Popular Post smac97 Posted October 22, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted October 22, 2021 Here: Opinion: Balancing the tensions of our Latter-day Saint and LGBTQ conversations Some excerpts: Quote I sit every day in the tensions of our American and Latter-day Saint conversations about faith and sexuality, both as a sexual minority who has concerns about the pain felt by many LGBTQ clients and others I support, and as a believing and practicing Latter-day Saint who is concerned with the growing polarization in faith communities around the ethics of sexuality, marriage and family. I was an undergraduate student at BYU when I started addressing the conflict between my own faith and my attraction to men. I know in a very real and personal way how it feels to live in a world between worlds. I know the shame and pain of wondering where you fit in a world where it’s taught that God has given us “natural” attractions for divine purposes — and feeling that what was natural to me was so fundamentally at odds with what “should” be that I was convinced if anyone knew how I felt inside I would lose the acceptance and love from others that I craved. A lot has changed for me since then. With the help of some transformative spiritual experiences and good therapy, I was able to work through the existential crisis I experienced earlier, recommitted myself to my faith (and to what I thought then would be an ever-single life in the church), and then many years later I met my now-wife with whom I have a beautiful and life-giving marriage and five more little humans who have taught me more about God’s love than I ever could have imagined. As I’ve observed and felt the tensions over the years in our cultural conversations around sexuality, gender and faith, there are some themes that have emerged that seem to me to be at the heart of at least some of the conflicts within our Latter-day Saint faith community — particularly the tensions between the doctrines of the church and how those doctrines impact different people differently, and how we extend love and ministry to others in varying life circumstances. These are some good thoughts. Quote For a number of years, Latter-day Saint leaders have been speaking to this tension that members of the church must wrestle with. In 2009, then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke in general conference of the reinforcing truths of “love and law” — which he then reemphasized and expanded on during a 2018 address to BYU-Idaho students on “The Paradox of Love and Law.” In 2019, President Russell M. Nelson underscored this same divine duality in his message to BYU students, “The Love and Laws of God.” And then last month, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland cautioned BYU faculty and administrators, “We have to be careful that love and empathy do not get interpreted as condoning and advocacy, or that orthodoxy and loyalty to principle not be interpreted as unkindness or disloyalty to people.” In my opinion, one thing the aftermath of Elder Holland’s address has revealed is that most people don’t actually seem to do very well at holding this tension. To borrow a phrase from Elder Neal A. Maxwell, in the “spiritual ecology” of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it requires a high degree of emotional and spiritual maturity and a high level of commitment to both love and truth to be able to hold them in adequate tension. “The doctrines of Jesus Christ,” Elder Maxwell taught, “are so powerful that any one of these doctrines, having been broken away from the rest, goes wild and mad. … The principle of love without the principles of justice and discipline goes wild. Any doctrine, unless it is woven into the fabric of orthodoxy, goes wild. The doctrines of the kingdom need each other just as the people of the kingdom need each other.” The references to Elder Holland's recent remarks, and to Elder Maxwell's "spiritutal ecology" comments, are poignant to me. He goes on to compare recent trends re: LGBT issues with the early Christians' encounters with Hellenistic philosophy: Quote I believe there is something happening within the lay Latter-day Saint community that we need to be aware and conscious of. In his Truman Madsen Lecture on Joseph Smith’s “recovery” of the “eternal man,” Robert Millet, former dean of religious education at BYU, talked about the changes in the Christian concept of God that took place with early councils such as Nicaea and Constantinople, quoting evangelical scholars who remarked on the many insights that emerged from this “inevitable encounter” between the gospel and the larger culture and influence of Hellenistic philosophy, which also helped Christians evangelize Greek culture. Quoting these scholars, Millet continued, “Along with the good came a certain theological virus that infected the Christian doctrine of God, making it ill and creating the sorts of problems mentioned above. The virus so permeates Christian theology (today) that some have come to take the illness for granted, attributing it to divine mystery, while others remain unaware of the infection altogether.” I believe something comparable is happening in the church today with regard to ideologies surrounding love, marriage, sexuality and gender. Cultural movements such as secular humanism, expressive individualism, Victorian romanticism, American sentimentalism and gender deconstructionism — and perhaps even a few more -isms — have given rise