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

[wenglund]

In accordance with the 11th Article of Faith, I respect the right of several people here to worship and bear testimony to the truthfulness of the meme.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[frank_jessop]

If we can not trust the reporter from the Seattle Mag because of a minor error; and I am sure all are aware that Mags and News papers make mistakes.

How does the same logic concerning errors apply to the presiding authorities of the Church? Some individual members believe the priesthood ban was a mistake, does that mean that we can dismiss all the Prophets and Apostles who upheld the ban? The Mark Hoffman scandal might be another error.

How is it we should dismiss a reporter for a error, but not others for errors; the rationale unstated is that dismissing one and not the other is a matter of convenience rather than principle.

Edited April 16, 2014 by frank_jessop

[rockpond]

So if we were to "repair" this graphic and put two clearly sourced quotes, without Gen Conf pics, both dealing with "divine decrees" together, would there still be objections?  How about these two:

 

Elder Bruce R. McConkie:  "However, in a broad general sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord."

 

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

[canard78]

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.

 

Haha... I posted it. I'l take the "low-life mentality" label as a compliment.

[wenglund]

So if we were to "repair" this graphic and put two clearly sourced quotes, without Gen Conf pics, both dealing with "divine decrees" together, would there still be objections?  How about these two:

 

Elder Bruce R. McConkie:  "However, in a broad general sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord."

 

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

 

I wouldn't object. However, doing so would eliminate the intended point of the original graphic, and leave people puzzled over the point of your revised graphic

 

What you and others worshipers of the meme don't seem to understand is that in order to make the point in the original graphic, it required not only calling up an obscure, outdated, second-hand, dubious quote from a newspaper cited in an anti-Mormon publication, but it also required mangling a more recent quote torn from its context. None of this would have been necessary if the point were valid rather than propaganda.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

I wouldn't object. However, doing so would eliminate the intended point of the original graphic, and leave people puzzled over the point of your revised graphic

 

What you and others worshipers of the meme don't seem to understand is that in order to make the point in the original graphic, it required not only calling up an obscure, outdated, second-hand, dubious quote from a newspaper cited in an anti-Mormon publication, but it also required mangling a more recent quote torn from its context. None of this would have been necessary if the point were valid rather than propaganda.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Please don't consider me a "worshiper of the meme".  Nowhere here (or anywhere) have I complimented, shared, or praised that graphic.

 

So what do you think was the point they were making and/or attempting to make with the graphic?

 

I'm just trying to understand the reaction to it.

Edited April 16, 2014 by rockpond

[wenglund]

Please don't consider me a "worshiper of the meme".  Nowhere here (or anywhere) have I complimented, shared, or praised that graphic.

 

Okay...in your case, let me rephrase it to read: "apologists for the meme."

 

So what do you think was the point they were making and/or attempting to make with the graphic?

 

I'm just trying to understand the reaction to it.

 

The point was obvious that: what was said in 1967 by an apostle at General Conference regarding blacks and the priesthood, was also essentially the same thing that was said by an apostle at General Conference regarding women and the priesthood.

 

The point of the graphic was false on several important levels, as awyatt astutely evinced and others have expounded.

 

There ought to be nothing mysterious in the reaction of exposing the falsehood of a misleading graphic.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[T-Shirt]

Frankly, I don't really understand why we are arguing over this.  The problem is that the graphic, in my opinion, is a sloppy, snarky and unfaithful  attempt to make the Church look like hypocrites.  It is bad form.  It completely ignores the fact hat the Church is very consistent in relying on revelation in order to change certain things.  I don't think any faithful member of the Church would take issue if you were to look at this issue with a slightly different perspective.  For example, you could compare the two issues by saying that, just as the issue of the priesthood, in 1978, required a revelation to the president of the Church in order to make the change, the matter of women holding the priesthood today would require the same.  The leaders of the Church, then and now, do not have the authority to make such a change, only the Lord can do it.

 

This graphic was not an attempt to make a statement like this, it was designed to mock and give a twisted and very unfaithful view of what is actually a very logical and consistent message.

Edited April 16, 2014 by T-Shirt

[rockpond]

Okay...in your case, let me rephrase it to read: "apologists for the meme."

 

 

 

 

The point was obvious that: what was said in 1967 by an apostle at General Conference regarding blacks and the priesthood, was also essentially the same thing that was said by an apostle at General Conference regarding women and the priesthood.

