Fiona Givens speculates that Joseph Smith gave Priesthood Keys to women?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

One can be "set apart" by laying of hands to perform ordinances.

A phone call from a stake president to a high councilor can confer the president's authority to perform ordinances which typically only the stake president can perform

Honestly, to me, the difference between conferring authority, even if temporary, and ordaining, is pretty darn blurry.

What's the difference between "Having authority..." and "Under proper authority...."  ?   There IS a difference, but practically speaking..... not much.  ALL authority is delegated, even the Savior's authority is delegated authority.

That's why it's called "authority"- it operates under "AUTHORized" delegation.

And that is how female temple-workers perform ordinances.  Which ordinances they perform varies from age to age, but the potential is certainly there.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, CV75 said:

.........................................................................................

Power is a function of faith and the effects of the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit. Authority in matters of morality (discerning right and wrong), law, governance and administration, generating life, organization and creation, knowledge, etc. is a function of the Light of Christ (D&C 88:7-13), which is given to everyone but also enhanced by those who have the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit. While the principles of power and authority can be had in relation to the priesthood and the Holy Ghost, they can also be had and exercised without priesthood keys or even and office.

...................................................................  

Some people declare that the Hebrew word ruah "spirit" in the phrase "Holy Spirit" is feminine in gender, and thus conclude that the Holy Spirit is a female, but in this they are mistaken.  Hebrew ruah "spirit, wind" is bivalent in gender (both masc and feminine), and the equivalent Greek Paraclete in the NT is masculine (I Jn 2:1).  The Gottheit is composed of three male personages.  there is no reason to think otherwise.

[Meg Stout]

7 hours ago, Eek! said:

I don't see any reason why women can't lay their hands on the sick and bless them, citing as authority "as a disciple of Jesus Christ", which would be in keeping with the pattern implied in Mark 16: 17-18... and which are the verses Joseph Smith's cited when giving instructions on the subject (History of the Church, Volume 4, page 603 IIRC, and/or Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 223 IIRC). 

I was taught in the MTC that women were allowed to perform blessings by the power of their faith in Christ. Based on that I performed blessings on edifices to cast out evil spirits on at least one occasion and I think two.

When my son was in the hospital and my husband had failed to bless my son with health, I gave my son a blessing. Everything I pronounced on his head (which was confirmed by the spirit) came true. His heart rate came down and he came home. Except that his heart rate came down to zero and the home he went to was God's home. God had not allowed me to pronounce the words that would have blessed my son to survive the next expected surgery.

Ironically, it was only as a result of the Ordain Women kerfluffle that I learned that what I'd been taught in the MTC by my female instructor was not a practice currently allowed by Church policy. And so I would not voice a blessing at this time, until that policy were to be removed.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

A phone call from a stake president to a high councilor can confer the president's authority to perform ordinances which typically only the stake president can perform

Yes, those "assignments" are my favorite kinds of "callings" or "ordinations" and form of "authority." About 15 years ago set a personal record of such "free-lancing" of a year-and-a-half, where I wasn't "called," "ordained" or "set apart," to "anything" and yet I probably did more (within my small sphere) for building the kingdom than I ever did! Bottom line, I had immense authority!

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Some people declare that the Hebrew word ruah "spirit" in the phrase "Holy Spirit" is feminine in gender, and thus conclude that the Holy Spirit is a female, but in this they are mistaken.  Hebrew ruah "spirit, wind" is bivalent in gender (both masc and feminine), and the equivalent Greek Paraclete in the NT is masculine (I Jn 2:1).  The Gottheit is composed of three male personages.  there is no reason to think otherwise.

Agreed -- it is only when the Godhead is conceptually expanded into a Council of Gods that we might allow Female Deity(ies) involved in various functions, at the very least by reference and common purpose ("Let us make man in our image... male and female..."). Such is the trajectory I see in D&C 132 with the 'continuation of the seeds."

