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

[Pahoran]

"Our" as in the church (little c).

What "little c" church is that?

Latter-day Saints embrace a high ecclesiology. That is normative. There is no "invisible Mormon Church." There is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a number of small splinter groups, the sum total of which barely rise to an irrelevancy.

Believing Latter-day Saints accept that Elder Oaks does indeed have the authority to provide full and final answers on behalf of the Church. (With a big C.)

And he has done so.

And President Monson has endorsed his words.

His answer is logical, clear and explicit. It leaves no objection unaddressed and no loophole unclosed. For instance, if some misguided individual decides to stage an "ordination" stunt (in the style of "Lord" Douglas Wallace) then the "ordination" will be invalid a priori, the recipient will derive no authority therefrom and the officiator will be in apostasy.

The OW "movement" can have no legitimacy in the light of Elder Oaks's statement.

That is "our" view, meaning the view of actual Latter-day Saints who accept the truth claims of the Church.

The one with the big "C."

Those who don't accept such truth claims are of course free to make of Elder Oaks's talk whatever they like. But in rejecting those truth claims, they admit that they have neither part nor lot in this matter.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't sit with your mug on one side of the fence and your wump on the other. You can't be "We Mormons" in one breath and gainsaying the Lord's anointed servants without so much as a comma in between.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

It's important because it became, to me, the single biggest piece of evidence that a prophet can teach false doctrine.

How about the following? All general conference statements by prophets, seers and revelators.

David O. McKay from October 1943 General Conference:

http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=76

----------------------------------------------------

What about this from Harold B. Lee:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1972/10/teach-the-gospel-of-salvation?lang=eng

----------------------------

How about this from Spencer W. Kimball in October 1960 General Conference:

http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1091&era=yes

----------------------------

These 1940s-70s attitudes seem precisely that. 1940s/70s attitudes (or even 1920s-1950s attitudes, given the age of the speakers). I feel increasingly uncomfortable with the idea of pinning my ideals and my children's spiritual instruction to the perspectives of people who are influenced by the culture and environment they were raised in.

It leads to a heavy triage process.

In reality the majority - probably 80-90% of what the brethren say is good, uplifting material that, if followed, will help me be a better person. Is it acceptable to sustain the brethren while also disagreeing with them some of the time?

Thank you for the handful of anti-Mormon prooftexts. Good old chestnuts, all of them. You clearly know your stuff.

The answer to your question lies in what you mean by the terms "sustain" and "disagree," respectively.

You are entirely free to suppose (for example) that a junior apostle such as Elder Kimball (as of 1960) misinterpreted the significance of people adopting a more "indoor" lifestyle looking paler after a few months, while still sustaining that apostle by carrying out his actual teachings regarding missionary work and practical help to those of Lamanite descent.

You are not free to disregard a clear, direct, unequivocal and unambiguous answer to a controversial question -- an answer, furthermore, that shows unmistakeable evidence of considerable thought, study, preparation and prayer -- just because it doesn't match up to your "culture and environment," etc.

Just what makes you so confident that 21st Century feminism conveys the doctrinal certainty you fail to find in the revealed truths of the Gospel?

Did your wife tell you so?

Regards,

Pahoran

[CV75]

The paragraph you are quoting me on explicitly states that I am not judging.

You can say that, but you called the OW activities “antics” and i took the parts I bolded to indicate judging.

 

I wrote "I won't be writing, nor encouraging others to do so. I just don't see it the same way you do." a while back in this conversation. Not sure how much more clear I can be here. My whole entire point throughout my conversation with you is that we shouldn't be judging people who have hopes of women ordinations.

Sorry, I overlooked that!

 

But if your point is we shouldn’t be judging, then OW shouldn’t be called out for "antics" as an example of "not judging."

 

So it seems we agree on not judging, and the principles of double-mindedness and instability (if not on execution).

[CV75]

You are cracking me up with this...

As I said, promises are fulfilled many times. You obviously don’t want to acknowledge that.

 

Any point I have to make about OD2 has been made and is also satisfactorily covered here: https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng It simply has nothing to do with the ordination of women, no matter how much focus you try to keep on it or how much controversy you might try to wrest out of it. One thing for sure, OD2 is not an example of the Abrahamic promise not being fulfilled nor of a new revelation just popping out of nowhere.

