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

[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, it just so happens that the expression "continuing revelation" can be used in two ways. (Possibly more, but for the purposes of this discussion, two will do.)

There is the way believing Latter-day Saints use it, consistent with Article of Faith 9: that God will continue to reveal his will to his prophets.

Then there is the way sarcastic and cynical others might use it, such as sdc999, above; in which "continuing revelation" really means continuing "revelation" (nudge, wink, snicker) in which the Church levers itself out of trouble whenever convenient.

For that reason, I'd like you to tell us what you mean by that phrase.

This is not a trick question. I don't find equivocation particularly useful, so I'd just like to know what it means to you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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.

"Enact continuing revelation." Charming.

Clearly you take the most cynical view possible of what "continuing revelation" actually means.

But we don't need to dwell on that. The question I have for you is: In what plausibly free society would Priesthood ordination "ever [come] down to a legal issue?"

Inquiring minds, and all that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[rockpond]

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

You'll note that I said "illustrating the thought process".

Is it an I'll conceived policy instituted by man or a law of God divinely decreed?

[rockpond]

Rockpond, it just so happens that the expression "continuing revelation" can be used in two ways. (Possibly more, but for the purposes of this discussion, two will do.)

There is the way believing Latter-day Saints use it, consistent with Article of Faith 9: that God will continue to reveal his will to his prophets.

Then there is the way sarcastic and cynical others might use it, such as sdc999, above; in which "continuing revelation" really means continuing "revelation" (nudge, wink, snicker) in which the Church levers itself out of trouble whenever convenient.

For that reason, I'd like you to tell us what you mean by that phrase.

This is not a trick question. I don't find equivocation particularly useful, so I'd just like to know what it means to you.

Regards,

Pahoran

I use it in the non-cynical Article of Faith 9 way.

[CV75]

Is it an I'll conceived policy instituted by man or a law of God divinely decreed?

The correct answer to this question of ordination has nothing to do with one’s personal belief and how he sustains and applies the answer in his own life. But there is certainly no integrity in using one’s ordination according to a policy that he believes to be ill-conceived; it is no better than not using his ordination according to a law that he believes to be of God.

If someone doesn’t have a personal belief one way or the other on the matter, then he can still use his ordination in good faith (or not, in slothfulness) without judging or contending with those who granted and those who sustain his ordination and its parameters of operation (both general and specific).

If someone for some reason is trying to find out the answer in good faith, he won’t ask amiss (James 4) or presumptively champion against the way things presently are.

[Avatar4321]

I saw this "meme" (although it's really too wordy and obscure to be a "meme") and my impression was that it would take an OD2 type situation for women to get the Priesthood, which everyone seems to agree with.  So I'm not sure what the problem is.

 

Other than the fact that they are making misrepresentations? nothing

[JDave]

 

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??????

While I know Senator was saying that tongue-in-cheek, I just wanted to clarify my motives and thoughts.

I think the picture was ill-conceived and intentionally attempts to erode trust in our current leaders. I do not approve of this message. I also think that the picture is misleading. It has the insertion of [women] into the Oaks quote, which means that somebody purposefully (or with egregious negligence) changed the meaning of the quote to make it sound more inflammatory. There is also a difference between Mormon doctrine on priesthood restrictions due to lineage and the pattern of gender roles within the priesthood. Yes, the lineage restrictions have always been understood to be temporal, and perhaps even temporary. There is no such understanding regarding gender, and all indications are that male-only ordination to the priesthood is the pattern that God intends. I personally feel that this patter will remain as it is, though I understand other faithful saints feel otherwise. They should feel no shame in petitioning the Lord for a change. Making funny memes like this should cause shame, as it is indeed shameful for the reasons I described.

I don't see the need to wave away any and all parallels due to the problems described above. There are parallels. Both times our leaders are claiming that they can't change things without direction from God. Both times there is at least the unspoken understanding that if God wants to change things, He can. Any changes will be within His designs. This overall parallel is actually there and is not misleading. Such a parallel should be put to much better use elsewhere, and I can understand how it might give hope to those hoping for women ordinations. It might even provide good material for a letter to the First Presidency, asking if they might also consider petitioning the Lord.

