Have You Seen The Graphic? Here's The Story.

[awyatt]

Have you seen the graphic that started popping up the Sunday morning of general conference? It's the one that compares N. Eldon Tanner's words to those of Dallin H. Oaks.

 

 

It was quoted in a story in The Atlantic, where the reporter noted that it's message is "poignant."

 

I decided to do a little historical research and analysis on the quotes. Be interested in any take on the topic that some might have.

 

-Allen

 

[Buzzard]

It would be interesting to know who put together the above graphic. Which from the looks of it, was designed to be a Facebook meme. 

[wenglund]

I hadn't seen the graphic, but I appreciate your investigating it and exposing the propaganda.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

 -Allen

I saw this on a thread this board, suspected its origin and so looked up the context of the Tanner reference, and this confirmed my assessment of the low-life mentality that would generate misleading garbage and disseminate it. Considering its source in that thread, I didn't feel it merited comment--but since you brought it up, thank you.

Edited April 15, 2014 by CV75

[Kenngo1969]

I haven't read your link yet, Allen, but if one is willing to allow for the possibility (however remote) that the priesthood ban was inspired (notwithstanding that the same cannot be said of many of the proffered reasons for it), then President Tanner was right: men couldn't change the policy; only God could do that.  He did.

 

P.S.: Ha!  Great minds think alike!  From Allen's Blog:

 

President Tanner was correct in his statement: There was nothing “we” (the Church leaders) could do to make the change. However, it goes without saying that God can do whatever God wants. 

 

Edited April 15, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

I’m not trying to pad my post count.  I was trying to do a P.P.S. to my previous post, but I couldn’t position my cursor outside of the quote box.  If God wills that women receive the priesthood at some future time, who am I to stand in His way?  Still, those who attempt to draw a parallel between the lifting of the race-based priesthood ban and the lifting of the “gender-based priesthood ban” are mistaken: there was always a contingent in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which anticipated the former; there is no such contingent which anticipates the latter. 

Edited April 15, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[omni]

I'm not understanding the big problem here.  Yes, one could infer from the photo that Pres Tanner made the statement during GC, which the author of the meme should not have done.  However, the statement in the meme was accurate and Elder Tanner reportedly made the statement at a stake conference.  Pointing out that the author of the story mistakenly referred to him as a "counselor to the First President" rather than a "counselor to the President" has no bearing on the validity of the point being made. 

 

Whether Elder Oaks was referring to they (women) or they (First Presidency) the point of the meme remains unchanged - that past leaders of the church have made definitive statements (over the pulpit) regarding priesthood elegibility that were later changed.

Edited April 15, 2014 by omni

[Duncan]

I'm not understanding the big problem here.  Yes, one could confer from the photo that Elder Tanner made the statement during GC, which the other should not have done.  However, the statement in the meme was accurate and Elder Tanner reportedly made the statement at a stake conference.  Pointing out that the author of the story mistakenly referred to him as a "counselor to the First President" rather than a "counselor to the President" has no bearing on the validity of the point being made. 

 

Whether Elder Oaks was referring to they (women) or they (First Presidency) the point of the meme remains unchanged - that past leaders of the church have made definitive statements (over the pulpit) regarding priesthood elegibility that were later changed.

 

 

I think you mean infer not confer!

Edited April 15, 2014 by Duncan

[wenglund]

I'm not understanding the big problem here.  Yes, one could confer from the photo that Elder Tanner made the statement during GC, which the other should not have done.  However, the statement in the meme was accurate and Elder Tanner reportedly made the statement at a stake conference.  Pointing out that the author of the story mistakenly referred to him as a "counselor to the First President" rather than a "counselor to the President" has no bearing on the validity of the point being made. 

 

Whether Elder Oaks was referring to they (women) or they (First Presidency) the point of the meme remains unchanged - that past leaders of the church have made definitive statements (over the pulpit) regarding priesthood elegibility that were later changed.

