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

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Eek! said:

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."  Well, I guess that's a start.  Of course he exempts the Church from such. 

"Of course?"  He explains at great length his reasoning.  There is no "of course" about it.

Quote

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? 

Of course I agree.  But searching for truth is a separate matter from declaring it, particularly as pertaining to revealed truths.

Moreover, conclusions should be "based on the evidence."  All of it.  My preliminary assessment is that Fiona Givens exceeds the probative reach of "the evidence" when she asserts that Joseph Smith "{turned} over priesthood keys to Emma."  In accepting her assertion, we are required to rely not so much on "the evidence" as on her selective use and interpretation of some of it.  She doesn't seem to give any effort at all to address the absence of evidence in support of her position (the complete lack of any priesthood ordinations of women, for example), and contrary evidence (Pres. John Taylor's remarks, the current position taken by the Church, etc.).

Quote

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

Not a clear one, no.  And not in all circumstances.  Whether women hold priesthood keys (or, more specifically, whether Emma did) is both a historical and doctrinal issue.  When Fiona Givens claims that Joseph Smith "{turned} over priesthood keys to Emma," she is making both a historical and doctrinal assertion.  I think there is a some risk there (for members of the Church, anyway), particularly when the assertion contravenes the position of the Church.

Quote

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?   

Yes.  You are not under covenants.  We are.  

Thanks.

-Smac

Edited June 23, 2016 by smac97

[Eek!]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  You are not under covenants.  We are.  

Once again, thanks for your reply.

What specific covenants would prohibit a church member from voicing an opinion on a doctrinal issue that contradicts the current teachings of the Brethren, if you don't mind? 

Edited June 24, 2016 by Eek!

[Gray]

11 hours ago, Eek! said:

Once again, thanks for your reply.

What specific covenants would prohibit a church member from voicing an opinion on a doctrinal issue that contradicts the current teachings of the Brethren, if you don't mind? 

I know this question is not directed at me, but I don't think any such covenant exists. 

[smac97]

On 6/24/2016 at 8:17 AM, Gray said:

Quote

Once again, thanks for your reply.

What specific covenants would prohibit a church member from voicing an opinion on a doctrinal issue that contradicts the current teachings of the Brethren, if you don't mind?

I know this question is not directed at me, but I don't think any such covenant exists. 

I should clarify, and perhaps narrow, the scope of my previous comment.  I believe Latter-day Saints are under covenant to sustain the leaders of the Church.  I am frankly surprised that this may be a point in controversy.  Why, do you suppose, we are asked to literally raise our hands to sustain the leaders of the Church?  

Here are some comments from Joseph F. Smith on this issue (emphases added):

Quote

We raise our hands in token of a covenant to uphold and sustain our leaders.

In my judgment, one of the most important acts performed at the conferences of the Church is that in which we hold up our hands before the Lord to sustain the authorities of the Church and the organization thereof as it exists. But it is one of the important things that we do which rests with little weight upon some people. In other words, some people go away after holding up their hands to sustain the authorities of the Church and think no more about it, and act in many respects as though they had merely gone through a form to which they did not attach any importance whatever. I conceive this to be a wrong principle. … Those who covenant to keep the commandments of the Lord, and then violate that covenant by failing to observe those commandments, do no more than they do who raise their hands in token of a covenant to uphold and sustain the authorities of the Church and then fail to do it. The principle is the same in both cases: it is a violation of the covenant we make.

It is a serious wrong in the presence of the Almighty for one to vote to sustain the authorities of the Church and then to go away and oppose them and trample under foot the counsels that they give; and we will be judged of the Lord for it.