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

It would be nice to see guidance suggesting that women can resume performing select blessings by the power of their faith in God. I would suggest that some such blessings could include pronouncing blessings of comfort on loved ones, voicing blessings of healing (though perhaps not to include anointing with oil) and blessing homes with the spirit of God. These are the kinds of blessings that my female ancestors pronounced, and need not infringe on the useful delegation of general ecclesiastical responsibility to men, which it seems provides community benefits. [Mormon women exercise at least a form of ecclesiastical responsibility over women, young women, and children already.] Or at least, I see evidence that religious communities that don't delegate general ecclesiastical responsibility solely to men are in shocking decline.

I found a lot of what you've mentioned interesting, but I disagree with this part. I think it's more complicated than that. For one the gender gap is shrinking because women are leaving churches at faster rates. The results can vary, for example, with how many women are in the labor force and be drastic in more catholic nations where general ecclesiastical responsibility is male (here). Lastly making sure men have roles and place can assuage the gender gap prob at times (here). Plus decline is also associated with gender neutral emphasis. The LDS faith would not become gender neutral but more gender essentialist, similar to what we have in the temple. That has not effected male and female attendance. 

 

With luv,

BD

[smac97]

On 6/22/2016 at 11:03 PM, mfbukowski said:

I don't know if you have read much of their stuff- but they are avant garde perhaps, but VERY straight, faithful, devout members, or at least that is my opinion.

I honestly think this was with full approval of the Brethren.

I doubt the Brethren are consulted by lay members of the Church regarding articles to be published in imprints not owned by the Church, such as Dialogue.

I have only briefly read The Crucible of Doubt, and parts of Terryl Givens' The Viper on the Hearth, so I won't claim to be particularly familiar with the writing output of Sister Givens.

I did not mean to question her loyalty to the Church, but I guess I sort of did.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 14, 2018 by smac97

[salgare]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm doubt the Brethren are consulted by lay members of the Church regarding articles to be published in imprints not owned by the Church, such as Dialogue.

I have only briefly read The Crucible of Doubt, and parts of Terryl Givens' The Viper on the Hearth, so I won't claim to be particularly familiar with the writing output of Sister Givens.

I did not mean to question her loyalty to the Church, but I guess I sort of did.

Thanks,

-Smac

If the Given's have GA approval it is very silent and backdoor.  I don't hear the Given's philosophies being preached over the pulpit at GC.  These philosophies remain guarded on this board and rejected by some.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

If the Given's have GA approval it is very silent and backdoor.  I don't hear the Given's philosophies being preached over the pulpit at GC.  These philosophies remain guarded on this board and rejected by some.

I'm actually okay with Latter-day Saints publishing conjectural treatises on doctrinal points about which we lack revealed light and knowledge.  

However, I get concerned when such conjecture strays into contradicting the doctrines/teachings of the Church, particularly when those doctrines/teachings pertain to a sensitive and difficult topic like female ordination, and super-duper particularly when the published conjecture implicitly pits today's prophets and apostles against Joseph Smith.  

A person can play the weeds as long as he/she doesn't start calling it the lawn.

 

Edited June 23, 2016 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm doubt the Brethren are consulted by lay members of the Church regarding articles to be published in imprints not owned by the Church, such as Dialogue.

I have only briefly read The Crucible of Doubt, and parts of Terryl Givens' The Viper on the Hearth, so I won't claim to be particularly familiar with the writing output of Sister Givens.

I did not mean to question her loyalty to the Church, but I guess I sort of did.

Thanks,

-Smac

I also meant "full approval of the Brethren" in the sense that her knowledge of what they approve is displayed in her writings.  I am not suggesting they vetted the article and gave their blessing.  They are very sensitive to the nuances of history, the subtle scents found in the winds blowing in different directions and know what to say and when to say it, and exactly how far to push whatever point they are making.

I have been studying for years how scholars who know worldly wisdom tailor their pronouncements to make then palatable to LDS audiences, and how to turn a phrase which might sound threatening to some LDS into something no one could disagree with.   I do that because I am so bad at it- I feel I cannot find the right voice to say what I want to communicate because my tendency is to say things in a direct way, and I do not think in LDS culturese.   It is a second language.    It is very difficult for me to blend with Mormon culture even after almost 40 years in the church.  I watch those rep points to show me which turn of phrase hits the mark and which do not.

But they have it down cold.  They smell the winds of change in the slightest puff of a breeze few would even notice.

