Trib Article re: Heavenly Mother

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

A step backwards from speculation and conjecture, yes.  But a step backward from what it (the Church) has said about Heavenly Mother?  I don't think so.

Well it seems that the steps forward that the church took jazzed people up a bit.  Like I said maybe some are being over exuberant. It is interesting that this seems particularly important especially to women.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

To provide a concise and authoritative resource as to what we know (and don't know) on a topic about which quite a few people are interested.

To differentiate between the (limited) information that we do have about Her from the speculative guesswork that occasionally makes the rounds in Latter-day Saint circles.

To provide guidance that keeps us within the bounds of revealed light and knowledge, and to discourage exceeding those bounds (again, I think we should consider the lessons learned from the damage caused by speculating about the priesthood ban).

Ok fair enough. I have not read it in quite some time so I do not recall how far it went.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I think that is what they are saying.

We sometimes see this tendency toward "looking beyond the mark" (Jacob 4:14) and having "a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge" (Romans 10:2).  

It is unfortunately too easy to take a correct and holy principle too far, or to distort it in some way.  Emergency preparedness and self-reliance can morph into the stuff we have seen from Julie Rowe, and even the Daybells.  Seeking personal revelation can morph into the Denver Snuffer type of thing.  The basic principles of the Law of Chastity can be twisted so as to make sex and sexuality appear per se sinful and ugly.  Seeking holiness can lead to Zoramites-on-their-Rameumptom-style arrogance and pride.  

I think discussions of Heavenly Mother, like many other discussions, can exceed the bounds of revealed light and knowledge, and can devolve into speculation, divisiveness, rebellion, and so on.

All fair points.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I believe both that there is a God and that He is speaking to prophets and apostles in our day.

One of the things I have appreciated about watchign The Chosen series (directed by Dallas Jenkins) is how much it humanizes the followers of Jesus.  These were rough-hewn men and women, with flaws and defects galor.  Just like us.  And yet He chose them and sent them out to minister in His name.  They were not perfect, in fact they were far from it.  But the message they carried was real and true.  

I understand what you believe. I understand that they nor the early Christian leaders were perfect.  Whether the message they carried is real and true or not is debatable.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think they are sincere in their beliefs,

I think they are as well.

 

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

which if so precludes what you propose here. 

Likely.

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

This is particularly so where "they," the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, would all need to go along with the falsehood you are proposing.  All fifteen men would need to A) arrive at a unified decision "from their own minds," B) agree to collude amongst themselves to "say" it is a revelation (as opposed to being "from their own minds"), and C) therafter present that falsehood to the body of the Church.

Well ok. But if they think God speaks to them then maybe they should take this up and do what they need to do to get an answer.  Seems like an important doctrine to clarify don't you think?

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

"But if it foes like the priesthood ban revelation?"  I'm not sure what this means.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry I need to watch my typos.  My point is it seems the revelation on the priesthood ban was a process.  It seems President McKay wanted to over turn it but was reluctant. Was he reluctant because God said no?  Or was he reluctant because a number of powerful apostles opposed the lifting of the ban and even undermined moving forward on it. This is well documented in the book David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism.  President Kimball received what he calls a revelation at time where there were many reason to lift the ban.  From social pressures to the growth of the church in Brazil and a temple being built there where many Brazilian members could not attend with out the ban being lifted. So was it a revelation or did the leaders all get together and agree it was time to do something about it.  Or maybe both.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I have no issue with multiple Heavenly Mothers.  But I see why leaders wouldn't want to address that.

I know you don't.  Many likely do.  Many likely don't.

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well ok. But if they think God speaks to them then maybe they should take this up and do what they need to do to get an answer.  Seems like an important doctrine to clarify don't you think?

There are all sorts of things about which we don't know, all sorts of important doctrines.  As for when and if such things are revealed to us and to the world, I'm not sure we can confidently speak as to the economies of God.  "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."  (Is. 55:8-9.)  "Touch not the things which are sealed, for I will bring them forth in mine own due time; for I will show unto the children of men that I am able to do mine own work."  (2 Nephi 27:21.)

