Taking Advice From The Peanut Gallery

[Buckeye]

Who knows? Maybe it wasn't the time for it.

 

Exactly. But just because it isn't the time, doesn't mean we stop asking. The fact that the brethren have not yet allowed women to be ordained can be interpreted many ways. One possibility is the Lord emphatically said "no!" But another possibility is He said "not yet" or "keep wrestling." It is an error to analogize the OW movement to the 116 pages when the brethren have not actually declared that the Lord said "no." Instead, what they have said is that is that the restriction is a policy, the policy can only change through revelation, and the revelation has not come yet. That is a far cry from saying "story over." It's much closer to "we'll keep asking."

 

It's not the Lord who needs to be agitated. Or even the Brethren. It's the average members.

[Scott Lloyd]

So how many times did the Prophets ask about removing the racial priesthood ban?  Why would President Kimball continue asking, and continue asking, even after his and his predecessor's many prior requests had not resulted in a removal of the ban?

Because it was foregone that the restriction would some day be lifted. It was only a question of when. Unlike with the OW movement.

 

This is continuing the comparison of apples to oranges.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

The men may be the head, but women are the neck and the neck can turn the head anyway she wants.

 

TSS, don't know if you mean this as a joke or seriously...but this is one of the sayings that leads me to 

[JLHPROF]

So how many times did the Prophets ask about removing the racial priesthood ban?  Why would President Kimball continue asking, and continue asking, even after his and his predecessor's many prior requests had not resulted in a removal of the ban?

 

Not a question of how many times he asked.  The issue is "had God already spoken".  To ask after God has already spoken is basically to ask God to change his mind...not going to happen.  But to continue to ask when no answer has been received is just being diligent.

 

So the question is: Is there already a revelation or the word of God on whether women can hold the Priesthood?

If there isn't, then keep asking to get the word of the Lord on the matter.

If there is, don't badger God to change his mind or word, it won't end for our benefit.

 

That's the real question we should be asking.

[Calm]

Who knows? Maybe it wasn't the time for it.

There is a difference if God's answer was "Not yet" or "No".  My understanding was in the case of the Blacks, we have reported at least one of the times it was "Not yet".

[thesometimesaint]

Exactly. But just because it isn't the time, doesn't mean we stop asking. The fact that the brethren have not yet allowed women to be ordained can be interpreted many ways. One possibility is the Lord emphatically said "no!" But another possibility is He said "not yet" or "keep wrestling." It is an error to analogize the OW movement to the 116 pages when the brethren have not actually declared that the Lord said "no." Instead, what they have said is that is that the restriction is a policy, the policy can only change through revelation, and the revelation has not come yet. That is a far cry from saying "story over." It's much closer to "we'll keep asking."

 

It's not the Lord who needs to be agitated. Or even the Brethren. It's the average members.

 

I believe that our Mother-in-Heaven has all the authority she needs. Who knows maybe one day our good sisters will also have all the authority of Mother-in-Heaven.

[jkwilliams]

There is a difference if God's answer was "Not yet" or "No".  My understanding was in the case of the Blacks, we have reported at least one of the times it was "Not yet".

I wonder what people would think if the brethren reported a "not yet" answer in the case of ordaining women.

BTW, it's nice to see you again, too, Calmoriah. You've always been one of my favorite posters here. I hope you're doing well.

[thesometimesaint]

TSS, don't know if you mean this as a joke or seriously...but this is one of the sayings that leads me to 

 

The neck supports and impliments the directions of the head. One can not be without the other.

[BCSpace]

It's not wrong for the brethren to ask in response to peoples concerns.  It is wrong to keep asking after an answer has been received or if there is already revelation to the purpose.  Then it becomes badgering the Lord as in the case of the 116 pages and they may get the wrong answer (the do it if you want but on your own head answer).

 

 

And if this be the case, I command you, my servant Joseph, that you shall say unto him, that he shall do no more, nor trouble me any more concerning this matter.

Doctrine and Covenants 5:29

Behold, this is according to the law and the prophets; wherefore, trouble me no more concerning this matter.

Doctrine and Covenants 59:22

Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.

Doctrine and Covenants 130:15

 

 

[ERayR]

No, that's not what I meant, nor what I said. Take the chip off your shoulder and read what I'm writing instead of trying to interpret what I'm saying.  They should be guided by God just as Joseph Smith was when he orinigally set things up.

