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

[omni]

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.

 

No, my point is that they clearly were wrong about priesthood eligibility.

[omni]

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.

 

Here, here!

[Calm]

No, my point is that they clearly were wrong about priesthood eligibility.

If it was a law of God at the time that no blacks could hold the priesthood, it would be up to God to remove it…which he did as explained in OD2.  So I don't see where the alleged quote is wrong in that fashion.  The quote did not say it would never change as far as I can tell.

 

From what I've read, church leadership had no intention of changing the doctrine themselves.  They left that up to God though they did ask him about it.  Apparently in the past according the answer had been "no" or "not yet".

 

I would not be surprised to find out that the same has happened currently with the priesthood for women.

Edited April 16, 2014 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

It's not saying President Tanner was wrong.

 

I agree with those who have pointed out that an old quote from an obscure regional publication is a very tenuous thing on which to base a conclusion.

 

And you're ignoring the obvious point that there was always the expectation that men of African descent would one day receive the priesthood. That has never been so much as hinted at by anyone in authority with regard to the ordaining of women.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

It's not saying President Tanner was wrong.

 

I agree with those who have pointed out that an old quote from an obscure regional publication is a very tenuous thing on which to base a conclusion.

If it is consistent with how the doctrine was taught, my question is why was it necessary to use an obscure quote from an anti-mormon source that had nothing to do with conference when there surely must be similar comments, possibly even in conference.  Why didn't the memewriter go looking for something on lds.org?  Why was the first stop an anti-mormon site?  (assuming of course that there are options on lds.org that would have worked for him, if there weren't and if an anti-mormon site was the only option, then that says a lot about the credibility of the alleged Elder Tanner quote).

[Scott Lloyd]

If it is consistent with how the doctrine was taught, my question is why was it necessary to use an obscure quote from an anti-mormon source that had nothing to do with conference when there surely must be similar comments, possibly even in conference.  Why didn't the memewriter go looking for something on lds.org?  Why was the first stop an anti-mormon site?  (assuming of course that there are options on lds.org that would have worked for him, if there weren't and if an anti-mormon site was the only option, then that says a lot about the credibility of the alleged Elder Tanner quote).

Indeed!

 

Moreover, if this is consistent with how the doctrine was taught back then, let those who say so come forward now with better, more authoritative examples.

[omni]

If it was a law of God at the time that no blacks could hold the priesthood, it would be up to God to remove it…which he did as explained in OD2.  So I don't see where the alleged quote is wrong in that fashion.  The quote did not say it would never change as far as I can tell.

 

From what I've read, church leadership had no intention of changing the doctrine themselves.  They left that up to God though they did ask him about it.  Apparently in the past according the answer had been "no" or "not yet".

 

I would not be surprised to find out that the same has happened currently with the priesthood for women.

 

 

This was the original quote (bold mine):

 

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.”

 

 

Remember he was speaking to a primarily non-Mormon audience when he said this.  Do you think the average person of reasonable intelligence would infer from this statement that the priesthood ban was only temporary?  Technically, if this were brought to court a lawyer could argue, that President Tanner "never said never".  However if this was his intention, why didn't he just clarify and say the priesthood would one day be given to the "negro".  President Tanner was an intelligent man, surly he would have understood this.

[omni]

Indeed!

 

Moreover, if this is consistent with how the doctrine was taught back then, let those who say so come forward now with better, more authoritative examples.

 

 

I posted this quote from Elder McConkie earlier:

 

 

 

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, 'You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?' All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

"It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles."

 

 

[MorningStar]

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.

Did Elder Tanner say blacks would "never" have the priesthood or did he say they didn't have it yet?  What does that mean?  He said they didn't have it yet. Elder Oaks never made any comment that women don't have the priesthood "yet". 

[omni]

Did Elder Tanner say blacks would "never" have the priesthood or did he say they didn't have it yet?  What does that mean?  He said they didn't have it yet. Elder Oaks never made any comment that women don't have the priesthood "yet". 

 

Here is the quote, he never says "yet".

 

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.”

 

[MorningStar]

Here is the quote, he never says "yet".

I'm not talking about the graphic quote that is questionable.  I'm talking about the non-questionable one that was quoted later in the thread, which reflects what he actually had to say about it. 

[Stargazer]

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?

 

I presume they could have misquoted him, or even manufactured it from thin air.  It's also possible that they recorded him verbatim.  In 1969 or 70 I watched a BBC documentary about the LDS Church that titled oddly in several different directions, some of which may have been intentionally slanted and there were aspects of the presentation that were obviously intended to put the church in a bad light.  I don't trust news outlets to be neutral about controversial topics, rockpond.  Do you understand why?

 

As to the rest of your comment, it was my understanding, way back when, that the policy would not be changed until the Lord said to change it.  President Tanner's statement as given in the magazine certainly seems consistent with that.  I do believe we had a similar policy about plural marriage.

[omni]

It's not saying President Tanner was wrong.

 

 

 

Dan's quote that you used said that the statement (if properly quoted) contradicted other prophets, implying that President Tanner was wrong.

 

I agree with those who have pointed out that an old quote from an obscure regional publication is a very tenuous thing on which to base a conclusion.

 

 

 

 

Odd that a member of the First Presidency would give an interview to "an obscure regional publication", and apparently one with dubious credibility.