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sorry I need to watch my typos.  My point is it seems the revelation on the priesthood ban was a process.  It seems President McKay wanted to over turn it but was reluctant. Was he reluctant because God said no? 

Apparently so:

Quote

According to Prince's book, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, Pres. McKay was evaluating the issue extensively as early as 1954 (p. 103), and continued to grapple with it for many years afterward.  Prince also states that Pres. McKay "made a conscious decision not to enter the fray of the emerging  civil rights  movement that came of age during his presidency," (p. 104), and yet you here seem to be positioning the Civil Rights movement as a key motivating factor for the 1978 revelation ("I am guessing you missed the period of activism for blacks receiving the priesthood, it was pretty big public spectacle").

Prince goes on to say that "{o}n several occasions ... [Pres. McKay] had opportunities to reverse the church's long-standing legacy of racial discrimination.  Yet each time he chose to turn away" (p. 104).  He also states that Pres. McKay "softened the ban around the edges, intervening to extend priesthood blessings to individuals where he could, and repeatedly pleading with the Lord for a complete reversal ... On uncounted occasions, he sought unsuccessfully to call down the revelation that would have changed the ban, a revelation that came to one of his successors eight years after his death.  This largely undocumented and almost wholly unknown struggle means that it is no stretch to assert that David O. McKay built the foundation upon which the revelation to Spencer W. Kimball rests" (p. 106).

This is also quite illuminating (p. 103):

Quote

His earliest inquiry, as far as we have record ... occurredin 1954 ... Other inquiries followed, though generally the dates are not known.  On one occasion his daughter-in-law, Mildred Calderwood McKay, who served on the general board of the Primary ... expressed her anguish that black male children, who commingled with white children during their Primary years (through age twelve), were excluded from the Aaronic Priesthood when they turned twelve.  "Can't they be ordained also?"  She asked.  He replied sadly, "No."  "Then I think it is time for a new revelation."  He answered, "So do I."

Marian D. Hanks ... related an incident from a [] trip to Vietname, in which he had comforted a woulded black LDS soldier.  As he told the story, McKay began to weep.  Referring to the priesthood ban, McKay said, "I have prayed and prayed and prayed, but there has been no answer."

Prince also provides this fascinating account (p. 104):

Quote

But the most remarkable account came from Richard Jackson, an architect who served in the Church Building Department from 1968 to McKay's death in 1970:

Quote

I remember one day that President McKay came into the office.  We could see that he was very much distressed.  He said, "I've had it!  I'm not going to do it again!"  Somebody said, "What?" He said, "Well, I'm badgered constantly about giving the priesthood to the Negro.  I've inquired of the Lord repeatedly.  The last time I did it was late last night.  I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."

This uncharacteristic outburst in the presence of an astonished church architect highlights the contrast between two strands in McKay's thought that are, by today's standard, inseparably joined: civil rights for blacks and priesthood ordination for black men.  The blurring, combined with McKay's own reticence, means that this difference has not been understood until now.

By Prince's accounting, Pres. McKay wanted to rescind the ban, but was told by the Lord to "not bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be {His} time, and to leave the subject alone."

Assuming the foregoing is accurate...

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Or was he reluctant because a number of powerful apostles opposed the lifting of the ban and even undermined moving forward on it.

Who would those be?

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

This is well documented in the book David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism. 

The need for unanimity played a role.  Whether recalcitrant apostles delayed the Lord's timing of things, though, seems pretty debateable.

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

President Kimball received what he calls a revelation at time where there were many reason to lift the ban.  From social pressures to the growth of the church in Brazil and a temple being built there where many Brazilian members could not attend with out the ban being lifted. So was it a revelation or did the leaders all get together and agree it was time to do something about it.  Or maybe both.

I think the Brethren, being sincerely devout, would have agreed - to a man - to fabricate a claim of revelation.  That just seems . . . unlikely to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are all sorts of things about which we don't know, all sorts of important doctrines.  As for when and if such things are revealed to us and to the world, I'm not sure we can confidently speak as to the economies of God.  "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."  (Is. 55:8-9.)  "Touch not the things which are sealed, for I will bring them forth in mine own due time; for I will show unto the children of men that I am able to do mine own work."  (2 Nephi 27:21.)