to sexual liberation and subsequent gay/queer liberation movements. These broader cultural -isms — and many of the tribal -ites they help shape — have influenced even members of the church in ways we most often simply don’t comprehend. But they are potent and we consume a steady diet of them through our popular culture and entertainment. For many Latter-day Saints, these cultural and sociopolitical philosophies and worldviews, just as Greek and pagan cultures of old, have in ways infected the worldviews of many Latter-day Saints and become a kind of “theological virus” or spiritual cancer. As a colleague of mine recently remarked, it’s almost as if Jesus had said, “Greater love hath no man or woman than this, that any and all consenting adults should experience passionate romance, intimate pair-bonding and sexual fulfillment all the days of their life — and, be wary of children, for they may inhibit life satisfaction.” I wish I could write like this, particularly the second and third paragraphs above. Ty is distilling various cultural influences in ways that I think are trenchant and worthy of further discussion. Anyway, read the whole thing. Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac 11 Link to comment
Popular Post Hamba Tuhan Posted October 22, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted October 22, 2021 (edited) 44 minutes ago, smac97 said: He goes on to compare recent trends re: LGBT issues with the early Christians' encounters with Hellenistic philosophy: Quote I believe something comparable is happening in the church today with regard to ideologies surrounding love, marriage, sexuality and gender. This is a very apt comparison. The demand is essentially that the Church treat late 19th-century social constructs as universal truths and then alter its doctrines to align with them. It's not going to happen, and if it did happen, it would be an act of apostasy equivalent to what happened in the early centuries following the deaths of the apostles. Like all social movements, this one will also crescendo and then decline at some point, and looking back people will wonder how it ever became ascendant in the first place. In the meantime, the Church is doing its damnedest to accommodate those who've been caught up in this ideological wave whilst protecting revealed truth from the onslaught -- something the early Christian leaders failed to do. I expect things to get worse before they get better. Edited October 22, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan 5 Link to comment
Popular Post strappinglad Posted October 22, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted October 22, 2021 2 hours ago, smac97 said: doctrine, unless it is woven into the fabric of orthodoxy, goes wild. I am currently rereading " Rough Stone Rolling" and there was a time in the early days of the church when visions and tongues etc. almost overwhelmed the saints , ie. they went wild over one area of doctrine . That the church survived the first 15 + years of persecution,turmoil and chaos in all ranks ,to me, is a miracle. 6 Link to comment
CV75 Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 (edited) 9 hours ago, smac97 said: Here: Opinion: Balancing the tensions of our Latter-day Saint and LGBTQ conversations Some excerpts: These are some good thoughts. The references to Elder Holland's recent remarks, and to Elder Maxwell's "spiritutal ecology" comments, are poignant to me. He goes on to compare recent trends re: LGBT issues with the early Christians' encounters with Hellenistic philosophy: I wish I could write like this, particularly the second and third paragraphs above. Ty is distilling various cultural influences in ways that I think are trenchant and worthy of further discussion. Anyway, read the whole thing. Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac I see political ideology and socio-sexual activism (pro- or con-) as primarily driven by self-interest, where "redefined" concepts of charity, compassion and assertiveness become tools to an end. Political ideology and social (including socio-sexual) activism are simply not the Lord's way. 3 Nephi 11 and 12 teaches charity and unity in considering points of doctrine. I think everything in the Plan of Salvation applies to all of God's children equally, efforts to understand their nature by categorizing (alas, often separating them) by socio-sexual terms and ideologies notwithstanding. There is far more that we know about the children of God than we don't, simply because we have infinitely so much in common. Edited October 22, 2021 by CV75 1 Link to comment
CA Steve Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 I believe the substance of Ty's opinion piece would of been substantially similar if it would have been made by a faithful member pre 1978 who was being denied the priesthood due to ancestry. 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 (edited) 53 minutes ago, CA Steve said: I believe the substance of Ty's opinion piece would of been substantially similar if it would have been made by a faithful member pre 1978 who was being denied the priesthood due to ancestry. Would have or would’ve, not “would of”. You got it right the second time, though. Kudos for that. Edited October 22, 2021 by Scott Lloyd Link to comment