It is obvious to me that using the actual real parallel in this manner is reprehensible. To imply there is more of a parallel than there is, and to dress it all up in a demeaning and trust-eroding meme picture is shameful. That is the unfortunate power of the picture however. The most destructive lies are the ones that have truths hidden in them. It is harder to see the lie when the truth is so apparent. We can't, however, simply pretend that the truthful part doesn't exist.

[rockpond]

While I know Senator was saying that tongue-in-cheek, I just wanted to clarify my motives and thoughts.

I think the picture was ill-conceived and intentionally attempts to erode trust in our current leaders. I do not approve of this message. I also think that the picture is misleading. It has the insertion of [women] into the Oaks quote, which means that somebody purposefully (or with egregious negligence) changed the meaning of the quote to make it sound more inflammatory. There is also a difference between Mormon doctrine on priesthood restrictions due to lineage and the pattern of gender roles within the priesthood. Yes, the lineage restrictions have always been understood to be temporal, and perhaps even temporary. There is no such understanding regarding gender, and all indications are that male-only ordination to the priesthood is the pattern that God intends. I personally feel that this patter will remain as it is, though I understand other faithful saints feel otherwise. They should feel no shame in petitioning the Lord for a change. Making funny memes like this should cause shame, as it is indeed shameful for the reasons I described.

I don't see the need to wave away any and all parallels due to the problems described above. There are parallels. Both times our leaders are claiming that they can't change things without direction from God. Both times there is at least the unspoken understanding that if God wants to change things, He can. Any changes will be within His designs. This overall parallel is actually there and is not misleading. Such a parallel should be put to much better use elsewhere, and I can understand how it might give hope to those hoping for women ordinations. It might even provide good material for a letter to the First Presidency, asking if they might also consider petitioning the Lord.

It is obvious to me that using the actual real parallel in this manner is reprehensible. To imply there is more of a parallel than there is, and to dress it all up in a demeaning and trust-eroding meme picture is shameful. That is the unfortunate power of the picture however. The most destructive lies are the ones that have truths hidden in them. It is harder to see the lie when the truth is so apparent. We can't, however, simply pretend that the truthful part doesn't exist.

I agree with you for the most part. But I would like to make one clarification to your insightful post: there is no longer any doctrine with respect to lineage restrictions of the priesthood -- all teachings on that have officially been disavowed.

[Danzo]

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.

 

Did he ever execute anyone for interracial marriage?

[CV75]

I can understand how it might give hope to those hoping for women ordinations. It might even provide good material for a letter to the First Presidency, asking if they might also consider petitioning the Lord.

Elder Oaks addressed this consideration when he said: "Whoever exercises priesthood authority [which women do, as explained elsewhere in his talk] should forget about their rights [associated with office*] and concentrate on their responsibilities ...Latter-day Saints surely recognize that qualifying for exaltation is not a matter of asserting rights but a matter of fulfilling responsibilities." So not forgeting about one's perceived and asserted rights is a false and selfish hope.

* Per his previous statement, where he said that keys direct "who will be given the authority of the priesthood, who will hold its offices, and how its rights and powers will be conferred."

Edited April 17, 2014 by CV75

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[rockpond]

Did he ever execute anyone for interracial marriage?

I don't know if it was ever clear if he meant that someone should inflict a "blood atonement" on the perpetrators or if he was saying that a "lightning bolt" (so to speak) would take them out.

But to answer your question, I highly doubt that BY ever executed anyone. His speech paints him as quite a character but I imagine him to be a rather kind-hearted person trying to do what he felt was best for the Saints under his watch.

[Buckeye]

In 1961, in answer to a question about whether blacks had been eligible to receive the Priesthood in the early days of the Church, Harold B. Lee told a missionary audience: "[O]ur enemies and some of our smart boys who have read the encyclopedia by Andrew Jensen hold that up as here's one who did receive the Priesthood and exercise it. But he was ordained improperly. Keep in mind, though, that in the infancy of the Church they didn't understand this clearly, but the Prophet nullified his exercise of the Priesthood promptly" (Record of French East Mission Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, 30 October 1961, quoted in Dennis L. Lythgoe, "Negro Slavery and Mormon Doctrine," The Western Humanities Review 21, no. 4 [Fall 1967]: 336).