Apparently so:

Assuming the foregoing is accurate...

Who would those be?

The need for unanimity played a role.  Whether recalcitrant apostles delayed the Lord's timing of things, though, seems pretty debateable.

I think the Brethren, being sincerely devout, would have agreed - to a man - to fabricate a claim of revelation.  That just seems . . . unlikely to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think that Pres. McKay is a great example that just because we haven't been given revelation on something, doesn't mean we can assume that the prophets and apostles haven't asked the Lord for more light and knowledge on a subject.  

[BlueDreams]

On 3/26/2022 at 12:16 PM, smac97 said:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/03/26/i-wish-we-knew-more-lds/

(Apparently posted in its entirety here, though without attribution: https://webringnet.com/while-lds-leaders-warn-against-praying-to-the-heavenly-mother-questions-remain/ )

This is a really good point.  Revelation is not interchangeable with speculation and conjecture.

 

 

I keep trying to figure out what I think about the article. I read it on the alternative site and I know they mess with a few words from the og article to allow it to stay up…but the article kinda runs all over the place for me. Considering the last point you made I’m assuming that didn’t shift much. 

overall I found the article unsatisfactory, but I’m still struggling to explain exactly why beyond the disjointed writing. 

One problem I know I have is this odd assertion that we have enough info on HM. To me it’s a little weird to juxtapose “we have limited info on Her” but we also “have enough/what’s needed for salvation/etc.” That may be technically true, but it's not fully satisfactory...particularly in a church that has an article of faith talking about anticipating more revelation and truth. I do recognize that Renlund is quoted saying having q’s and such is good (super paraphrasing), but not to “speculate.” There’s a differentiation between reasoning and revelation…even as the penned song by E. snow recognizing her notes reason as the source for why we presume HM’s existence. It just seems a little conflicting to me, though I understand the need to be cautious with excess speculation. We can get too married to an idea that when revelation does come and it doesn't fully match what we expect it may be hard for us to pivot.

At the same time, I also picture this current point with HM as what I experienced with the temple right before some of the major changes to wording and policy (not the covid ones, the ones before that changed language in the ordinances). Prior I loved the temple while I could sense that there were things that could be better explained that weren't fully described/incorporated in the way the presentation was given. When the changes did come it didn't necessarily overhaul the ordinances but did bring better clarity and understanding to them, increasing people's experiences with their covenants. 

Or other things that have grown in clarity (understanding of women and priesthood power/authority, changes with witnessing, for example)

Likewise with HM. Where there is obviously a lot missing in our understanding. We technically may have enough to work with and have a good spiritual development. But I assume that at some point there likely needs to be more revelation or clarity for something that's still not fully there or seen. And when that does come, it will likely augment what we already have, correct a couple others, and move us forward in our covenants and understanding of the eternal IMHO.

 

On 3/26/2022 at 12:16 PM, smac97 said:

Quote

One thing is clear, the apostle said, Jesus instructed his disciples to pray to Heavenly Father alone so that is the pattern for all Christians, including Latter-day Saints.

In other words, no prayers should be addressed to Heavenly Mother.

Or to anyone else, including even to Jesus Christ.

There's a really big difference in this. With JC there's still a defined relationship given for us to access Him. We still understand doctrinally his role in our lives (Atoning for and redeeming us). We also have this for the HG (comforter/means to experience God here), another part of the godhead we don't directly pray to but have a defined relationship and experience with. We don't have that with HM. We don't have guidance for what it means to relate to Her. We barely talk about Her and when we do apparently we retrench around not getting too much into that area. It's weird to me when I read in the gospel topics that we honor and revere her, but struggle to even incorporate Her into what it means that She exists and cares for us. 

