Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Let's be clear - denying women the priesthood is exactly in line with the cultural values of traditional, modern Christianity and American culture until recently. It's in line with the image of an older generation. Giving women the priesthood is in line with current culture. Culture moves toward greater inclusiveness because we perceive that it's just. I believe we awaken as a people to morality over time, and one of those values is inclusiveness. I believe this to be a form of divine inspiration. Orthodoxies always resist this kind of change - how can they do otherwise? Orthodoxies are always (small c) conservative. Is either side molding God in their image? Maybe both. But my heart tells me inclusiveness is a value worth cherishing and expanding. So long as it does not put one at odds with the servants of God as He unfolds His mind and will to them.
Gray Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 What it supports is the understanding that there is not a hard-and-fast rule pertaining to canonization. You're the one who is arguing for the hard-and-fast rule. I'm not sure there is a hard and fast rule, but I think the only one that we could have that would be consistent, if we had one, would be canonization. Personally my own rule is personal inspiration, not legalistic standards like canonization or official publication.
Gray Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 So long as it does not put one at odds with the servants of God as He unfolds His mind and will to them. We should all strive to align ourselves with God, but simple obedience to any servant is not the way to get there.
Bikeemikey Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 There was certainly no rift evident to the membership at large. And in actuality, I think the incident has been overblown, even to the point of calling it a "rift." I dont know. The only apostle demoted from his position on the first presidency during after the passing of David O. Mckay. Read this article: https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Dialogue_V35N01_157.pdf It is interesting. That said you may be right. Either way, there was a shift in the church at the time that left many members uncomfortable with the pre-1978 policy and almost all members were overjoyed and the news of the change.
Gray Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 I don't think the evidence is conclusive. And the fact that any worthy individual, male or female, can have the spirit of prophecy does not negate that there is an established priesthood office of prophet, seer and revelator. Again, equally applicable to male prophets. Just because a male prophet is referred to as a prophet does not mean that he holds the priesthood. Yes?
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) I don't believe I am wrong in implying that you are revising history. In past threads you have painted a picture of a church that was waiting for the priesthood & temple ban to be overturned... knowing that it would happen...Knowing it would happen when God was ready to reveal that it should, and not as a result of pressure politics. when in fact, there were serious problems under the surface and within church membership. If this is true, there should have been a substantial post-1978 backlash -- which there wasn't. The contrary was true. Edited March 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 I'm not sure there is a hard and fast rule, but I think the only one that we could have that would be consistent, if we had one, would be canonization. Personally my own rule is personal inspiration, not legalistic standards like canonization or official publication. But no one other than the Church president has the right to receive personal inspiration that governs the entire Church. If someone professes to do that and he is at odds with the president of the Church, it is a sure sign he is in apostasy. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) I dont know. The only apostle demoted from his position on the first presidency during after the passing of David O. Mckay. Read this article: https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Dialogue_V35N01_157.pdf It is interesting. That said you may be right. Either way, there was a shift in the church at the time that left many members uncomfortable with the pre-1978 policy and almost all members were overjoyed and the news of the change.Without bothering to click on the link, I will say if you are referring to Hugh B. Brown, I reject that either he, the Church president or the membership at large regarded what happened as a demotion. Your word "shift" implies a sudden change in the mindset of the Church membership that did not occur until the 1960s. There may have been a change in attitude over time, but I remember it as being more gradual than your word implies. Either way, we were more than ready to accept the revelation with joy when it was unexpectedly announced in 1978. Edited March 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
rockpond Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Knowing it would happen when God was ready to reveal that it should, and not as a result of pressure politics. If this is true, there should have been a substantial post-1978 backlash -- which there wasn't. The contrary was true. Not necessarily. Those who wanted the ban removed were happy that it had finally happened. Those who insisted the prophet not be questioned on the matter wouldn't have caused a backlash either way. There were and still are casualties over the issue. And I believe those casualties will continue until we cease sugar-coating.
Stone holm Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Without bothering to click on the link, I will say if you are referring to Hugh B. Brown, I reject that either he, the Church president or the membership at large regarded what happened as a demotion. Your word "shift" implies a sudden change in the mindset of the Church membership that did not occur until the 1960s. There may have been a change in attitude over time, but I remember it as being more gradual than your word implies. Either way, we were more than ready to accept the revelation with joy when it was unexpectedly announced in 1978. That may be, but the book "David O. McKay: And The Rise of Modern Mormonism" definitely implies that it was intended as such. No I agree, there was a massive shift in the 1960's.
Bikeemikey Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) Without bothering to click on the link, I will say if you are referring to Hugh B. Brown, I reject that either he, the Church president or the membership at large regarded what happened as a demotion. Your word "shift" implies a sudden change in the mindset of the Church membership that did not occur until the 1960s. There may have been a change in attitude over time, but I remember it as being more gradual than your word implies. Either way, we were more than ready to accept the revelation with joy when it was unexpectedly announced in 1978. I agree that the word shift was a bad choice of words. The change was a change overtime starting in the 60s. I think the information available showed that Brown was engaging it a much faster drive towards change than the rest of the leadership were happy with. It also shows that this produced some tension on this issue. I agree, that whether or not the unexpected replacement of Brown in the leadership structure was a demotion (or even related to these black ordination issues) is really not provable. I do think that it is clear that there was tension among the leadership related to this issue. You should read the link. It is interesting. Edited March 20, 2014 by Bikeemikey
Stone holm Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 I agree that the word shift was a bad choice of words. The change was a change overtime starting in the 60s. I think the information available showed that Brown was engaging it a much faster drive towards change than the rest of the leadership were happy with. It also shows that this produced some tension on this issue. I agree, that whether or not the unexpected replacement of Brown in the leadership structure was a demotion (or even related to these black ordination issues) is really not provable. I do think that it is clear that there was tension among the leadership related to this issue. You should read the link. It is interesting. You think? Given Harold B. Lee said over my dead body?