 

You haven’t been able to show where a revelation has been received without a prior revelation or promise pertaining to it having been made, or that isn’t based on a previously revealed line or precept (which principle is scriptural). This is simply how God reveals things.

 

And you haven’t been able to show how the scriptures say that women should / shall have priesthood ordination.

[canard78]

Thank you for the handful of anti-Mormon prooftexts. Good old chestnuts, all of them. You clearly know your stuff.

The answer to your question lies in what you mean by the terms "sustain" and "disagree," respectively.

You are entirely free to suppose (for example) that a junior apostle such as Elder Kimball (as of 1960) misinterpreted the significance of people adopting a more "indoor" lifestyle looking paler after a few months, while still sustaining that apostle by carrying out his actual teachings regarding missionary work and practical help to those of Lamanite descent.

You are not free to disregard a clear, direct, unequivocal and unambiguous answer to a controversial question -- an answer, furthermore, that shows unmistakeable evidence of considerable thought, study, preparation and prayer -- just because it doesn't match up to your "culture and environment," etc.

Just what makes you so confident that 21st Century feminism conveys the doctrinal certainty you fail to find in the revealed truths of the Gospel?

Did your wife tell you so?

Regards,

Pahoran

I'm free to "do" and believe whatever I feel God directs me to. My position is based on study and prayer. I thought that's what we're taught in the church?

You have failed to address the quotes at hand beyond a cursory dismissal based on their seniority.

They are all given by apostles sustained as prophets, seers and revelators. If you feel comfortable dismissing a small (and unrepresentative) selection of erroneous statements then it stands as reasonable that I can do the same. Especially if I've prayed about them.

And I'll thank you for keeping my wife out of it.

It's interesting that you've resorted to attacking me, not what I'm saying.

[Bikeemikey]

I think the inclusion of the idea that at some point blacks would receive the priesthood is irrelevant. What difference does it make what may happen in the future. The point is, that right here, right now, the Apostles and Prophet, of their own volition, cannot change the law of God.

This is an excellent summary...

It is also the reason people should not be using Oaks' talk as evidence that women will "never" get the priesthood.

[frank_jessop]

That is "our" view, meaning the view of actual Latter-day Saints who accept the truth claims of the Church.

Regards,

Pahoran

As a Latter-day Saint myself, could you please tell me what else I am supposed to believe?

Also would you mind showing how Tanner's statement can be reasonably construed to mean blacks would never get the Priesthood?

[JDave]

You can say that, but you called the OW activities “antics” and i took the parts I bolded to indicate judging.

I can't continue this conversation.

 

Sorry, I overlooked that!

 

But if your point is we shouldn’t be judging, then OW shouldn’t be called out for "antics" as an example of "not judging."

As I said in my paraphrasing, let actions speak for themselves. I think that what happened at General Conference went too far. Do you feel otherwise? I don't speak for any individuals, but I certainly feel comfortable pointing out what I think is an example of going too far. You think writing a letter is going to far, and you feel comfortable pointing out that it is an example of being double-minded and spiritually unstable (in a completely non-judgmental way, so you claim), so I don't see what the whole fuss is.

We stopped discussing anything salient when you started the tangent of whether or not I was being judgmental. Whether that is ad hominem or questioning my motives, the saddest thing is that you just won't let it go.

Edited April 20, 2014 by JDave

[rockpond]

What "little c" church is that?

Latter-day Saints embrace a high ecclesiology. That is normative. There is no "invisible Mormon Church." There is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a number of small splinter groups, the sum total of which barely rise to an irrelevancy.

Believing Latter-day Saints accept that Elder Oaks does indeed have the authority to provide full and final answers on behalf of the Church. (With a big C.)

And he has done so.

And President Monson has endorsed his words.

His answer is logical, clear and explicit. It leaves no objection unaddressed and no loophole unclosed. For instance, if some misguided individual decides to stage an "ordination" stunt (in the style of "Lord" Douglas Wallace) then the "ordination" will be invalid a priori, the recipient will derive no authority therefrom and the officiator will be in apostasy.

The OW "movement" can have no legitimacy in the light of Elder Oaks's statement.

That is "our" view, meaning the view of actual Latter-day Saints who accept the truth claims of the Church.

The one with the big "C."

