Led by the Priesthood

This might be complete heresy, but this is something I have been wondering about…

Is the Holy Ghost the same thing as the ministry of angels?

If it is the same thing, then the Righteous as a body are to some degree (and yes, I am cautious how far to take this) a member of the Godhead. That would mean we must be much more humble about what we ask for, and desire wrongly. God will give it to us. If we want to hang ourselves, he is perfectly willing to hand us some rope (after warning us) and tell us there is more rope in the closet.

That doesn’t sound quite right. The oneness seems somewhat exclusive to the three personages, as repeated in baptism.

There are certainly some problems there. I expect that there are some significant caveats here. And of course, this is just a speculation that I can neither prove, or entirely dismiss.

Yet it is interesting we have see the Father and the Son, but the one time when Nephi sees the Holy Spirit (1 Ne 11) it sounds a lot more like seeing an angel, than a member of the Godhead.

“member of” may be too strong a phrase, but “one with” or in communion with, and “speaking/acting in the name of” are scripturally based.

I suppose it is possible that the workings of the Holy Ghost may be effectuated by means of angels. Angels would definitely be one with, in communion with, and speak/act in the name of Christ and the Godhead.

Christ prayed that we be one with Him as He is one with the Father, so that linkage or chain is there.

Talmage mentioned Christ speaking as if He were the Father by means of “divine investure”. And I think Talmage mentioned the account by Nephi was also divine investure.

“_The_ angel of the Lord”, as used in scripture, has always been an ambiguous phrase to me. Sometimes I think it might have meant the pre-mortal spirit-person of Christ/Jehovah, sometimes I think it meant the Holy Ghost, and sometimes I think it meant a literal angel (some spirit child of Eloheim, spirit brother to you/me/Christ, whether pre-mortal or post-mortal) who was sent on assignment.

The word may have been “investiture”. Too lazy to look it up

Reading this, I assumed you must be alluding to some specific recent change, so I checked. I see that three woman have been added to various executive councils. Predictably, the media are already misreporting this as women being appointed “to serve in priesthood leadership roles.”

Following on from WmJas – In secular life, sexual mixing in the workplace has made a very large difference to many things – not least ‘representation’ created a meta-stable situation in which the tendency to equality of outcome has proven impossible to resist (i.e. a slippery slope).

The same has applied to other churches. The situation has been exacerbated by the pretence that there is no possible significant difficulty.

It may be that the CJCLDS can do what others cannot – after all, Adam G assures me that group decision making in the church is very different from the functioning of committees in secular life. If the CJCLDS can have quora and councils which do *not* run like committees, and if the differences between men and women is not denied or forgotten, then this could be decisive.

The last paragraph reflects my sentiments. However, the difference in the scriptural cases you mentioned (or even the change from consecration to tithing) there was some clear mentioning of the inability of the people to live to a certain standard.

We don’t have that here, but some squishy acknowledgement that gee isn’t it great that women are now in the committee too?

Are we to accept that prior decisions weren’t as good as they should have been? Or just move on, nothing to see here?

What irks is the fact it’s obvious the direction society is tending, so if we are making changes to placate social norms, why are we waiting until the last possible moments to make changes and seem as laggards slowly responding to criticism in the process?

Surely 20 years ago, it would have been obvious that the church would look more women-friendly from the outside if these changes are made. Is the Q12 really bound by waiting for other members to pass on before moving forward?

Yes, the addition of women to priesthood councils is what set off this post. Changes in the ministration of the temple initiatory ordinances figure even larger in my mind. When symbolic actions were replaced with words symbolizing the symbols, I left in mourning. As the years have gone by, the feeling of loss hasn’t left me. A couple years ago I set up an appointment with a temple president to discuss my feelings, as President Hinckley had once counseled in General Conference. The temple president heard me out, and said his feelings were similar. He said that in his calling there were no special handbooks or interviews giving him deeper insight than a typical temple-goer, but it seemed to him that many temple patrons had become uncomfortable with the washings and annointings in ways those of past decades weren’t, and that had to be dealt with.

Things like closing missions, excommunicating members, killing Laban come to mind too. Some prophets have the glorious task of revealing; others have the sad responsibility of withdrawing.

