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

[rockpond]

Now that I think of it, no revelation can be received without a prior promise of some kind (Moroni 10:3-5 is a prime example)--show me one that has been!

 

OD2 fulfilled at the very least fulfilled the promise made to Abraham, but it also goes back to Noah, Enoch and Adam and all the patriarchs.

 

 

LOL--I have every confidence that they have heard it all before from a source far more appropriate than me!

 

From that perspective, haven't we been promised a restoration of all things?  So any revelation pertaining to the priesthood and the gospel is a fulfillment of that promise.

 

The promise that you are now claiming OD2 fulfilled (a promise made to Abraham) had already been fulfilled with Joseph Smith who didn't restrict the priesthood based on race.  Brigham Young started doing that with (apparently) no known revelatory or valid scriptural basis.  He then made a promise about when the restriction would be lifted that turned out to be false ("after all the sons of Adam...").  So, if OD2 fulfilled a promise it was the promise made by later prophets/apostles about the removal of a ban that was actually a policy, not a doctrine.  And if the ban has no known basis in revelation than who is to say that the promise did.

[Pahoran]

Yeah -- you should explain that to the OW group.  

It's not obvious to me that they, or any of them, would actually care.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Umm, given the words of that section were delivered via a prophet you does need confidence the prophet is speaking for The Lord before you can accept the statement in 1:38 that a prophet is speaking for The Lord.

When the 1947 First Presidency said inter-racial marriage was "repugnant" and against God's doctrine did D&C 1:38 apply? Or can you selectively dismiss things like that as mistakes?

Ah, the race card.

It takes a real deep thinker to pull that one out.

Regards,

Pahoran

[omni]

Ah, the race card.

It takes a real deep thinker to pull that one out.

Regards,

Pahoran

Nice deflection.

[rockpond]

Ah, the race card.

It takes a real deep thinker to pull that one out.

Regards,

Pahoran

It takes very shallow thinking to disregard the impact that 125 year incident has on our understanding of prophets and apostles.

[CV75]

From that perspective, haven't we been promised a restoration of all things?  So any revelation pertaining to the priesthood and the gospel is a fulfillment of that promise.

 

The promise that you are now claiming OD2 fulfilled (a promise made to Abraham) had already been fulfilled with Joseph Smith who didn't restrict the priesthood based on race.  Brigham Young started doing that with (apparently) no known revelatory or valid scriptural basis.  He then made a promise about when the restriction would be lifted that turned out to be false ("after all the sons of Adam...").  So, if OD2 fulfilled a promise it was the promise made by later prophets/apostles about the removal of a ban that was actually a policy, not a doctrine.  And if the ban has no known basis in revelation than who is to say that the promise did.

Yes, there will be a restoration of all things that were lost, not of things that never were (Alma 41:12).

 

I see no scriptural promise of women being ordained, nor of the ordination of women being "restored."

 

Many revelations have fulfilled the Abrahamic promise, and it will be fulfilled over and over (not just with Joseph Smith and OD2). But if you don't accept OD2 as valid, then you you have to stop using it as proper justification for ordaining women.

 

What you really have to come up with is a precedent for revelation being received that isn't based on the fulfillment of prior promises. The scriptures (D&C 128:18) indicate that things that have been kept hid from the foundation of the world will be revealed, but you can't presume this is the ordination of women or other things that contradict what has been the revealed pattern all along.

[rockpond]

Yes, there will be a restoration of all things that were lost, not of things that never were (Alma 41:12).

I see no scriptural promise of women being ordained, nor of the ordination of women being "restored."

Many revelations have fulfilled the Abrahamic promise, and it will be fulfilled over and over (not just with Joseph Smith and OD2). But if you don't accept OD2 as valid, then you you have to stop using it as proper justification for ordaining women.

What you really have to come up with is a precedent for revelation being received that isn't based on the fulfillment of prior promises. The scriptures (D&C 128:18) indicate that things that have been kept hid from the foundation of the world will be revealed, but you can't presume this is the ordination of women or other things that contradict what has been the revealed pattern all along.

