Scott Lloyd Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 I think there is plenty of room to go with most of what you say but then also think someday somehow God will inspire someone to disagree with the Church and that someone is correct. That's already happened in a sense. Lowry Nelson saying not only the policy but also the explanation for the ban was wrong. he was right, at least partly. So there is precedent out there supporting my view.My memory is dim on this: Was Nelson claiming revelation, or was it merely a strongly held opinion?
smac97 Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) Whether there's a doctrinal distinction or not is beside the point. With respect, I disagree. The priesthood ban did not have an apparent revelatory/doctrinal basis (except for an extrapolated, and fairly tendentious, reading of a verse in The Book of Abraham). So those Brethren who attempted to explain the origins of the priesthood ban or justify its existence from a doctrinal standpoint did so by going out on a doctrinal limb, so to speak. This is why Elder McConkie stated as follows (speaking of prior explanations for the ban): "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." In contrast, there is a much more substantial scriptural/doctrinal basis for limiting the priesthood to men. So the distinction between the current understanding/explanation of gender-based restrictions on priesthood ordination and previous understandings/explanations of race-based restrictions on priesthood ordination is quite on point. it just so happens that leaders preached explanations of the ban as if they were true, but now we can safely say those explanations are untrue. Agreed. Here's a quote on that: President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, "My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them…. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine" (DS 3:203). I think a race-based restriction on the priesthood in the modern era was difficult/impossible to "square with the revelations," with "the four standard works" which are "the measuring yardsticks . . . by which we measure every man's doctrine." In contrast, I think the ongoing gender-based restriction is squareable (is that a word?). So we can safely say leaders may preach things that are untrue while thinking they are true. It'd be wise for us to test all of our assumptions. Agreed. Thanks, -Smac Edited March 30, 2014 by smac97
smac97 Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 You really see them as apostates? That is such a strong word and in my mind means hate for a religion. I don't see them that way. I do not view the OW group as "an apostate group." However, they have openly aligned themselves with an excommunicated apostate, and that is a very troubling development (along with they stated intention to defy the Church's instructions, which will result in them trespassing on the Church's property and disrupting General Conference). Thanks, -Smac 1
rockpond Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 In contrast, there is a much more substantial scriptural/doctrinal basis for limiting the priesthood to men. So the distinction between the current understanding/explanation of gender-based restrictions on priesthood ordination and previous understandings/explanations of race-based restrictions on priesthood ordination are precisely on point. ...I think a race-based restriction on the priesthood in the modern era was difficult/impossible to "square with the revelations," with "the four standard works" which are "the measuring yardsticks . . . by which we measure every man's doctrine."In contrast, I think the current gender-based restriction is squareable (is that a word?). Ahhh... the beauty of presentism!
Scott Lloyd Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Ahhh... the beauty of presentism!Not at all. Smac's analysis is spot on.
smac97 Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 It's not up to the OW movement. They are vocalizing the question. They have no control over the answer. They seem to think that they do have control over the answer. Why else would they publicly demand to be ordained to the priesthood, and also declare that "nothing less will suffice?" Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) Ahhh... the beauty of presentism! Ahhhh... the beauty of drive-by, unsubstantiated snarky remarks! I'm quite willing to have a discussion about the scriptural/doctrinal basis for gender-based restrictions on priesthood ordination, as compared to the pre-1978 race-based restriction. Are you? -Smac Edited March 30, 2014 by smac97
Scott Lloyd Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 They seem to think that they do have control over the answer. Why else would they publicly demand to be ordained to the priesthood, and also declare that "nothing less will suffice?"Thanks,-SmacThe "nothing else will suffice" has made me curious. What, precisely, do they plan to do if it is ultimately made clear they won't get what they want? Issuing ultimata is not a thing that should be done lightly.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 During the early 80's, there was a huge push here in America for the ERA or "Equal Rights Admendment." The Church actively opposed it, but there were plenty of members who supported it. As far as I know, the Church never considered these members apostates. The vast majority of these people simply disagreed with the stance the Church had taken, but they didn't fight against the mission of the Church. I only heard of one person who was exed and claimed that it was because of her stance against the position the Church had taken on the ERA, but it turned out that she had made some really bad choices in her life before she was excommunicated and these choices had nothing to do with the ERA.If you're referring to Sonia Johnson, as I recall it had to do with public slander of -- not merely disagreement with -- the Brethren. "Savage misogynists" was a famous epithet she spewed forth.