It is an important duty resting upon the Saints who vote to sustain the authorities of the Church, to do so not only by the lifting of the hand, the mere form, but in deed and in truth. There never should be a day pass but all the people composing the Church should lift up their voices in prayer to the Lord to sustain His servants who are placed to preside over them. … These men should have the faith of the people to sustain them in the discharge of their duties, in order that they may be strong in the Lord. …

… It is the command of the Lord that we shall meet together to … sustain the authorities of the Church, thus renewing our covenant to uphold God’s authority which He has instituted in the earth for the government of His Church. And I cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of Latter-day Saints honoring and sustaining in truth and in deed the authority of the Holy Priesthood which is called to preside. The moment a spirit enters into the heart of a member to refrain from sustaining the constituted authorities of the Church, that moment he becomes possessed of a spirit which inclines to rebellion or dissension; and if he permit that spirit to take a firm root in his mind, it will eventually lead him into darkness and apostasy.

Also consider these thoughts from President Eyring:

Quote

God’s people have not always been worthy of the marvelous experience we have shared today. The Apostles, after the Ascension of Christ, continued to exercise the keys He left with them. But because of disobedience and loss of faith by the members, the Apostles died without the keys being passed on to successors. We call that tragic episode “the Apostasy.” Had the members of the Church in those days had the opportunity and the will to exercise faith as you have today, the Lord would not have taken the keys of the priesthood from the earth. So this is a day of historical significance and of eternal importance in the history of the world and to the children of our Heavenly Father.

Now our obligation is to remain worthy of the faith necessary for us to fulfill our promise to sustain those who have been called. The Lord was well pleased with the Church at the beginning of the Restoration, as He is today. But He cautioned the members then, as He does now, that He cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. For us to sustain those who have been called today, we must examine our lives, repent as necessary, pledge to keep the Lord’s commandments, and follow His servants. The Lord warns us that if we do not do those things, the Holy Ghost will be withdrawn, we will lose the light which we have received, and we will not be able to keep the pledge we have made today to sustain the Lord’s servants in His true Church.

Also consider the following thoughts on this point (bolded emphases added):

Quote

Dear [Friend],

I am glad you followed through with your question. [How can I sustain a leadership that I think has acted in error or unrighteously]. It is one that is on a lot of minds these days. The word sustain only appears in the scriptures once, so I think it is a pretty important moment to infer its exact meaning. D&C 134.5, admonishes us to “sustain and uphold” the respective governments in which we reside. Now notice that we don’t have to like or agree with a great deal that our governments do. But I take “sustain” in that case to mean we support the general framework, share its common purposes, and work for its betterment. To sustain the elected leaders of a government would similarly mean to recognize their legitimately derived authority, and not work to undermine that authority, even if we voted for the other guy (or woman).  So adapting this scriptural usage to the sustaining of our own leaders, I take the same cues. We recognize their legitimately derived authority. (This is made explicit in the temple interview questions. We affirm that they have the priesthood keys to administer in their office.) We pray for them and share their common purpose of building the kingdom, although we may not agree with or embrace their particular course of action at any given moment. But by recognizing their authority, and working within the parameters of kingdom governance to exert our influence on the church’s course in righteous ways, we can be faithful to our covenants even if dubious about particulars, and be true to our consciences at the same time.

I believe, if I can say so, that the way you framed the question shows you are confusing general principles with particulars. You said given a specific policy statement, you have trouble sustaining the leadership as prophets seers and revelators. But sustaining them in their keys and offices never presupposed that we expect their judgment will always agree with God’s–or with ours! That is why we are asked by the Lord himself to receive their words “in all patience and faith.” You have to ask very seriously, why we are admonished to have patience for our leaders. You are experiencing the precise occasion that such words foresaw, and were intended to get you through.

“Within the parameters of kingdom governance” is of course a crucial caveat. Our political government is rightly influenced by the exercise of the vote, of town meetings, petitions, ballot initiatives, legislation and constitutional amendments—even civil disobedience when all else fails. That is how democratic societies operate and flourish.  But the church is not a democracy, and what is both effective and appropriate in one system is not in another—in this case in a church predicated on delegated authority from above and a system of hierarchical leadership with vertically distributed keys. So influence needs to be exerted along the lines of section 121, which are divinely revealed principles of righteous influence: “by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge.” Obviously, we can only exert righteous influence along those lines if we are part of the institution we wish to shape.