 

The point of the graphic was false on several important levels, as awyatt astutely evinced and others have expounded.

 

There ought to be nothing mysterious in the reaction of exposing the falsehood of a misleading graphic.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I'm not an apologist for the meme either.  It's terrible.

 

So which part do you disagree with?  Did prophets and apostles not claim that the priesthood ban was a law of God?  Or, are prophets and apostles not saying that the pattern of giving the priesthood to men only comes from divine decree?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Okay...in your case, let me rephrase it to read: "apologists for the meme."

 

 

 

 

The point was obvious that: what was said in 1967 by an apostle at General Conference regarding blacks and the priesthood, was also essentially the same thing that was said by an apostle at General Conference regarding women and the priesthood.

 

The point of the graphic was false on several important levels, as awyatt astutely evinced and others have expounded.

 

There ought to be nothing mysterious in the reaction of exposing the falsehood of a misleading graphic.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The thing I find interesting is that some people can't see this. I mean it seems very glaringly obvious.

[rockpond]

Frankly, I don't really understand why we are arguing over this.  The problem is that the graphic, in my opinion, is a sloppy, snarky and unfaithful  attempt to make the Church look like hypocrites.  It is bad form.  It completely ignores the fact hat the Church is very consistent in relying on revelation in order to change certain things.  I don't think any faithful member of the Church would take issue if you were to look at this issue with a slightly different perspective.  For example, you could compare the two issues by saying that, just as the issue of the priesthood, in 1978, required a revelation to the president of the Church in order to make the change, the matter of women holding the priesthood today would require the same.  The leaders of the Church, then and now, do not have the authority to make such a change, only the Lord can do it.

 

This graphic was not an attempt to make a statement like this, it was designed to mock and give a twisted and very unfaithful view of what is actually a very logical and consistent message.

 

From a high level, what was "twisted and very unfaithful" about the view that was presented?  Didn't both quotes show that the current/existing priesthood status of blacks/women was from God and could not be altered by men?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm not an apologist for the meme either.  It's terrible.

 

So which part do you disagree with?  Did prophets and apostles not claim that the priesthood ban was a law of God?  Or, are prophets and apostles not saying that the pattern of giving the priesthood to men only comes from divine decree?

Your not an apologist for it? Yet you give out your opinion of what Wade has an issue with on this "meme" and both of them speak directly to the whole point of the meme.

 

Here it is again

The point was obvious that: what was said in 1967 by an apostle at General Conference regarding blacks and the priesthood, was also essentially the same thing that was said by an apostle at General Conference regarding women and the priesthood.

 

I would wager quite a bit of money that Wade is going to say, "Neither".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

From a high level, what was "twisted and very unfaithful" about the view that was presented?  Didn't both quotes show that the current/existing priesthood status of blacks/women was from God and could not be altered by men?

Nope.

[rockpond]

Nope.

 

So if the quotes didn't say that the current/existing priesthood status of blacks/women was from God and could not be altered by men what do they say?

 

I'm honestly struggling with what you and Wade see in these quotes.  Both seem to accurately represent our doctrines from the respective times so what in the quotes themselves do you disagree with?  Or do you completely agree with the text in the quotes and just disagree with placing them side-by-side with the pics & incorrect parenthetical notation?

[wenglund]

I'm not an apologist for the meme either.  It's terrible.

 

So which part do you disagree with?  Did prophets and apostles not claim that the priesthood ban was a law of God?  Or, are prophets and apostles not saying that the pattern of giving the priesthood to men only comes from divine decree?

 

Sorry, I am disinclined to search for useful items in a garbage dump.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[T-Shirt]

From a high level, what was "twisted and very unfaithful" about the view that was presented?  

It completely (and in my opinion, intentionally) ignores the nature of priesthood keys and what men who hold them can and cannot do.

 

Didn't both quotes show that the current/existing priesthood status of blacks/women was from God and could not be altered by men?

 

No.  The message they are trying to make is that since leaders, in the past, have made the claim that they cannot change something, and then went  ahead and made the change anyway (implying that the Church caved and their previous statements had no value) then any statement given today about making another change can be ignored and treated as hypocrisy and if pressure is continually applied, the Church will cave again.  It is a twisted and unfaithful message, ignoring the purpose and nature of priesthood keys.

