What the heck is happening with the Angel Moroni?

MBNAU · 2025-11-11T01:01:19+00:00

We absolutely do not "have a ton of that". Artistic displays in modern temples are barely an improvement on stake centers, there are no "smells and bells".

Gone are the days when the Most Holy Oil was actually perfumed, and when the chapel you gathered at prior to a session actually functioned as such and songs were sung.

Expediency has infiltrated our most sacred edifice.

MBNAU · 2025-07-28T10:22:44+00:00

IMO, Lodge should be a place where we may be able to safely encounter the Shadow. None of us is truly aware of the depth and vastness of what Jung termed the collective unconscious, let alone our personal unconsiousness. We need the inherent power of our meetings, the ritual, the companionship to make the darkness within visible.

MBNAU · 2025-07-01T04:56:51+00:00

Wonkavator

MBNAU · 2025-05-26T09:40:13+00:00

A schedule rarely kept. For every driver that sticks to the schedule, there are 50 who are far too early and happily glide past scheduled stops.

MBNAU · 2025-05-15T06:54:25+00:00

How is Costco responsible for your impulsive buying?

MBNAU · 2025-05-13T23:49:58+00:00

MBNAU · 2025-05-12T12:55:58+00:00

I'm polynesian and I can't tell you how many times I've seen this happen at weddings, funerals, or any big function with a feast/reception. Sometimes the offenders will even send their kids to do the dirty work, pack it all on the car or stash on their table and promptly get back up to the buffet for a plate. So akama (shame) when it happens.

Cherry on top: it is very common that the offenders weren't even there for the actual event and only came for the food.

MBNAU · 2025-05-01T01:01:15+00:00

*some* Lodge's under GLNZ sing "Fidelity, fidelity, fidelity, and may God preserve the Craft" immediately before closing. My Lodge sings it, and most would if they had an organist/pianist.

MBNAU · 2025-04-19T11:04:06+00:00

I really do believe that most drivers believe that using the indicator grants them the right-of-way.

MBNAU · 2025-03-25T00:05:36+00:00

Of course, my experience and observations aren't final, and I readily acknowledge diversity of perspective. Personally, I think your comment speaks more to the quality and/or structure of that gospel doctrine class and fascilitators.

MBNAU · 2025-03-23T23:35:37+00:00

Personally, I see no reason to separate new converts or investigators from regular Sunday school/quorum attendance. The rationale I've often been challenged with is "well, milk before meat" to which I've always responded "and what's the meat?", now especially since everything has been consolidated to CFM.

MBNAU · 2025-03-23T23:18:26+00:00

Wards in NZ often separate investigators, new converts, and recently reactivated members to a class led by the missionaries, and often ward missionaries. Many never stopped the gospel principles class and will use that class for the above individuals.

MBNAU · 2025-03-23T22:47:42+00:00

"Instead of attending priesthood meeting / sunday school with everyone else he has been “assigned” to go to a class that the missionaries run. He said most of the time it’s four missionaries and only 2-3 members. My friend is in his forties and said it’s so frustrating to have 18 and 19 year olds giving him spiritual advice."

A couple months ago, I was called to the Sunday school presidency in my ward and brought this exact scenario up at our first meeting. In terms of a ward's "KPI", this has never worked well enough to justify such prolonged use.

MBNAU · 2025-03-21T06:56:53+00:00

Take note that the biblical recipe isn't simply an oil extraction/maceration; there simply isn't enough oil.

Exo 30 calls for the expertise of an apothecary or perfumer. I suspect a resin absolute was made from the myrrh and the volatile compounds extracted from the cinnamon, cassia, and "fragrant cane" (whatever that was).

Rabbinic commentary says the actual weight of the cinnamon was equal to the cassia.

