Church Announces Change in Temple Policies Re: 30+ Men / Divorced Persons

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

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

The above is a source on David O'Mckay and the Prietshood restriction.

Sorry...I should have been more specific....I was wondering about Pres McKay being told not to ask again.

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Sorry...I should have been more specific....I was wondering about Pres McKay being told not to ask again.

I kind of got that, and like you thought it was a bit of a leap. I haven't seen a reference that takes it that far.

All I think we can say, is that he either didn't ask again, or did ask again but didn't feel an impression to change things.

[Bernard Gui]

28 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I kind of got that, and like you thought it was a bit of a leap. I haven't seen a reference that takes it that far.

All I think we can say, is that he either didn't ask again, or did ask again but didn't feel an impression to change things.

Perhaps timing is important.

[Kenngo1969]

On 8/25/2017 at 6:46 PM, hope_for_things said:

So your answer for why things are the way they are is that only God knows?  Seems like a dodge of actually looking at the evidence.  When President Kimball actually considered the evidence of history on the priesthood ban he became open to change even though it was very difficult for him.  ...

 

On 8/25/2017 at 8:32 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

... Yes, and when President McKay ... who, from what I understand was perfectly willing to lift the ban, and, in fact, went as far as he could without Divine word on the matter, such as not imposing the ban on non-African blacks ... petitioned the Lord about lifting it, he was told, essentially, "Not yet, and don't ask again." ...

 

 

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

A friendly CFR please?

To be fair (and in the interest of full disclosure), the historical record is less than unanimous as to what answer(s) President David O. McKay received about what the continuing status of the ban should be.  In truth, I don't know where I first learned of the idea that the answer President McKay received was, "Not yet, and don't ask again."  I'm poor, and I'm way behind reading the books that already are in my reading queue, so I have not read Prince's David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, but I understand Prince broached the subject therein.  I found this in a reply to a post about President McKay and the Priesthood ban at By Common Consent:

Quote

 

DavidH says:

December 4, 2009 at 10:55 am

There are at least three anecdotes of McKay’s prayers and different answers.

Marion D. Hanks said McKay reported receiving “no answer”. Lola Timmons, a former secretary in the Church office building said McKay reported) receiving an answer “not yet”. Richard Jackson, an architect in the Church Office Building, said McKay reported God’s telling him “not to bring the subject up again.” David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism at 103-04.

 

Here's a link to the BCC thread.  https://bycommonconsent.com/2009/12/04/david-o-mckay-and-the-priesthood-ban/.

Hope this helps.   Thanks.

-Ken

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

Yes, it does seem funny. I didn't know that I couldn't work in the temple because of that.  This means that while my youngest is in school during the day this week I can't work in the temple, but while he is out I can go to two meetings for one of my callings today (Sunday) and another 2 for my other calling  after he gets home from school.

And now he is 16. I have always felt I should be home for teens like I was for my young children, but the fact is that because of his age HE isn't around as much either - school activities,  YM/YW, hanging out with friends,  jobs,  homework that requires him to be somewhere other than home. Women could work in the temple, and depending on schedules, never even be gone while their teens are home. 

It's so true.  My husband works from home, for example, so once my kids are all in school, being an ordinance worker in the temple would impact my children far far less (as it, not really at all) than the calling I currently have.  They would still have access to a parent the entire time I was in there should a need arise.  

I'm busy enough right now and I'm not lobbying to be working in the temple, but just using my own situation as an example of how it would be manageable for a lot of women with kids at home.

[Avatar4321]

On ‎8‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 10:22 AM, hope_for_things said:

I don't believe in that kind of God.  Men make mistakes, deity shouldn't.  And yet the old policy was a mistake in my mind.  

and because its your opinion it's correct?

[Avatar4321]

On ‎8‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 10:25 AM, hope_for_things said:

It's been written about in a few places, Ed Kimball's biography on his dad, I think a BYU or dialogue essay.  I'm away from my computer now, but the essence is captured in a statement that I'm paraphrasing from memory.  That statement said Kimball was willing to go to his grave defending the priesthood restriction if God willed it.  

I've read the biography several times and I didn't see any statement that he wasn't open to a revelation changing the matter

[Avatar4321]

On ‎8‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 0:00 PM, hope_for_things said:

If God knows what choices a person will make ahead of time and God puts that person specifically in that place, how is God not responsible on some level?  

because that person and not God made the choice. No one forced them to.

if I give my daughter a choice between a green and red crayon knowing she loved the color green and will pick it every time, how have i forced her to use green?