I've never said that OD2 is not valid. And I don't use it as justification for women being ordained to the priesthood.

Regarding promises preceding revelation, you ignored my point. OD2 did not fulfill the biblical promise you claim it did.

And if all things are to be restored, then I guess women will get the priesthood since there are indications in the bible that they once had it.

There are plenty of revelations in the D&C that don't have some specific promise preceding them. This strikes me as a made up argument that has no real basis in scripture. Are you seriously arguing that God can't reveal anything that wasn't already promised? How does He reveal the promise?

[JDave]

I'm not judging anyone, including OW (why are you?). No one has to prove anything to me (why do you look for it?). I am in no position to allow (or disallow) anyone their hopes; why do you?.

CV, I am getting really confused here. You toss out terms like double-minded and spiritually unstable, and yet I am the one judging people?? You are grasping here.

I am stating a true principle as it applies to this subject. Hope amiss is false hope, asserting rights over responsibility is unrighteous dominion, and asserting presumed rights as a means of carrying out one's responsibility is double-minded. That's not judging anyone (but if the shoe fits, wear it).

You feel very strongly on this, and your feelings are completely non-judgmental.  OK.

I feel, I believe, not quite so strongly and I definitely withhold any judgment (just to be clear on that).

How come nothing you say in this post has to do with the rightness of petitioning the Brethren to allow ordination for women, or for them to pray about it, or for them to acknowledge that they have received a fresh, recent revelation one way or the other about it? I'm glad you haven't mentioned it, but I thought that was the point you were defending.

I don't think writing a letter rises above anything that I wrote in my previous post. It is not starting a crusade. I don't so much condone it as I simply don't condemn it.

[Pahoran]

It takes very shallow thinking to disregard the impact that 125 year incident has on our understanding of prophets and apostles.

I don't share Canard's "understanding of prophets and apostles."

Do you?

I ask that, because I'm wondering who are the antecedents of that "our."

Regards,

Pahoran

[CV75]

I've never said that OD2 is not valid. And I don't use it as justification for women being ordained to the priesthood.

Great!

 

Regarding promises preceding revelation, you ignored my point. OD2 did not fulfill the biblical promise you claim it did.

I think you are looking at OD2 too narrowly—it is a (along with others) a fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise.

 

And if all things are to be restored, then I guess women will get the priesthood since there are indications in the bible that they once had it.

Please provide (the same old wrong) Biblical references where women were conferred the priesthood and held priesthood office.

 

There are plenty of revelations in the D&C that don't have some specific promise preceding them. This strikes me as a made up argument that has no real basis in scripture. Are you seriously arguing that God can't reveal anything that wasn't already promised? How does He reveal the promise?

Show me one (or a few), and I will show you how they tie back to a prior promise.

[CV75]

CV, I am getting really confused here. You toss out terms like double-minded and spiritually unstable, and yet I am the one judging people?? You are grasping here.

You feel very strongly on this, and your feelings are completely non-judgmental.  OK.

I feel, I believe, not quite so strongly and I definitely withhold any judgment (just to be clear on that).

I don't think writing a letter rises above anything that I wrote in my previous post. It is not starting a crusade. I don't so much condone it as I simply don't condemn it.

Here is where/how you are judging people (bolded), from your post:

 

I allow them that hope without judging them to be double-minded or spiritually unstable.  If they choose to prove they are unstable (such as the OW antics*), then I will allow them to prove that instability to me and hope that they find peace somehow within the Church and the gospel.  I will allow equal opportunity for people to have such hopes and also prove they are stable…

 

*[i haven't judged OW at all; I never even brought them up!]

 

Would you write a letter? That would tell whether you really condone or condemn doing it without judging others for better or worse for doing it. Of course, you might not know what you would do!

[rockpond]

I don't share Canard's "understanding of prophets and apostles."

Do you?

I ask that, because I'm wondering who are the antecedents of that "our."

Regards,

Pahoran

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

[rockpond]

Great!

I think you are looking at OD2 too narrowly—it is a (along with others) a fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise.

Please provide (the same old wrong) Biblical references where women were conferred the priesthood and held priesthood office.