Sound words, I think.  And their author is . . . Terryl Givens.

Also consider these comments by Elder Oaks (emphases added):

Quote

I have given the following counsel to Church members—those who have committed themselves by upraised hands to sustain their church leaders:

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

...

A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause. (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24, quoted above.)

...

Our Father in Heaven has not compelled us to think the same way on every subject or procedure. As we seek to accomplish our life’s purposes, we will inevitably have differences with those around us—including some of those we sustain as our leaders. The question is not whether we have such differences, but how we manage them. 

...

Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.

Publicly contradicting the doctrines of the Church as taught by those in authority is, I think, plainly out of bounds for a Latter-day Saints.  Attempting to persuaded others to join you in your contradiction of the doctrines of the Church as taught by those in authority is likewise plainly out of bounds.

Latter-day Saints having and voicing an opinion (or, more aptly, an assertion or declaration of fact) on a doctrinal issue that contradicts the teachings of the Church is, I think, inherently risky.  Consider the following counsel from then-Elder Faust in 1993 (emphases added):

Quote

In some legislative assemblies of the world, there are some groups termed the “loyal opposition.” I find no such principle in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior gave us this solemn warning: “Be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27). The Lord made it clear that in the presiding quorums every decision “must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions” (D&C 107:27). This means that after frank and open discussion decisions are reached in council under the direction of the presiding officer, who has the ultimate authority to decide. That decision is then sustained, because our unity comes from full agreement with righteous principles and general response to the operation of the Spirit of God.

Free discussion and expression are encouraged in the Church. Certainly the open expressions in most fast and testimony meetings, or Sunday School, Relief Society, and priesthood meetings attest to that principle. However, the privilege of free expression should operate within limits. In 1869, George Q. Cannon explained the limits of individual expression:

“A friend … wished to know whether we … considered an honest difference of opinion between a member of the Church and the Authorities of the Church was apostasy. … We replied that … we could conceive of a man honestly differing in opinion from the Authorities of the Church and yet not be an apostate; but we could not conceive of a man publishing these differences of opinion and seeking by arguments, sophistry and special pleading to enforce them upon the people to produce division and strife and to place the acts and counsels of the Authorities of the Church, if possible, in a wrong light, and not be an apostate, for such conduct was apostasy as we understood the term” (Gospel Truth, sel. Jerreld L. Newquist, 2 vols., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974, 2:276–77).

Among the activities considered apostate to the Church include when members “(1) repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders; (2) persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority; or (3) continue to follow the teachings of apostate cults (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishops or higher authority” (General Handbook of Instructions, 1989, p. 10-3).

I am not accusing anyone of apostasy.  Rather, I am explaining my understanding of general principles pertaining to how Latter-day Saints should behave when having and expressing viewpoints that differ from the teachings of the Church.  As I see it, publicly contradicting the doctrines of the Church as taught by those in authority is a out-of-bounds sort of thing for the Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 19, 2016 by smac97

[Gray]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I should clarify, and perhaps narrow, the scope of my previous comment.  I believe Latter-day Saints are under covenant to sustain the leaders of the Church.  I am frankly surprised that this may be a point in controversy.  Why, do you suppose, we are asked to literally raise our hands to sustain the leaders of the Church?  

Here are some comments from Joseph F. Smith on this issue (emphases added):

Also consider these thoughts from President Eyring:

Also consider the following thoughts on this point (bolded emphases added):

Sound words, I think.  And their author is . . . Terryl Givens.

Also consider these comments by Elder Oaks (emphases added):

Publicly contradicting the doctrines of the Church as taught by those in authority is, I think, plainly out of bounds for a Latter-day Saints.  Attempting to persuaded others to join you in your contradiction of the doctrines of the Church as taught by those in authority is likewise plainly out of bounds.