To answer some of my questions… it would seem likely that there are two ways to approach decisions at high levels:

Honor and respect the prior authorities, who after all build the foundations the current authorities stand on. Great principles were taught, revelations received, and so forth under the pattern or organization of the prior leaders, so why change it when it resulted in “me” (ie. the authorities in this case, not me the commenter) being where I am and becoming who I am.

Or make tactical changes that admittedly are different than the organization I was brought up in, but are seen as helping the younger to stay closer to the church.

It would seem most changes are of a tactical nature. But the guiding principles behind them are more along the lines of “don’t lose a soul” (even if that soul acts and judges poorly), which isn’t the foundation of the plan of salvation now is it.

The concept of Priesthood and Family seems like a misnomer. Adding a sister, and then realizing it can’t be a committee of “priesthood” with a sister further reinforces the false idea that priesthood = male. Clarifying Priesthood with Family is also strange because in a way it puts a separation between Priesthood and Family as if they weren’t part of the same eternal organization in the first place. “This doesn’t deal with the Priesthood, just the Family” or “This isn’t related to the Family, but only to the Priesthood” seems like things that are nonsensical to utter.

Speaking of withdrawing, it has been awkward these past weeks carrying on with scouting things as before, helping with campouts and service projects, sustaining a new cubmaster, planning a fundraiser, and wondering how that announced reevaluation will fall, or if it will be quietly forgotten for a year. Some years ago, it somehow became a motto of my elders’ quorum to “plant cherry trees,” from this bit in a priesthood (and Relief Society) manual:

In a general conference address in April 1950, Elder Richard L. Evans of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said: “I recall a reported statement, attributed, as I remember it, to President Wilford Woodruff. Some of the brethren of his time are said to have approached him … and to have inquired of him as to when he felt the end would be—when would be the coming of the Master? These, I think, are not his exact words, but they convey the spirit of his reported reply: ‘I would live as if it were to be tomorrow—but I am still planting cherry trees!’”

“many temple patrons had become uncomfortale with the washings and annointings in ways those of past decades weren’t, and that had to be dealt with.”

Maybe one day, we can start to feel uncomfortable with the idea of sunday school or home teaching as well. If I’m uncomfortable with a worker in the temple one on one, I should probably be less comfortable with a one or two (likely) porn addicts teaching my children.

This illustrates how the principle gets thrown out the window when we chase elusive comforts. Or maybe Aslan is a tame lion after all.

Catholics have struggled with what might be similar issues for the last 50 years. The explanation between revising the (~1,500 year old) Mass in Vatican II was supposed to make separated protestant brothers and others more comfortable at mass, bring people back into the fold, etc. Interesting that the justification might be similar.

However, because Catholics make no claims to new revelations, the issue is quite different too! I don’t think it is apparent that revising the temple rituals or other changes have caused a similar church crisis or reduction in member activity, number of priesthood holders, etc. in the CJCLDS.

I don’t think that allowing the presidents into the top councils is a fundamental revision of anything. It seems more like the kind of cosmetic tweak that we should be doing, if necessary. After all, women have been participating in counsels at the local level for some time. Further, just as with at the local level, the quorums of the Brethren still have their deliberation as quorums. Honestly, the temple change seemed a much bigger deal to me.

Still, just because the Church has to make room for specific types of error, doesn’t mean that we personally have to.

I am myself surprised that the discomfort of members was the reason given for the temple changes. I see it as a preemptive move against an increasingly voyeuristic world in which the Internet allows sacred things to be defiled for millions.

That this was necessitated by the wickedness of this generation is true, either way.

That’s a very reasonable explanation, Vader. It is unfortunate that something sacred would be defiled, but perhaps the internet made it a case of being forced to “cast pearls before swine” and so necessary to revise simply to preserve.

Count me as someone who is glad endowment sessions are no longer 4 hours long, and that temple garments are no longer ankle-length and wrist-length one-pieces.

As a survivor of childhood trauma who is also on the autistic spectrum, personally I don’t see the initiatory changes as a bad thing.

And I’m thankful that I don’t have to make two trips to the chapel on Sundays as used to be the norm.

Sorry, I wasn’t referring to any Mormons as “swine”, but the thought was of people in the great building mocking ,etc.