smac97 Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) The "nothing else will suffice" has made me curious. What, precisely, do they plan to do if it is ultimately made clear they won't get what they want? Issuing ultimata is not a thing that should be done lightly. In all candor, I think this ultimatum was a boneheaded, rather than a calculated, remark. But I'm still going to hold their feet to the fire for it. Thanks, -Smac Edited March 30, 2014 by smac97 2
Bikeemikey Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 They seem to think that they do have control over the answer. Why else would they publicly demand to be ordained to the priesthood, and also declare that "nothing less will suffice?"Thanks,-Smac You answered this - "bone-headed" springs to mind. I also don't get a sense that they think they have control over the answer, I think that many opposed to OW fear that they have control over the answer. The reality is they only have control over ensuring the question is front and center.
rockpond Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Ahhhh... the beauty of drive-by, unsubstantiated snarky remarks! I'm quite willing to have a discussion about the scriptural/doctrinal basis for gender-based restrictions on priesthood ordination, as compared to the pre-1978 race-based restriction.Are you?-SmacI thought my response to you was quite clear and concise. What you are claiming as a solid foundation for restricting priesthood ordination based on gender could have easily been stated about restricting priesthood ordination by race prior to 1978. We had decades of prophets and apostles reiterating those scriptural and revelatory reasons for denying the priesthood to blacks. Are you now saying that they kept blacks out of the temple for 125 years without good cause?
Bikeemikey Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) Ahhhh... the beauty of drive-by, unsubstantiated snarky remarks! I'm quite willing to have a discussion about the scriptural/doctrinal basis for gender-based restrictions on priesthood ordination, as compared to the pre-1978 race-based restriction.Are you?-Smac While this is an interesting exercise I find it irrelevant. Historical scriptural and doctrinal points are superseded by present day modern revelation. The BOM could say women will never ever ever the the priesthood and then our modern day prophet could have a modern day revelation and all of a sudden women have the phood... all we then have to do is remember that so so must not have been speaking as a prophet when the never ever mark was made. The similarity with the OW movement is not grounded in the restrictions or the scriptural-doctrinal basis' for the restrictions, rather it is in the change and the process of change that lead up to the change. The 1978 revelation is the best day of well document and well research revelation in action and it can act as a case study for the process that may play out with other large issues like OW. Im sure you have read this but I love this article (Edward Kimball on the 1978 revelation and lead up to it): https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=7885&linkURL=47.2KimballSpencerb0a083df-b26b-430b-9ce2-3efec584dcd9.pdf Edited March 30, 2014 by Bikeemikey
why me Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 (edited) During the early 80's, there was a huge push here in America for the ERA or "Equal Rights Admendment." The Church actively opposed it, but there were plenty of members who supported it. As far as I know, the Church never considered these members apostates. The vast majority of these people simply disagreed with the stance the Church had taken, but they didn't fight against the mission of the Church. I only heard of one person who was exed and claimed that it was because of her stance against the position the Church had taken on the ERA, but it turned out that she had made some really bad choices in her life before she was excommunicated and these choices had nothing to do with the ERA.I remember this to be in the 1970's when the ERA was actively being supported and opposed. http://www.examiner.com/article/sonia-johnson-and-the-equal-rights-amendment Edited March 30, 2014 by why me
stemelbow Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 My memory is dim on this: Was Nelson claiming revelation, or was it merely a strongly held opinion? Don't think so.
stemelbow Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 They seem to think that they do have control over the answer. Why else would they publicly demand to be ordained to the priesthood, and also declare that "nothing less will suffice?"Thanks,-Smac It's ridiculous to assume your answer is the answer sometimes. this issue, at least to me, seems to be one of those time. I agree if the attitude is "nothing less will suffice" then they are crossing a line.
Bikeemikey Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 It's ridiculous to assume your answer is the answer sometimes. this issue, at least to me, seems to be one of those time. I agree if the attitude is "nothing less will suffice" then they are crossing a line.Not so much crossing a line as simply increasing the liklihood that they will be very disappointed.