Latter-day Saints having and voicing an opinion (or, more aptly, an assertion or declaration of fact) on a doctrinal issue that contradicts the teachings of the Church is, I think, inherently risky.  Consider the following counsel from then-Elder Faust in 1993 (emphases added):

I am, of course, no accusing anyone of apostasy.  Rather, I am explaining my understanding of general principles pertaining to how Latter-day Saints should behave when having and expressing viewpoints that differ from the teachings of the Church.  As I see it, publicly contradicting the doctrines of the Church as taught by those in authority is a out-of-bounds sort of thing for the Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for the interesting quotes, smac. However, despite President Smith's views to the contrary, I can't think of any covenant made by latter-day saints that involves promising to never voice an opinion on doctrine contrary to those of church leaders, or even promising to sustain them. The only covenant we make regarding our relationship with church leaders (or actually the more ambiguously worded "Lord's anointed") is to not speak evil of them. 

A covenant is a two way promise. That doesn't bear any resemblance to what happens when we raise our hands to either sustain or not sustain them. There is no second party agreeing to do something else, hence no covenant. In fact, when we raise our hands to sustain someone, we're not promising to do anything either. We're just indicating whether or not we sustain someone in their calling. 

And of course none of that gets at what the meaning of "sustain" is. I don't think there is anything in there that implies you must never disagree with someone in a calling on any matter of doctrine. 

But if I'm wrong and sustaining someone in a calling means we're promising never to contradict them, that must apply equally to anyone we sustain, including the ward choir director. 

And of course, it's not always possible to not contradict the views of church leaders. Elder Oaks and President Uchtdorf have expressed contrary opinions on the appropriateness of judging others, for instance. I cannot agree with one without contradicting the other.

Edited June 24, 2016 by Gray

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Thanks for the interesting quotes, smac. However, despite President Smith's views to the contrary, I can't think of any covenant made by latter-day saints that involves promising to never voice an opinion on doctrine contrary to those of church leaders, or even promising to sustain them. The only covenant we make regarding our relationship with church leaders (or actually the more ambiguously worded "Lord's anointed") is to not speak evil of them.

A covenant is a two way promise. That doesn't bear any resemblance to what happens when we raise our hands to either sustain or not sustain them. There is no second party agreeing to do something else, hence no covenant. In fact, when we raise our hands to sustain someone, we're not promising to do anything either. We're just indicating whether or not we sustain someone in their calling.

And of course none of that gets at what the meaning of "sustain" is. I don't think there is anything in there that implies you must never disagree with someone in a calling on any matter of doctrine.

 

I can't think of any covenant either.
But I do remember this teaching:

• Journals of Discourses (Volume 4, Page 298-298).
  Brigham Young -
  "I can tell the people that once in my life I felt a want of confidence in brother Joseph Smith, soon after I became acquainted with him. It was not concerning religious matters—it was not about his revelations—but it was in relation to his financiering—to his managing the temporal affairs which he undertook. A feeling came ever me that Joseph was not right in his financial management, though I presume the feeling did not last sixty seconds, and perhaps not thirty. But that feeling came on me once and once only, from the time I first knew him to the day of his death. It gave me sorrow of heart, and I clearly saw and understood, by the spirit of revelation manifested to me, that if I was to harbor a thought in my heart that Joseph could be wrong in anything, I would begin to lose confidence in him, and that feeling would grow from step to step, and from one degree to another, until at last I would have the same lack of confidence in his being the mouthpiece for the Almighty, and I would be left, as brother Hooper observed, upon the brink of the precipice, ready to plunge into what we may call the gulf of infidelity, ready to believe neither in God nor His servants, and to say that there is no God, or, if there is, we do not know anything about Him; that we are here, and by and by shall go from here, and that is all we shall know. Such persons are like those whom the Apostle calls “As natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed.”
  
  Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults. I repented of my unbelief, and that too, very suddenly; I repented about as quickly as I committed the error. It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not. I never had the feeling for one moment, to believe that any man or set of men or beings upon the face of the whole earth had anything to do with him, for he was superior to them all, and held the keys of salvation over them. Had I not thoroughly understood this and believed it, I much doubt whether I should ever have embraced what is called "Mormonism." He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. And it was not for me to question it, if the Lord was disposed to let Joseph lead the people astray, for He had called him and instructed him to gather Israel and restore the Priesthood and kingdom to them.
  
  It was not my prerogative to call him in question with regard to any act of his life. He was God's servant, and not mine. He did not belong to the people but to the Lord, and was doing the work of the Lord, and if He should suffer him to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray. If He should suffer them to be chastised, and some of them destroyed, it would be because they deserved it, or to accomplish some righteous purpose. That was my faith, and it is my faith still.
  
  If we have any lack of confidence in those whom the Lord has appointed to lead the people, how can we have confidence in a being whom we know nothing about? It is nonsense to talk about it. It will weaken a person quicker to lose confidence in those who dictate the affairs of God's kingdom on the earth, than to say "I do not know whether there is a God or not, and I care nothing about Him." A man or woman will not be prepared to be taken by the enemy, and led captive by the devil so quickly for disbelieving in a being they do not know about, as for disbelieving in those whom they do know."

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, Gray said:

Thanks for the interesting quotes, smac. However, despite President Smith's views to the contrary, I can't think of any covenant made by latter-day saints that involves promising to never voice an opinion on doctrine contrary to those of church leaders, or even promising to sustain them. The only covenant we make regarding our relationship with church leaders (or actually the more ambiguously worded "Lord's anointed") is to not speak evil of them. 

First, as soon as we say "despte {the Presiding High Priest's} views to the contrary," I think some real introspection is in order.  That's not to say that that the Brethren are infallible.  Only that introspection is appropriate.

Second, President Smith's "views" are not the only ones available on this issue.

Third, I clarified my comments.  We are under covenant to sustain the leaders of the Church.  

Fourth, I'd be curious as to your views on the Law of Common Consent (see, e.g., here and here).  {EDIT: Please disregard, and see the last comments below.}

Fifth, I'm also curious about what you think the Latter-day Saints are signifying when they raise their arms to the square in sustaining votes of the leaders of the Church.  Is that just an empty, meaningless gesture?  Or if it has meaning, what is that meaning?  {EDIT: Please disregard, and see the last comments below.}

Quote

A covenant is a two way promise. That doesn't bear any resemblance to what happens when we raise our hands to either sustain or not sustain them.

With respect, I disagree.  We make covenants with God.  Our part of the covenant is to sustain those leaders, and the other side of that covenant is fulfilled by God (via, I think, revelations, blessings, and so on).

Quote

There is no second party agreeing to do something else, hence no covenant.

God is the "second party agreeing to do something else."  Hence a covenant.

And what about the Brethren?  How are they also not a "second party?"  We given them our sustaining vote, and they agree to magnify their calling, obey the will of God, teach correct principles, and so on.  {EDIT: Please disregard, and see the last comments below.}

Quote

In fact, when we raise our hands to sustain someone, we're not promising to do anything either.

We aren't?  It's just an empty, meaningless gesture?  "Sustain" is not a verb?  {EDIT: Please disregard, and see the last comments below.}

I am perplexed.

Quote

We're just indicating whether or not we sustain someone in their calling. 

What do you think "sustain" means?  {EDIT: Please disregard, and see the last comments below.}

Can a Latter-day Saint seriously and in good faith say "Yes, I 'sustain' the general authorities of the Church, but I refuse to listen to them, or to follow their counsel.  In fact, I feel at liberty to speak and act against them whenever i please.  But just remember, I 'sustain' them."?  {EDIT: Please disregard, and see the last comments below.}

Quote

And of course none of that gets at what the meaning of "sustain" is.

