Saturday, July 1, 2017

Orientation II

I have continued thoughts after my earlier post, Orientation (I).

Thinking about the temple as a place where we receive only and all those things we lack, which are needed to enter the Celestial Kingdom, continues to astound me. It puts to rest so many of my troubles concerning temple ordinances that had previously seemed so off-putting and frankly anti-women.

I know that I am at risk of telling myself what I want to hear, of doing "mental gymnastics" to get to a happy ending, but the more I come back to this viewpoint the more I see that it has precedent and holds up against what prophets have said and done:

Take the Baptism of Jesus...

John the Baptist is feeling super awkward at the start here because, in his own words, "I have need to be baptized of Thee." Nevertheless Jesus gets baptized to fulfill all righteousness. Clearly He who is without sin is lowering himself to undergo this ordinance because it is a necessary step to take for all mortals to return to God.

Likewise, women are asked to receive temple ordinances even though they have previously received their own endowment prior to coming to earth, and the invested power given pre-mortally is from a higher station. We as women do this to fulfill all righteousness, even as the Savior did.

Then there's this quote from Brigham Young:

"Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.” (Emphasis added)
People, he didn't stop at "necessary;" he adds a "for you" separate from the subject described as walking back to the Father. Why is that important? Because if you use my template for the sexes, this means you go to the temple to receive the things that you as a man or woman are lacking and nothing more. So if you have already been ordained as a priest(ess) to the most high God, this will not be given again. But if, like Jesus, you need to receive a blessing at a lower station (because it had previously not applied to you), then the temple is the perfect place to fill in the gaps.

So, should we call it Ordained Women?

Based on what I've just shared, one might conclude that women must have received "The Priesthood" previously. That's kinda true, but I maintain that we're not talking Aaronic and Melchizedek.  Instead, I've written about women coming from a higher level of priesthood power here.

And now you might be thinking, Monique, this throws a wrench into your template. If the temple is a place where missing steps are completed, then why aren't women ordained to the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods there?

Good question!

My answer is that priesthood power expands from the highest level one has attained, and covers all those beneath it. With that, women ordained to power at the patriarchal level have no need for ordination to the Aaronic and Melchizdek priesthoods since that's already encompassed by their order level. We see that relationship outlined here in D&C 107:17.

My template, you guys, it's lookin' pretty robust, no?


  1. I have found myself drawn back to your ideas over a couple of years now. They are certainly flattering to women. I recently conversed with you somewhere about this - I think it was on an FMH post?

    But I'm going to go with "no" as an answer to your final question in this post. I really think your second paragraph is right - you're telling yourself what you want to hear. And yes, it sounds great, and it's very detailed, and you've put so much thought into it. But I keep going back to the fact that I don't think your ideas are supported by scripture or teachings of any of the Q15 (past or present). I especially think this is true of your idea that the earth was created to test Adam, not Eve.

    The other huge problem is that no one (or very few people) beside you seem to know these things, and it especially seems that no leaders of the church know them. If it is such bedrock truth, it seems like God would reveal it to many, and it would be apparent in our practices/policies. Maybe he has revealed it to many, and people just keep their mouths shut unless they're around other people who believe as they do.

    1. :) I remember connecting with you on FMH! Thanks for coming over here.

      I'm used to "no." I was told my argument for a Heavenly Mother couldn't be right for the same reasons. Nevertheless, I persist because I have my own unique experiences.

      Let's take this concept of a further endowment for women, a lot of what I say rests on that, but many have never "heard" this term before and even suggest I made it up. And yet they have most definitely heard it (if they're endowed women), but never *listened* to it.

      That being said, I very much agree that we have a problem. Which is why I keep searching, writing, and conversing with thoughtful women like you.