Personally I have had multiple experiences with/about Her. The first time was when I was receiving my endowment and it was so left field for me in the vocabulary given to me about God at the time, that I didn't have a name for what was happening to me. That and other things made me yearn for more. More understanding for women's place in the plan. More clarity of our power and capacities. And from time to time that led to moments of, well, more. Including more experiences of Her. Often in ways I didn't expect. like the time I receive a blessing from my then fiancé and She was the primary One to respond. I've watched interesting experiences for others with Her as well. So I know She exists, I know she's in our lives and proactively working in the here and now. I don't pray directly to Her because I try to live within the rules we currently have...but it also feels awkward to not at least acknowledging She's there and as concerned for me as the Father is. I joke it seems rude not to acknowledge the other person in the room... So in personal prayer, I acknowledge Her even if it's not directly praying to Her. 

I don't share these in detail beyond my husband because there's not a lot of space to do so in the church without it falling into the weird controversial end of things or feeling vaguely taboo. Or finding the odd fodder of people's rando speculations and fave pet theories. So likely my dissatisfaction with this is that it doesn't really move the needle towards greater clarity and knowledge. Even though many feel a deficit. Even though many are finding Her at times. Even though I've definitely met people where knowing HM was not a pet desire but a definite need in uniquely difficult times. 

So I don't want more rampant speculation, but man I wish there'd be more space for revelation. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

[Kevin Christensen]

D&C 1 has a line that says "Inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed."

Wisdom there could be capitalized.  

I quite like Val Larsen's recent work on how much is hidden in plain sight.  His Square Two essay is very good on that.  Daniel Peterson's Nephi and his Asherah is very important.  Alyson Von Feldt's Review of Did God Have a Wife? was very insightful.  Kevin Barney's Fair essay was very good.  Barker’s  The Mother of God is important.   The BYU Studies essay was important.  The Aston's Meridian essay on Myths about Mother in Heaven was important 

All of these were much better than Janice Allred's work because they all demonstrate careful seeking rather than untethered speculation.  Whereas she produced a mirror of her own views, the others open windows.  

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Visiting family in Utah

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

No you really cannot be sure of anything. It is just faith in your chosen religions doctrine.

Not necessarily.

 

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, MrShorty said:

This seems about right, and your statements/quotes seem to support this. But do they really support the idea that God the Father's "job/role" is to shepherd the sheep after "birth" (whatever that means to an intelligence/spirit) and God the Mother's job is to do the actual "creation"? The statements support the idea that God's purpose is to create, but they don't delineate the roles that we have ascribed to God the Mother and God the Father. Is it possible they are more egalitarian than we are comfortable with?

The obvious role is that of Savior which encompasses the roles of shepherd, protector, benefactor, provider, etc. The Son is our Savior in the name of, under the authority of, and following the direction of the Father.  

Edited March 29, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Except that the world's largest Christian church, the Roman Catholic Church, regularly prays to Jesus, Mary, and Saints. I think the bolded statement shows the apostle's protestant bias.

I have a very special devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

No disrespect, but how do you square that with scripture?

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Whereas she produced a mirror of her own views, the others open windows.

This is the risk inherent in a belief in personal revelation: Are we seeking validation or correction? Activism almost certainly inclines one to the former; humility, to the latter.

As Elder Bednar taught us in a regional priesthood leadership meeting, most genuine revelation consists of correction.

My experience this morning:

My new assignment as a member of the stake high council is as the adviser to a ward and its elders quorum. From the stand this past Sunday, I saw one of my former Young Men walk in very late and sit in the back. I made a beeline for him once sacrament meeting ended, and he joined us for elders quorum. Afterwards, he asked if we could talk, and he let me know that he's struggling. Together, we came up with one thing he could do differently that day (and hopefully across the entire week), and I let him know that I would be following up with him via text -- something he welcomed.

I texted him before he went to work that night and got no response. This morning (Tuesday), I still had nothing, so I formulated the following message to send to him once I finished shaving: 'Mate, don't ignore me after asking for my help'.

I picked up my mobile with the intention of sending that message, but then the correction came with spiritual force, and a clear alternative was placed in my mind. I accepted the correction and sent the following: 'I'm still here'.

His response was immediate!

Edited March 29, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

D&C 1 has a line that says "Inasmuch as they sought wisdom, they might be instructed."