I agree.  But isn't that meaning rather a central point of this discussion?  {EDIT: Please disregard, and see the last comments below.}

I am very confused at your position.  

Quote

I don't think there is anything in there that implies you must never disagree with someone in a calling on any matter of doctrine. 

How about we stick with what I've said, rather than substantially re-phrasing it to the point of absurdity?  I've never said this.  {EDIT: Please disregard, and see the last comments below.}

Quote

But if I'm wrong and sustaining someone in a calling means we're promising never to contradict them, that must apply equally to anyone we sustain, including the ward choir director. 

Hmm.  I thought we were having a good faith discussion.  But rather than addressing the points I have been trying to make, you are resorting to absurd distortions.  If you can't differentiate between A) the extensive quotes I have provided pertaining to public disagreement with the General Authorities of the Church about the doctrines and practices of the Church, and B) disagreement with the ward choir director over the selection of hymns, then there's no point in proceeding in this discussion.  If you cannot discern a distinction between private disagreements with leaders of the Church (which are addressed at length in the quotes I have provided, and which are anticipated and fine to have, provided they are worked out appropriately) and public disagreements with leaders of the Church (which are also addressed at length in the quotes I have provided, and which are pretty much always out-of-bounds), then there's not much point in furthering this discussion.

Please disregard the above questions, or consider them as "food for thought" only.  I'll withdraw from further discussion with you.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 24, 2016 by smac97

[Gray]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, as soon as we say "despte {the Presiding High Priest's} views to the contrary," I think some real introspection is in order.  That's not to say that that the Brethren are infallible.  Only that introspection is appropriate.

Sure, introspection is important.

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, President Smith's "views" are not the only ones available on this issue.

Third, I clarified my comments.  We are under covenant to sustain the leaders of the Church.  

Where is this covenant located and made clear to all?

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fourth, I'd be curious as to your views on the Law of Common Consent (see, e.g., here and here).  {EDIT: Please disregard, and see the last comments below.}

That's really what sustaining is - giving our consent for so and so to be in the calling they've been given. 

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fifth, I'm also curious about what you think the Latter-day Saints are signifying when they raise their arms to the square in sustaining votes of the leaders of the Church.  Is that just an empty, meaningless gesture?  Or if it has meaning, what is that meaning?  {EDIT: Please disregard, and see the last comments below.}

It means the same when we sustain anyone, from the ward choir director to the prophet. It means, "I agree that so and so should be in this calling."

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I disagree.  We make covenants with God.  Our part of the covenant is to sustain those leaders, and the other side of that covenant is fulfilled by God (via, I think, revelations, blessings, and so on).

This appears to be a phantom covenant. Where is it located? 

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

God is the "second party agreeing to do something else."  Hence a covenant.

What is God agreeing to do? What are we agreeing to do? None of this is outlined anywhere. Hence the phantom covenant idea.

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And what about the Brethren?  How are they also not a "second party?"  We given them our sustaining vote, and they agree to magnify their calling, obey the will of God, teach correct principles, and so on.  {EDIT: Please disregard, and see the last comments below.}

They're not a party to what we're doing. Often they're not even in the same room.

When someone raises their hand in opposition, is another covenant being created? If so, what?

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We aren't?  It's just an empty, meaningless gesture?  "Sustain" is not a verb?  {EDIT: Please disregard, and see the last comments below.}

I am perplexed.

What do you think "sustain" means?  {EDIT: Please disregard, and see the last comments below.}

As I said before, we're really just saying we agree that so and so should be in the calling assigned.

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Can a Latter-day Saint seriously and in good faith say "Yes, I 'sustain' the general authorities of the Church, but I refuse to listen to them, or to follow their counsel.  In fact, I feel at liberty to speak and act against them whenever i please.  But just remember, I 'sustain' them."?  {EDIT: Please disregard, and see the last comments below.}

Sustain means support. It does not mean we always agree with them. In fact, always agreeing with them would weaken them, not support them.

