April 2018 General Men's Session

Public forum for topics that don't fit into the other categories.
AmyJ
Posts: 628
Joined: 27 Jul 2017, 05:50

Re: April 2018 General Men's Session

Post by AmyJ » 02 Apr 2018, 11:53

Roy wrote:
02 Apr 2018, 11:15
AmyJ wrote:
02 Apr 2018, 06:50
c) I don't want the priesthood. I think that men have a distance from their spouses and children that is important and essential. I want cultural recognition that women can bless their children as well using their own innate authority as women. I want to be able to hold my children/grandchildren as they are given a name and a blessing in a way that is supporting the priesthood holder giving the blessing. I want to be able to request a blessing from a sister if I am dealing with a female rite of passage (childbirth for example).
I love this!

I suppose what I want is cultural recognition of fatherhood. I love father's blessings, Giving a name and a blessing, baptizing my children, dedication of family graves, perhaps being a temple escort (for endowment) or witness to a temple sealing. I love that those aspects of fatherhood are given social and ritual significance in our tribe. We have twisted it all up with priesthood authority and responsibility but the cultural recognition of fatherhood is there to a degree not common in the broader society.

I would love for more opportunities for social, cultural, and ritual recognition for women and mothers. Many women I have spoken to would be fearful that any steps in this direction would be usurping authority from the priesthood. I feel many women would love what you are suggesting but would be afraid to ask for it.
I agree about the aspects of our bestowing cultural and ritual significance in our tribe to men and priesthood holders. I have learned some changes in our culture that would have meaning for me, but as outspoken as I am, I don't know how or who to ask for these changes. Also, I am not sure how to act as if I already had that cultural authority. Blessing my children myself I have thought about, but my husband is not ready for that. Others would have cultural issues with other female-specific requests - figuring the initiatory is blessing enough I guess. Culturally, I don't fit in as the traditional patient, craft-oriented, loving Primary mom.

Roy
Posts: 4847
Joined: 07 Oct 2010, 14:16
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: April 2018 General Men's Session

Post by Roy » 02 Apr 2018, 15:42

LookingHard wrote:
02 Apr 2018, 04:00
I am glad you can make this adjustment, but I just have to say for me this sounds like a different church.
LH, I saw this comment in another thread.
A series of small changes can lead to an organization that no one recognizes eventually.
I believe that the church will need to move that direction eventually. I believe to be fundamentalist, dogmatic, and Black/white will be increasingly hard to maintain given the increasing availability of information on mistakes and/or evolution of doctrines in church history. I do not hold my breath for large changes, but small changes as the older generation dies off is not unreasonable. Our church has adapted before, it is adapting now, I believe it will continue to adapt in the future.
"It is not so much the pain and suffering of life which crushes the individual as it is its meaninglessness and hopelessness." C. A. Elwood

“It is not the function of religion to answer all the questions about God’s moral government of the universe, but to give one courage, through faith, to go on in the face of questions he never finds the answer to in his present status.” TPC: Harold B. Lee 223

"I struggle now with establishing my faith that God may always be there, but may not always need to intervene" Heber13

nibbler
Posts: 3589
Joined: 14 Nov 2013, 07:34
Location: Ten miles west of the exact centre of the universe

Re: April 2018 General Men's Session

Post by nibbler » 08 Apr 2018, 15:58

I heard rumors about combining the HPG and EQ a month or so ago. I was in a branch for about 7 years and that's how they had to do things. That's also how they already do things in some smaller wards I've visited. My world remains unshattered. ;)

Announcement aside. What I liked:
Elder D. Todd Christofferson wrote:Brethren, I devoutly hope that we will no longer speak in terms of being “advanced” to another office in the Melchizedek Priesthood.
Even though now they've made it such that you've really got to be the elite of the elite to earn ( ;) ) the office of high priest. Kidding. Kidding.

What I really didn't like, and something I'm frankly surprised received little to no attention:
President Dallin H. Oaks wrote:Here is an example of a priesthood holder magnifying his priesthood responsibility. I heard this from Elder Jeffrey D. Erekson, my companion in a stake conference in Idaho. As a young married elder, desperately poor and feeling unable to finish his last year of college, Jeffrey decided to drop out and accept an attractive job offer. A few days later his elders quorum president came to his home. “Do you understand the significance of the priesthood keys I hold?” the elders quorum president asked. When Jeffrey said he did, the president told him that since hearing of his intention to drop out of college, the Lord had tormented him during sleepless nights to give Jeffrey this message: “As your elders quorum president, I counsel you not to drop out of college. That is a message to you from the Lord.” Jeffrey stayed in school. Years later I met him when he was a successful businessman and heard him tell an audience of priesthood holders, “That [counsel] has made all the difference in my life.”
More like here's an example of someone exercising unrighteous dominion. In this story the motivations were pure, help a kid realize the importance of staying in school, maybe give him the faith he needed to do so, but to receive revelation for other people and to invoke PH keys to lean on them so they'll follow your counsel? Man that is bad... and if that talk is read during a lesson I attend I will be speaking up and I can't promise my comments will be uplifting. I get the feeling that 9 times out of 10 when the question, "Do you understand the significance of the priesthood keys I hold?" is asked isn't a good thing.

"No."
"Do you understand the significance of the priesthood keys I hold?"

The strange moment of this session also comes from DHO:
We should always remember that men who hold the priesthood are not “the priesthood.” It is not appropriate to refer to “the priesthood and the women.” We should refer to “the holders of the priesthood and the women.”
Pedantic stuff aside, why not say:
We should always remember that men who hold the priesthood are not “the priesthood.” It is not appropriate to refer to men as “the priesthood.” We should refer to “the holders of the priesthood.”
He went out of his way to include "women" in that statement. I'm not entirely sure what it means. Highlight that women and holders of the priesthood are separate (but equal)? An attempt at being more inclusive? Look, I can't help it. My brain is wired this way. For whatever reason "...and the women" stood up and shouted at me.

Curt Sunshine
Site Admin
Posts: 15879
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 20:24

Re: April 2018 General Men's Session

Post by Curt Sunshine » 08 Apr 2018, 18:45

I think it was Elder Oaks who said explicitly later that fathers don't need to seek inspiration or revelation from church leaders for their personal lives and families.

I pointed out the danger of the story in a comment at the time of the talk. It is a great story, but it absolutely is a two-edged sword and should be the exception rather than the rule - and, ultimately, it still is the individual's responsibility to make and own the final decision.
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

Post Reply