phaedrus ut Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 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 don't see any reason to believe the source is unreliable. The 1969 official statement from the First Presidency, signed by N. Eldon Tanner said:From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.
Danzo Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 I don't see any reason to believe the source is unreliable. The 1969 official statement from the First Presidency, signed by N. Eldon Tanner said:why didn't they use that quote then, and not change the quote from elder oaks? 1
MorningStar Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) I don't see any reason to believe the source is unreliable. The 1969 official statement from the First Presidency, signed by N. Eldon Tanner said:Were not yet to hold the priesthood, implying that they someday would. The quote in the graphic does not imply that. The graphic is basically trying to say, "Look, the church once said that blacks would never hold the priesthood and now we have a leader saying women won't hold the priesthood, but since the church was wrong about the first one, then Elder Oaks is probably wrong too." It's misleading. Edited April 16, 2014 by MorningStar 1
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 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. President Tanner's quote wasn't to the church but does it misrepresent our doctrine of the time?
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 Were not yet to hold the priesthood, implying that they someday would. The quote in the graphic does not imply that. The graphic is basically trying to say, "Look, the church once said that blacks would never hold the priesthood and now we have a leader saying women won't hold the priesthood, but since the church was wrong about the first one, then Elder Oaks is probably wrong too." It's misleading. Well the church has admitted that it's leaders were wrong about the priesthood ban. Does that mean that Elder Oaks is probably wrong too? Or does it just mean that we believe in continuing revelation? And if we do, the graphic is correct in suggesting that men, women, even priesthood leadership cannot make the change.
Danzo Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 President Tanner's quote wasn't to the church but does it misrepresent our doctrine of the time? yes, I think it does (since , they were trying to seek guidance and they actually were trying to change the practice at the time) What do you think of them deliberately distorting elder oaks to create a conflict that wasn't in the original talk? The author of the info graphic was deliberately choose confrontational and inflammatory quotes. (one quote wasn't from an official forum of the church, the other was intentionally doctored to create controversy)
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 yes, I think it does (since , they were trying to seek guidance and they actually were trying to change the practice at the time) What do you think of them deliberately distorting elder oaks to create a conflict that wasn't in the original talk? The author of the info graphic was deliberately choose confrontational and inflammatory quotes. (one quote wasn't from an official forum of the church, the other was intentionally doctored to create controversy) CFR that they were "trying to seek guidance and they actually were trying to change the practice" in 1967. I think it was inappropriate to take Elder Oaks' statement out of context and insert "women" into the quote. Interestingly though, the statement is still consistent with our current doctrine whether the "they" refers to men, women, or the apostles. My point is this: the graphic misrepresents the statement of Elder Oaks and it possibly misrepresents the statement of President Tanner (by making it appear that he said it in Gen Con) but if you dismiss that controversy, the quotes themselves are accurate representations of our doctrine in the years in which they were said. So if we are upset at the graphic, it could at least partially be a result of being uncomfortable with some of our own teachings. Which then makes us ponder the question -- were those teachings wrong and if so, what precisely is the role of a prophet, seer, and revelator. Interesting stuff to ponder. IMO. Which is why the reaction to this graphic is so interesting to me.
T-Shirt Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 CFR that they were "trying to seek guidance and they actually were trying to change the practice" in 1967. I think it was inappropriate to take Elder Oaks' statement out of context and insert "women" into the quote. Interestingly though, the statement is still consistent with our current doctrine whether the "they" refers to men, women, or the apostles. My point is this: the graphic misrepresents the statement of Elder Oaks and it possibly misrepresents the statement of President Tanner (by making it appear that he said it in Gen Con) but if you dismiss that controversy, the quotes themselves are accurate representations of our doctrine in the years in which they were said. So if we are upset at the graphic, it could at least partially be a result of being uncomfortable with some of our own teachings. Which then makes us ponder the question -- were those teachings wrong and if so, what precisely is the role of a prophet, seer, and revelator. Interesting stuff to ponder. IMO. Which is why the reaction to this graphic is so interesting to me.I am no longer unsure of your motive, you clearly still don't get it. 2
awyatt Posted April 16, 2014 Author Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) 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. Anti-Mormons often use the N. Eldon Tanner quote for various purposes, none of which is to provide "an accurate representation of our doctrine." In my blog post I pointed out that whoever created the graphic pulled the quote not from the original, but from anti-Mormon sources. Consider that for a moment: the quote came from anti-Mormon sources. In other words, the creator of the graphic felt enough trust in the source where he or she read the quote that he or she accepted it, without reservation, and made the graphic less than 12 hours after Elder Oaks' address in priesthood meeting. Had the creator's purpose been to provide "an accurate representation of our doctrine," would they have been so quick to accept, as authoritative, a quote from a source they should have intrinsically questioned? At a very minimum they should have done some "fact checking" to make sure that a source diametrically opposed to the efforts of the Church was "getting it right." But they didn't; the timeline doesn't allow them to have done so. Now, combine that with the fact that they misrepresented what Elder Oaks said (by getting the antecedent to "they" incorrect) and one can reasonably question whether their purpose in creating the graphic was "an accurate representation of our doctrine." So, yeah. I am uncomfortable with the graphic solely because of the things they got wrong and their willingness to accept, at face value, cherry-picked quotes that--at least in the minds of the anti-Mormons sources who wield them--put the Church in a bad light. Does that help with your understanding? -Allen (PS: I'm not saying that the creator of the graphic is an anti-Mormon. There is not enough information provided to make such a determination. I am saying, however, that they accepted uncritically information provided through anti-Mormon sources. The sources we choose to trust says a lot, doesn't it?) Edited April 16, 2014 by awyatt 2
Danzo Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 CFR that they were "trying to seek guidance and they actually were trying to change the practice" in 1967. http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Lifting_the_ban
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Lifting_the_ban President Tanner is not mentioned in the article. What evidence do you have that he was working on lifting the ban along with Pres. McKay? Or had knowledge of President McKay's belief that it was a practice, not a doctrine?