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  But isn't that meaning rather a central point of this discussion?  {EDIT: Please disregard, and see the last comments below.}

Yes, I agree it's a central point.

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am very confused at your position.  

How about we stick with what I've said, rather than substantially re-phrasing it to the point of absurdity?  I've never said this.  {EDIT: Please disregard, and see the last comments below.}

I was using that example to point out that this phantom covenant  cannot possibly exist. We sustain ward choir directors just as much as we sustain the apostles. 

 

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  I thought we were having a good faith discussion.  But rather than addressing the points I have been trying to make, you are resorting to absurd distortions.  If you can't differentiate between A) the extensive quotes I have provided pertaining to public disagreement with the General Authorities of the Church about the doctrines and practices of the Church, and B) disagreement with the ward choir director over the selection of hymns, then there's no point in proceeding in this discussion.  If you cannot discern a distinction between private disagreements with leaders of the Church (which are addressed at length in the quotes I have provided, and which are anticipated and fine to have, provided they are worked out appropriately) and public disagreements with leaders of the Church (which are also addressed at length in the quotes I have provided, and which are pretty much always out-of-bounds), then there's not much point in furthering this discussion.

Please disregard the above questions, or consider them as "food for thought" only.  I'll withdraw from further discussion with you.  

Thanks,

-Smac

It's a good faith discussion, smac. However if you're more comfortable bowing out, that's fine. I respect that. 

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's a good faith discussion, smac. However if you're more comfortable bowing out, that's fine. I respect that. 

I think I'm not in the best frame of mind today for such a discussion, so I'll just bow out.  Thank you for your patience, and I apologize if i have given offense.

Thank you,

-Smac

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think I'm not in the best frame of mind today for such a discussion, so I'll just bow out.  Thank you for your patience, and I apologize if i have given offense.

Thank you,

-Smac

No worries Smac. I likewise apologize if I've said anything offensive. I respect you and your thoughtful posts. 

[mfbukowski]

On 6/23/2016 at 9:58 AM, 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?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think saying that priesthood holders hold priesthood Keys is a tautology.

In short it doesn't say much.  

I think that alleged "facts" are subject to interpretation and are often disputed, as in a court of law, for example.  I also think that historical alleged facts are notoriously difficult to prove as "fact" beyond a reasonable doubt.

The idea that Joseph "set his wife apart"  (using today's jargon which implies much more than it did in the early church) and gave her delegated authority for some church functions regarding half the members of the church, ie. The Relief Society is pretty clear.

It is indisputable that women receive authority to perform ordinances in the temple. 

I also think it is clear that all these distinctions which we now make were in fact very blurry in those days.

Even today I hear the term "ordination" being confused with being "set apart" all the time. It seems that most members do not even understand the distinction. 

I am not advocating that women be ordained to the priesthood.

What I am advocating is that certain present practices be altered.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with women laying hands upon someone and saying a prayer that the person be blessed.  I think the idea that that violates some Eternal rule is ridiculous.

Since we like to canonize terminology I can even suggest some terminology for that.

"(Name) in the name of Jesus Christ we lay our hands upon your head and ask our heavenly father to bless you that..." etc.

 I can't imagine that there's anything wrong with that.

[ERMD]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

 

Where is this covenant located and made clear to all?

This appears to be a phantom covenant. Where is it located? 

What is God agreeing to do? What are we agreeing to do? None of this is outlined anywhere. Hence the phantom covenant idea.

I was using that example to point out that this phantom covenant  cannot possibly exist.

Think of temple covenants.  It is there, very plain and clear.

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Think of temple covenants.  It is there, very plain and clear.

I've already mentioned the one temple covenant that might apply to church leaders. It says nothing about not disagreeing with them. 

[ERMD]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

I've already mentioned the one temple covenant that might apply to church leaders. It says nothing about not disagreeing with them. 

I read that, and that's not it.  You are looking beyond the mark.