THAT's what I meant.  They seem to sense what the Brethren are thinking and say it first, and speak it gently and base it on historical facts which are solid and unquestionable.

The events she quotes DID happen and she had the evidence.  But she knows exactly when to bring those facts to life and draw from them the implications that are inescapable.

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

THAT's what I meant.  They seem to sense what the Brethren are thinking and say it first, and speak it gently and base it on historical facts which are solid and unquestionable.

Joseph Smith conveyed ("turn{ed} over") priesthood keys to Emma Smith.  This is what Fiona Givens is claiming.  This is, in your view, based on "solid and unquestionable" historical "facts?"  This is, in your view, what "the Brethren are thinking?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 23, 2016 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Joseph Smith conveyed priesthood keys to Emma Smith.  This is what Fiona Givens is claiming.  This is, in your view, based on "solid and unquestionable" historical "facts?"

Thanks,

-Smac

It's my testimony. I believe it. You know kind of like Ammon and the arms, another solid and unquestionable historic fact.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It's my testimony. I believe it. You know kind of like Ammon and the arms, another solid and unquestionable historic fact.

I guess we have differing views on what "unquestionable" means (and "facts," for that matter).

I do not think Fiona Givens has established that Joseph Smith "turn{ed} over" priesthood keys to Emma.  At all.  I find the claim very questionable.

And I see no evidence that this is what "the Brethren are thinking."  Elder Oaks and Elder Ballard have, in official venues, stated that priesthood holders hold priesthood keys.

Perhaps I am missing something?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 23, 2016 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess we have differing views on what "unquestionable" means (and "facts," for that matter).

I do not think Fiona Givens has established that Joseph Smith "turn{ed} over" priesthood keys to Emma.  At all.  I find the claim very questionable.

And I see no evidence that this is what "the Brethren are thinking."  Elder Oaks and Elder Ballard have, in official venues, stated that priesthood holders hold priesthood keys.

Perhaps I am missing something?

This goes back to the various kinds and orders of priesthood again.

On the one side you have the Givens and Hanks and OW people arguing that women have priesthood.
On the other you have the TBM's arguing that they don't.

But the teachings of Joseph on the orders of priesthood show that women have never had Aaronic and Melchizedek Ecclesiatical priesthood, but that Joseph fully planned to (and later did) include them in the Patriarchal (temple) priesthood and Fulness of Priesthood ordinances.

So both groups are right in their own ways.

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm actually okay with Latter-day Saints publishing conjectural treatises on doctrinal points about which we lack revealed light and knowledge.  

However, I get concerned when such conjecture strays into contradicting the doctrines/teachings of the Church, particularly when those doctrines/teachings pertain to a sensitive and difficult topic like female ordination, and super-duper particularly when the published conjecture implicitly pits today's prophets and apostles against Joseph Smith.

Is your super-duper concern aroused because you believe that there is never an actual discrepancy between today's apostles & prophets and Joseph Smith, or because you see such discrepancies (if they exist) as a forbidden subject, possibly because they can raise doubts about either the one or the other?   

Edited June 23, 2016 by Eek!

[Eek!]

5 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

I was taught in the MTC that women were allowed to perform blessings by the power of their faith in Christ. Based on that I performed blessings on edifices to cast out evil spirits on at least one occasion and I think two.

When my son was in the hospital and my husband had failed to bless my son with health, I gave my son a blessing. Everything I pronounced on his head (which was confirmed by the spirit) came true. His heart rate came down and he came home. Except that his heart rate came down to zero and the home he went to was God's home. God had not allowed me to pronounce the words that would have blessed my son to survive the next expected surgery.

Thank you for sharing such personal experiences.  I'm sorry for your and your husband's (temporary) separation from your son, and am uplifted by the perspective you have embraced about his return home.

5 hours ago, Meg Stout said:

Ironically, it was only as a result of the Ordain Women kerfluffle that I learned that what I'd been taught in the MTC by my female instructor was not a practice currently allowed by Church policy. And so I would not voice a blessing at this time, until that policy were to be removed.

I understand and respect your position.    

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This goes back to the various kinds and orders of priesthood again.

On the one side you have the Givens and Hanks and OW people arguing that women have priesthood.
On the other you have the TBM's arguing that they don't.