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted October 22, 2021 59 minutes ago, CA Steve said: I believe the substance of Ty's opinion piece would of been substantially similar if it would have been made by a faithful member pre 1978 who was being denied the priesthood due to ancestry. Having grown up in the Church prior to 1978, I disagree. I clearly recall that among most faithful Latter-day Saints, it was forgone that the priesthood restriction would one day be lifted. That’s not the case with regard to any imagined change to the law of chastity as it is presently constituted. 10 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Having grown up in the Church prior to 1978, I disagree. I clearly recall that among most faithful Latter-day Saints, it was forgone that the priesthood restriction would one day be lifted. That’s not the case with regard to any imagined change to the law of chastity as it is presently constituted. Or is it? Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 7 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Or is it? I don’t understand the question. Link to comment
smac97 Posted October 22, 2021 Author Share Posted October 22, 2021 1 hour ago, CA Steve said: I believe the substance of Ty's opinion piece would of been substantially similar if it would have been made by a faithful member pre 1978 who was being denied the priesthood due to ancestry. With respect, I disagree. The priesthood ban lacked scriptural/revelatory provenance. The Law of Chastity, the meaning and significance of marriage, etc. have substantial provenance. Thanks, -Smac 2 Link to comment
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 22 minutes ago, smac97 said: The priesthood ban lacked scriptural/revelatory provenance. This is not true. Brigham Young claimed revelatory provenance for the ban. And there are way more scriptures justifying the ban than there are justifying discrimination against LGBTQ people. The Book of Mormon establishes that God uses skin color as a mark of a curse. The iBook of Abraham establishes the doctrine that certain lineages are banned from the priesthood. The Book of Moses establishes that the descendants of Cain were cursed with a black skin and that Adam’s other descendants did not intermarry with them. The intermarriage theme is further supported by the Book of Mormon narrative where Lamanites skin color s was designed to not be enticing for the Nephites. Further there is statement after statement in talk after talk by general authorities expounding on this doctrine. The idea that the ban lacked a scriptural basis is revisionist history at its finest. 3 Link to comment
california boy Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Having grown up in the Church prior to 1978, I disagree. I clearly recall that among most faithful Latter-day Saints, it was forgone that the priesthood restriction would one day be lifted. That’s not the case with regard to any imagined change to the law of chastity as it is presently constituted. Well, that isn't really the whole story is it. Members were taught that restoration would come at the end of time. Few believed it would happen in their lifetime. Quote “The Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the priesthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Abel had received the priesthood, until the redemption of the earth,” Rewriting Church history hasn't really worked out all that well for the Church. You might keep that in mind. Edited October 22, 2021 by california boy 2 Link to comment
LoudmouthMormon Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 (edited) 13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Like all social movements, this one will also crescendo and then decline at some point, and looking back people will wonder how it ever became ascendant in the first place. I'm thinking about the trans activist movement to destroy genital preference and redefine gender. I've been watching its gains in public policy, the private sector, healthcare, academia. I'm thinking we're beginning to see the crescendo now. And I'm watching gays and lesbians, of all people, starting to lead the charge. It looks a little something like this: Radical Trans Activist: Love is love! Gender is not biological sex! What's between your legs doesn't matter, how you identify and present is all that's relevant! And every week we win more and more battles against the transphobes still holding on to their outdated discriminatory genital preferences! Growing numbers of gays: Um, no. I'm attracted to persons with male genitalia, not biological females taking hormone therapy and having breast reduction surgery. Remember how we've won the battle against conversion therapy, where we're pressured/forced/electroshocked to change who we're attracted to? When trans activists show up with their "you must change who you are attracted to" mantra, it sure sounds similar. We fought to hard to say "it's ok to be attracted to the same sex". You do not get to redefine homosexuality as "same gender attraction". No thank you. Growing numbers of lesbians: Also no. I do not want anything to do with male genitalia on my partners. Some of us have survived traumas and abuse from males as part of our journey to become happy lesbians. And the trans activists pressuring us to date biological males, is starting to come across as a little rapey. No thank you. I notice there's a "New Gay Liberation Front" out there, founded on beliefs that open dialog about biological reality is a good thing. Sitting here as a temple recommend-holding covenantly-sealed cisgender heterosexual, I have to admit I find an awful lot of their arguments compelling. Edited October 22, 2021 by LoudmouthMormon Link to comment