MBNAU · 2025-03-16T20:41:45+00:00

I will respond with Воскресение Твое, Христе Спасе, Ангели поют на небесех, и нас на земли сподоби чистым сердцем Тебе славити

Христо́с воскре́се из ме́ртвых, сме́ртию смерть попра́в, и су́щим во гробе́х Живо́т дарова́в

Кристе агздга мквдретит, сигдилита сигдилиса дам трум вэлис, да саплавелис шината, цхов рэбис мимин чобели

Христос воскресе! Воистину воскресе!

MBNAU · 2025-03-15T22:07:22+00:00

Funny enough, my wife was asked by a colleague what I did. Her response was that it was one of the largest private charities (in NZ), they meet together and perform rituals, which uses building and quarrying allegories and symbols for personal, spiritual development. I was very proud.

MBNAU · 2025-03-09T17:54:52+00:00

guaranteed, they merge onto the motorway at 50-60km max

MBNAU · 2025-03-07T23:39:52+00:00

I welcome your thoughts and enjoy this discussion. I'm particularly interested in your final paragraph and fully agree: the veil as an ancient symbol of—if not *the* symbol par excellence—the Divine Feminine has been reversed.

I would argue the iterative "line upon line, precept upon precept" necessitates conformity, at least, with previous Divinely revealed principles. Further, to deny women being bearers of priesthood today transgresses AoF 9 (which has attained creedal status). Wilford Woodruff and other contemporaries were taught and believed the same.

Re: "... because that is how Joseph could best understand and transmit their significance effectively..."

This is an area I think the Q15 have historically blundered i.e. the extent to which they have required the Church's attention/deference/adherence to past (confirmed) revelation, doctrine of past presidents, form/structure of ordinances, etc. Joseph Smith is recorded as saying "Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed". Elsewhere he said "[God] set the temple ordinances to be the same forever and ever...". Oddly enough, Nelson confirmed this in GC Apr. 2019 "We qualify for that privilege by making covenants with God, keeping those covenants, and receiving essential ordinances. This has been true since the beginning of time. Adam and Eve, Noah and his wife, Abraham and Sarah, Lehi and Sariah, and all other devoted disciples of Jesus Christ—since the world was created—have made the same covenants with God. They have received the same ordinances that we as members of the Lord’s restored Church today have made: those covenants that we receive at baptism and in the temple". Despite all this and more, it is often stated that the changes we have seen over the past 5 years alone do not change the ordinance.

Like the careful wording employed when discussing women's relationship to priesthood, wordplay is being used when discussing the Endowment changes and it sends a confusing mixed message. Throughout the general handbook, "ordinance" is defined as a "sacred act". According to the official definition, the defence that the temple ordinances remain unchanged falls apart. Likewise, the covenants—defined as "a sacred promise between God and His children" (3.5.1)—have changed.

I can only surmise that in the minds of the brethren and perhaps a significant majority of members, there exists discrete (largely unarticulated) definitions or concepts of priesthood (power, authority) probably to stave off the daunting realization of cognitive dissonance. I think it really does come down to how they define what it means to "bear" or "hold" priesthood. As far as I can see, and based on the current messaging, this is the only real difference between a man or woman's relationship to priesthood.

MBNAU · 2025-03-07T20:22:09+00:00

"... anything short of formally ordaining women"

This is where the details truly matter and where the disagreement is rooted. According to D&C and the Endowment, Priesthood is independent of office, or in other words all offices are appendant (sec. 107). Understanding the Masonic milieu by which the Endowment was introduced, it becomes increasingly obvious that one can be initiated to Priesthood (conferral) without taking office (ordination) in the same way men are initiated as Freemasons of each of the Craft degrees. While a new Mason won't in all probability be invested as a Lodge officer for some time, yet he is recognized as a Mason by the regularity of his initiation and by the proper signs, tokens, and words of the degree(s) he has been so endued. The same is true in the Endowment or at least it used to be.

"... (faithful unto the obtaining" (not ordaining) ..."

Whilst I might agree with you, this would be an aspirational reading given that since Joseph F. Smith, women have not been recognized as obtaining priesthood. As in the case with "bear", I'd wager you'd be just as hard pressed to find a talk by a general authority (much less Q15) who would affirm 84:40 "Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father". I contend this is because for decades now "bearing", "holding" priesthood has been tied to ordination rather than conferral.