Wisdom there could be capitalized.  

I quite like Val Larsen's recent work on how much is hidden in plain sight.  His Square Two essay is very good on that.  Daniel Peterson's Nephi and his Asherah is very important.  Alyson Von Feldt's Review of Did God Have a Wife? was very insightful.  Kevin Barney's Fair essay was very good.  Barker’s  The Mother of God is important.   The BYU Studies essay was important.  The Aston's Meridian essay on Myths about Mother in Heaven was important 

All of these were much better than Janice Allred's work because they all demonstrate careful seeking rather than untethered speculation.  Whereas she produced a mirror of her own views, the others open windows.  

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Visiting family in Utah

From last year:

Quote

Quote

The church seems to be reverting back the the 19990s and wants to purge out anything that does not seem orthodox enough if spoken about in public.

I'm not really seeing it.  I think the Trib article, despite its flaws, was substantively correct when it said that "Mormonism’s Heavenly Mother has gone mainstream."  Also: 

Quote

She is the topic of a number of books on sale at Deseret Book, which is owned and operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. She has spawned essays (including an official one from the faith), poetry, a one-woman play, hymns, art shows, even academic debates.

She has been embraced as part of the church’s Young Women theme, which was updated in 2019 to say: “I am a beloved daughter of Heavenly Parents, with a divine nature and eternal destiny.”

In 2000 the Maxwell Institutes published Daniel C. Peterson's "Nephi and His Asherah," which has been extensively cited and discussed ever since.

In 2011 BYU Studies published “A Mother There: Historical Teachings and Sacred Silence” by David L. Paulsen and Martin Pulido which "documents over 600 cases where general authorities have spoken about Heavenly Mother, stretching from the days of the prophet Joseph Smith down to 2010."

In 2012 Meridian Magazin published an article by Warren Aton which noted that Paulsen and Pulido "found no occasion where church leaders have ever asked us to not speak of Heavenly Mother, or to maintain some kind of 'sacred silence' about her," that "there is no authorized mandate of silence concerning Heavenly Mother" and that "{w}e are free to acknowledge her, talk about her and to give her the honor due to her."

In 2015 the Church published an essay about Her on its website: Mother in Heaven

So where is the retrenchment you are referencing here?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

10 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Are we seeking validation or correction? Activism almost certainly inclines one to the former; humility, to the latter.

The main problem I see in this is that it is always applied to individual (progressive) members and never applied to the Church and its leadership. When I look at the history of the priesthood and temple ban, I see an issue where, if the Church had only been more humble and more willing to seek correction rather than validation, we could have received the '78 revelation in '68 or even '58, maybe even '48.

Is the Church seeking correction or validation when it addresses LGBT+ issues? Women's issues? It so often feels like the Church is not seeking correction, but validation.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

The main problem I see in this is that it is always applied to individual (progressive) members and never applied to the Church and its leadership. When I look at the history of the priesthood and temple ban, I see an issue where, if the Church had only been more humble and more willing to seek correction rather than validation, we could have received the '78 revelation in '68 or even '58, maybe even '48.

Is the Church seeking correction or validation when it addresses LGBT+ issues? Women's issues? It so often feels like the Church is not seeking correction, but validation.

Have you read all of the David O McKay quotes that Smac put up yesterday?  They are on how much he wanted to end the ban when He was president and was told no. I found them very interesting.  You might as well.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Have you read all of the David O McKay quotes that Smac put up yesterday?  They are on how much he wanted to end the ban when He was president and was told no. 

There's a difference between McKay said, "I have prayed and prayed and prayed, but there has been no answer."

AND

Prince suggested "Pres. McKay wanted to rescind the ban, but was told by the Lord to "not bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be {His} time, and to leave the subject alone."

I am curious now if he received an answer or not.  I suppose it depends on the actual origin of both these quotes.
 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There's a difference between McKay said, "I have prayed and prayed and prayed, but there has been no answer."

AND

Prince suggested "Pres. McKay wanted to rescind the ban, but was told by the Lord to "not bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be {His} time, and to leave the subject alone."