[hope_for_things]

On 8/26/2017 at 11:46 AM, mfbukowski said:

The assumption that men do not make mistakes because they are ALLEGEDLY speaking for God- which is impossible for a human to do with perfection since we are not perfect- is an unwarranted assumption that Mormons do not make unless they are themselves making a mistake

Yet I think this is a mistake that gets perpetuated by current leaders and church members are they are taught to not think critically about the statements and underlying assumptions that prior leaders have made.  So mistakes turn into huge problems, like with the priesthood ban, and get perpetuated for multiple generations doing harm to individuals in real ways.  I could argue that ALLEGEDLY speaking for God is the MO of many religions and Mormonism in particular.  

On 8/26/2017 at 11:46 AM, mfbukowski said:

So the assumption that "God doesn't make mistakes" may in fact be true however that says nothing about mortal humans, as opposed to immortal humans,  who think they are speaking FOR God.

THAT is why we are to develop a testimony for each statement of doctrine

Now can you see how the above response conflates:

1-That any mortal men can speak perfectly for God

2- That church leaders speak perfectly for God

3- That one should, in LDS doctrine accept every statement of a leader as the Words of God

4- That one should in LDS doctrine accept every policy of a leader as the Word of God.

Therefore Ken pointed out that you were in fact making prior assumptions without apparently being aware you were.

I actually agree with you here, and the prior assumption I was actually arguing from the perspective of your average member.  I do think we need to develop a testimony for each doctrine taught.  And I think when put under scrutiny many of the doctrines taught fall very short, personally I have a testimony that many of them are riddled with errors in thinking and aren't a reflection of something divinely inspired.  This is why I was attempting to show that at the end of the day, we should place the accountability for morality onto our own shoulders and not try to outsource that to trusting in the institution or a leader with authority.  To me, this is the Nuremberg defense from in a religious context, and I think this is a sad tradition that seems to have prominence in Mormonism.  

[hope_for_things]

On 8/26/2017 at 3:42 PM, BlueDreams said:

That's a common cultural trend period. But  it usually takes a more backlash approach. Such as what's happening currently in our American social climate. Though i agree that it happens in the LDS faith I do think it's. It nearly as drastic most of the time.

i'm not sure if I follow you on the evolution thing. I can't find evidence of it regressing in acceptance. It's low in acceptance from one survey I could find (though I could see why, with the question asked). There's also things that point to being fine integrating evolution in a religious context, Such as the depiction of the creation in the temple videos taking a lot from a scientific constructs of how earth was formed. But I would like to see what you have if you have proof of this. And the church doesn't hold a stance one way or another in general. 

 

With luv,

BD 

The evolution data point was just one that Mauss had researched for his book, and I recall the acceptance of evolution among Mormons had declined over a generation or two instead of moving in the direction you would expect.  Its a curious thing, but I think it shows the power of a few charismatic leaders and their passion speaking about things as if they are heresies.  Those individuals have been masterful at playing on the fears of individuals and making people look with a cynical eye towards everything not coming from a church source. 

[hope_for_things]

On 8/26/2017 at 11:07 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Is the copy with his margin notes available?

I have read a copy of the Deseret Book published version, don't own one though.  I plan to buy the full version someday.  I know Benchmark books in SLC sells a hard copy of it for about $200, but they also sell a digital copy for much less.  

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I've read the biography several times and I didn't see any statement that he wasn't open to a revelation changing the matter

So, the quote I was paraphrasing earlier was this: 

Quote

I had a great deal to fight . . . myself, largely, because I had grown up with this thought that Negroes should not have the priesthood and I was prepared to go all the rest of my life until my death and fight for it and defend it as it was.

From BYU Studies 47, no. 2 (2008) - Essay by Ed Kimball

The sentiment and the context being that President Kimball was willing to defend this doctrine that he had been taught his entire life and that he believed to be true.  I recommend reading that entire essay for the context, its well written. 

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

and because its your opinion it's correct?

Of course its correct, as all my opinions generally are.  

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

because that person and not God made the choice. No one forced them to.

if I give my daughter a choice between a green and red crayon knowing she loved the color green and will pick it every time, how have i forced her to use green?

Slightly different, you suspect your child will use green, but its just a guess based on prior tendencies your child has made.  In the other case, God has 100% accurate foreknowledge about something.  

A better example would be if you had a robot child that you personally had created from scratch, and you had programmed this child to always preference green over red.  Would you as the creator of the robot child, be accountable for that child choosing the green color over the red when you already knew ahead of time exactly which color the robot would select because you programmed it into the child ahead of time, and because you had 100% certainty that the robot would make that choice?  