smac97 Posted October 22, 2021 Author Share Posted October 22, 2021 10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Quote The priesthood ban lacked scriptural/revelatory provenance. This is not true. Yes, I think it is true. 10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Brigham Young claimed revelatory provenance for the ban. CFR, please. I'm quite open to being wrong on this point. Please point to the revelation that you are referencing here. Edward Kimball's research does not seem to support your view. Also consider these remarks by Marcus Martins: Quote As a researcher I may have read everything official or semi-official statement available to the public about the priesthood ban. ... In my mind the priesthood ban was never part of the everlasting gospel, and I have found peace in the idea that the Lord allowed the ban to remain in his Church in order to fulfill his inscrutable purposes whatever they are. That belief leads me to conclude that the ban never jeopardized my eternal salvation. There were a few significant privileges of membership in the Church that I could not enjoy before June of 1978; a few very significant things, but not very many. I was able to receive the ordinance of baptism, I received the Holy Ghost, I could pay my tithing, I could read the scriptures, I could pray, I could partake of the sacrament, I could hold many callings as my parents and I did all those years between 1972-78, and also keep the commandments of the Lord and be blessed for doing so. None of these privileges of membership was denied me. I simply could not officiate in priesthood ordinances like my peers, nor enter a temple and receive my own endowment, nor be sealed to my parents, but other than that all other privileges of membership were available to me. ... In my mind, the priesthood ban and its associated rationales were never part of the restored gospel. I would argue that they constituted educated responses to the social environment in which the Church existed in the late 19th and most of the 20th century. Let me try to expand this insight by resorting to a typology of laws that I conceived a few years ago. ... Considering our lack of additional information on the origins of the priesthood ban, I have used my typology to categorize the ban as a mortal law, or in other words, a rule or regulation established as an educated response to the social environment in which the Church existed in the late 19th and most of the 20th century. This would have been what those Church leaders of 150-or-so years ago felt was the best approach at the time, and they used the keys of the priesthood in their possession to enforce it. And because of his inscrutable purposes, the Lord remained silent about the issue until June 1, 1978. This categorization and hypothesis will be sufficient to me personally until evidence is presented of the existence of a revelation dated in the 19th century establishing the ban. (Emphases added.) I encourage you to read the whole thing. If you have more information about this topic that Bro. Martins, I'm all ears. 10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: And there are way more scriptures justifying the ban Not really. 10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: than there are justifying discrimination against LGBTQ people. I'm not sure what "discrimination" you are referencing here. 10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: The Book of Mormon establishes that God uses skin color as a mark of a curse. I'm not sure about that. See, e.g., here. Also, the Bible establishes that God can mandate lineage as a component of holding the priesthood. I encourage you to read Edward Kimball's treatment of this subject (particularly pp. 15-19 of the PDF). 10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: The Book of Abraham establishes the doctrine that certain lineages are banned from the priesthood. Lineages? Plural? Are you sure? 10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: The Book of Moses establishes that the descendants of Cain were cursed with a black skin and that Adam’s other descendants did not intermarry with them. Well, no, it does not. See, e.g., here: Quote Some contend that even though the doctrinal impact of pre-1978 statements have been greatly diminished, the LDS scriptures still retain the passages which were used for proof-texts for the ban and hence cannot be easily dismissed. A parallel can be drawn between Protestant denominations that have historically reversed their scriptural interpretations supporting slavery and a modified LDS understanding of their own scriptures that relate to the priesthood ban. Through more careful scripture reading and attention to scientific studies, many Protestants have come to differ with previous interpretations of Bible passages. A similar rethinking of passages unique to the LDS scriptures, such as Abraham 1:26-27, can be made if one starts by discarding erroneous preconceptions. Sociologist Armand Mauss critiqued former interpretations in a recent address: [W]e see that the Book of Abraham says nothing about lineages set aside in the pre-existence, but only about distinguished individuals. The Book of Abraham is the only place, furthermore, that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the pharaohs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any, especially in the modern world, would be covered by that proscription. At the same time, the passages in Genesis and Moses, for their part, do not refer to any priesthood proscription, and no color change occurs in either Cain or Ham, or even in Ham's son Canaan, who, for some unexplained reason, was the one actually cursed! There is no description of the mark on Cain, except that the mark was supposed to protect him from vengeance. It's true that in the seventh chapter of Moses, we learn that descendants of Cain became black, but not until the time of Enoch, six generations after Cain, and even then only in a vision of Enoch about an unspecified future time. There is no explanation for this blackness; it is not even clear that we are to take it literally.