 

 

Unfortunately, it appears that lds.org has been infiltrated by church enemies and/or "smart boys."   Darn those smart boys to heck!

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[JDave]

Elder Oaks addressed this consideration when he said: "Whoever exercises priesthood authority [which women do, as explained elsewhere in his talk] should forget about their rights [associated with office*] and concentrate on their responsibilities ...Latter-day Saints surely recognize that qualifying for exaltation is not a matter of asserting rights but a matter of fulfilling responsibilities." So not forgeting about one's perceived and asserted rights is a false and selfish hope.

* Per his previous statement, where he said that keys direct "who will be given the authority of the priesthood, who will hold its offices, and how its rights and powers will be conferred."

Some do take it too far, and Elder Oaks encourages us not to.  However I don't think that writing a letter is necessarily or always mutually exclusive with advice to "forget about their rights and concentrate on their responsibilities".  We are also told to forget ourselves and serve others.  I don't think either injunctive is to literally forget, but rather to place the focus where it belongs.

[frank_jessop]

What is clear, is that Tanner words were in line with the understanding of the Church. Which was the presiding authorities knew and proclaimed that the Priesthood ban was from God and that it was for God to provide the revelation to lift the restriction; i.e. It was the law of God.

Oaks quote, while misrepresented, is true in principle. The principle that it is for God to decide the eligibility requirements for the Priesthood; not a group of woman in the Church, not a co-ed group in the Church, not even the presiding authorities in the Church to decide.

Edited April 17, 2014 by frank_jessop

[JDave]

I agree with you for the most part. But I would like to make one clarification to your insightful post: there is no longer any doctrine with respect to lineage restrictions of the priesthood -- all teachings on that have officially been disavowed.

I thought all the teachings on "why" have been disavowed. 

In any case, the pertinence of my comments is limited to the doctrinal understanding within the church before OD-2.  So you can simply read what I wrote with that understanding if it works better.  McConkie did say to pretty much ignore what was said on the matter before OD-2.

[CV75]

Some do take it too far, and Elder Oaks encourages us not to.  However I don't think that writing a letter is necessarily or always mutually exclusive with advice to "forget about their rights and concentrate on their responsibilities".  We are also told to forget ourselves and serve others.  I don't think either injunctive is to literally forget, but rather to place the focus where it belongs.

But writing a letter asking Elder Oaks and his fellows to pray about changing what he had just said in General Conference is precisely an example of focusing on misperceived rights over actual responsibilities.

[Calm]

But writing a letter asking Elder Oaks and his fellows to pray about changing what he had just said in General Conference is precisely an example of focusing on misperceived rights over actual responsibilities.

That would depend Imo on why they were asking. Abraham sought the blessings of his fathers because he desired greater knowledge and righteousness and to better keep the commandments of God. Even though he was seeking the right, was he concerned about his rights or responsibilities in doing so?

Edited April 17, 2014 by calmoriah

[JDave]

But writing a letter asking Elder Oaks and his fellows to pray about changing what he had just said in General Conference is precisely an example of focusing on misperceived rights over actual responsibilities.

I won't be writing, nor encouraging others to do so.  I just don't see it the same way you do.

 

Also, it wouldn't be "changing what he had just said in General Conference" anyway.  My statement was something about writing a letter to ask them to petition the Lord, which could be done without changing anything that Elder Oaks said in his talk.

[CV75]

I won't be writing, nor encouraging others to do so.  I just don't see it the same way you do.

 

Also, it wouldn't be "changing what he had just said in General Conference" anyway.  My statement was something about writing a letter to ask them to petition the Lord, which could be done without changing anything that Elder Oaks said in his talk.