 

Since you seem to have no qualms with, or don't see it as a big deal, for people to misleadingly put words into other people's mouths, then let me compliment you for tacitly condemning the meme for its blatantly misleading propagandizing.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

I saw this "meme" (although it's really too wordy and obscure to be a "meme") and my impression was that it would take an OD2 type situation for women to get the Priesthood, which everyone seems to agree with.  So I'm not sure what the problem is.

[awyatt]

I'm not understanding the big problem here.  Yes, one could confer from the photo that Elder Tanner made the statement during GC, which the other should not have done.  However, the statement in the meme was accurate and Elder Tanner reportedly made the statement at a stake conference.

 

Thank you for illustrating the problem with bumper-sticker factoids -- they give no depth and help propagate inaccuracies. President Tanner (he was in the First Presidency at the time) was NOT speaking at GC and he was NOT speaking in a stake conference. He was quoted from an interview done with the magazine article's author. The numerous factual errors in the author's article make it hard to believe that President Tanner was quoted accurately. Any nuance that President Tanner may have used would have been stripped out by someone who was "nuance challenged."

 

-Allen

[Buckeye]

I saw this "meme" (although it's really too wordy and obscure to be a "meme") and my impression was that it would take an OD2 type situation for women to get the Priesthood, which everyone seems to agree with.  So I'm not sure what the problem is.

 

This is what I thought until Elder Oak's talk in conference.  Now it appears that a repeat of the process that led to OD2 would be insufficient.  According to Elder Oaks, the FP/Q12 don't have the keys to make the change even if they desired to do so and God approved.  For such a change, additional keys would need to be conferred.  In other words, Peter would have to pay a visit, lay hands on the prophet, and say something like "I give you the key to ordain women."  I'm not sure where this teaching comes from (I can't find any gender exclusion clause to "upon this rock" statement in the NT or Joseph's description of his ordination by Peter/James/John) but it's what Elder Oaks believes. 

 

As for the OP analysis, I'm not bothered by the context of the Tanner quote so long as the quote is accurate.  However, awyatt is correct to point out the error in the Oaks quote which attributes "they" to women rather than the FP/Q12.  That's an important error.  Of course "women" don't have the power to make the change.  No one thought they did.  But for Oaks to say the FP/Q12 lack the ability does matter.  And, frankly, it's the same thing Tanner said regarding the racial ban decades earlier.  In a nutshell, "don't ask us to bother the Lord about this because it's his system." 

 

The importance of the meme isn't just pointing out similar claims that our leaders lack authority to make a change, it's to raise the question of what changed such that the FP/Q12 could make a change in 1978, when they could not do so previously. 

Edited April 15, 2014 by Buckeye

[omni]

I think you mean infer not confer!

 

 D'oh, thanks!  Correction made.

Edited April 15, 2014 by omni

[Senator]

"The Church has no intention of changing its doctrine on male-only ordination to the priesthood. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, women never held the priesthood. There's really nothing we can do to change this. It's a law of God."

 

I'm not bett'n man, but if I was, I would bet a strawberry-banana shake that 99% of all members of the church would agree with the above statement.

[Duncan]

This is what I thought until Elder Oak's talk in conference.  Now it appears that a repeat of the process that led to OD2 would be insufficient.  According to Elder Oaks, the FP/Q12 don't have the keys to make the change even if they desired to do so and God approved.  For such a change, additional keys would need to be conferred.  In other words, Peter would have to pay a visit, lay hands on the prophet, and say something like "I give you the key to ordain women."  I'm not sure where this teaching comes from (I can't find any gender exclusion clause to "upon this rock" statement in the NT or Joseph's description of his ordination by Peter/James/John) but it's what Elder Oaks believes. 