I am curious now if he received an answer or not.  I suppose it depends on the actual origin of both these quotes.
 

That didn't come from Prince, but from Richard Jackson, but Prince published it I think.  

Richard Jackson claimed-"I remember one day that President McKay came into the office.  We could see that he was very much distressed.  He said, "I've had it!  I'm not going to do it again!"  Somebody said, "What?" He said, "Well, I'm badgered constantly about giving the priesthood to the Negro.  I've inquired of the Lord repeatedly.  The last time I did it was late last night.  I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."

The underlined part seems like an answer to me.  

[JLHPROF]

Just now, bluebell said:

That didn't come from Prince, but from Richard Jackson, but Prince published it I think.  

Richard Jackson claimed-"I remember one day that President McKay came into the office.  We could see that he was very much distressed.  He said, "I've had it!  I'm not going to do it again!"  Somebody said, "What?" He said, "Well, I'm badgered constantly about giving the priesthood to the Negro.  I've inquired of the Lord repeatedly.  The last time I did it was late last night.  I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."

The underlined part seems like an answer to me.  

Interesting.  There are those would rather they pushed and pushed the Lord.

That's when you run into the danger of permissive revelation - like Joseph and the 116 pages.
If we constantly prayed for something the Lord had previously denied we run the risk of a revelation telling us to go ahead and face the consequences.
It's good to see President McKay understood that principle.  Sometimes it seems like our general membership doesn't, like they think if our leaders just pray hard enough they're sure to get the revelation the membership thinks should be received.

[Nofear]

I'll repeat my earlier assertion/belief that revelation concerning Heavenly Mother is not more pronounced than it currently is because of the abuses of the doctrine that would occur among the membership. However, there isn't anything stopping one from receiving personal revelation on the matter. However, the lines of what is appropriate for public discourse as to the doctrines of the Church is the role of the Revelator to demarcate. Anything outside that boundary we are to keep to ourselves.

I strongly believe that the path to understanding our Heavenly Mother is the same path as coming to an understanding of our Heavenly Father -- through Christ (see John 14:8-9). Anything beyond that is "looking beyond the mark" (also referenced by smac97). I also strongly believe that public or personal revelation won't come by covering ourselves with sack cloth and ashes wailing aloud, "Wo, wo, wo are we. She is hidden! Patriarchy!" Maybe the wo part is accurate, but I do not believe she is hidden, not to them that have eyes to see.

[Nofear]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Interesting.  There are those would rather they pushed and pushed the Lord.

That's when you run into the danger of permissive revelation - like Joseph and the 116 pages.
If we constantly prayed for something the Lord had previously denied we run the risk of a revelation telling us to go ahead and face the consequences.
It's good to see President McKay understood that principle.  Sometimes it seems like our general membership doesn't, like they think if our leaders just pray hard enough they're sure to get the revelation the membership thinks should be received.

Or Joseph Smith and the Second Coming. "Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter." Which, to me seems just like a nice way of saying "Stop!" Even more so when we realize Joseph was also told "Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less;". So saying, "if you live until 85" really was a way of telling Joseph to drop the matter.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Interesting.  There are those would rather they pushed and pushed the Lord.

That's when you run into the danger of permissive revelation - like Joseph and the 116 pages.
If we constantly prayed for something the Lord had previously denied we run the risk of a revelation telling us to go ahead and face the consequences.
It's good to see President McKay understood that principle.  Sometimes it seems like our general membership doesn't, like they think if our leaders just pray hard enough they're sure to get the revelation the membership thinks should be received.

Agreed. 

And sometimes I think we forget about the importance of timing.  We think, "well, if something is right then it is always the right to do it" or the reverse "if something is wrong, then it will always be wrong to do".  Stuff like-

• If the priesthood ban was not condoned by God then obviously God would have wanted it stopped as soon as possible.
• If God was ok with the church going by the nickname "mormon" three decades ago then He wouldn't care now.
• Or the reverse, If God condemns the use of the nickname "mormon" now then previous prophets who embraced the term had to have been sinning in His eyes.
• Etc.

