rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 You are being obtuse. Sorry. Figure it out. I'm being obtuse? You stated that what an apostle says in stake conference is just his opinion. I asked where they need to be speaking for it not to be an opinion. You refused to answer that question. I think that unless the Spirit testifies to someone, they (of necessity) must consider statements to be opinion, regardless of where the apostle happens to be standing when they speak. What do you think?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 I'm leaning in agreement with this. Though I question your motives??????I am going further than you. I think this graphic is a perfect illustration of the hypocrisy of the church. I think if we showed it to the GA's they would see the error in their ways and give women the priesthood.
awyatt Posted April 16, 2014 Author 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? None of us live in a vacuum. You may want to divorce the use of the quotes from the source, but that seems, to me, unrealistic. Do you have evidence that the creator of the graphic had in mind "an accurate representation of our doctrine?" If you do not, it seems that you are constructing a very nice deflective straw man to pull focus away from the graphic's creators (which was my focus in the post) and onto Tanner and Oaks.
Senator Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 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? 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.
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 None of us live in a vacuum. You may want to divorce the use of the quotes from the source, but that seems, to me, unrealistic. Do you have evidence that the creator of the graphic had in mind "an accurate representation of our doctrine?" If you do not, it seems that you are constructing a very nice deflective straw man to pull focus away from the graphic's creators (which was my focus in the post) and onto Tanner and Oaks. No, I don't believe that the creator of the graphic had an accurate representation of our doctrine. You'll note from my posts, that I am actually trying to pull the focus away from the graphic's creator AND away from President Tanner & Elder Oaks. I am more interested in the underlying doctrine that's either there or not there and what we could learn from it. I apologize if that has pull the thread away from your original post. But, it does seem that most here agree with your blog post that the graphic is deceptive (myself included).
Danzo Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 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? Whether the quote was accurate or not is not relevant. You were asking if the quote was accurate as to what the church believed. I said (the first part at least) was not. I provided evidence that it was not. What is the problem?
Senator Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 (edited) I think this graphic is a perfect illustration of the hypocrisy of the church. . I think it is more of an attempt to show an historical precedence for a present situation. Hypocrisy? Not so much. Edited April 16, 2014 by Senator 1
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 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. I agree. And I think that is the message of those quotes.
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 Whether the quote was accurate or not is not relevant. You were asking if the quote was accurate as to what the church believed. I said (the first part at least) was not. I provided evidence that it was not. What is the problem? Fair enough. So the inaccuracy with respect to our doctrine is that the quote didn't clarify the current understanding at that time that Blacks would someday receive the Priesthood. 1
Pahoran Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 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." Now Calboy. I love how you anti-Mormons can turn a partial difference into an outright "contradiction." Brigham said a number of things. Your lot always select that one because it looks the most useful for you. But even that affirms that Blacks would one day receive the Priesthood. It merely differs as to the conditions under which it would happen. By contrast, there are absolutely no statements, by any top-level Church leader in any generation, to the effect that we would someday start ordaining women. Or -- for that matter -- performing "same sex marriages." The notion that the Church is about to cave in on either of those fronts is a pipe dream. Regards, Pahoran
Pahoran Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 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? Really? You really don't get it? If you say so. Then I'll explain it to you. The message of the graphic is as follows: "They said before something couldn't be changed. A few years later, they changed it. Now they're saying something else can't be changed. How long do you think it will take them to change this one as well?" That's what the graphic is for. It's to encourage the MINO's to imagine that if they just keep up the "protests," the Church will eventually cave in. It relies upon consciously and intentionally misrepresenting the alleged Tanner quote as an authoritative and official statement. That's why the photo shows him standing at the pulpit in General Conference. It further relies upon consciously and intentionally misrepresenting the actual content of the Oaks quote. Is that all clear? Now, at long last? Regards, Pahoran 1
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 Now Calboy. I love how you anti-Mormons can turn a partial difference into an outright "contradiction."Brigham said a number of things. Your lot always select that one because it looks the most useful for you.But even that affirms that Blacks would one day receive the Priesthood.It merely differs as to the conditions under which it would happen.By contrast, there are absolutely no statements, by any top-level Church leader in any generation, to the effect that we would someday start ordaining women.Or -- for that matter -- performing "same sex marriages."The notion that the Church is about to cave in on either of those fronts is a pipe dream.Regards,Pahoran So continuing revelation is contingent upon having made a previous statement that could be interpreted to allow for a specific revelation? Got a source for that?