 

As for the OP analysis, I'm not bothered by the context of the Tanner quote so long as the quote is accurate.  However, awyatt is correct to point out the error in the Oaks quote which attributes "they" to women rather than the FP/Q12.  That's an important error.  Of course "women" don't have the power to make the change.  No one thought they did.  But for Oaks to say the FP/Q12 lack the ability does matter.  And, frankly, it's the same thing Tanner said regarding the racial ban decades earlier.  In a nutshell, "don't ask us to bother the Lord about this because it's his system." 

 

The importance of the meme isn't just pointing out similar claims that our leaders lack authority to make a change, it's to raise the question of what changed such that the FP/Q12 could make a change in 1978, when they could not do so previously. 

 

 

If what you say is true and i have no doubt then that's crazy!!!! Someone would have to appear before Pres. Monson and give him keys for ordaining women and then God can tell him to make the change? I can see Keys being delivered to Joseph and his associates

[omni]

Thank you for illustrating the problem with bumper-sticker factoids -- they give no depth and help propagate inaccuracies. President Tanner (he was in the First Presidency at the time) was NOT speaking at GC and he was NOT speaking in a stake conference. He was quoted from an interview done with the magazine article's author. The numerous factual errors in the author's article make it hard to believe that President Tanner was quoted accurately. Any nuance that President Tanner may have used would have been stripped out by someone who was "nuance challenged."

 

 

 

My mistake about the statement being made at stake conference, I got that from this statement on your blog: (which apparently was incorrect) 

 

(In other online sources, the quote was supposedly made to a stake conference in Seattle.)

 

 

You stated there were numerous factual errors made in the article, but only mention the very minor error of referring to President Tanner as "counselor to the First President".  To say this makes it hard to believe the reporter accurately quoted President Tanner is unfair imo.   I have been unable to find any evidence the Church stated he was misquoted or quoted out of context.  Besides, is this really out of context of what the brethren were teaching at the time.  I remind you of this quote from Elder McConkie.

 

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that 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?' All I can say 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 George Q. Cannon or whoever 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.

 

Edited April 15, 2014 by omni

[awyatt]

You stated there were numerous factual errors made in the article, but only mention the very minor error of referring to President Tanner as "counselor to the First President".  To say this makes it hard to believe the reporter accurately quoted President Tanner is unfair imo.   I have been unable to find any evidence the Church stated he was misquoted or quoted out of context.

 

I agree it was a minor error, but that again illustrates the point: If the reporter can get something so minor so wrong, how could one expect the reporter to get something of more consequence correct? I'm not saying the reporter was incorrect in how Tanner was quoted, just that his credibility suffers a bit if something so simple is so clearly wrong.

 

Also, it is not surprising that you can't find any evidence about how the Church may or may not have responded to the article. Where would one expect to find it? Certainly not on the Internet, as the original article wasn't even there. Only a cherry-picked quote by the Tanners (and repeated multiple times by others) is available there. (As we all know, "the absence of evidence is not evidence of...")

 

Besides, what N. Eldon Tanner said is not my point. My point is how the quote made its way from a relatively obscure magazine article 47 years ago into a pro-OW graphic today. The ONLY path for that was through anti-Mormon intermediaries.

 

-Allen

[rockpond]

Have you seen the graphic that started popping up the Sunday morning of general conference? It's the one that compares N. Eldon Tanner's words to those of Dallin H. Oaks.

 

 

It was quoted in a story in The Atlantic, where the reporter noted that it's message is "poignant."

 

I decided to do a little historical research and analysis on the quotes. Be interested in any take on the topic that some might have.

 

-Allen

 

So Elder Tanner is correct?  It's a law of God that the Negro never held the priesthood?

[cinepro]

I agree it was a minor error, but that again illustrates the point: If the reporter can get something so minor so wrong, how could one expect the reporter to get something of more consequence correct? I'm not saying the reporter was incorrect in how Tanner was quoted, just that his credibility suffers a bit if something so simple is so clearly wrong.

 

That makes no sense.  It's just something people say when they want to discount an entire argument (or article) based on some small but insignificant errors.  Don't feel bad, people fall for it all the time.  If they didn't, FARMS never would have been able to review a Quinn book.