This is one way that presentism mangles our understanding of history, but, to me, it's even more than just an acceptance or acknowledgement of changing values and perspectives in society or culture over time. 

In the grand scheme of things (and from a theist's point of view), it's the realization that God isn't just making sure that the right things happen and the wrong things don't, He's making sure that the right things happen and the wrong things don't while respecting our agency, working with our weaknesses, dealing with the consequences of our sins, working around the realities of a fallen mortal world, and creating the environment that will provide the utmost allowance for growth, spiritual maturity, and exercising of spiritual and free-will muscles.

From my perspective, there is no way for Him to do all of that and not use timing to help Him.

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And sometimes I think we forget about the importance of timing.  We think, "well, if something is right then it is always the right to do it" or the reverse "if something is wrong, then it will always be wrong to do".  Stuff like-

• If God was ok with the church going by the nickname "mormon" three decades ago then He wouldn't care now.
• Or the reverse, If God condemns the use of the nickname "mormon" now then previous prophets who embraced the term had to have been sinning in His eyes.

I recognize your point on timing.  But I do think these options represent a fickle deity.
I don't believe God changes his mind and his requirements as often as seems to be the current belief.  To continue with this example, I don't believe God is ok with it then but not ok with it now.  He's either ok with it or not.
Even when God changes instructions it's not because he changed his mind on a principle.

There may be elements of the gospel that are in flux, that can change with circumstances (as Joseph taught) but I don't believe things that God considers good and bad change, I don't believe God's plan of salvation changes.  I don't believe God ever changes his principles, only his instructions.
Whether he wants his Church headquartered in Missouri or not, well I see no reason that couldn't change.  Whether God wants fast day on a Thursday or a Sunday is functional, whether God wants us to practice fasting is principle based.
It's functional, not principle based.  I would think whether God approves of a nickname is based on correct principle, not function.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Quote

Are we seeking validation or correction? Activism almost certainly inclines one to the former; humility, to the latter.

The main problem I see in this is that it is always applied to individual (progressive) members and never applied to the Church and its leadership.

Are any of us situated to speak intelligently about what the the Brethren are or are not doing in their regular efforts?  Is any of us a percipient witness to their regular quorum meetings?  Their discussions amongst themselves?  Their individual and group prayers and supplications?  Their experiences in the temple?  It seems not.  Instead, conjecture (sometimes hostile, no less) is the order of the day.

Another important consideration, for me anyway, is stewardship.  Is it within mine to call out and correct the Brethren for how they are, cumulatively speaking, doing their jobs?  Again, it seems not.  And to the extent such might fall within my competency as a member of the Church, I think it would be singularly inappropriate to do so in the public sphere.

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

When I look at the history of the priesthood and temple ban, I see an issue where, if the Church had only been more humble and more willing to seek correction rather than validation, we could have received the '78 revelation in '68 or even '58, maybe even '48.

Here "the Church" = "the First Presidency" and "the Quorum of Twelve Apostles," correct?

Do you have evidence that they were not "humble" and "willing to seek correction rather than validation"?  Or is that just more hostile conjecture?

Also, have you considered the materials about Pres. McKay I quoted earlier in the thread?  If so, what are your thoughts about that?

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Is the Church seeking correction or validation when it addresses LGBT+ issues? Women's issues?

That's a pretty important threshold question, and one that must precede any meaningful and coherent discussion of whether the Brethren are presently "humble" and "willing to seek correction rather than validation."

Given that the Brethren are not on this message board, your question here seems to be posed merely rhetorically, with a negative answer already in mind.  Is that a fair guess?

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

It so often feels like the Church is not seeking correction, but validation.

Funny, I would think that if the Brethren (again, you keep saying "the Church," but I think you mean FP+Q12) were seeking "validation," that would be validation from socieity.  That is, they would want to sidestep all the acrimony, criticism, vituperation, and so on that arises from the Church maintaining and teachings its doctrines about marriage, the Law of Chastity, and so on.  They would seek "validation" by capitulating, by abandoning the doctrines and teachings for which we currently catch so much heat.  We join the noisy segments of society to want to radically re-define marriage, who want to abandon the constraints on sexual behavior imposed by the Law of Chastity, and so on.

