Scott Lloyd

I’m saying it appears you have bought into the cherry picking of a quote that likely wasn’t nearly as widely known pre-1978 as you have made it out to be and that you have made the conclusory assertion that it’s what Church members “were taught” back then. We’re you even alive prior to 1978? I was, and I was well into adulthood. I well remember conditions then, and they did not include the widespread assumption that the lifting of the priesthood restriction would not occur until “the end of time.” You have steadfastly ignored the obvious indication that President Kimball himself did not assume that would be the case (Webbles has shown that other prophets before him, namely David O. McKay and Harold B. Lee, did not either); what makes you think everybody else did?

I venture to say not widely known at all. I didn’t become aware of it until later years when critics of the Church began to cherry pick it.

I didn’t say we “thought the ban would be lift[ed] soon.” I said we thought it could happen anytime. That’s not the same thing. Anytime could be within a span from the present moment to some point far into the future. And I don’t know that very many people were aware of the Brigham Young quote. I know I wasn’t. I think it conclusory on your part to say it’s what people were taught back then. Then, as now, Church lessons rarely focused on the priesthood restriction. I repeat that OD 2 shows that President Kimball, if he was aware of the quote at all, didn’t take that portion seriously. Else why would he spend “many hours in the upper room of the temple” imploring Heavenly Father on behalf of “these our brethren”?

Yes, it was widely acclaimed. There was much rejoicing the day it was announced that is still vivid in my memory. Im not sure I get the point of your post, though. Can you clarify?

To quote Hamba: “It's not going to happen, and if it did happen, it would be an act of apostasy equivalent to what happened in the early centuries following the deaths of the apostles.” The same could not be said about the lifting of the priesthood ban, not now, not in 1978 and not in 1955.

Yes, that’s what I’m saying. And that it’s apparent that’s what President Kimball believed (again, see OD 2). President Dallin H. Oaks, who was BYU president at the time, has described his emotion when he heard the news. He wept with joy. There was no quibbling from him about it supposedly not supposed to happen until the end of time. The central point is there is no apt comparison between our collective attitude back then regarding the anticipated lifting of the priesthood restriction and the general attitude today about the baseless expectation among some that the law of chastity will be rescinded or materially altered.

That’s not consistent with my recollection. Most faithful Latter-day Saints believed, as I did, that it could happen anytime. That apparently was President Kimball’s understanding as well, as reflected in OD 2.

I don’t understand the question.

Having grown up in the Church prior to 1978, I disagree. I clearly recall that among most faithful Latter-day Saints, it was forgone that the priesthood restriction would one day be lifted. That’s not the case with regard to any imagined change to the law of chastity as it is presently constituted.

Would have or would’ve, not “would of”. You got it right the second time, though. Kudos for that.

I don’t recall it being much of an issue in the Church prior to President Hinckley giving that conference talk in which he also mentioned ear piercings. There was not much reason to talk about it before it became a pervasive fad in society particularly among younger people. Apparently, that caused the Brethren to see a need to call a halt to it, at least among our own people.

CB is right. Tattoos have been strongly discouraged since President Hinckley addressed the matter in general conference. I’d have to go back and look, but it has been longer ago than a decade. It was in the same general conference talk in which he said women/girls should not have any more than one pair of ear piercings. It has been repeatedly emphasized by Church leaders since then.

That altogether changes the complexion of the matter and neutralizes the irony that was apparent before, I will readily admit. Is there any reason in particular why you waited until now to disclose this essential information?

This conjures all manner of unsavory mental images.

That’s like saying embezzlement is immoral and you shouldn’t do it, but if you do, be sure to pay tithing on your gains.