Edited April 15, 2014 by cinepro

[wenglund]

That makes no sense.  It's just something people say when they want to discount an entire argument (or article) based on some small but insignificant errors.  Don't feel bad, people fall for it all the time.  If they didn't, FARMS never would have been able to review a Quinn book.

 

Bonus points for the unwitting irony.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[awyatt]

That makes no sense.  It's just something people say when they want to discount an entire argument (or article) based on some small but insignificant errors.  Don't feel bad, people fall for it all the time.  If they didn't, FARMS never would have been able to review a Quinn book.

 

Question: Was this comment provided as an example of "something people say when they want to discount an entire argument (or article) based on some small or insignificant errors?" If so, good job!

 

Actually, it does make sense. If someone says "the first assistant principal of my local high school told me that the majority of parents don't care about their child's education," that seems a big thing to swallow. It may be true that the majority of parents don't care, but I'm less likely to accept that argument uncritically when I consider that there is no "first assistant principal" at the high school. There is a vice principal, but not a first assistant. If the person wants me to accept their second argument, then they should get all their facts straight. Such fact-checking is even more important for a reporter, whose livelihood depends on getting most of the facts correct.

 

That being said, my post wasn't about the reporter or the facts he did or didn't get right. I wasn't dismissing *HIS* arguments. I was, instead, looking at the genesis of a quote used by the pro-OW supporters. If *they* want to be taken seriously, then they should really get *their* facts straight instead of trying to make cheap rhetorical points.

 

-Allen

[rpn]

Taking it just at face value (without claiming it is accurate, both are saying that it is not humans who make that decision, but God.   And He hasn't yet on the issue of women, and may never.    The fact that God revealed a change for blacks doesn't say anything about what He would do in other circumstances.

[Pahoran]

I'm not understanding the big problem here.  Yes, one could infer from the photo that Pres Tanner made the statement during GC, which the author of the meme should not have done.  However, the statement in the meme was accurate and Elder Tanner reportedly made the statement at a stake conference.  Pointing out that the author of the story mistakenly referred to him as a "counselor to the First President" rather than a "counselor to the President" has no bearing on the validity of the point being made. 

 

Whether Elder Oaks was referring to they (women) or they (First Presidency) the point of the meme remains unchanged - that past leaders of the church have made definitive statements (over the pulpit) regarding priesthood elegibility that were later changed.

The "big problem" is what you are overlooking.

You said that "Elder Tanner reportedly made the statement at a stake conference." Actually the magazine said that he said it to them, i.e. to their reporter. How accurately was it reported? We don't know. We don't have President Tanner's statement at first hand; we only have what the magazine chose to report of what he said. And whatever he said was incompletely reported. Was it a formal interview? An off-the-cuff remark? Were there additional sentences unmarked by ellipses, that are now lost? We don't know, and will never know.

So the "definitive statements (over the pulpit) regarding priesthood elegibility that were later changed" remain just wishful thinking.

In the meantime, OW have been heard. They have asked their question and it has been answered.

So, are they going to do what faithful Latter-day Saints do, and accept the answer from the only people authorised to exercise the keys of the Priesthood?

Or are they going to be MINO's, and continue their "Gimme gimme gimme" campaign?

Regards,

Pahoran

[rockpond]

Taking it just at face value (without claiming it is accurate, both are saying that it is not humans who make that decision, but God.   And He hasn't yet on the issue of women, and may never.    The fact that God revealed a change for blacks doesn't say anything about what He would do in other circumstances.

 

So it was a law of God until God changed it?  Are all God's laws subject to change?

[rockpond]

So the "definitive statements (over the pulpit) regarding priesthood elegibility that were later changed" remain just wishful thinking.

 

You can (for whatever reason) dismiss this Elder Tanner quote and there would still be a wealth of definitive statements by prophets, seers, and apostles regarding priesthood eligibility that were later changed.