Those who don't accept such truth claims are of course free to make of Elder Oaks's talk whatever they like. But in rejecting those truth claims, they admit that they have neither part nor lot in this matter.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't sit with your mug on one side of the fence and your wump on the other. You can't be "We Mormons" in one breath and gainsaying the Lord's anointed servants without so much as a comma in between.

Regards,

Pahoran

The church, the one I referred to as "little c" is the gathering of those whole believe in and follow Christ. The church He described.

The "capital C" Church is the one you refer to when you say that Elder Oaks has the authority to give full and final answers.

The only true final answers come from God.

As a member of the Church, I sustain Elder Oaks. I am not gainsaying. I'm not arguing for the ordination of women (and I'm not ordaining any).

As for "accepting the truth claims of the Church"... I am doing my best to follow Christ. I know of just one way to receive truth. When men (apostles or otherwise) make truth claims, I make them a matter of sincere prayer.

[rockpond]

As I said, promises are fulfilled many times. You obviously don’t want to acknowledge that.

Any point I have to make about OD2 has been made and is also satisfactorily covered here: https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng It simply has nothing to do with the ordination of women, no matter how much focus you try to keep on it or how much controversy you might try to wrest out of it. One thing for sure, OD2 is not an example of the Abrahamic promise not being fulfilled nor of a new revelation just popping out of nowhere.

You haven’t been able to show where a revelation has been received without a prior revelation or promise pertaining to it having been made, or that isn’t based on a previously revealed line or precept (which principle is scriptural). This is simply how God reveals things.

And you haven’t been able to show how the scriptures say that women should / shall have priesthood ordination.

There were four questions in my previous response to you that were related to the point you continue to make here. If you wish to continue a dialogue with me, you'll have to actually answer those questions.

p.s. I haven't shown scriptures that say women should have the priesthood because I'm not arguing for that. I also haven't said that OD2 has anything to do with the ordination of women. Like I said, if you wish to dialogue - I'm open to it.

[CV75]

I can't continue this conversation.

 

As I said in my paraphrasing, let actions speak for themselves. I think that what happened at General Conference went too far. Do you feel otherwise? I don't speak for any individuals, but I certainly feel comfortable pointing out what I think is an example of going too far. You think writing a letter is going to far, and you feel comfortable pointing out that it is an example of being double-minded and spiritually unstable (in a completely non-judgmental way, so you claim), so I don't see what the whole fuss is.

We stopped discussing anything salient when you started the tangent of whether or not I was being judgmental. Whether that is ad hominem or questioning my motives, the saddest thing is that you just won't let it go.

I wasn’t paying much attention to what happened at General Conference. If that was discussed in this thread, I wasn’t paying attention to that, either. I was just drawn into the conversation when you brought up the idea of writing letters to the Brethren about the ordination of women. I don’t think it’s going too far to write a letter pointing out the struggles women have in their marriages and wards, etc.; many talks refer to such letters because they represent common experiences. I do think that writing a letter pushing women’s ordination, especially after Elder Oak’s talk, is “going too far” as you put it. It becomes double-minded (and therefore spiritually unstable) in my opinion when one asserts what he considers his so-called) rights above living up to his responsibilities.

 

My observations about your judging haven’t to do with “ad hominem” arguments or your motives, just with how I interpret your posts. I actually think we agree on not writing letters and the reasons not to.

 

I too think it is a tangent to discuss what is judging and what is not, but that doesn't make it unimportant. For example, some may see what I’ve said as being judgmental toward OW participants and supporters, but it is not. But sine it's come up, I think that some of them may be acting out because they are unhappy with other aspects of their life or feminist issues, some may be ignorant, some misguided, some double-mined, some unstable, some seeking to do the Church harm, some doing exactly what the best interpretation of their actions could possibly be, etc. I simply don't know and so cannot judge them. The only thing I can say is that I don’t agree with the mission of the organization.

[CV75]

There were four questions in my previous response to you that were related to the point you continue to make here. If you wish to continue a dialogue with me, you'll have to actually answer those questions.

p.s. I haven't shown scriptures that say women should have the priesthood because I'm not arguing for that. I also haven't said that OD2 has anything to do with the ordination of women. Like I said, if you wish to dialogue - I'm open to it.