Show me one (or a few), and I will show you how they tie back to a prior promise.

How is OD2 a fulfillment of the Abrahamic Promise?

Let's explore that first. I really don't have an interest in debating biblical women and the priesthood... It's been done to death and will just stalemate with opposing interpretations. Further, I don't have a position on the women's ordination. If there is further revelation to be received on the matter, I'm confident we'll receive it.

[Calm]

Here is where/how you are judging people (bolded), from your post:

I allow them that hope without judging them to be double-minded or spiritually unstable. If they choose to prove they are unstable (such as the OW antics*), then I will allow them to prove that instability to me and hope that they find peace somehow within the Church and the gospel. I will allow equal opportunity for people to have such hopes and also prove they are stable…

*[i haven't judged OW at all; I never even brought them up!]

Would you write a letter? That would tell whether you really condone or condemn doing it without judging others for better or worse for doing it. Of course, you might not know what you would do!

I can imagine certain things I might share in a letter if certain ways of behaving were to continue at a local level. However given my current ward, they are not issues for me personally....mainly on the topic of communicating better directly and not just by action....many women at least needs words to go along with the good stuff. For example a bouquet of roses, a nice dinner, a great new power tool are great ways of saying I love you but talking with me while we are doing things and not treating me as if I were simply an extra set of arms and legs mean to me I am seen as a person. Edited April 19, 2014 by calmoriah

[canard78]

All these references which you can find as a result of the word search I suggested show that only men are conferred the priesthood and ordained to priesthood office. I take that to mean that women are not.

Ahah, so you've taken scripture and applied your own perspectives and conclusions. Clear.

Edited April 19, 2014 by canard78

[canard78]

Ah, the race card.

It takes a real deep thinker to pull that one out.

Regards,

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:

"That "in many local areas conditions are even far worse. Note, for instance, the city of Chicago. More than half its families have no children whatever—to be exact 534,125 out of its 842,578 families are without a single child of their own. And there are many American cities that have even a worse birth rate than Chicago. . . .

"The one large group of people that remains least affected by the scourge of artificial birth control is our rural population. Were it not for them America would already be headed down the speedy slopes of decline."

Seeking the pleasures of conjugality without a willingness to assume the responsibilities of rearing a family is one of the onslaughts that now batter at the structure of the American home. Intelligence and mutual consideration should be ever-present factors in determining the coming of children to the household. When the husband and wife are healthy, and free from inherited weaknesses and diseases that might be transmitted with injury to their offspring, the use of contraceptives is to be condemned."

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

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

What about this from Harold B. Lee:

"Now, again, where there is abject poverty in some heavily populated countries, we declare it is a grievous sin before God to adopt restrictive measures in disobedience to God’s divine command from the beginning of time to “multiply and replenish the earth.” Surely those who project such measures to prevent life or to destroy life before or after birth will reap the whirlwind of God’s retribution, for God will not be mocked."

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:

"At last the Indians are suitable. I heard them bear their witness, saw them shed tears of joy, heard them express their affection for loved ones. I saw Indian boys actually coming in to the president to offer their services as missionaries. That couldn't have happened a decade ago. As we look into the future, surely we shall see thousands of Indian missionaries, for through our various agencies we are now training probably three thousand little Indian boys in our various departments who are growing toward missionary work. Very soon there will be an Indian boy paired off in missionary work with each white boy, and this will happen in the other Lamanite missions, I am sure.

The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised (2 Ne. 30:6). In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated."

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?

[CV75]

I can imagine certain things I might share in a letter if certain ways of behaving were to continue at a local level. However given my current ward, they are not issues for me personally....mainly on the topic of communicating better directly and not just by action....many women at least needs words to go along with the good stuff. For example a bouquet of roses, a nice dinner, a great new power tool are great ways of saying I love you but talking with me while we are doing things and not treating me as if I were simply an extra set of arms and legs mean to me I am seen as a person.

Of course that is all well and good. My remarks have only to do with the topic of ordination.

[CV75]

How is OD2 a fulfillment of the Abrahamic Promise?