[1] Richard L. Bushman, LDS author of a biography of Joseph Smith, writes: ...[T]he fact that [the Lamanites] are Israel, the chosen of God, adds a level of complexity to the Book of Mormon that simple racism does not explain. Incongruously, the book champions the Indians' place in world history, assigning them to a more glorious future than modern American whites.... Lamanite degradation is not ingrained in their natures, ineluctably bonded to their dark skins. Their wickedness is wholly cultural and frequently reversed. During one period, "they began to be a very industrious people; yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites; therefore, they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them." (Alma 23:18) In the end, the Lamanites triumph. The white Nephites perish, and the dark Lamanites remain.[2] One faithful black member, Marcus Martins—also chair of the department of religious education at BYU-Hawaii—has said: The [priesthood] ban itself was not racist, but, unfortunately, it gave cover to people who were.[3] A more detailed treatment of all the relevant scriptures from the Latter-day Saint canon can be found at this link. Interesting stuff. 10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: The intermarriage theme is further supported by the Book of Mormon narrative where Lamanites skin color s was designed to not be enticing for the Nephites. Further there is statement after statement in talk after talk by general authorities expounding on this doctrine. The idea that the ban lacked a scriptural basis is revisionist history at its finest. Well, I really don't think so. Edward Kimball. Marcus Martins. Armand Mauss. Richard L. Bushman. There are scholars out there who have spent far more time on this than I have. Also, I'd encourage you to not equivocate. There are certainly post hoc rationalizations for the ban that involve citing scripture. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that the priesthood ban appears to lack revelatory provenance. If you can point me to a revelation in the archives of the Church that proves me incorrect on this point, I will appreciate it and will happily stand corrected. Thanks, -Smac 1 Link to comment
strappinglad Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 Oh , those pesky metaphors which were made to help learn truth, often get interpreted literally. I have not noticed a lot of brown eyed saints suddenly become blue eyed because the" scales of darkness " have fallen from their eyes. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: It's not going to happen, and if it did happen, it would be an act of apostasy equivalent to what happened in the early centuries following the deaths of the apostles. 👍 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 3 hours ago, california boy said: Well, that isn't really the whole story is it. Members were taught that restoration would come at the end of time. Few believed it would happen in their lifetime. That’s not consistent with my recollection. Most faithful Latter-day Saints believed, as I did, that it could happen anytime. That apparently was President Kimball’s understanding as well, as reflected in OD 2. Link to comment
CV75 Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 (edited) 9 hours ago, CA Steve said: I believe the substance of Ty's opinion piece would of been substantially similar if it would have been made by a faithful member pre 1978 who was being denied the priesthood due to ancestry. What do you see as the substance of his piece? I see it being that social and political pressures tend to cause friction between members. This is as old as the New Testament (at least), though the issues du jour may change. I'm sure this is why Jesus made the point to address doctrinal questions and concerns with unity and love, not contention. How else could we access the gift and power of the Holy Ghost? This was addressed recently in General Conference, and I believe the last one or two as well (probably more). Deep conversion to Christ helps us navigate these differences. No matter what the Lord has revealed to us (personally or by the prophets), the more significant and more personally meaningful these revelations are to us, I believe the intent is that charitable behavior is commensurate with the significance of the revelation. Otherwise, to paraphrase, "Amen" to the power of God to that person and "Amen" to the correct interpretation and application of divine knowledge. Some may call it simply moral authority or credibility. Edited October 22, 2021 by CV75 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: That’s not consistent with my recollection. Most faithful Latter-day Saints believed, as I did, that it could happen anytime. That apparently was President Kimball’s understanding as well, as reflected in OD 2. I think you would be hard-pressed to back that up with any apostolic quotes. The earliest stuff suggested Millenium at the earliest and based on the “Curse of Cain” explanation there are quotes about it being denied until the end or until Abel had a chance to have posterity and other things that didn’t suggest it would still be in the fallen world. If there is anything since I would like to hear it. If you are saying members at the time believed it could happen at any time then yes, that is possible but it is hard to tie that belief as being based on revelation from prophets and apostles. I would be glad to be proven wrong. 