 

Technically hanks and givens are saying women have priesthood and should have more capacity to act and define their rites/order in more equity than is currently happening but was what JS was feasibly enivisioned at the commencement of the RS and that the Sisters were also seeing and that are found in later manifestations of church body (such as Adam and Eve). This priesthood is both distinctive and meant to be collaborative to male offices. 

Other more traditional TBM's (in my book hanks and givens are definitely TBM, though maybe not traditional oriented) and OW are running under the same construct that women do not hold the priesthood. One groups think they shouldn't and one group thinks they should.

 

with luv,

BD

 

Edited June 23, 2016 by BlueDreams

[salgare]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have been studying for years how scholars who know worldly wisdom tailor their pronouncements to make then palatable to LDS audiences, and how to turn a phrase which might sound threatening to some LDS into something no one could disagree with.   I do that because I am so bad at it- I feel I cannot find the right voice to say what I want to communicate because my tendency is to say things in a direct way, and I do not think in LDS culturese.   It is a second language.    It is very difficult for me to blend with Mormon culture even after almost 40 years in the church.  I watch those rep points to show me which turn of phrase hits the mark and which do not.

Is that not called spin?  Is that not selling to an audience?  Is that not subtly dishonest?

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Technically hanks and givens are saying to have priesthood and should have more capacity to act and define their rites/order in more equity than is currently happening but was what JS was feasibly enivisioned at the commencement of the RS and that the Sisters were also seeing and that are found in later manifestations of church body (such as Adam and Eve). This priesthood is both distinctive and meant to be collaborative to male offices. 

Other more traditional TBM's (in my book hanks and givens are definitely TBM, though maybe not traditional oriented) and OW are running under the same construct that women do not hold the priesthood. One groups think they shouldn't and one group thinks they should.

Thank you for clarifying this.  That is what I meant - not that Hanks/Givens etc think women already have priesthood.

I see no indication that there was ever to be a female equivalent priesthood to the ecclesiastical orders beyond the roles of the Relief Society and its presiding leaders.
I see plenty of indication the Joseph was planning on moving the membership, male and female, into higher orders of priesthood.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

This goes back to the various kinds and orders of priesthood again.

Are these "various kinds and orders" recognized as doctrinal teachings of the LDS Church?  Have such things been taught by those in authority?

Quote

On the one side you have the Givens and Hanks and OW people arguing that women have priesthood.
On the other you have the TBM's arguing that they don't.

Again, are these things recognized as doctrinal teachings of the LDS Church?  Have such things been taught by those in authority?

If so, then it appears that the contest is not between, on the one side, "Givens and Hanks and OW people" and, on the other "TBMs."  The "TBMs" are adhering to doctrines revealed to those in authority, they are not espousing it of themselves.

Quote

But the teachings of Joseph on the orders of priesthood show that women have never had Aaronic and Melchizedek Ecclesiatical priesthood, but that Joseph fully planned to (and later did) include them in the Patriarchal (temple) priesthood and Fulness of Priesthood ordinances.

So both groups are right in their own ways.

First, I'm not sure what you mean by "include {women} in the Patriarchal (temple) priesthood and Fulness of Priesthood ordinances."  

Second, Elder Packer explained the "patriarchal priesthood" this way:

Quote

"There are references to a patriarchal priesthood. The patriarchal order is not a third, separate priesthood. Whatever relates to the patriarchal order is embraced in the Melchizedek Priesthood. 'All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to [the Melchizedek] priesthood.' [D&C 107:5] The patriarchal order is a part of the Melchizedek Priesthood which enables endowed and worthy men to preside over their posterity in time and eternity."

See also this explanation of the patriarchal priesthood and D&C 107 from the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual:

Quote

D&C 107:39–52. The Patriarchal Priesthood

The patriarchal priesthood is passed by ordination from father to son. President Joseph Fielding Smith explained:

“In this revelation [D&C 107] certain knowledge was revealed concerning the Patriarchal Priesthood and its descent from the beginning of time. Regarding this priesthood the Lord said: [D&C 107:39–43]. …

“… From Abraham the birthright went to Isaac and from him to Jacob, who was named Israel. From Israel it went to Joseph, the firstborn son of Rachel. … Therefore the birthright and the Patriarchal Priesthood continued through the seed of Joseph. Just why it was continued through Ephraim rather than through Manasseh, his older brother, we have not been informed, but we may be sure that the Lord had sufficient reason. From that time until now, this birthright has been vested in the descendants of Ephraim. [1 Chronicles 5:1–2; Jeremiah 31:9; D&C 133:30–34.]