 

And you're ignoring the obvious point that there was always the expectation that men of African descent would one day receive the priesthood. That has never been so much as hinted at by anyone in authority with regard to the ordaining of women.

 

 

See CaliforniaBoy's post concerning BY's prophesy on the matter.

[rockpond]

Indeed!

Moreover, if this is consistent with how the doctrine was taught back then, let those who say so come forward now with better, more authoritative examples.

See the Elder McConkie quote provided by Omni. I know you are familiar with the teachings, so what do you feel is wrong with the alleged Pres Tanner quote?

[Rain]

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.”

 

 

My understand was that some blacks held the priesthood in the 1830s.  Is this true?  I really don't have much historical learning about this. Was it well known in President Tanner's time?  Could that be something that would prove the quote untrue?

[sdc999]

Not sure of the authority my MIL has in the church, but she is true blue Mormon to the bone (although she doesn't attend because she is older and someone once offended her at church), the same wonderful MIL who wouldn't let words pass through her lips to me (7 months)  because I had "conned" her daughter and grandchildren into leaving the church; the same MIL who really does make the best Banana Pudding in the world - still to this day, unapologetically, states that the "negro" should still not hold the priesthood nor marry nor date a white woman.  

 

I don't believe the church will change their view on women and the priesthood for mere kicks, but I do believe if it ever came down to a legal issue, the church would enact continuing revelation and all would be righteous in the kingdom again.

[rockpond]

My understand was that some blacks held the priesthood in the 1830s. Is this true? I really don't have much historical learning about this. Was it well known in President Tanner's time? Could that be something that would prove the quote untrue?

That is correct, Joseph Smith allowed blacks to receive the priesthood. That policy changed under Brigham Young. We don't know why.

[rockpond]

Not sure of the authority my MIL has in the church, but she is true blue Mormon to the bone (although she doesn't attend because she is older and someone once offended her at church), the same wonderful MIL who wouldn't let words pass through her lips to me (7 months) because I had "conned" her daughter and grandchildren into leaving the church; the same MIL who really does make the best Banana Pudding in the world - still to this day, unapologetically, states that the "negro" should still not hold the priesthood nor marry nor date a white woman.

I don't believe the church will change their view on women and the priesthood for mere kicks, but I do believe if it ever came down to a legal issue, the church would enact continuing revelation and all would be righteous in the kingdom again.

Brigham Young taught that the punishment for interracial marriage was death. And that this would always be so. But, as it turns out, BY was wrong about a number of things.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Indeed!

 

Moreover, if this is consistent with how the doctrine was taught back then, let those who say so come forward now with better, more authoritative examples.

 

 

Elder Peterson at BYU in 1954: 

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the lord in sending him to earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin.... In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory. He will not go then even with the honorable men of the earth to the Terrestrial glory, nor with the ones spoken of as being without law.

 

 

1949 First Presidency statement: 

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.

 

 

Elder McConkie Mormon Doctrine 1958:

Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abr. 1:20-27) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them (Moses 7:8, 12, 22), although sometimes negroes search out the truth, join the Church, and become by righteous living heirs of the celestial kingdom of heaven. President Brigham Young and others have taught that in the future eternity worthy and qualified negroes will receive the priesthood and every gospel blessing available to any man.

 

Just a couple, though none as late as 1967.

Edited for formatting.

Edited April 17, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Have you seen the graphic that started popping up the Sunday morning of general conference? It's the one that compares N. Eldon Tanner's words to those of Dallin H. Oaks.

 

 

It was quoted in a story in The Atlantic, where the reporter noted that it's message is "poignant."

 

I decided to do a little historical research and analysis on the quotes. Be interested in any take on the topic that some might have.

 

-Allen

These are two completely different things. President Tanner was merely speaking of an ill conceived policy started by BY (which was also done in almost every other church in America)...Elder Oaks is speaking of a doctrinal issue that has been in place since the Garden of Eden. Also, the denial of the Priesthood to Black men, was by it's nature seeking to elevate white men above other races. The policy of the Priesthood does not elevate men above women...if anything it makes us equal to their already deserved status.

[rockpond]

These are two completely different things. President Tanner was merely speaking of an ill conceived policy started by BY (which was also done in almost every other church in America)...Elder Oaks is speaking of a doctrinal issue that has been in place since the Garden of Eden. Also, the denial of the Priesthood to Black men, was by it's nature seeking to elevate white men above other races. The policy of the Priesthood does not elevate men above women...if anything it makes us equal to their already deserved status.

PaPa -- I think you've done a fantastic job here of illustrating the thought process the graphic is trying to convey.

[Calm]

she is true blue Mormon to the bone

I always thought that part of being True Blue Mormon to the bone was to sustain the idea of continuing revelation including to one's leaders.

[Daniel Peterson]

I always thought that part of being True Blue Mormon to the bone was to sustain the idea of continuing revelation including to one's leaders.

 

10!

[MorningStar]

I always thought that part of being True Blue Mormon to the bone was to sustain the idea of continuing revelation including to one's leaders.

Word to your mutha!

[Pahoran]

PaPa -- I think you've done a fantastic job here of illustrating the thought process the graphic is trying to convey.

 

Oh, you think the graphic is "trying to convey" the idea that the former Priesthood ban and the current male ordination doctrine are completely unlike each other, and that the ending of one has no relevance to the other?

 

Because if so, I don't think it is "trying to convey" any such thing.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Regards,

Pahoran