In the following manner:

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/abrahamic-covenant?lang=eng

 

I’ve provided just a few snippets from this link, but all of the articles show that the revelation speaks to its fulfillment.

 

Through the ministry of his [Abraham’s] seed [that is, his Priesthood], “all the families of the earth [would] be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal” (Abraham 2:11).

 

A person can receive all the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant …by obeying the laws and ordinances of the gospel (see Galatians 3:26-29; 4:1-7; D&C 84:33-40).

 

…in the ultimate sense every soul, literal descendant of Abraham or not, must “come unto [the Redeemer] and be saved.” Only then will that soul be entitled to “come unto the true fold of God.” In other words, heirship to the eternal blessings promised to Abraham hinges on individual righteousness. It is not one’s pedigree but one’s obedience to the doctrine of Christ that qualifies him eternally as Abraham’s seed.

 

The Lord has restored the gospel in modern times for the blessing of all people. Every faithful man and woman can receive its blessings to the fullest degree, by accepting baptismal and temple covenants and by living righteously.

 

The portions of the covenant that pertain to personal salvation and eternal increase are renewed with each individual who receives the ordinance of celestial marriage (see D&C 132:29–33).

 

Thus, the Abrahamic promise is fulfilled because “…every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.”

 

OD2 is not the only fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise, but is certainly a part of it. Since I'd like to stay on topic (this thread is about women being ordained), that's all I'll engage in with regards to OD2. It obviously has nothing to do with women being ordained.

 

On the other hand, women do not have to be ordained as part of fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant, and I'd be happy to talk about that.

[JDave]

Here is where/how you are judging people (bolded), from your post:

I allow them that hope without judging them to be double-minded or spiritually unstable. If they choose to prove they are unstable (such as the OW antics*), then I will allow them to prove that instability to me and hope that they find peace somehow within the Church and the gospel. I will allow equal opportunity for people to have such hopes and also prove they are stable…

Like I said, you are grasping. I don’t see the point either. Is this just to say, “Look, you’re judging too.”?

Would you write a letter? That would tell whether you really condone or condemn doing it without judging others for better or worse for doing it. Of course, you might not know what you would do!

Again, I don’t see the point of this. Whether or not I know what I would really do doesn’t matter. If you can’t convince me, then we disagree. We really can leave it at that.

When Senator said that he questioned my motives I thought it was funny. His humor has unfortunately proved prescient.

[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

What part of the Tanner's quote can be reasonably construed as stating blacks will never receive the Priesthood?

[rockpond]

In the following manner:

https://www.lds.org/topics/abrahamic-covenant?lang=eng

I’ve provided just a few snippets from this link, but all of the articles show that the revelation speaks to its fulfillment.

Through the ministry of his [Abraham’s] seed [that is, his Priesthood], “all the families of the earth [would] be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal” (Abraham 2:11).

A person can receive all the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant …by obeying the laws and ordinances of the gospel (see Galatians 3:26-29; 4:1-7; D&C 84:33-40).

…in the ultimate sense every soul, literal descendant of Abraham or not, must “come unto [the Redeemer] and be saved.” Only then will that soul be entitled to “come unto the true fold of God.” In other words, heirship to the eternal blessings promised to Abraham hinges on individual righteousness. It is not one’s pedigree but one’s obedience to the doctrine of Christ that qualifies him eternally as Abraham’s seed.

The Lord has restored the gospel in modern times for the blessing of all people. Every faithful man and woman can receive its blessings to the fullest degree, by accepting baptismal and temple covenants and by living righteously.

The portions of the covenant that pertain to personal salvation and eternal increase are renewed with each individual who receives the ordinance of celestial marriage (see D&C 132:29–33).

Thus, the Abrahamic promise is fulfilled because “…every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.”

OD2 is not the only fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise, but is certainly a part of it. Since I'd like to stay on topic (this thread is about women being ordained), that's all I'll engage in with regards to OD2. It obviously has nothing to do with women being ordained.

On the other hand, women do not have to be ordained as part of fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant, and I'd be happy to talk about that.

By that description, if women are meant to be ordained to the priesthood, and revelation is received to that effect, than it will also be fulfilling that same promise.