Edited August 28, 2017 by hope_for_things

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Slightly different, you suspect your child will use green, but its just a guess based on prior tendencies your child has made.  In the other case, God has 100% accurate foreknowledge about something.  

A better example would be if you had a robot child that you personally had created from scratch, and you had programmed this child to always preference green over red.  Would you as the creator of the robot child, be accountable for that child choosing the green color over the red when you already knew ahead of time exactly which color the robot would select because you programmed it into the child ahead of time, and because you had 100% certainty that the robot would make that choice?  

Right, but in LDS theology God isn't really our creator. We always existed. That doesn't erase the point you're trying to make, just pointing that out.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Right, but in LDS theology God isn't really our creator. We always existed. That doesn't erase the point you're trying to make, just pointing that out.

Yes, good point, and I would agree that LDS theology has that provision for eternal intelligences, along side this other concept of agency.   Individual agency comes into conflict with this idea of God being omniscient.  I know some Mormon philosophers have arguments for how they solve the conflicts between this omniscience of God concept and the idea that individuals still have agency to make choices, but I'm not very familiar with how the mechanics of these arguments work.  

Do you know how a Mormon theologian might explain what seems like a contradiction to me between these two concepts?   

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yet I think this is a mistake that gets perpetuated by current leaders and church members are they are taught to not think critically about the statements and underlying assumptions that prior leaders have made.  So mistakes turn into huge problems, like with the priesthood ban, and get perpetuated for multiple generations doing harm to individuals in real ways.  I could argue that ALLEGEDLY speaking for God is the MO of many religions and Mormonism in particular.  

I actually agree with you here, and the prior assumption I was actually arguing from the perspective of your average member.  I do think we need to develop a testimony for each doctrine taught.  And I think when put under scrutiny many of the doctrines taught fall very short, personally I have a testimony that many of them are riddled with errors in thinking and aren't a reflection of something divinely inspired.  This is why I was attempting to show that at the end of the day, we should place the accountability for morality onto our own shoulders and not try to outsource that to trusting in the institution or a leader with authority.  To me, this is the Nuremberg defense from in a religious context, and I think this is a sad tradition that seems to have prominence in Mormonism.  

Quite honestly, the very fact we are having this discussion, on this general level, in a Mormon board indicates these older views are on their way out.

These beliefs are far more widespread now than they were when I joined in 2008, and I notice that the most fundamentalist posters from that time no longer post here.  We have nobody here really representing Intelligent Design theories even.

Yes the members here are a bit more into these issues than others, but not much.  Fundamentalism will become the death of the church if we let it be.  If it was necessary, for example, for Mormons to believe in a 6 thousand year old earth,  or be excommunicated or some such ridiculousness, I think there would be no church left.  No one will join the church if the prospective convert thinks we are against evolution etc.  I love the Amish but they do not seek converts, and actually doubt the possibility of anyone joining them who has not lived their lifestyle for their entire lives

But I am judging by the standard of Chrstian believers in metropolitan Los Angeles, and I am sure Utah varies from that.

But the fact of the matter is, it is perfectly possible to believe in fundamentalism OR views like mine- I do not find conflict, but the fundamentalists do.  As I see it that is their problem.

They have a different paradigm than I do, which I can accommodate but they cannot.

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quite honestly, the very fact we are having this discussion, on this general level, in a Mormon board indicates these older views are on their way out.

These beliefs are far more widespread now than they were when I joined in 2008, and I notice that the most fundamentalist posters from that time no longer post here.  We have nobody here really representing Intelligent Design theories even.

Yes the members here are a bit more into these issues than others, but not much.  Fundamentalism will become the death of the church if we let it be.  If it was necessary, for example, for Mormons to believe in a 6 thousand year old earth,  or be excommunicated or some such ridiculousness, I think there would be no church left.  No one will join the church if the prospective convert thinks we are against evolution etc.  I love the Amish but they do not seek converts, and actually doubt the possibility of anyone joining them who has not lived their lifestyle for their entire lives

But I am judging by the standard of Chrstian believers in metropolitan Los Angeles, and I am sure Utah varies from that.

But the fact of the matter is, it is perfectly possible to believe in fundamentalism OR views like mine- I do not find conflict, but the fundamentalists do.  As I see it that is their problem.

They have a different paradigm than I do, which I can accommodate but they cannot.

I like your optimism, and I've got hope for the future as well.  Had a really nice discussion with my Bishop on Sunday about the Loveloud concert in Orem that I attended.  Overall, lots of reasons to look favorably on the future.