“In the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times in which we live, the Lord revealed that this birthright of the first-born in Israel belonged to Joseph Smith, the father of the Prophet, and he was the first patriarch ordained in this dispensation. After his death the office and priesthood was conferred upon Hyrum Smith, the Prophet’s oldest living brother.” (“The Patriarchal Priesthood,” Improvement Era, Nov. 1956, pp. 789, 852.)

Today the patriarchal order does not determine the organization of the Church as it did in earlier times, but in the celestial kingdom “the patriarchal order will be the order of government and rule” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 559).

See also these 1987 remarks by Elder Nelson:

Quote

 Adam held the priesthood. Eve served in matriarchal partnership with the patriarchal priesthood. So today, each wife may join with her husband as a partner unified in purpose. Scriptures state clearly, “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:11). “They twain shall be one flesh” (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:8; D&C 49:16). Marvelously, it takes a man and a woman to make a man or a woman. Without union of the sexes, neither can we exist, nor can we become perfect. Ordinary and imperfect people can build each other through their wholeness together. The complete contribution of one partner to the other is essential to exaltation. This is so “that the earth might answer the end of its creation” (D&C 49:16).

So labor and love in partnership. Honor your companion. Any sense of competition for place or position is not appropriate for either partner, especially when enlightened by scriptural understanding.

I can't square these things with the notion that women are "ordained to" or "hold" the priesthood or hold "priesthood keys."  I am open to the theoretical possibility of such things happening in the future, but not that they are (or should be, but for the perfidy of sexist past and present general authorities) presently existing in the organization of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Edited June 23, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Eek! said:

Is your super-duper concern aroused because you believe that there is never an actual discrepancy between today's apostles & prophets and Joseph Smith, or because you see such discrepancies (if they exist) as a forbidden subject, possibly because they can raise doubts about either the one or the other?   

I am open to the possibility that there are "discrepancies" as you describe.  My "super duper concern" pertains to how such real or perceived discrepancies are addressed by members of the Church.  Publishing doctrinal declarations that contradict the teachings of the Brethren is not, I think, within the province of members of the Church.  On this point I refer you to Elder Oaks' excellent 1987 article on addressing differences in the Church, entitled "Criticism."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am open to the possibility that there are "discrepancies" as you describe.  My "super duper concern" pertains to how such real or perceived discrepancies are addressed by members of the Church.  Publishing doctrinal declarations that contradict the teachings of the Brethren is not, I think, within the province of members of the Church.  On this point I refer you to Elder Oaks' excellent 1987 article on addressing differences in the Church, entitled "Criticism."

Thanks,

-Smac

Presumably most would consider it counter productive to tie the hands of LDS academics regarding what they can and cannot research. The historical record is what it is. 

[JLHPROF]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are these "various kinds and orders" recognized as doctrinal teachings of the LDS Church?  Have such things been taught by those in authority?

Again, are these things recognized as doctrinal teachings of the LDS Church?  Have such things been taught by those in authority?

Well, Joseph Smith for one.
And yes, all of these are taught by many authorities.  It's been a while since I heard anyone address them, but they are referenced in many discourses throughout the Church history.
Joseph Fielding Smith, Elder McConkie, President Packer.  All have addressed them in recent times as you quoted.  Not sure I've heard much on them in the past 15 years, but nor have they been taught against.

And Pres. Packer is correct - Joseph Smith taught "all priesthood is Melchizedek but there are different portions or degrees of it".

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

First, I'm not sure what you mean by "include {women} in the Patriarchal (temple) priesthood and Fulness of Priesthood ordinances."  

Second, Elder Packer explained the "patriarchal priesthood" this way:

See also this explanation of the patriarchal priesthood and D&C 107 from the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual:

See also these 1987 remarks by Elder Nelson:

I can't square these things with the notion that women are "ordained to" or "hold" the priesthood or hold "priesthood keys."  I am open to the theoretical possibility of such things happening in the future, but not that they are (or should be, but for the perfidy of sexist past and present general authorities) presently existing in the organization of the Church.

