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

[Pahoran]

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.

Which explains why they chose one they had to distort -- how, exactly?

You see, I know all about the standard prooftexts. They fail upon examination.

Regards,

Pahoran

[MorningStar]

Thanks for the great explanation!  Amazing how deceptive some people can be. 

[rockpond]

Which explains why they chose one they had to distort -- how, exactly?

You see, I know all about the standard prooftexts. They fail upon examination.

Regards,

Pahoran

 

How did they distort the quote?  They didn't as far as I can tell, they just reprinted it.

 

Which part of Elder Tanner's quote "fails upon examination"?

[rockpond]

Thanks for the great explanation!  Amazing how deceptive some people can be. 

 

What was deceptive about the graphic?

[Pahoran]

How did they distort the quote?  They didn't as far as I can tell, they just reprinted it.

 

Which part of Elder Tanner's quote "fails upon examination"?

You keep calling it "Elder Tanner's quote." It is a quote from a magazine of an alleged statement of unknown provenance.

Nobody who actually values evidence would regard that statement as falling into that category.

The OW "movement" and their sputniki obviously do, but nobody who actually values evidence would.

 

What was deceptive about the graphic?

It purported to offer as parallel two statements that clearly are not.

Any other questions?

Regards,

Pahoran

[rockpond]

You keep calling it "Elder Tanner's quote." It is a quote from a magazine of an alleged statement of unknown provenance.

Nobody who actually values evidence would regard that statement as falling into that category.

The OW "movement" and their sputniki obviously do, but nobody who actually values evidence would.

 

It purported to offer as parallel two statements that clearly are not.

Any other questions?

Regards,

Pahoran

 

The OP's blog post provided the source of the quote.  You could accurately say that the source is questionable but whoever created the graphic did not distort what was published in the Seattle magazine in 1967.

 

I, personally, would not use the quote but it is consistent with our pre-1978 teachings.  If you disagree, please tell me what you feel is inconsistent.

 

The graphic did not say that the two statements were parallel.  It placed two quotes next to each other allowing the reader to draw conclusions.

 

I personally see a parallel in the statements as one is declaring what is (or was) a law of God and the other is declaring a "divinely decreed pattern".  Those seem to me to be similar statements.

[Danzo]

 

 

The graphic did not say that the two statements were parallel. 

 

 

Yes, it did.

 

By putting the quotes parallel it said they were parallel. 

Words are not the only means of communication.

That is what the graphic is for.

Putting the two quotes together makes a statement.

 

The fact the one quote was of dubious province and the other was outright misleading, it was making a false statement.

 

Are you supporting the twisting of elder oaks' statement?

[Danzo]

What was deceptive about the graphic?

 

They misquoted elder oaks.

[frank_jessop]

Tanners quote was not "distorted". And to dismiss the entire piece due a minor error is just ridiculous and grasping at criticism.

How does the same "can't get this right, can't get nothing right" logic apply to the Mark Hoffman scandal and those involved?

The distortion is with Elder Oaks quote: "But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they [presiding authorities] are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood."

Edited April 16, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Stargazer]

The OP's blog post provided the source of the quote.  You could accurately say that the source is questionable but whoever created the graphic did not distort what was published in the Seattle magazine in 1967.

 

I, personally, would not use the quote but it is consistent with our pre-1978 teachings.  If you disagree, please tell me what you feel is inconsistent.

 

The graphic did not say that the two statements were parallel.  It placed two quotes next to each other allowing the reader to draw conclusions.

 

I personally see a parallel in the statements as one is declaring what is (or was) a law of God and the other is declaring a "divinely decreed pattern".  Those seem to me to be similar statements.

 

Well, guess what?

 

I am acquainted with a man who was formerly in Princess Diana's security detail.  If I were to report to you that he told me a particular thing about some event which he witnessed, but for which there is no direct evidence, would you just swallow it hook line and sinker?  Like you seem to have swallowed this magazine's assertion of what President Tanner is alleged to have said.  We don't even know if they even actually talked with him.

 

And, by the way, it is true that I know a man who was on Di's security detail.  I've known him since 1972 (when my family lived in Cheltenham, GLOS), and he was my brother's best friend at the time.  He hasn't told me any tales, though.  I was making that up.

