Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 (edited) 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". Seehttp://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.I think you need to listen/read the remarks there more carefully. My impression is Elder Holland was not referring to the priesthood restriction itself as folklore, but to a lot of the conjecture and speculation that had risen up over the years in an effort to explain/justify it. To this day, the position of the Church, as I understand it, is that the reason for the restriction is unknown. To my knowledge, there has never been any disavowal of it as folklore. Edited October 7, 2013 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 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.If you have in mind the notion that the sin of homosexual expression will one day be declared non-sinful, I suggest you review carefully the talks of Elders Oaks and Nelson given at the just-concluded general conference.
jkwilliams Posted October 7, 2013 Author Posted October 7, 2013 If you have in mind the notion that the sin of homosexual expression will one day be declared non-sinful, I suggest you review carefully the talks of Elders Oaks and Nelson given at the just-concluded general conference. With God, nothing is impossible.
thesometimesaint Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 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. While I believe that God has a lot more to reveal to us. I don't foresee the ordination of women any time soon. Not impossible, just not likely.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 With God, nothing is impossible."With God" being the operative phrase here.
jkwilliams Posted October 7, 2013 Author Posted October 7, 2013 "With God" being the operative phrase here. Sure, but if whatever God commands is right, no matter what it is, it is possible that he could command the church to accept gay relationships. I don't see it happening, but then not a lot of people expected anything important to happen in May of 1978.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Sure, but if whatever God commands is right, no matter what it is, it is possible that he could command the church to accept gay relationships. I don't see it happening, but then not a lot of people expected anything important to happen in May of 1978.Not at that specific time, maybe, but most of us expected it would happen sooner or later. Not so with the notion that law of chastity will be rescinded.
Buckeye Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 I think you need to listen/read the remarks there more carefully. My impression is Elder Holland was not referring to the priesthood restriction itself as folklore, but to a lot of the conjecture and speculation that had risen up over the years in an effort to explain/justify it. To this day, the position of the Church, as I understand it, is that the reason for the restriction is unknown. To my knowledge, there has never been any disavowal of it as folklore. That's my understanding too. Perhaps I was not precise in explaning it. Elder Holland says the reasons for the ban were "folklore." He didn't specify which reasons, but to me it's clear he meant the reasons accepted and taught by prior propets and apostles, including in the 1949 FP statement. You are correct he didn't say the ban for "folklore." That wouldn't even make sense. The ban was real. And, yes, the current church position is still "we don't know." But in my opinion, that just means there is not agreement amongst the 15 as to the reason. Wisely, there will be no church position until they all agree.
jkwilliams Posted October 7, 2013 Author Posted October 7, 2013 Not at that specific time, maybe, but most of us expected it would happen sooner or later. Not so with the notion that law of chastity will be rescinded. It wouldn't have to be rescinded, at least not by my understanding of the law of chastity. All it would take is an expansion of eligibility for sealings.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 (edited) It wouldn't have to be rescinded, at least not by my understanding of the law of chastity. All it would take is an expansion of eligibility for sealings.The law of chastity forbids any sexual relations with anyone other than one's spouse. And it assumes the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. It would take a fundamental abandonment/contradiction of much of what is now entailed in the law of chastity. Those who are still entertaining fantasies to the contrary need to consider the very clear and unequivocal statements made at this recent general conference. Edited October 7, 2013 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted October 7, 2013 Author Posted October 7, 2013 The law of chastity forbids any sexual relations with anyone other than one's spouse. And it assumes the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. It would take a fundamental abandonment/contradiction of much of what is now entailed in the law of chastity. Those who are still entertaining notions to the contrary need to consider the very clear and unequivocal statements made at this recent general conference. Because the man/woman thing is assumed, it's not necessarily essential to the law of chastity. Again, I don't see it ever happening, but you never know.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 (edited) Because the man/woman thing is assumed, it's not necessarily essential to the law of chastity. Again, I don't see it ever happening, but you never know.Maybe assumed is the wrong word to use here. Contemplated, included, incorporated, integral, self-evident, might be suitable replacements. Even your word, essential. Edited October 7, 2013 by Scott Lloyd
WmLaw Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 If you have in mind the notion that the sin of homosexual expression will one day be declared non-sinful, I suggest you review carefully the talks of Elders Oaks and Nelson given at the just-concluded general conference.The concept of ongoing revelation leaves open many possibilities.