 

Just trying for clarification of your post.  Uh about chips and shoulders. . . Uh never mind.

[Calm]

The neck supports and impliments the directions of the head. One can not be without the other.

It is the implication that the neck (wife) can force the head (husband) in any way she likes.

[Buckeye]

Because it was foregone that the restriction would some day be lifted. It was only a question of when. Unlike with the OW movement.

 

This is continuing the comparison of apples to oranges.

Precisely backwards.  The doctrine was that the racial ban could not be lifted until all non-cursed men had an opportunity to accept the gospel.  (See the 1949 FP Letter; Mormon Doctrine, etc.).  So why did President Kimball think that doctrine could change, and blacks receive the priesthood, even though the vast majority of non-cursed men still were waiting?

 

You're right that the two bans are not exact parallels, but the difference between the two actually cuts in favor of female ordination, not against it.  Unlike with the racial ban, there is no preliminary condition that must be met before women can be extended the priesthood.  No group that must have its chance before women do. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Precisely backwards.  The doctrine was that the racial ban could not be lifted until all non-cursed men had an opportunity to accept the gospel.  (See the 1949 FP Letter; Mormon Doctrine, etc.).  So why did President Kimball think that doctrine could change, and blacks receive the priesthood, even though the vast majority of non-cursed men still were waiting?

 

You're right that the two bans are not exact parallels, but the difference between the two actually cuts in favor of female ordination, not against it.  Unlike with the racial ban, there is no preliminary condition that must be met before women can be extended the priesthood.  No group that must have its chance before women do. 

I am sorry but it had been told for ages that the preisthood ban would one day be lifted from the Blacks. I really don't care what the stipulation was that would bring about that change. The only thing that is relevant is that it would change. I can find absoultly nothing in the scriptures or  past GC talks that would give me the idea that women will get the preisthood in this life.

 

In fact with the recent GC talks it became very evident that this was not something that was going to change that and gay marriage.

[Buckeye]

I am sorry but it had been told for ages that the preisthood ban would one day be lifted from the Blacks. I really don't care what the stipulation was that would bring about that change. The only thing that is relevant is that it would change. I can find absoultly nothing in the scriptures or  past GC talks that would give me the idea that women will get the preisthood in this life.

 

In fact with the recent GC talks it became very evident that this was not something that was going to change that and gay marriage.

 

The same statements that said the ban would be lifted sometime, also said the ban would not be lifted until all non-cursed men had an opportunity to receive the gospel.  That is why Elder McConkie and others were so adament the ban could not be lifted in this life.  Adament, that is, until they received greater light (to quote McConkie's explanation). 

 

For the racial ban, there was both a floor and a ceiling.  If someone is going to cite one part of the teaching, they must acknowledge the other part too. 

[thesometimesaint]

Precisely backwards.  The doctrine was that the racial ban could not be lifted until all non-cursed men had an opportunity to accept the gospel.  (See the 1949 FP Letter; Mormon Doctrine, etc.).  So why did President Kimball think that doctrine could change, and blacks receive the priesthood, even though the vast majority of non-cursed men still were waiting?

 

You're right that the two bans are not exact parallels, but the difference between the two actually cuts in favor of female ordination, not against it.  Unlike with the racial ban, there is no preliminary condition that must be met before women can be extended the priesthood.  No group that must have its chance before women do. 

 

Nope. Blacks haven't been excluded from the Priesthood since 1830. That was always just a folk belief not doctrine. President Kimball worked within the system to extend the Priesthood as far as he couid. It took direct revelation to entirely remove it.

http://www.ldsfaqs.com/history/blacks/mormons-did-not-deny-blacks-the-priesthood/

 

The Priesthood is a call to serve. Just as RS is a call to serve. Women as members of the Church have all the authority they need to do their calling.

[CV75]

The same statements that said the ban would be lifted sometime, also said the ban would not be lifted until all non-cursed men had an opportunity to receive the gospel.

It seems that sometime after 1949, this opportunity was indeed fulfilled, once "the faithful spirits of the prophets who had testified of him in the flesh" were "able to carry the message of redemption unto all the dead" that had been waiting up to that point. Thus it seems that their capacity to teach all the non-cursed dead had caught up with the pent-up demand by 1978. Plus, the curse could well have been lifted with the passage of time, especially as those who are reserved for the last days do not fall under the curse.