But you also need to remember, that the promise (as your describing it, with respect to all men receiving the priesthood) had already been fulfilled by Joseph Smith. OD2 just reversed the undoing of that promise that had been inflicted by Brigham Young.

[CV75]

By that description, if women are meant to be ordained to the priesthood, and revelation is received to that effect, than it will also be fulfilling that same promise.

But you also need to remember, that the promise (as your describing it, with respect to all men receiving the priesthood) had already been fulfilled by Joseph Smith. OD2 just reversed the undoing of that promise that had been inflicted by Brigham Young.

You don’t seem to understand/ accept that promises are fulfilled more than once with more than one event and in more than one way.

 

The Abrahamic promise and the patriarchal order associated with it are not designed in such a way as to require/allow the ordination of women (I refer back to the scriptural word search of male nouns and pronouns with priest and priesthood). I don’t think you can identify a promise that is.

[CV75]

Like I said, you are grasping. I don’t see the point either. Is this just to say, “Look, you’re judging too.”?

Again, I don’t see the point of this. Whether or not I know what I would really do doesn’t matter. If you can’t convince me, then we disagree. We really can leave it at that.

When Senator said that he questioned my motives I thought it was funny. His humor has unfortunately proved prescient.

I am not judging OW (or others, or you); just showing how you are judging without getting to any real discussion on the actual basis for judging them.

 

When I asked, "Would you write a letter?" it was to keep the focus off judging others and onto what you think is important and why--it only matters for the sake of discussing principles and not the judgement of others. If you would write a letter, we have something to discuss; if not, then we really don't because I wouldn't write one either.

 

So I don't question your motives at all--just trying to understand the rationale if you would write a letter to the Brethren to petition the Lord for His will about the ordination of women, and challenge it if contradicts my position. Not to convince you not to write it.

[rockpond]

You don’t seem to understand/ accept that promises are fulfilled more than once with more than one event and in more than one way.

 

 

You are cracking me up with this... so that promise that all men would receive the priesthood was fulfilled with the restoration through Joseph Smith.  Then, after Brigham Young took it away, it was fulfilled again through OD2?  Where is the promise that foretold of Brigham Young's revelation to take away the priesthood from all men?  And where is the promise that it would be fulfilled a second time?

 

There is simply no scriptural basis for this idea that any revelation must be proceeded by a promise that the revelation would come.  And it's not a theory I've ever heard taught by our leaders.  You seem to be muzzling God by saying he can only reveal what he has already specifically promised would be revealed.  Again, I ask:  How then is the promise revealed in the first place?  Wouldn't it also have to be promised in advance?

 

Sorry, God can reveal whatever pleases him, whenever it pleases him.  Full stop.

 

 

The Abrahamic promise and the patriarchal order associated with it are not designed in such a way as to require/allow the ordination of women (I refer back to the scriptural word search of male nouns and pronouns with priest and priesthood). I don’t think you can identify a promise that is.

 

Yep, I know that you see the scriptures as saying that only men should hold the priesthood.  There have been many great men, prophets and apostles, who saw in the scriptures the doctrine that Blacks could not hold the priesthood.  Turns out they were wrong in their interpretations.  So you'll have to excuse me for not accepting your interpretations as correct.

[JDave]

I am not judging OW (or others, or you); just showing how you are judging without getting to any real discussion on the actual basis for judging them.

The paragraph you are quoting me on explicitly states that I am not judging. The whole paragraph could be paraphrased, "I am fine with people having such hopes and I do not judge them for it. I let their actions to speak for themselves."

I let it go when you said you weren't judging; I would appreciate the same consideration.

 

When I asked, "Would you write a letter?" it was to keep the focus off judging others and onto what you think is important and why--it only matters for the sake of discussing principles and not the judgement of others. If you would write a letter, we have something to discuss; if not, then we really don't because I wouldn't write one either.

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. That is the principle at hand. Let's not judge people for we know not what is in their hearts.

And since I wouldn't write a letter, it seems we have nothing more to discuss.

Edited April 20, 2014 by JDave