Women's Salvation Dependent on the Man?

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
Ann
Posts: 2547
Joined: 09 Sep 2012, 02:17

Re: Women's Salvation Dependent on the Man?

Post by Ann » 02 Jun 2017, 07:22

nibbler wrote:
02 Jun 2017, 04:59
Ann wrote:
01 Jun 2017, 23:26
But we have changed [the temple endowment] in the past. I'm left with the sinking feeling again - maybe they don't want to change it.
Thread jack:

The last (major) change to the temple endowment was in 1990. I didn't have a pulse on the culture of the church in 1990. I find myself wondering whether the prevailing church culture has become more literal, less literal, or has remained relatively the same in the last 27 years.

Was it easy for members in 1990 to accept the changes made to the endowment or did many members experience cognitive dissonance because a part of the ordinance had changed?

Do you think maintaining ordinance purity serves as a barrier of sorts to making another round of sweeping changes? Or do you believe that the top leaders are comfortable enough with continued revelation that maintaining ordinance purity wouldn't come into play. It probably depends on the person, the change being considered, etc., etc. but I wonder whether the current environment of the church (regular Joe members) could handle sweeping changes made to the endowment and whether that factors into decisions made at the top.

Tangential details to my point:

I was a missionary right about the time the 1990 changes were made and one of our teaching points about the Great Apostasy was that other religions changed the ordinances so they needed to be restored to the proper methodology. Maintaining ordinance purity was a thing to the culture. Maybe people compartmentalize ordinances.

There have been more recent changes (2005 & 2008) but they were small enough to make me wonder whether the majority of people noticed.

Maybe the endowment is more pliable because:
1) It's not canonized anywhere in scripture. Baptism and the sacrament have rules and specific language mentioned in scripture.
2) The endowment wasn't codified by JS. It was sort of an oral tradition for 30 years before being scripted and probably 50+ years before it was "correlated."

Re. 1990 changes, I admit I didn't think much one way or the other. I just found the penalties tedious in the extreme and were happy they were gone.

I'm hoping the endowment is pliable enough to survive what would initially seem like the biggest change yet.
"Preachers err by trying to talk people into belief; better they reveal the radiance of their own discovery." - Joseph Campbell

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes." - Marcel Proust

"Therefore they said unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered and said unto them, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes...." - John 9:10-11

Ray DeGraw
Site Admin
Posts: 15136
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24
Contact:

Re: Women's Salvation Dependent on the Man?

Post by Ray DeGraw » 04 Jun 2017, 21:26

I taught the lesson in HPG last Sunday, using the assigned talk: Elder Oaks' "The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood" from April 2014 - the one where he said that women exercise what I call direct and indirect priesthood power and authority, especially those who have been endowed. The Temple President is part of the group, and I was glad he was there.

We read portions of the talk and discussed the meanings of power, authority, and keys - and we talked about how endowed women possess direct Priesthood power and authority as a result of the endowment. The obvious example was mentioned (women performing ordinances in the temple), but I pointed out that the women who do so are called and set apart as temple workers, with "temple keys" having been activated to allow them to perform ordinances as part of that calling. I pointed to two other aspects of our temple theology and practices:

1) Women leave the temple clothed in the garment of the Holy Priesthood. It is hard to argue they don't have Priesthood authority and power when they wear the exact same tokens of that Priesthood as the men do.

2) I mentioned the part in the endowment where it says the participants are prepared to officiate in the ordinances of both Priesthood classifications. I said that no man or woman was authorized to perform any particular ordinance simply because they were endowed in the temple, but the wording makes it clear that all men AND women are prepared by the endowment to do so.

Near the end, I used the example of OD2 and said I wouldn't object or be surprised at all by an announcement of another revelation that ended the current ban on women being ordained to Priesthood offices - not that I expected it, but that it wouldn't surprise me, given the way Elder Oaks addressed the reason why it hasn't happened yet.

I ended by saying that my greatest hope was that no man in the Church would tell any endowed or set-apart woman in the Church that she didn't have Priesthood authority, either directly as a result of her endowment or through her calling - that, right now, what we can do as a result of how the keys have been used differs somewhat, particularly in the performance of ordinances outside the temple and receiving administrative keys, but that, in perhaps all other cases, the Priesthood power and authority is the same.

Obviously, I had to word things very carefully, precisely, and accurately, but it went well - and the Temple President (a wonderful man) was able to give some excellent supporting commentary at a couple of key points.
I see through my glass, darkly - as I play my saxophone in harmony with the other instruments in God's orchestra. (h/t Elder Joseph Wirthlin)

Even if people view many things differently, the core Gospel principles (LOVE; belief in the unseen but hoped; self-reflective change; symbolic cleansing; striving to recognize the will of the divine; never giving up) are universal.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

Ann
Posts: 2547
Joined: 09 Sep 2012, 02:17

Re: Women's Salvation Dependent on the Man?

Post by Ann » 12 Jun 2017, 16:45

Ray DeGraw wrote:
04 Jun 2017, 21:26
I taught the lesson in HPG last Sunday, using the assigned talk: Elder Oaks' "The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood" from April 2014 - the one where he said that women exercise what I call direct and indirect priesthood power and authority, especially those who have been endowed. The Temple President is part of the group, and I was glad he was there.

We read portions of the talk and discussed the meanings of power, authority, and keys - and we talked about how endowed women possess direct Priesthood power and authority as a result of the endowment. The obvious example was mentioned (women performing ordinances in the temple), but I pointed out that the women who do so are called and set apart as temple workers, with "temple keys" having been activated to allow them to perform ordinances as part of that calling. I pointed to two other aspects of our temple theology and practices:

1) Women leave the temple clothed in the garment of the Holy Priesthood. It is hard to argue they don't have Priesthood authority and power when they wear the exact same tokens of that Priesthood as the men do.

2) I mentioned the part in the endowment where it says the participants are prepared to officiate in the ordinances of both Priesthood classifications. I said that no man or woman was authorized to perform any particular ordinance simply because they were endowed in the temple, but the wording makes it clear that all men AND women are prepared by the endowment to do so.

Near the end, I used the example of OD2 and said I wouldn't object or be surprised at all by an announcement of another revelation that ended the current ban on women being ordained to Priesthood offices - not that I expected it, but that it wouldn't surprise me, given the way Elder Oaks addressed the reason why it hasn't happened yet.

I ended by saying that my greatest hope was that no man in the Church would tell any endowed or set-apart woman in the Church that she didn't have Priesthood authority, either directly as a result of her endowment or through her calling - that, right now, what we can do as a result of how the keys have been used differs somewhat, particularly in the performance of ordinances outside the temple and receiving administrative keys, but that, in perhaps all other cases, the Priesthood power and authority is the same.

Obviously, I had to word things very carefully, precisely, and accurately, but it went well - and the Temple President (a wonderful man) was able to give some excellent supporting commentary at a couple of key points.
Very cool that this discussion was had. :thumbup:

But I honestly don't understand how priesthood and the female temple experience relate to each other. Say women are ordained to priesthood offices. In the temple would she still be a priestess to her husband? And he, alone, a priest to God? Hearkening unchanged? It remains okay for them to be co-dependent, not co-equal? Aside from not liking their style, this is the main reason I wanted nothing to do with Ordain Women. I say they have the cart before the horse. I always thought, let's get that horse going and see where it takes us. It might not be to female ordination.
"Preachers err by trying to talk people into belief; better they reveal the radiance of their own discovery." - Joseph Campbell

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes." - Marcel Proust

"Therefore they said unto him, How were thine eyes opened? He answered and said unto them, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes...." - John 9:10-11

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Roy, Yahoo [Bot]