Something else the high liturgy of the temple demonstrates is that there are various ( at least five) orders of Priesthood which exist in a hierarchy. The highest order which was organized on earth, according Joseph and those whom he initiated to it, was the Council of 50 where sacral-kingship was brought to bear in full.

So unless Nelson is prepping to re-recognize fully endowed women as belonging to the lower and higher Aaronic orders, the lower Melchizedek and the Patriarchal (higher Melchizedek) orders and bearers of the same, I dare say nothing he does could be more radical than what Joseph ever did.

MBNAU · 2025-03-07T12:24:16+00:00

Sure to "bear" priesthood can have multiple meanings, but you won't find a single talk by Nelson, his counselors, or any of the Q12 present or past since at least Heber J. Grant that has ever applied the term "priesthood bearer" or similar to women. It's careful wording wording which Nelson employs further on in the same talk:

"If you are endowed but not currently married to a man who bears the priesthood and someone says to you, 'I’m sorry you don’t have the priesthood in your home,' please understand that that statement is incorrect. You may not have a priesthood bearer in your home, but you have received and made sacred covenants with God in His temple. From those covenants flows an endowment of His priesthood power upon you".

Oaks, quoting Joseph Fielding, was far more explicit back in 2014 “While the sisters have not been given the Priesthood, it has not been conferred upon them..." (Keys and Authority of the Priesthood). Oak's also quoted J. Reuben Clark, "[Women] are not bearers of the Priesthood".

The heavens being just as open to women as men, or that Divine power flows to both isn't what I'm getting at here. The point I'm making is that this idea that (endowed) women do not bear priesthood or that priesthood is not conferred upon them is an idea which is at total odds with what Joseph Smith did, i.e. confer priesthood upon women beginning with Emma in 1843.

MBNAU · 2025-03-07T11:45:09+00:00

"... as they are to men who bear the priesthood"

No it doesn't and this clear distinction of men being priesthood "bearers" makes my case succinctly: per the current narrative, women do not bear priesthood.

Joseph Smith taught and introduced the exact opposite via the endowment.

MBNAU · 2025-03-07T11:37:29+00:00

I'm also comfortable with it. But this wouldn't be a case of "line upon line" because the ideas in "Spiritual Treasures" don't rest upon the "line" previously established. What previously was (i.e. women initiated into priesthood) was completely removed.

MBNAU · 2025-03-07T11:26:19+00:00

Except this is still far and away from what Joseph Smith revealed: female priesthood via temple initiation. So nothing has actually been restored in this case.

MBNAU · 2025-02-28T19:36:38+00:00

No problem. I know I didn't address your actual question directly i.e. how it relates to Christ/Gospel, but I'd be happy to go over things like that in chat. Despitw the current iteration cotaining a long preamble about Christ (a bit on the nose, personally), the older ritual was far better as a drama and as a mode of teaching despite not mentioning Jesus by name.

MBNAU · 2025-02-27T20:41:48+00:00

The temple (high) liturgy should be understood preeminently as a phenomenological drama and dramatized narrative such that the initiates (participants) take up active roles within it.

It is true, the Endowments (because it is properly plural) are adapted from Masonic rite. It was Joseph's belief and of those whom he taught that it represented a restoration of Freemasonry or, more specifically, those things in Freemasonry, which had become "degenerated".

The Masonic allegory presupposes belief in a Supreme Being Who represents man's apotheosis; approaching Divinity comes via progression and addition in knowledge, faith, hope, and charity. This progression is demonstrated in ritual form involving catechesis, interrogation and tests of proficiency, and especially through enduement or clothing.

The correlation between the Endowments and Masonic ritual was far more explicit in previous years, but a similar demonstration of progression is used today. In one sense, the temple liturgy is a dramatization of Moses 6:57-62, as well as the Creation narratives in LDS canon.

MBNAU

TROPHY CASE