So you mean someone would write a letter asking the First Presidency and the Twelve to petition the Lord to keep things the same (with regards to ordinantion) as that which Elder Oaks had just said in General Conference?

[CV75]

That would depend Imo on why they were asking. Abraham sought the blessings of his fathers because he desired greater knowledge and righteousness and to better keep the commandments of God. Even though he was seeking the right, was he concerned about his rights or responsibilities in doing so?

Abraham was a man, and seeking that order which had been established from the beginning "according to the appointment of God unto the fathers." Abraham 1:2 speaks of "the right whereunto I should be ordained," not an already-existing right to be ordained that he felt was owed him.

Every member can possess priesthood blessings, power, order, authority and responsibility without being ordained.

[cinepro]

 

, when a member asked Church Historian Joseph Fielding Smith about it in 1955, Elder Smith claimed that Jensen had erred, mixing up the "names and the work done by one man named Abel . . . with the name of the Negro who joined the Church in an early day" (source).

 

 

I just have to say I love that explanation.  If you mix enough faith with enough creativity, anything is possible...

Edited April 17, 2014 by cinepro

[JDave]

So you mean someone would write a letter asking the First Presidency and the Twelve to petition the Lord to keep things the same (with regards to ordinantion) as that which Elder Oaks had just said in General Conference?

No.  Elder Oaks said that they are not free to alter the pattern of male ordinations only.  Elder Oaks did not say that they are not free to ask the Lord to alter the pattern of male ordinations only.  So the Brethren are able to ask that of the Lord without changing a thing in what Elder Oaks said.

 

Elder Oaks basically said "This is the pattern.  We on earth can't change it.  You all would be best off to focus on your responsibilities and not go off the deep end by focusing on desired or presumed rights."  Starting or becoming involved in a crusade for women ordinations sounds like a bad idea and against Elder Oaks' advice.  Expressing heartfelt desires in a letter for petitioning the Lord for women ordinations and (simultaneously) focusing on responsibilities seems to me to not go against Elder Oaks' advice.

[Stone holm]

Thank you for illustrating the problem with bumper-sticker factoids -- they give no depth and help propagate inaccuracies. President Tanner (he was in the First Presidency at the time) was NOT speaking at GC and he was NOT speaking in a stake conference. He was quoted from an interview done with the magazine article's author. The numerous factual errors in the author's article make it hard to believe that President Tanner was quoted accurately. Any nuance that President Tanner may have used would have been stripped out by someone who was "nuance challenged."

 

-Allen

 

What I don't understand is why they used the quote from Pres. Tanner, there are much juicier quotes on the subject from other GAs, seems like they were too lazy to dig in and get some more ill-considered quotes.

[CV75]

No.  Elder Oaks said that they are not free to alter the pattern of male ordinations only.  Elder Oaks did not say that they are not free to ask the Lord to alter the pattern of male ordinations only.  So the Brethren are able to ask that of the Lord without changing a thing in what Elder Oaks said.

 

Elder Oaks basically said "This is the pattern.  We on earth can't change it.  You all would be best off to focus on your responsibilities and not go off the deep end by focusing on desired or presumed rights."  Starting or becoming involved in a crusade for women ordinations sounds like a bad idea and against Elder Oaks' advice.  Expressing heartfelt desires in a letter for petitioning the Lord for women ordinations and (simultaneously) focusing on responsibilities seems to me to not go against Elder Oaks' advice.

Well, it is going against his "advice"! And here is how:

 

“A double minded man is unstable in all his ways (James 1:” The context of this statement relates to the responsibilities laid out in the previous six verses (take special note of verse 7!).

 

Expressing heartfelt desires despite the counsel to “let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord” in a letter for petitioning the Lord for women ordinations when it has been made clear in the latest General Conference talk by Elder Oaks that the “Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood” and (simultaneously) concentrating on their existing responsibilities seems to me quite double-minded and the mark of spiritual unstableness.

 

It is what I said it was: an example of focusing on (mis)perceived rights over actual responsibilities. The heartfelt desire is that the Lord be petitioned for His direction “that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood” to be changed to include women despite the clarification just given in this very recent talk.