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 Really? You really don't get it?If you say so.Then I'll explain it to you.The message of the graphic is as follows: "They said before something couldn't be changed. A few years later, they changed it. Now they're saying something else can't be changed. How long do you think it will take them to change this one as well?"That's what the graphic is for.It's to encourage the MINO's to imagine that if they just keep up the "protests," the Church will eventually cave in.It relies upon consciously and intentionally misrepresenting the alleged Tanner quote as an authoritative and official statement. That's why the photo shows him standing at the pulpit in General Conference.It further relies upon consciously and intentionally misrepresenting the actual content of the Oaks quote.Is that all clear?Now, at long last?Regards,Pahoran But that principle (I bolded it in your quote above) is the principle of continuing revelation. By nature of our belief in a living prophet, our doctrine is provisional and heuristic. I embrace that. Does that make me a "MINO"?
Pahoran 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"). Let's see. We have a context-free, incomplete quote (and yes, there is simply no question that it is incomplete) in a magazine. Even if we assume that it is a perfect verbatim rendering of what President Tanner said, we've got no idea what may or may not be missing therefrom. It is unreliable at least in that it is not sufficient to support any conclusions. At all. News magazines are not accepted sources of LDS doctrine. This is not controversial. At all. Regards, Pahoran 2
wenglund Posted April 16, 2014 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. There is a point at which confirmation bias becomes so pronounced as to make reasoned discussion virtually impossible. This statement from you reminds me once again that you have not only reached but yet again exceeded that point like no one with whom I have ever interacted. So, I will simply disagree and leave it at that. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited April 16, 2014 by wenglund 3
Scott Lloyd Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 Regarding rockpond's obstinate insistence that the dubious Tanner quote "is an accurate representation of our doctrine" pre-1978 or otherwise, I think Daniel Peterson said it well in his very recent blog post on this topic: And, anyway, if President Tanner really said that people of black African descent would never receive the priesthood, he was (or, perhaps better, would have been) contradicting several modern prophets, including Brigham Young. Are there any prophets or apostles on record as predicting the eventual ordination of women?
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 Regarding rockpond's obstinate insistence that the dubious Tanner quote "is an accurate representation of our doctrine" pre-1978 or otherwise, I think Daniel Peterson said it well in his very recent blog post on this topic: President Tanner's quote (if it is his) does not suggest that those of African descent would never receive the priesthood. It only says that the church has no intention of changing its doctrine. Which I still contend is consistent with the knowledge & beliefs at the time that since the doctrine was that at some point in the future blacks would receive the priesthood. President McKay seemed confident that neither he nor the apostles (aka "the church" leadership) could change it. Only that the Lord could through revelation. Two years after the alleged quote, President Tanner was still standing by that doctrine per the 1969 First Presidency letter... including that they would receive the priesthood at some future point.
Senator Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 Rockpond, Let me just chime in and say that if for nothing else, I give you an "A+" for your respectable demeanor in this discussion.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 But that principle (I bolded it in your quote above) is the principle of continuing revelation. By nature of our belief in a living prophet, our doctrine is provisional and heuristic. I embrace that. Does that make me a "MINO"?No it is not. Good grief. I am with Wade on this one. See you.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 Rockpond, Let me just chime in and say that if for nothing else, I give you an "A+" for your respectable demeanor in this discussion.You should also give him an A+ because you agree with him too.
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 Rockpond, Let me just chime in and say that if for nothing else, I give you an "A+" for your respectable demeanor in this discussion. Thanks.
Senator Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 You should also give him an A+ because you agree with him too. Does that make me a bad guy?
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 No it is not. Good grief. I am with Wade on this one. See you. I've tried to answer every question posed to me. A courtesy that was not returned to me. And yet I'm the obstinate & obtuse person here.
omni Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 Regarding rockpond's obstinate insistence that the dubious Tanner quote "is an accurate representation of our doctrine" pre-1978 or otherwise, I think Daniel Peterson said it well in his very recent blog post on this topic: This was the point of the meme, to show that if President Tanner can be wrong concerning priesthood eligibility, who's to say Elder Oaks isn't wrong too.
rockpond Posted April 16, 2014 Posted April 16, 2014 This was the point of the meme, to show that if President Tanner can be wrong concerning priesthood eligibility, who's to say Elder Oaks isn't wrong too. So is it your position that the prophets and apostles were not wrong concerning priesthood eligibility? Because they were - that's well documented now. What that means is up for interpretation.
Recommended Posts