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 I am no longer unsure of your motive, you clearly still don't get it. It doesn't appear that you get it either. But what do you believe is my motive?
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 Anti-Mormons often use the N. Eldon Tanner quote for various purposes, none of which is to provide "an accurate representation of our doctrine." In my blog post I pointed out that whoever created the graphic pulled the quote not from the original, but from anti-Mormon sources. Consider that for a moment: the quote came from anti-Mormon sources. In other words, the creator of the graphic felt enough trust in the source where he or she read the quote that he or she accepted it, without reservation, and made the graphic less than 12 hours after Elder Oaks' address in priesthood meeting. Had the creator's purpose been to provide "an accurate representation of our doctrine," would they have been so quick to accept, as authoritative, a quote from a source they should have intrinsically questioned? At a very minimum they should have done some "fact checking" to make sure that a source diametrically opposed to the efforts of the Church was "getting it right." But they didn't; the timeline doesn't allow them to have done so. Now, combine that with the fact that they misrepresented what Elder Oaks said (by getting the antecedent to "they" incorrect) and one can reasonably question whether their purpose in creating the graphic was "an accurate representation of our doctrine." So, yeah. I am uncomfortable with the graphic solely because of the things they got wrong and their willingness to accept, at face value, cherry-picked quotes that--at least in the minds of the anti-Mormons sources who wield them--put the Church in a bad light. Does that help with your understanding? -Allen (PS: I'm not saying that the creator of the graphic is an anti-Mormon. There is not enough information provided to make such a determination. I am saying, however, that they accepted uncritically information provided through anti-Mormon sources. The sources we choose to trust says a lot, doesn't it?) I understand all of that. But the text itself, standing alone from the sources of the quotes, is still an accurate representation of our doctrine. If it is not, please tell me what is not accurate. And if it is accurate, why does it put the Church in a bad light?
Danzo Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 President Tanner is not mentioned in the article. What evidence do you have that he was working on lifting the ban along with Pres. McKay? Or had knowledge of President McKay's belief that it was a practice, not a doctrine? The quote was "the church has no intentention . . ." not "President Tanner has no intention . . ." We have established that the quote wasn't made in conference or through a church publication so his personal part in the process is irrelevant
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 I understand all of that. But the text itself, standing alone from the sources of the quotes, is still an accurate representation of our doctrine. If it is not, please tell me what is not accurate. And if it is accurate, why does it put the Church in a bad light?What makes you think that it is accurate?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 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?Lets just get this out of the way. Lets assume the quote is accurate 100%. It appears to be at odds with previous statements made by other leaders. Also the fact that it was made at a Stake Conference is a huge deal. That in and of it's self puts what ever he said as "just his opinion".
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 The quote was "the church has no intentention . . ." not "President Tanner has no intention . . ." We have established that the quote wasn't made in conference or through a church publication so his personal part in the process is irrelevant So, you have no knowledge that President Tanner was aware of attempts to change the race policy of the church but it is okay for you to suggest that he did and that therefore the magazine likely misquoted him? Is that the position you are taking?
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 What makes you think that it is accurate? Because it is consistent with what had been taught by other leaders of the time. What makes you think it is inaccurate?
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 Lets just get this out of the way. Lets assume the quote is accurate 100%. It appears to be at odds with previous statements made by other leaders. Also the fact that it was made at a Stake Conference is a huge deal. That in and of it's self puts what ever he said as "just his opinion". So, where does an apostle need to be speaking for his words to not be "just his opinion"? And how is the statement at odds with previous statements made by other leaders?
Senator Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) 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. I'm leaning in agreement with this. Though I question your motives?????? Edited April 16, 2014 by Senator 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 President Tanner's quote wasn't to the church but does it misrepresent our doctrine of the time?Taken on it's own, it is almost a meaningless quote. I am not sure the context and I don't know what he was talking about. Looking at the graphic. with the 2 together and no other context. Elder Tanner was wrong. As it had been spoken that at some point blacks would get the priesthood. It would be foolish for anyone to think this graphic is good in any way and that it is accurate. But since I cannot verify the quote and I have 0 context, really, no one can answer your question. What is the intent of what he said?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) So, where does an apostle need to be speaking for his words to not be "just his opinion"? And how is the statement at odds with previous statements made by other leaders?1.Where do you think? It should be obvious. 2. Previous post explains it. Edited April 16, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 1.Where do you think? It should be obvious. 2. Previous post explains it. I don't think it's obvious. How does the previous post explain where an apostle has to be speaking for it not to be considered his opinion?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 I don't think it's obvious. How does the previous post explain where an apostle has to be speaking for it not to be considered his opinion?You are being obtuse. Sorry. Figure it out.
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 Taken on it's own, it is almost a meaningless quote. I am not sure the context and I don't know what he was talking about. Looking at the graphic. with the 2 together and no other context. Elder Tanner was wrong. As it had been spoken that at some point blacks would get the priesthood. It would be foolish for anyone to think this graphic is good in any way and that it is accurate. But since I cannot verify the quote and I have 0 context, really, no one can answer your question. What is the intent of what he said? So, making the assumption that he did actually say it (and he may not have), you are saying that the part that was wrong was when he said that the church had not intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro?
Recommended Posts