Edited April 16, 2014 by T-Shirt

[rockpond]

Sorry, I am disinclined to search for useful items in a garbage dump.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

And there's the dilemma ... the graphic (for all its problems) remains an accurate representation of our doctrine and for some reason (which I'm still trying to understand) that is making people uncomfortable.

[rockpond]

It completely (and in my opinion, intentionally) ignores the nature of priesthood keys and what men who hold them can and cannot do.

 

No.  The message they are trying to make is that since leaders, in the past, have made the claim that they cannot change something, and then went  ahead and made the change anyway, implying that the Church caved and their previous statements had no value, then any statement given today about making another change can be ignored and treated as hypocrisy and if pressure is continually applied, the Church will cave again.  It is a twisted and unfaithful message, ignoring the purpose and nature of priesthood keys.

 

Actually, it seems to emphasize the nature of priesthood keys and what men who hold them can and cannot do.  Both quotes emphasize that men could not and cannot change the priesthood status of blacks and women.

 

Was it the leaders that made the change in 1978 or was it the Lord through revelation?  I thought it was the latter.

 

And since we believe in continuing revelation, isn't it our doctrine that a change with respect to priesthood could occur in the future?  We are, of course, still waiting for the revelation/bestowal of additional priesthood keys (for other matters).

[T-Shirt]

Actually, it seems to emphasize the nature of priesthood keys and what men who hold them can and cannot do.  Both quotes emphasize that men could not and cannot change the priesthood status of blacks and women.

 

Was it the leaders that made the change in 1978 or was it the Lord through revelation?  I thought it was the latter.

 

And since we believe in continuing revelation, isn't it our doctrine that a change with respect to priesthood could occur in the future?  We are, of course, still waiting for the revelation/bestowal of additional priesthood keys (for other matters).

I can't tell if you are arguing for arguments sake or if you really don't get it.  If it is the latter, apparently I can't help you see it any clearer.

[rockpond]

I can't tell if you are arguing for arguments sake or if you really don't get it.  If it is the latter, apparently I can't help you see it any clearer.

 

I'm not arguing.  I'm asking questions.  Did you have answers to the questions in the post that you just responded to?

[MorningStar]

What was deceptive about the graphic?

 

1.  It appears to be a side by side comparision of what one leader said in General Conference years ago and what another leader said recently.  It's not.  The first one is not a General Conference quote and it's from an unreliable source.

 

2.  The inserted bracket in Elder Oaks' quote is incorrect.  The "they" is not referring to women.

[rockpond]

1.  It appears to be a side by side comparision of what one leader said in General Conference years ago and what another leader said recently.  It's not.  The first one is not a General Conference quote and it's from an unreliable source.

 

2.  The inserted bracket in Elder Oaks' quote is incorrect.  The "they" is not referring to women.

 

I agree with both points (with one exception:  I don't see any reason to believe that the source for Pres. Tanner's quote is "unreliable").

 

So, with that agreement on the deceptive part of the graphic, is there anything in the actual quotes that is not consistent with our doctrinal positions for then and now?

[JDave]

And there's the dilemma ... the graphic (for all its problems) remains an accurate representation of our doctrine and for some reason (which I'm still trying to understand) that is making people uncomfortable.

While I don't agree with the intent or all of the content (seriously, they couldn't have written "[We] are not free to..."???), I don't think that the picture is as misleading as some are claiming.

[Danzo]

I agree with both points (with one exception:  I don't see any reason to believe that the source for Pres. Tanner's quote is "unreliable").

 

So, with that agreement on the deceptive part of the graphic, is there anything in the actual quotes that is not consistent with our doctrinal positions for then and now?

 

Maybe Pres Tanner said it, Maybe he didn't.

 

However, Since he didn't say it in general conference and didn't say it in an official publication, he wasn't speaking for or to the church in general at that time. 

 

Since the two weren't both statements for the church (Elder Oak's statement, President tanner's wasn't) , the comparison is misleading. 

[Danzo]

While I don't agree with the intent or all of the content (seriously, they couldn't have written "[We] are not free to..."???), I don't think that the picture is as misleading as some are claiming.

 

By inserting [women] they were implying a conflict that wasn't in the original quote.  That is misleading (probably intentionally so).