[california boy]

I must say, I am pretty confused about this whole thread.  And I am not sure why some are trying to dismiss what was reportedly quoted.  Unless of course they desperately want to believe that N. Eldon Tanner could have never said anything remotely like this.

 

While it may be difficult at this point to verify whether the quote is word for word accurate, the message is very consistent with the teachings of the church during that time period.  If the statement was completely out in left field with what was being taught, then I would agree, that the accuracy of such a quote should be brought into question.  But it is not.  It is consistent with what was being taught.  Didn't the church teach that "throughout history the original Christian church the Negro never held the priesthood"?  And it accurately states that a change would have to come from God not church leaders  "There is nothing we (the church) can do to change this."  Isn't that consistent with church teachings at the time?  So could someone explain to me why anyone would be upset that such a quote in all likelihood could have been said, but now are having problems that there are claims that it was said.  Are any of you disputing that what was quoted is not consistent with church teachings at the time?  If so, could you do a better job at explaining what in the quote you feel is not consistent?  That would be more helpful than just discounting the content of the quote out of hand.

 

And if Elder Oaks did not make his statement, could you please correct what he actually said?  

[Pahoran]

I must say, I am pretty confused about this whole thread.  And I am not sure why some are trying to dismiss what was reportedly quoted.  Unless of course they desperately want to believe that N. Eldon Tanner could have never said anything remotely like this.

 

While it may be difficult at this point to verify whether the quote is word for word accurate, the message is very consistent with the teachings of the church during that time period.  If the statement was completely out in left field with what was being taught, then I would agree, that the accuracy of such a quote should be brought into question.  But it is not.  It is consistent with what was being taught.  Didn't the church teach that "throughout history the original Christian church the Negro never held the priesthood"?  And it accurately states that a change would have to come from God not church leaders  "There is nothing we (the church) can do to change this."  Isn't that consistent with church teachings at the time?  So could someone explain to me why anyone would be upset that such a quote in all likelihood could have been said, but now are having problems that there are claims that it was said.  Are any of you disputing that what was quoted is not consistent with church teachings at the time?  If so, could you do a better job at explaining what in the quote you feel is not consistent?  That would be more helpful than just discounting the content of the quote out of hand.

 

And if Elder Oaks did not make his statement, could you please correct what he actually said?  

 

1) Since words have meanings, it matters very much if the quote is or is not word for word what Elder Tanner said.  Even an honest attempt to paraphrase can completely reverse the meaning of a statement if the one offering it didn't really understand what was said.

 

2) What would really be "consistent with our pre-1978 teachings" as another poster wrote, would be to say that (at that time) blacks (or "negroes," which was considered more polite in some quarters then) were presently unable to hold the Priesthood, but that at some future time they would.  I'm more than confident that President Tanner knew about the uninterrupted expectation, going back to Brigham Young, that it would eventually come about.  I became a Seminary student only three years later, and I knew about it.

 

3) If you scroll up a little, you'll find that the interpolation (in the square brackets) is completely wrong.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[sdc999]

 

 

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.

I'll see your shake and raise you a years worth of tithing.  99% of all members would be just under 15 million (according to church records) when in fact, the actual number of participating, self identifying or 'active' members is much much less.  

[sdc999]

Well, guess what?

 

I am acquainted with a man who was formerly in Princess Diana's security detail.  If I were to report to you that he told me a particular thing about some event which he witnessed, but for which there is no direct evidence, would you just swallow it hook line and sinker?  Like you seem to have swallowed this magazine's assertion of what President Tanner is alleged to have said.  We don't even know if they even actually talked with him.

 

And, by the way, it is true that I know a man who was on Di's security detail.  I've known him since 1972 (when my family lived in Cheltenham, GLOS), and he was my brother's best friend at the time.  He hasn't told me any tales, though.  I was making that up.

Wow, did you just describe Mormonism?  Did Joe tell about  a paticular event which he witnessed, but for which there is no direct eveidence and you swallowed it hook line and sinker?  You don't even know if the event 'actually' happened.    

[oremites]

Wow, did you just describe Mormonism?  Did Joe tell about  a paticular event which he witnessed, but for which there is no direct eveidence and you swallowed it hook line and sinker?  You don't even know if the event 'actually' happened.    

 

If you ask one of the participants in the event if it happened and they confirm that it did, that's pretty good evidence that it actually happened. 