I think there were 5 questions (are you talking about #274?)… I thought #279 was an adequate response. The first 3 questions had to do with OD2, and I explained I’m not here to talk about OD2 but about the ordination of women. I took care of the fourth and fifth questions already. So I’ll refer you to #279 and you can refer me back to #274 and so on.

 

I don’t understand why you want to focus on OD2 and not show interest in the ordination of women in a thread about the ordination of women. And you’ve been avoiding my request to show where a revelation has been received without a prior revelation or promise pertaining to it having been made or that isn’t based on a previously revealed line or precept (Isa. 28: 10-13; 2 Ne. 28: 30; D&C 98: 12; D&C 128: 21).

[Pahoran]

I'm free to "do" and believe whatever I feel God directs me to. My position is based on study and prayer. I thought that's what we're taught in the church?

Oh, you're free to be as apostate as you choose; but you asked the question about what is "acceptable," so I answered it.

 

You have failed to address the quotes at hand beyond a cursory dismissal based on their seniority.

Yes, the red herring tactic doesn't usually work with me.

 

They are all given by apostles sustained as prophets, seers and revelators. If you feel comfortable dismissing a small (and unrepresentative) selection of erroneous statements then it stands as reasonable that I can do the same. Especially if I've prayed about them.

And I'll thank you for keeping my wife out of it.

It's interesting that you've resorted to attacking me, not what I'm saying.

I regret that you are making an assertion you know to be false. I am directly attacking your arrogant assertion that you know better than the living apostles.

You don't.

Yes, they are fallible men. (Women are fallible too, BTW.) But they are right far more often than they are wrong, and they are right more often than you are.

And they are right in this instance.

But thank you for demonstrating that the only way to continue the OW "movement" is by rebelling against the authority of the Church's inspired Priesthood leaders.

Without whose consent no ordination can be valid.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

"I regret that you are making an assertion you know to be false."

Having paid close attention to canard since he began posting here, I don't buy for a second this claim of yours is true.

Nor do I think he is arrogant.

He is a thoughtful and kind poster who deserves better treatment than this.

[california boy]

Pahoran, that was a bit harsh don't you think?  Studying and praying about what the prophets teach is not an apostate approach to embracing the gospel in your life.  It is a principle that is as old as the church.

[canard78]

Oh, you're free to be as apostate as you choose; but you asked the question about what is "acceptable," so I answered it.

 

Yes, the red herring tactic doesn't usually work with me.

 

I regret that you are making an assertion you know to be false. I am directly attacking your arrogant assertion that you know better than the living apostles.

You don't.

Yes, they are fallible men. (Women are fallible too, BTW.) But they are right far more often than they are wrong, and they are right more often than you are.

And they are right in this instance.

But thank you for demonstrating that the only way to continue the OW "movement" is by rebelling against the authority of the Church's inspired Priesthood leaders.

Without whose consent no ordination can be valid.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Do you want a dialogue or just to throw mud? Those weren't red herrings. The ability to trust prophets is at the very top of my list of issues I'm wrestling with. I gave an example of the biggest issue for me (race and the priesthood), you accused me pulling the race card. I shared a couple of other examples of when a prophet says things that I don't believe, you accused me of using anti-mormon content. How is it anti-mormon when I provided the full quote in context and a link to the original LDS source? I can keep giving examples if needed (even from the latest conference) but that isn't the point. As I've said plenty of times before, I agree with and believe the majority of what the leaders teach, but not all of it.

 

Who are you to call me an apostate or arrogant?

 

We are taught to listen to the words of prophets and then pray about what they say aren't we? I've done that and the answer to prayer I received has given me the conclusion I've reached. I believe in a God who teaches His children in the best way they need to learn. I'm comfortable with the idea of a God who teaches different messages to different children. D&C 19:6-7 suggests as much. I'm not sure whether that means I'm "behind" in class or "ahead." I don't think it matters. Maybe God is "holding me back a year" so I can learn things I don't understand yet. Maybe I've graduated and am now on a more independent learning process. I don't know. I can only live by what I believe God teaches me. Aren't we all doing that?

 

I'd share a more detailed description of how I reached my conclusions on this thread but I'm not sure you're really interested. They're on my blog (linked in signature) if you're genuinely interested. If you're going to read and comment on them, please be respectful. They are sacred experiences to me. The latest conclusion (and it's the first time I feel I've reached some conclusions) is the most recent blog post called "I'm not afraid any more." It's quite long. The first half is reflections on a recent endowment experience. The second half is a summary of the conclusions I've reached. I believe God has guided me to them.