I never said women were "ordained" or "hold keys".  I said they are inducted into orders of the priesthood.  Because they are.

ONE

They are not inducted into D&C 107:1 -There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood.
These were restored in 1829.  These are the Ecclesiastical priesthoods that were never given to women nor said to be given to women.

TWO

They are inducted into the Patriarchal order - "The 2nd Priesthood is Patriarchal authority. Go to and finish the temple, and God will fill it with power, and you will then receive more knowledge concerning this priesthood."
This order was restored in May of 1842 and used the sealing keys of Elijah restored in 1836 - hence Patriarchal (creating family kingdoms).
In Aug 1843 Joseph said "Abrahams Patriarchal power which is the greatest yet experienced in this church".

Women participate in all these ordinances while wearing both the robes and garments of the holy priesthood and receiving signs and tokens of the priesthood.   And they are sealed by this authority into eternal patriarchal families.

THREE

They are inducted into the Fulness of the Melchizedek order - "The King of Shiloam (Salem) had power and authority over that of Abraham, holding the key and the power of endless life .... The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right from the eternal God, and not by descent from father and mother; and that priesthood is as eternal as God Himself, having neither beginning of days nor end of life."
This order was restored in September 1843.  Emma was the first woman to receive this order.

About this order Joseph Fielding Smith said "The Lord has made it possible for every man in this Church, through his obedience, to receive the fulness of the priesthood through the ordinances of the temple of the Lord. This cannot be received anywhere else”
Women receive identical ordinances don't they?

Edited June 23, 2016 by JLHPROF

[smac97]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's my testimony. I believe it. You know kind of like Ammon and the arms, another solid and unquestionable historic fact.

But it's not just your "testimony."  You are publicly attributing such things to the Brethren.  You have said that the doctrinal pronouncements of Fiona Givens, including that Joseph Smith conveyed ("turn{ed} over") priesthood keys to Emma Smith, are what "the Brethren are thinking."

But that's not what the Brethren are saying.  They are, in fact, publicly stating otherwise.  See,e.g., Elder Oaks (“Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood [holders]..." and "Unlike priesthood keys and priesthood ordinations, the blessings of the priesthood are available to women and to men on the same terms..."), Elder Ballard ("It takes both men who respect women and their distinctive spiritual gifts and women who respect the priesthood keys held by men..." and "When men and women go to the temple, they are both endowed with the same power, which is priesthood power. While the authority of the priesthood is directed through priesthood keys, and priesthood keys are held only by worthy men...") and the Handbook (“Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood leaders to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth...”).

I think there is some appreciable risk to taking a position, in essence, of: "Hey, I know Fiona Givens is publicly declaring X and the General Authorities are publicly declaring Not-X, but that's only because Fiona knows what the Brethren are really thinking.  So we should listen to her instead of the General Authorities on matters pertaining to X."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am open to the possibility that there are "discrepancies" as you describe.  My "super duper concern" pertains to how such real or perceived discrepancies are addressed by members of the Church.  Publishing doctrinal declarations that contradict the teachings of the Brethren is not, I think, within the province of members of the Church.  On this point I refer you to Elder Oaks' excellent 1987 article on addressing differences in the Church, entitled "Criticism."

Thank you for responding.  I read the article. 

Elder Oaks allows that members of the church need not "be docile or indifferent to defective policies, deficient practices, or wrongful conduct in government or in private organizations in which we have an interest."  Imo that's a really good start.   Of course he exempts the Church from such.   I wonder if he really means that Church members should hold the rest of the world to a higher standard than they hold their own religion? 

In my opinion searching for the truth should be within the province of members of the Church, as should arriving at conclusions based on the evidence that search uncovers.  Would you agree or disagree? 

Do you see a distinction between voicing one's conclusions if they are clearly identified as personal opinions, and "publishing doctrinal declarations"? 

Are you less concerned when someone who is not a member of the Church (such as myself) voices an opinion that contradicts the current teachings of the Brethren?   

Thanks.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Eek!