[california boy]

1) Since words have meanings, it matters very much if the quote is or is not word for word what Elder Tanner said.  Even an honest attempt to paraphrase can completely reverse the meaning of a statement if the one offering it didn't really understand what was said.

 

2) What would really be "consistent with our pre-1978 teachings" as another poster wrote, would be to say that (at that time) blacks (or "negroes," which was considered more polite in some quarters then) were presently unable to hold the Priesthood, but that at some future time they would.  I'm more than confident that President Tanner knew about the uninterrupted expectation, going back to Brigham Young, that it would eventually come about.  I became a Seminary student only three years later, and I knew about it.

 

3) If you scroll up a little, you'll find that the interpolation (in the square brackets) is completely wrong.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

This is actually part of the problem that I have with the whole blacks and the priesthood issue.  It seems like members of the church want to completely rewrite what was actually said.  Brigham Young never said that "at some future time the Negro would hold the priesthood." The prophecy by Brigham Young was that EVERY OTHER man would have the opportunity to receive the priesthood BEFORE the Negro would be given the chance.  Yet no one seems to have a problem distorting that prophecy to say "at some time in the future Blacks will be given the priesthood."  Clearly the 1978 revelation is NOT a fulfillment of Brigham Young's prophecy.  It was fulfillment of a revised interpretation of that prophecy.  I am sure President Tanner did know the exact prophecy made by Brigham Young as well.  The revision of Brigham Young's prophecy did not come until after President Tanner died, when Spencer W. Kimball announced the revelation   It was at that time that we got a new interpretation of Brigham Young's prophecy from until every other man gets the opportunity to the current"some time in the future" fulfillment.  

 

The new inturpetation allowed the 1978 revelation to  "seem" to "kinda" fulfill what Brigham Young said.  Do you get what I am saying?  I am not trying to make an issue out of this, but then I don't see the reason to make an issue out of the likely (because it is consistent with the prophecy of BY) statement by N. Eldon Tanner.  If anything, I would be attacking the inturpetation of President Oaks statement if indeed  [them] refers to church authorities rather than women.

[Tacenda]

I did a Google search and the quote below is what came up, on a site called "Mormon Quotes".  I think CB brought up an interesting quote, that I wasn't aware of, that of BY stating that the PH would eventually be given to the Blacks after it has been given to every other male first.  That is so dishonest to twist his words to make it look like prophecy has been fulfilled.   

 

"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."

 

N. Eldon Tanner, Seattle Magazine, December 1967, page 60

[sdc999]

Oremites,  "If you ask one of the participants in the event if it happened and they confirm that it did, that's pretty good evidence that it actually happened."

 

 

  That reminds me of the movie, 'Dave'.    "I once caught a fish this big"

[omni]

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.

 

 

I already addressed this earlier.

 

 

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.

 

Do you take this same skeptical view with every quote you read in a newspaper or magazine?  We have zero evidence that what President Tanner said was incompletely reported.  You're basing this off of a very minor error in which the reporter stated he was "counselor to the First President" instead of "counselor in the First Presidency".  This is an easy mistake to make as this may have very well been the first time the reporter heard the term "First Presidency" (as it is rarely used outside of Mormonism). 

 

The likely reason this story was so difficult to find in the first place is because at the time there really was "nothing to see here".  Had the reporter misquoted or misconstrued President Tanner's words you can bet the Church would have called for a retraction - which in turn would have caused an amount of controversy and in turn would have likely been picked up by the Salt Lake Tribune or Deseret News (perhaps even a mention in Dialogue or Sunstone).  For a more recent example, look at the church's reaction to Professor Bott's statement on blacks and the priesthood.  If they are that quick to denounce an incorrect view of a BYU professor, surely they would have done so for a member of the First Presidency.

 

Finally, as both I and California Boy have pointed out, this type of thinking was not unusual for the time.  Had President Tanner been quoted as stating something outlandish or completely out of character, your point would have some validity, since he did not, I believe my point stands.

Edited April 16, 2014 by omni

[Stargazer]

Wow, did you just describe Mormonism?  Did Joe tell about  a paticular event which he witnessed, but for which there is no direct eveidence and you swallowed it hook line and sinker?  You don't even know if the event 'actually' happened.    

 

Wow, did I just describe Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, or for that matter Paleontology?