[canard78]

"I regret that you are making an assertion you know to be false."

Having paid close attention to canard since he began posting here, I don't buy for a second this claim of yours is true.

Nor do I think he is arrogant.

He is a thoughtful and kind poster who deserves better treatment than this.

 

 

Pahoran, that was a bit harsh don't you think?  Studying and praying about what the prophets teach is not an apostate approach to embracing the gospel in your life.  It is a principle that is as old as the church.

 

Thank you both. I'll go and find a few more of your posts given I can only 'rep' these two posts once each.

[rockpond]

I think there were 5 questions (are you talking about #274?)… I thought #279 was an adequate response. The first 3 questions had to do with OD2, and I explained I’m not here to talk about OD2 but about the ordination of women. I took care of the fourth and fifth questions already. So I’ll refer you to #279 and you can refer me back to #274 and so on.

 

I don’t understand why you want to focus on OD2 and not show interest in the ordination of women in a thread about the ordination of women. And you’ve been avoiding my request to show where a revelation has been received without a prior revelation or promise pertaining to it having been made or that isn’t based on a previously revealed line or precept (Isa. 28: 10-13; 2 Ne. 28: 30; D&C 98: 12; D&C 128: 21).

 

So your answer to my questions was:  "As I said, promises are fulfilled many times."  Sorry, I didn't really see that as an answer.

 

In your opinion, did Brigham Young receive a revelation to take the priesthood & temple access away from Blacks?  And, if so, where was the promise of that revelation?

 

As for other revelations, not preceded by a specific promise -- How about the Word of Wisdom?  Where do you see the promise of that.

 

I'll reiterate, I am not aware of any scriptural basis for this theory of yours, nor am I aware of it having been taught from any official channels.  But I still don't see it as having any impact on the possible ordination of women because that could still fall under prior promises, especially in the broad way you are applying them.

[wenglund]

Given that this topic rests significantly on the extent to which members rely on the prophet as opposed to leaning on their own understanding and the will of popular culture, I posted this brief message on another thread, but I believe it bears repeating here:

 

Here is what I relearned in church yesterday:

 

When Israel became separated from Moses, or rather the more the people of God are separated from the prophets, the more likely they are to devolve into idolatry and hedonism. (Exodus 32)

 

Of course, in our elevated state, this principle doesn't apply to us today.

 

I suppose that the same may be said in reverse: The more God's people devolve into idolatry and hedonism, the more they separate themselves from the prophets.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 21, 2014 by wenglund

[rockpond]

Given that this topic rests significantly on the extent to which members rely on the prophet as opposed to leaning on their own understanding and the will of popular culture, I posted this brief message on another thread, but I believe it bears repeating here:

 

Here is what I relearned in church yesterday:

 

When Israel became separated from Moses, or rather the more the people of God are separated from the prophets, the more likely they are to devolve into idolatry and hedonism. (Exodus 32)

 

Of course, in our elevated state, this principle doesn't apply to us today.

 

I suppose that the same may be said in reverse: The more God's people devolve into idolatry and hedonism, the more they separate themselves from the prophets.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

From my perspective, I see a trend among Church members to idolize the prophets and apostles to a degree that we shouldn't.

[frank_jessop]

What is clear is that the alleged Tanner words were contrary to the understanding of the Church, which was that Blacks would receive the Priesthood at some time in the future.

Regards,

Pahoran

First Presidency, 1947:

“From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.”

First Presidency, 1949:

"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."

First Presidency, 1969:

"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.

...

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established."

N. Eldon Tanner, 1967:

“The church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the Priesthood. There’s really nothing we can do to change this. It’s a law of God.”

What part of Tanner's statement was contrary to the understanding of the time?

Edited April 21, 2014 by frank_jessop

[CV75]

So your answer to my questions was:  "As I said, promises are fulfilled many times."  Sorry, I didn't really see that as an answer.

 

In your opinion, did Brigham Young receive a revelation to take the priesthood & temple access away from Blacks?  And, if so, where was the promise of that revelation?

 

As for other revelations, not preceded by a specific promise -- How about the Word of Wisdom?  Where do you see the promise of that.