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 58 minutes ago, The Nehor said: If you are saying members at the time believed it could happen at any time then yes, that is possible but it is hard to tie that belief as being based on revelation from prophets and apostles. Yes, that’s what I’m saying. And that it’s apparent that’s what President Kimball believed (again, see OD 2). President Dallin H. Oaks, who was BYU president at the time, has described his emotion when he heard the news. He wept with joy. There was no quibbling from him about it supposedly not supposed to happen until the end of time. The central point is there is no apt comparison between our collective attitude back then regarding the anticipated lifting of the priesthood restriction and the general attitude today about the baseless expectation among some that the law of chastity will be rescinded or materially altered. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted October 22, 2021 Share Posted October 22, 2021 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Yes, that’s what I’m saying. And that it’s apparent that’s what President Kimball believed (again, see OD 2). President Dallin H. Oaks, who was BYU president at the time, has described his emotion when he heard the news. He wept with joy. There was no quibbling from him about it supposedly not supposed to happen until the end of time. The central point is there is no apt comparison between our collective attitude back then regarding the anticipated lifting of the priesthood restriction and the general attitude today about the baseless expectation among some that the law of chastity will be rescinded or materially altered. Those who do hope for such a “baseless” change would disagree with you. Since you haven’t shown any “base” for the expectation in 1978 other than hope and possible personal inspiration the two situations are not as different as you seem to conclude. Maybe the ratios are different in how many desire the change? Would that just mean it is currently the equivalent of 1955 and as the numbers change the number of those who hope and pray for such a change increase? It may not happen of course but you haven’t shown any real difference in conditions. 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Those who do hope for such a “baseless” change would disagree with you. Since you haven’t shown any “base” for the expectation in 1978 other than hope and possible personal inspiration the two situations are not as different as you seem to conclude. Maybe the ratios are different in how many desire the change? Would that just mean it is currently the equivalent of 1955 and as the numbers change the number of those who hope and pray for such a change increase? It may not happen of course but you haven’t shown any real difference in conditions. To quote Hamba: “It's not going to happen, and if it did happen, it would be an act of apostasy equivalent to what happened in the early centuries following the deaths of the apostles.” The same could not be said about the lifting of the priesthood ban, not now, not in 1978 and not in 1955. Edited October 23, 2021 by Scott Lloyd Link to comment
let’s roll Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 Three comment on the OP before the thread went down a rabbit hole. I enjoyed the article. I found it both well-reasoned and well written. The language is probably too esoteric for most but the the logic is compelling and thought-provoking. Link to comment
california boy Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 (edited) 8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: That’s not consistent with my recollection. Most faithful Latter-day Saints believed, as I did, that it could happen anytime. That apparently was President Kimball’s understanding as well, as reflected in OD 2. Can you tell me why everyone thought the ban would be lift soon? What did they base this timetable on? And why did they dismiss the last part of what Brigham Young said about his revelation or whatever they are calling it now? Certainly not all of the sons of Adam have first received the priesthood. Edited October 23, 2021 by california boy Link to comment
strappinglad Posted October 23, 2021 Share Posted October 23, 2021 (edited) Scott, you remember the Great Apostasy in 1978 when 20% of the members threatened to leave if OD2 was not removed. No? Neither do I. I do remember my Stake President casually asking me how I felt about it( while in line at the grocery store of all places ). I told him I was happy about it and that I knew it would happen sometime. I did hear rumors that a few members in the US south were not too happy about it, but that was just a fleeting rumor. Edited October 23, 2021 by strappinglad Link to comment
Recommended Posts