smac97 Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 You answered this - "bone-headed" springs to mind. Heh. You're probably right. I also don't get a sense that they think they have control over the answer, I think that many opposed to OW fear that they have control over the answer. Oh, I don't agree there. The reality is they only have control over ensuring the question is front and center. They have control over themselves, and they have the attention of the media, and are attempting to use that attention adversely against the Church. That is not cool. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 I thought my response to you was quite clear and concise. No, it wasn't. You did not "respond" in any substantive or meaningful sense. Just snark. I'm happy to address substantive responses. Snark . . . not so much. What you are claiming as a solid foundation for restricting priesthood ordination based on gender could have easily been stated about restricting priesthood ordination by race prior to 1978. No, it couldn't. Again, I am willing to have a substantive discussion about this issue. Are you? Or are self-serving, because-I-say-so declarations to be the order of the day? We had decades of prophets and apostles reiterating those scriptural and revelatory reasons for denying the priesthood to blacks. And here we go! CFR, please for the "scriptural and revelatory reasons" you cite here. (If you are earnestly willing to have this discussion, perhaps we should start another thread - just let me know). Are you now saying that they kept blacks out of the temple for 125 years without good cause? I am saying that I think the pre-1978 race-based restriction on the priesthood was difficult/impossible to "square with the revelations," with "the four standard works" which are "the measuring yardsticks . . . by which we measure every man's doctrine." I am also saying that, in contrast, I think the ongoing gender-based restriction is squareable (is that a word?). Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 While this is an interesting exercise I find it irrelevant. Ascertaining whether the current disputed point, gender-based restrictions on priesthood ordination, has a doctrinal/scriptural foundation is "irrelevant?" All I can say is: "Oh." Historical scriptural and doctrinal points are superseded by present day modern revelation. Agreed. The BOM could say women will never ever ever the the priesthood and then our modern day prophet could have a modern day revelation and all of a sudden women have the phood... all we then have to do is remember that so so must not have been speaking as a prophet when the never ever mark was made. Agreed. The similarity with the OW movement is not grounded in the restrictions or the scriptural-doctrinal basis' for the restrictions, rather it is in the change and the process of change that lead up to the change. I disagree. Faithful black members of the Church did not wage an in-your-face PR campaign against the Church. They did not align themselves with excommunicated apostates. They did not demand the priesthood and say "nothing less will suffice." They did not protest during and disrupt General Conference. They did not defy the Church and trespass on Church property. And on and on. There is very little similarity between the A) humility and earnest yearnings of the pre-1978 black Saints and B) the unseemly and inappropriate tactics used by the OW group. In any event, similarities in "the change and the process" do not particularly interest me. Without first understanding the doctrine, arguing over the propriety of "change" to doctrine is a waste of time. The 1978 revelation is the best day of well document and well research revelation in action and it can act as a case study for the process that may play out with other large issues like OW. Im sure you have read this but I love this article (Edward Kimball on the 1978 revelation and lead up to it): https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=7885&linkURL=47.2KimballSpencerb0a083df-b26b-430b-9ce2-3efec584dcd9.pdf I've read it, and I enjoyed it as well. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted March 30, 2014 Author Posted March 30, 2014 It's ridiculous to assume your answer is the answer sometimes. this issue, at least to me, seems to be one of those time. I agree if the attitude is "nothing less will suffice" then they are crossing a line. Agreed. I have been previously unwilling to assume that they had crossed that line. The "nothing less will suffice" line has been repeated quite a bit, but actually uttered only a few times (in Kate Kelly's bio on the OW website, in an interview with The Student Review, an independent newspaper run by BYU students, and again by Kate Kelly in a comment posting on The Exponent website). All of these come from last year. However, this comment from the OW group also comes from last year: Ordain Women has asked LDS leaders to pray for God’s approval to open the priesthood. But Debra Jensen, one of the organizers, said it’s doubtful those advocating for women’s ordination will stop if the answer is "no." She likened the moment to 1978, when then-church President Spencer W. Kimball reported a revelation opening the Mormon priesthood to black males. "Pre-1978, the answer was no, no, no," Jensen said. "And then the answer was yes." So perhaps the OW group means what they way when they have declared that they want the priesthood "and nothing less will suffice." Perhaps we are looking at a permanent state of agitation and PR campaigns against the LDS Church from this group. Perhaps they have crossed the line after all. I sincerely hope not. -Smac
Calm Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 I remember this to be in the 1970's when the ERA was actively being supported and opposed. ]80s as well. I babysat for a woman who was involved in this and it would have been around 85.
Calm Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Not so much crossing a line as simply increasing the liklihood that they will be very disappointed.It depends on what they mean by it, I think.
Calm Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 Heh. You're probably right.Oh, I don't agree there.They have control over themselves, and they have the attention of the media, and are attempting to use that attention adversely against the Church. That is not cool.Thanks,-SmacOh course, they don't see it as being against the Church but as helping to motivate leaders to make positive changes to help the Church progress.
why me Posted March 30, 2014 Posted March 30, 2014 80s as well. I babysat for a woman who was involved in this and it would have been around 85.But when it comes to sonia johnson and the church conflict it was the late 70s. But of course the ERA went into the 80s.
Recommended Posts