JLHPROF Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Because the man/woman thing is assumed, it's not necessarily essential to the law of chastity. Again, I don't see it ever happening, but you never know. Well, when you consider the conditions under which the law of chastity covenant is administered I think the male/female component is pretty much set in stone - unless we no longer operate as Adams and Eves.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 The concept of ongoing revelation leaves open many possibilities.And much scope for fantasy, I suppose. Again, listen to the talks of Elders Oaks and Nelson for a good dose of reality. 1
CV75 Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 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?We don’t know exactly what went on this side of the veil, either! You brought up the 1949 letter; let’s not be so rigid as to ignore what is plausibly going on in the spirit world and in the pre-mortal worlds relative to the statements in the letter! Considering there is always a period of transition (patience, patience!), if it took until 1978 for all the non-cursed men in the spirit world up to that point to have their opportunity realized, and if upon death the cursed men become non-cursed, and if once all the non-cursed dead had their opportunity, the non-cursed living need no wait too long to receive their opportunity after death, then the non-cursed have had their opportunity according to the 1949 letter, or at least the opportunity fully opened up, by 1978. Plus, if the curse was lifted by 1978 anyway to accommodate those who were reserved to come forth in the last days, they would have the opportunity in this life or in the spirit world to receive the priesthood. So yes, in he transition phase, a black man anywhere on the earth in 1950 would have come to the earth during a time when he could receive the priesthood, either in his own lifetime or shortly thereafter. Look at some of the ages of the non-cursed patriarchs when they received the priesthood--some waited a good chunk of their lifetimes!
jkwilliams Posted October 8, 2013 Author Posted October 8, 2013 Well, when you consider the conditions under which the law of chastity covenant is administered I think the male/female component is pretty much set in stone - unless we no longer operate as Adams and Eves. In that case, it wouldn't have allowed for plural marriage, as Adam was a monogamist, apparently.
JLHPROF Posted October 8, 2013 Posted October 8, 2013 In that case, it wouldn't have allowed for plural marriage, as Adam was a monogamist, apparently. Or was he... http://ofepicproportions.blogspot.com/2008/06/adams-three-wives.html and of course"When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him." - Brigham Young
danieldemol Posted October 8, 2013 Posted October 8, 2013 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.Religion changes, and I personally see that as a good thing, sometimes I think we (ie humanity in general) are un-necessarily afraid of fundamental changes
jkwilliams Posted October 8, 2013 Author Posted October 8, 2013 Or was he... http://ofepicproportions.blogspot.com/2008/06/adams-three-wives.html and of course"When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him." - Brigham Young Heh. I think that's the first time I've ever heard that quote used in defense of the church.
Stone holm Posted October 8, 2013 Posted October 8, 2013 There seems to be this view that the Brethren should never pay any attention to outside influences, petitioners, or demonstrations. They should I guess sit around with cotton in their ears and wait for The Lord to light up a burning bush. We know that Pres McKay had figured out that the Priesthood ban was based on tradition not doctrine, but despite the pleading of one of his counselors refused to change it despite rising public pressure -- he didn't receive a no answer he simply didn't receive an answer . Harold B Lee simply vowed it would never happen while he lived which turned out to be a self fulfilling prophecy. So under those circumstances was it improper for members to keep questioning the tradition? Even if a Prophet says no now, even if that is a result of his deep prayer, that does not necessarily mean that members have to shut up and go sit in a corner whenever the subject comes up. Things change.
thesometimesaint Posted October 8, 2013 Posted October 8, 2013 The concept of ongoing revelation leaves open many possibilities. True, but not all possibilities. 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 8, 2013 Posted October 8, 2013 In that case, it wouldn't have allowed for plural marriage, as Adam was a monogamist, apparently. There are stories of a Lilith
Duncan Posted October 8, 2013 Posted October 8, 2013 There are stories of a Lilith funny story about Lillith...oh man
thesometimesaint Posted October 8, 2013 Posted October 8, 2013 funny story about Lillith...oh man I don't know how funny thay all are. But some have her as a demon. Others as the first wife of Adam. Maybe she is one and the same.
Recommended Posts