[Gray]

30 minutes ago, ERMD said:

I read that, and that's not it.  You are looking beyond the mark.

That was really the only one that is even tangentially related. 

[JLHPROF]

43 minutes ago, ERMD said:

Think of temple covenants.  It is there, very plain and clear.

 

39 minutes ago, Gray said:

I've already mentioned the one temple covenant that might apply to church leaders. It says nothing about not disagreeing with them.

 

35 minutes ago, ERMD said:

I read that, and that's not it.  You are looking beyond the mark.

 

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

That was really the only one that is even tangentially related.

Really?  Come on.
Either tell us which one you are thinking of or let it go.  The "I know something you don't know" is silly.

[Jeanne]

On 6/23/2016 at 6:34 AM, 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.

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.

Woot.. My son was in the hospital at the age of 6 for a long time..I wish that I had this kind of memory..a blessing to my son!  Gives me goosebumps!

[juliann]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Thanks for the interesting quotes, smac. However, despite President Smith's views to the contrary, I can't think of any covenant made by latter-day saints that involves promising to never voice an opinion on doctrine contrary to those of church leaders, or even promising to sustain them. The only covenant we make regarding our relationship with church leaders (or actually the more ambiguously worded "Lord's anointed") is to not speak evil of them. 

 

Elder Christoffersen has again publicly stated that it is all right for members to support gay marriage.  (It is in a recent Trib article I'm not going to go back and find.) Speaking for the church, he only draws the line at fighting against the church, creating followings, trying to draw people away etc. I think speaking evil covers that just fine. So not only is there not a covenant we are being repeatedly told we are allowed to publicly state a position in opposition to the church's position.

[ERMD]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

That was really the only one that is even tangentially related. 

Nope.

[ERMD]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

That was really the only one that is even tangentially related. 

duplicate

Edited June 24, 2016 by ERMD

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, juliann said:

Elder Christoffersen has again publicly stated that it is all right for members to support gay marriage.  (It is in a recent Trib article I'm not going to go back and find.) Speaking for the church, he only draws the line at fighting against the church, creating followings, trying to draw people away etc. I think speaking evil covers that just fine. So not only is there not a covenant we are being repeatedly told we are allowed to publicly state a position in opposition to the church's position.

Agreed on all points. There does not seem to be any attempt from church leaders to say that church members have to agree with everything they teach. Quite the contrary, from your example. 

Edited June 24, 2016 by Gray

[The Nehor]

As much as I would personally like the women of the church to bear the Priesthood this argument is weak and wrests the evidence away from the original intent. If it happens the apostles will reveal it. If you want it as I do pray for it.

[Bernard Gui]

When I was a young teen-ager my father joined the Church. He became what was known as an Adult Aaronic Priesthood holder. One day I was injured in a sports accident. That night something exacerbated the injury and I was suffering extreme pain. Not holding the Melchizedek Priesthood, he did not lay his hands on me to give me an anointing and healing blessing, but he did kneel beside my bed and offered up a prayer of faith and healing. Even though he did not lay his hands on my head his prayer was immediately answered, the pain disappeared, and I fell asleep. Laying on hands is for ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood, as we learn in the temple and elsewhere. It's use should be limited to that purpose. It is not necessary for the prayer of faith which can be offered by anyone - male or female, young or old.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

The keys of the Priesthood are not the Priesthood. They are an ingenious mechanism that is essential in the functioning of the Priesthood. They are held on earth by one man - the President of the Church, and collectively but dormant by the 12 apostles. We affirm this when we receive a temple recommend. They are necessary to authorize others to perform ordinations and the ordinances of salvation. They are delegated to presidents of Priesthood quorums and certain callings, but not to presidents of auxiliaries, including the Relief Society. It is a mistake to say Joseph gave the Priesthood keys to women because in order to have keys one has to be ordained. As far as I know, he did not ordain any women to the Priesthood; therefore, none of them had the Priesthood or keys.

Edited June 25, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[sam]

I don't think so