[jkwilliams]

That was always just a folk belief not doctrine.

Not according to two First Presidency statements.

1949:

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.

1969:

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, "The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God....

"Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man's mortal existence, extending back to man's pre-existent state."

President McKay has also said, "Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood."

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

[thesometimesaint]

Not according to two First Presidency statements.

1949:

1969:

 

 

See Blacks in the Priesthood.

http://www.blacklds.org/priesthood

[jkwilliams]

See Blacks in the Priesthood.

http://www.blacklds.org/priesthood

I don't think unofficial apologetics trump the First Presidency. Just saying.

I understand saying, as the First Presidency said, we don't know why the ban was in place, but I have a hard time calling it "folk belief."

[Buckeye]

Nope. Blacks haven't been excluded from the Priesthood since 1830. That was always just a folk belief not doctrine. President Kimball worked within the system to extend the Priesthood as far as he couid. It took direct revelation to entirely remove it.

http://www.ldsfaqs.com/history/blacks/mormons-did-not-deny-blacks-the-priesthood/

 

The Priesthood is a call to serve. Just as RS is a call to serve. Women as members of the Church have all the authority they need to do their calling.

 

Yes, Joseph ordained at least a few black men.  I love that fact.  But the ban did begin.  And after it began it was our doctrine that blacks could not receive the priesthood until all non-cursed had the chance.  Read the 1949 FP statement.  President Smith and his counselors said the ban was "doctrine."  So unless you think the prophet cannot declare doctrine, that's the end of the story.  It was our doctrine, not just folklore.  And it changed.  I'm very happy now that our prior doctrine has been downgraded to folklore.  But it's important to remember this historical fact so as not to assume that current doctrine cannot change.  It can.  Doctrine just means "teaching."

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think unofficial apologetics trump the First Presidency. Just saying.

I understand saying, as the First Presidency said, we don't know why the ban was in place, but I have a hard time calling it "folk belief."

I agree. It was very much institutionalized in the Church and it is quite wrong to call it just a folk belief.

 

And you're right also that unofficial apologetics do not trump First Presidency statements.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

It seems that sometime after 1949, this opportunity was indeed fulfilled, once "the faithful spirits of the prophets who had testified of him in the flesh" were "able to carry the message of redemption unto all the dead" that had been waiting up to that point. Thus it seems that their capacity to teach all the non-cursed dead had caught up with the pent-up demand by 1978. Plus, the curse could well have been lifted with the passage of time, especially as those who are reserved for the last days do not fall under the curse.

 

What?  We have no idea what has happened on the other side of the veil.  But on this side, in June 1978, there were still many men who were not under a curse (ie, not of African decent), who had not received the gospel or the opportunity to be ordained.  They lived in Russia, China, India, and everywhere else on the globe.  In fact, the vast majority of non-cursed men in 1978 had never even heard of the church.  So allowing blacks to be ordained before these non-cursed men were taught the gospel was a change of our doctrine.  QED.

 

As to the curse not applying to those reserved for the last days, do you mean to suggest that black man born in Alabama in 1950 did not fall under the curse?  If so, why was he denied the priesthood until 1978?  Or is 1950 not part of the last days?

Edited October 7, 2013 by Buckeye

[thesometimesaint]

I don't have any problem with folk beliefs, as long as they are subject to change by God.

 

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1570

 

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

[Buckeye]

I don't think unofficial apologetics trump the First Presidency. Just saying.

I understand saying, as the First Presidency said, we don't know why the ban was in place, but I have a hard time calling it "folk belief."

 

The first time I heard this phrase was in the PBS special "The Mormons" where Elder Holland was interviewed and referred to explanations for the ban as "folklore". See

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

 

It's an interesting trajectory. In 1949 it was doctrine. In 1969 we didn't know. In 1978 the practice changed. In 2005 it was folklore. In Feb. 2012, when Randy Bott taught the folklore, he was quickly denounced by the church newsroom.

[Buckeye]

I don't have any problem with folk beliefs, as long as they are subject to change by God.

 

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1570

 

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

 

Wonderful quote.  I love it.  And that is why we can never say we've heard the last word.  If additional light and knowledge can come regarding the racial priesthood ban, it can surely come for women's ordination and any other issue we struggle with today.