

4. Reading the Book of Mormon by the end of year.

5. Reading the scriptures with a focus on references to Christ.

6. Moving away from Social Media like Facebook.

I am beginning to see a pattern here.

[Fether]

22 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

The changes we are seeing seem to be directed toward us being more Christlike

1. Ministering. 

2. Combined Priesthood Quorum. 

3. Shorter meetings to encourage teaching gospel topics at home.

4. Reading the Book of Mormon by the end of year.

5. Reading the scriptures with a focus on references to Christ.

6. Moving away from Social Media like Facebook.

I am beginning to see a pattern here.

So the church is trying to get us to be more Christ like??? 

What an interesting turn of events!!

(I mean no offense  )

[Fether]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m surprised there hasn’t been anre-emphasis on childbearing and large families, a la the 1970s.  President Oaks mentioned declining family sizes at the last Women's Conference, so the leadership is clearly aware of the issue.  

This is a hugely controversial topic in the church and I would be very interested to see the response if  they started making an increased effort to teach this.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Fether

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

37 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

The changes we are seeing seem to be directed toward us being more Christlike

This is precisely what I love about Pres. Nelson.  Less talk and more action in moving us toward Christ.  I love it. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m surprised there hasn’t been anre-emphasis on childbearing and large families, a la the 1970s.  President Oaks mentioned declining family sizes at the last Women's Conference, so the leadership is clearly aware of the issue.  

25 minutes ago, Fether said:

This is a hugely controversial topic in the church and I would be very interested to see the response if  they started making an increased effort to teach this.

I fail to see why this is a controversial issue.  If you can have a large family, have one.  If you can't, don't.  What's controversial about it?

I do see how sad it is when people decide to limit their family size for selfish/worldly reasons.  But I also recognize that some are physically/mentally/emotionally incapable in certain regards.  And this would include some people who simply don't have the capacity to earn enough money to support such a family without government assistance.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

The changes we are seeing seem to be directed toward us being more Christlike

1. Ministering. 

2. Combined Priesthood Quorum. 

3. Shorter meetings to encourage teaching gospel topics at home.

4. Reading the Book of Mormon by the end of year.

5. Reading the scriptures with a focus on references to Christ.

6. Moving away from Social Media like Facebook.

I am beginning to see a pattern here.

27 minutes ago, Fether said:

So the church is trying to get us to be more Christ like??? 

What an interesting turn of events!!

(I mean no offense  )

What I see is an effort to require individual and family efforts to be more Christlike instead of expecting that Church attendance alone is going to somehow magically change who you are.  Be more self-reliant.  Hmmm... I see

On 10/29/2018 at 2:26 PM, anatess2 said:

There's a whole slew of these classes that are usually 3 months long...  These are the ones I know of:  My Path (This is like the master plan of how to become self-reliant), My foundation (teaching habits as a foundation for self-reliance), My Education (How to leverage education for self-reliance), Personal Finance (basically Home Economics), My Business (how to start and manage a business), My Job (How to find, keep, and improve on a job).  I'm sure there are others.

something... SOMEthing that says that we need to get our own houses in order.  I see that we cannot depend on the structure of the Church to sustain us in the coming years.  We may find ourselves very alone in times to come.  We must have oil in our lamps.

[Fether]

29 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I fail to see why this is a controversial issue.  If you can have a large family, have one.  If you can't, don't.  What's controversial about it?

I do see how sad it is when people decide to limit their family size for selfish/worldly reasons.  But I also recognize that some are physically/mentally/emotionally incapable in certain regards.  And this would include some people who simply don't have the capacity to earn enough money to support such a family without government assistance.

It is when you start pulling out quotes and statistics that disputes can ensue. 

since 2012 The church membership has increased 1.5 million and new births has decreased 16,000

That is 10% growth in population and 16% decrease in child birth. I’m not a statistician but that doesn’t look insignificant to me. Both trends have been consistent since 2012

Some paradigm shift is occurring and Elder Oaks hit it on the nose. People my age are choosing careers, education and other temporal things over beginning a family. Of all the friends I have on Facebook from highschool and my mission  only 6 of them come to mind that have started families. I’ve been in 2 wards in the last year where only a few young couples have kids.

This is the controversy.

Everyone wants to wait to have kids and no one wants to talk about it. I honestly cant remember hearing it brought up in church once in all my life. I only know about the principle because I enjoy studying.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Fether

[anatess2]

25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

something... SOMEthing that says that we need to get our own houses in order.  I see that we cannot depend on the structure of the Church to sustain us in the coming years.  We may find ourselves very alone in times to come.  We must have oil in our lamps.

All the resources are out there... it's up to us to make use of them... My husband just got laid off.  He's studying the My Business one as he decided he's not going back to the corporate world.

[mikbone]

I hope that we turn back to basics.  And I would love to see the church come out with clarity declaring the importance of:

Having families

Stewardship of Men and Women defined without wavering

Political duty (I totally wouldn't mind if we lost our tax exempt status - I'd still pay my tithing)

My wife who graduated from J Ruben Clark back in the 80's just got into a flame war with some of the new students over a #changetheratio movement to have more women enrolled into our law school then men.  

it goes on and on.  It seems like over the past few decades we have done our best to encompass all people of all backgrounds and beliefs as long as they adhered to the most basic instructions.  There is a higher law.  Boyd K. Packer used to get hate mail by the bag full over his conference talks.  I don't think that that is a bad thing...

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Fether said:

People my age are choosing careers, education and other temporal things over beginning a family.

Well, this is what I mean when I speak of people who actually have the choice, but choose worldly/selfish reasons to not have kids.

4 hours ago, Fether said:

Everyone wants to wait to have kids and no one wants to talk about it. I honestly cant remember hearing it brought up in church once in all my life. I only know about the principle because I enjoy studying.

We spoke about it in priesthood a few months ago.  After everyone made their statements and quotes and...  and...  and... I declared,"I'm not having any more kids."

They said,"We weren't talking about you."