 

Events can be and are validated from direct or indirect evidence.  Joseph Smith told us about his experience in that grove, and I have independently verified it through the same source which gave him the experience.  For me, his experience in that grove is a fact, albeit one that I did not personally experience.  You're welcome to disbelieve my witness.

 

Now, as to whether that magazine actually interviewed President Tanner, let us grant this.  Is the quote accurate?  It might be, but I have seen reportage from journalists that was highly inaccurate, or left out key facts, or was totally misinterpreted.

 

I have in my collection newspaper coverage of an event in which I participated, and was a key player.  But the coverage by the local newspaper barely mention me and what I did, which was key to the outcome.  This is unfortunately not uncommon.

[awyatt]

I am sure President Tanner did know the exact prophecy made by Brigham Young as well.  The revision of Brigham Young's prophecy did not come until after President Tanner died, when Spencer W. Kimball announced the revelation   It was at that time that we got a new interpretation of Brigham Young's prophecy from until every other man gets the opportunity to the current"some time in the future" fulfillment.  

 

The new inturpetation allowed the 1978 revelation to  "seem" to "kinda" fulfill what Brigham Young said.  Do you get what I am saying?  I am not trying to make an issue out of this, but then I don't see the reason to make an issue out of the likely (because it is consistent with the prophecy of BY) statement by N. Eldon Tanner.

 

You have history all confused here. SWK didn't announce the revelation "after President Tanner died." N. Eldon Tanner *was* SWK's first counselor when the revelation was received. In fact, President Tanner was the one who read the revelation in October 1978 General Conference and called for the sustaining vote.

 

Just sayin...

 

-Allen

[rockpond]

 

I did a Google search and the quote below is what came up, on a site called "Mormon Quotes".  I think CB brought up an interesting quote, that I wasn't aware of, that of BY stating that the PH would eventually be given to the Blacks after it has been given to every other male first.  That is so dishonest to twist his words to make it look like prophecy has been fulfilled.   

 

"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."

 

N. Eldon Tanner, Seattle Magazine, December 1967, page 60

 

 

You are correct, Tacenda.  The original "prophecy" about when the priesthood & temple restriction would be lifted was not only unfulfilled but it was proven to be incorrect.  And, ever since, history has been tweaked by well-meaning individuals in the church to maintain the illusion of prophetic in-stray-ibility.

Edited April 16, 2014 by rockpond

[rockpond]

Yes, it did.

 

By putting the quotes parallel it said they were parallel. 

Words are not the only means of communication.

That is what the graphic is for.

Putting the two quotes together makes a statement.

 

The fact the one quote was of dubious province and the other was outright misleading, it was making a false statement.

 

Are you supporting the twisting of elder oaks' statement?

 

I agree that they have changed the meaning of Elder Oaks' statement by adding in the parenthetical reference.

 

I'm not sure why the source of Elder Tanner's quote is being questioned... is there something in the quote that you believe to be incorrect or not representative of church teachings at the time?  It seems absolutely accurate to me with respect to the doctrine of that period.

 

As for them being parallel, I think anytime you place two quotes next to each other, the point is to compare them.  You may make your own conclusions.  In this context, "parallel" means "analogous".  Do you think that quotes are analogous?  I certainly do (even with the removal of the incorrect parenthetical notation).

[rockpond]

Well, guess what?

 

I am acquainted with a man who was formerly in Princess Diana's security detail.  If I were to report to you that he told me a particular thing about some event which he witnessed, but for which there is no direct evidence, would you just swallow it hook line and sinker?  Like you seem to have swallowed this magazine's assertion of what President Tanner is alleged to have said.  We don't even know if they even actually talked with him.

 

And, by the way, it is true that I know a man who was on Di's security detail.  I've known him since 1972 (when my family lived in Cheltenham, GLOS), and he was my brother's best friend at the time.  He hasn't told me any tales, though.  I was making that up.

 

So your presumption here is that the magazine may have misquoted President Tanner back in 1967.  What do you believe to be incorrect about the quote?  Is it not consistent with church teachings of that time?

[wenglund]

Wow, did I just describe Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, or for that matter Paleontology?

 

Fairness demands that you also include the quasi-religion of scientism. There are no eye witnesses on the earth today to the Big Bang or man evolving from the ape or black holes, etc.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-