 

I'll reiterate, I am not aware of any scriptural basis for this theory of yours, nor am I aware of it having been taught from any official channels.  But I still don't see it as having any impact on the possible ordination of women because that could still fall under prior promises, especially in the broad way you are applying them.

To be consistent, I think we need to stick with the revelations in the canon. I really don't have an opinion about Brigham Young other than what is in the Rcae and Priesthood article. I do have an opinion that the priesthood being conferred to males throughout the world is one way in which the Abrahamic promise/covenant is being fulfilled, and there are revelations in the canon that deal with that.

D&C 89:2 speaks to the “temporal salvation of all saints.” The Word of Wisdom was given in 1833. Prior to that, Joseph Smith learned from translating the Book of Mormon the concept that temporal law and salvation are also spiritual (all things are spiritual). In addition, other revelations from D&C prior to 1833 reveal that the Lord is interested in the temporal salvation of the saints and reveals truths of a temporal nature (see for example D&C 24, 29, 70). The Word of Wisdom is a fulfillment of that interest, and a building upon prior revelations and promises pertaining to temporal salvation.

I gave one scriptural basis--"line upon line, precept upon precept." All the revelations that speak to fulfilling promises that have been prepared from the foundation of the world have their basis in those promises. Every revelation can be traced back to some prior revelation or promise.

[CV75]

When Israel became separated from Moses, or rather the more the people of God are separated from the prophets, the more likely they are to devolve into idolatry and hedonism. (Exodus 32

Cool--this brings to mind another (later) example of how reveltion is dependent upon a prior promise: D&C 113:10, "We are to understand that the scattered remnants are exhorted to return to the Lord from whence they have fallen; which if they do, the promise of the Lord is that he will speak to them, or give them revelation." If we repent, we are promised revelation and free ourselves from the bands around our necks. "The bands of her neck are the curses of God upon her, or the remnants of Israel in their scattered condition among the Gentiles."

[rockpond]

To be consistent, I think we need to stick with the revelations in the canon. I really don't have an opinion about Brigham Young other than what is in the Rcae and Priesthood article. I do have an opinion that the priesthood being conferred to males throughout the world is one way in which the Abrahamic promise/covenant is being fulfilled, and there are revelations in the canon that deal with that.

 

I figured you'd want to dismiss the Brigham Young policy on race because it doesn't fit your theory.  Either he received a revelation that wasn't foretold with a "promise" that the Priesthood would be taken away from some.  Or, he didn't receive a revelation and he chose to deny those blessings to Blacks based upon his best understanding of scripture -- which understanding ultimately turned out to be wrong.  Both of those possibilities contradict your reasoning as to why women won't be ordained to the priesthood.

 

D&C 89:2 speaks to the “temporal salvation of all saints.” The Word of Wisdom was given in 1833. Prior to that, Joseph Smith learned from translating the Book of Mormon the concept that temporal law and salvation are also spiritual (all things are spiritual). In addition, other revelations from D&C prior to 1833 reveal that the Lord is interested in the temporal salvation of the saints and reveals truths of a temporal nature (see for example D&C 24, 29, 70). The Word of Wisdom is a fulfillment of that interest, and a building upon prior revelations and promises pertaining to temporal salvation.

I gave one scriptural basis--"line upon line, precept upon precept." All the revelations that speak to fulfilling promises that have been prepared from the foundation of the world have their basis in those promises. Every revelation can be traced back to some prior revelation or promise.

 

Again, when you define the promises in such a broad or general way, a revelation for women to be ordained to priesthood office would also be seen as a fulfillment of general promises already "on the books" so to speak.

 

Further, I could also theorize that promises given in the temple could be looked at as opening up the possibility of ordination of women (under your theory that everything must be promised first).

[rockpond]

Cool--this brings to mind another (later) example of how reveltion is dependent upon a prior promise: D&C 113:10, "We are to understand that the scattered remnants are exhorted to return to the Lord from whence they have fallen; which if they do, the promise of the Lord is that he will speak to them, or give them revelation." If we repent, we are promised revelation and free ourselves from the bands around our necks. "The bands of her neck are the curses of God upon her, or the remnants of Israel in their scattered condition among the Gentiles."

 

So maybe we need to repent and receive the pending revelation that women are entitled to ordination.