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 I agree that the word shift was a bad choice of words. The change was a change overtime starting in the 60s. I think it started long before that.
Bikeemikey Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 I think it started long before that. Your probably right.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) That may be, but the book "David O. McKay: And The Rise of Modern Mormonism" definitely implies that it was intended as such. Regarding what happened, President Brown had a humble and wise attitude that others, especially today, would do will to emulate. As recounted by Elder Dallin H. Oaks in an October 2002 general conference address: All about us, and in our memories of earlier times, we have inspiring examples of the submissive, faithful service of Latter-day Saints. One of the best known was that of President J. Reuben Clark. After over 16 years as an extraordinarily influential first counselor, the First Presidency was reorganized and he was called as second counselor. Offering an example of humility and willingness to serve that has influenced generations, he said to the Church: “In the service of the Lord, it is not where you serve but how. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one takes the place to which one is duly called, which place one neither seeks nor declines” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1951, 154).Edited to add: Oops. That quote is about President J. Reuben Clark, not President Brown. Oh well. Now, if I can just get this posted before Stoneholm catches me on it ... Edited March 20, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
Bikeemikey Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Regarding what happened, President Brown had a humble and wise attitude that others, especially today, would do will to emulate. As recounted by Elder Dallin H. Oaks in an October 2002 general conference address: On this we are in 100% agreement.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Not necessarily. Those who wanted the ban removed were happy that it had finally happened. Those who insisted the prophet not be questioned on the matter wouldn't have caused a backlash either way.If there were a lot of members who were indifferent or unhappy about the change, they certainly stayed quiet and hidden at the time. The endeavor by those who were not born or who otherwise have no personal memory of what happened to portray this event as anything other than a communal experience of joy and jubilation for the Church membership around the world is what strikes me as revisionism. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 On this we are in 100% agreement.Thanks, but I made an error. See my mea culpa in my post.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 You should read the link. It is interesting.I tried to click on the link, but I got an "untrusted" notification. I don't dare proceed.
Bikeemikey Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 I tried to click on the link, but I got an "untrusted" notification. I don't dare proceed.Fair enough - it's the digital worlds eqivalent of the Holy Ghost! 2
rockpond Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 If there were a lot of members who were indifferent or unhappy about the change, they certainly stayed quiet and hidden at the time. The endeavor by those who were not born or who otherwise have no personal memory of what happened to portray this event as anything other than a communal experience of joy and jubilation for the Church membership around the world is what strikes me as revisionism. I have never suggested that there wasn't great joy and jubilation at the 1978 announcement. I definitely believe that there was.
rockpond Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 Regarding what happened, President Brown had a humble and wise attitude that others, especially today, would do will to emulate. Regardless of the quote you used, from what I've studied of President Brown I imagine that he was humble about the release. It doesn't, however, change the potential significance of what happened. And, before you call me on it, it is possible that Brown's release meant nothing. It's also possible that he was viewed by President Lee as being out of harmony with accepted doctrine and the quorum. Not sure if we'll ever know.
Bikeemikey Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) Regardless of the quote you used, from what I've studied of President Brown I imagine that he was humble about the release.It doesn't, however, change the potential significance of what happened. And, before you call me on it, it is possible that Brown's release meant nothing. It's also possible that he was viewed by President Lee as being out of harmony with accepted doctrine and the quorum. Not sure if we'll ever know.I think that Brown not making a huge deal of it I'll is definitely are good example of humility. It would have been very easy to capitalize on such a situation by becoming a media darling and hyping up the narrative of the church censuring liberals at the highest levels. It would have been east for brown to do this whether he was demoted due to his views or whether it was just happenstance that the timing coincided. Edited March 20, 2014 by Bikeemikey
Scott Lloyd Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 (edited) Regardless of the quote you used, from what I've studied of President Brown I imagine that he was humble about the release. It doesn't, however, change the potential significance of what happened. And, before you call me on it, it is possible that Brown's release meant nothing. It's also possible that he was viewed by President Lee as being out of harmony with accepted doctrine and the quorum. Not sure if we'll ever know.If it were so serious a matter as being out harmony with accepted doctrine and the quorum, I should think the consequence would have been far worse than merely not being returned to the First Presidency. Membership in the quorum is all by itself a sacred privilege that few people who have been born or ever will be born will have. It seems more plausible to me that the individual personalities of President Brown and President Lee would not have meshed well enough for them to work together in the First Presidency. But even that is only speculation. Edited March 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
Stone holm Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 I have said before, but will say again. Pres. Kimball was especially prepared and raised up to do that particular task, and to bring the Brethren around to unanimity on the subject. I don't think that in Pres Brown's time that Pres. McKay could have effected the change without disunity amongst the Brethren and in certain geographical areas of the United States. Racism is now definitely on the run, primarily, I believe because there are so many people now with grandchildren, nieces and nephews who are biracial. Although, there seems to be a rise in anti Hispanic attitudes especially in the west and in urban areas of the East, but this too will pass.
Recommended Posts