If the Lord is okay with radically re-defining marriage to include same-sex marriage, I want to know that.  But I think it is pretty clear that this is not in accordance with His will.  If that is wrong, I think He will let the Brethren know.  The same goes for watering down or abandoning the Law of Chastity.

I'm not sure what you mean by "women's issues."  I am quite in favor of advancing the role of women in the Church, with what I call the "Jane Eyre Caveat."  From Chapter 20 (a discussion between Jane and Mr. Rochester) :

Quote

"Now you look puzzled; and I will puzzle you further. You are my little friend, are you not?"

"I like to serve you, sir, and to obey you in all that is right."

"Precisely: I see you do. I see genuine contentment in your gait and mien, your eye and face, when you are helping me and pleasing me—working for me, and with me, in, as you characteristically say, 'all that is right:' for if I bid you do what you thought wrong, there would be no light-footed running, no neat-handed alacrity, no lively glance and animated complexion. 

As it turns out, what Mr. Rochester had in mind was not altogether "right."  Understandable, yes.  Even rational and justifiable in a sense.  But in the end, not "right."  Not moral.  Not congruent with God's will.

If and when the Lord sees fit to have women ordained to the Priesthood, I think He will work through His servants to do it.  Until then, I am quite in favor of advancing the role of women in the Church in all that is right.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 29, 2022 by smac97

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I recognize your point on timing.  But I do think these options represent a fickle deity.
I don't believe God changes his mind and his requirements as often as seems to be the current belief.  To continue with this example, I don't believe God is ok with it then but not ok with it now.  He's either ok with it or not.
Even when God changes instructions it's not because he changed his mind on a principle.
 

How do you reconcile the bold above with polygamy, for example?

Can you conceive of no reason why something might be good or necessary at one point in time, and bad or harmful another?  

Quote

There may be elements of the gospel that are in flux, that can change with circumstances (as Joseph taught) but I don't believe things that God considers good and bad change, I don't believe God's plan of salvation changes.  I don't believe God ever changes his principles, only his instructions.
Whether he wants his Church headquartered in Missouri or not, well I see no reason that couldn't change.  Whether God wants fast day on a Thursday or a Sunday is functional, whether God wants us to practice fasting is principle based.
It's functional, not principle based.  I would think whether God approves of a nickname is based on correct principle, not function.

I agree with your point, but don't see that it affects mine at all.

Driving a car is good in general, but may actually be a bad idea for a 12 year old, or a 94 year old.  At exactly what point something is good or bad may depend on many different things.  Things that change over time and/or depending on experience.

Even fasting, while good for some, is not good for all.  A diabetic can actually die if they fast, for example, and it could be harmful to the baby she is carrying should a pregnant woman fast.  The goodness of the principle may remain constant, but the rightness or wrongness of its application certainly changes depending on circumstances and the desired outcome.

I don't see any reason why something like the approval or disapproval of a nickname cannot follow the same form.  

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

There are all sorts of things about which we don't know, all sorts of important doctrines.  As for when and if such things are revealed to us and to the world, I'm not sure we can confidently speak as to the economies of God.  "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."  (Is. 55:8-9.)  "Touch not the things which are sealed, for I will bring them forth in mine own due time; for I will show unto the children of men that I am able to do mine own work."  (2 Nephi 27:21.)

Apparently so:

Assuming the foregoing is accurate...

Who would those be?

The need for unanimity played a role.  Whether recalcitrant apostles delayed the Lord's timing of things, though, seems pretty debateable.

I think the Brethren, being sincerely devout, would have agreed - to a man - to fabricate a claim of revelation.  That just seems . . . unlikely to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

If the account about President McKay being told no is true then why is the stance now that the ban was never really from God and all accounts of explaining it were just mere speculations.  You cannot have it both ways.

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If the account about President McKay being told no is true then why is the stance now that the ban was never really from God and all accounts of explaining it were just mere speculations.  You cannot have it both ways.

Where is it is that says that the stance now is that the ban was never really from God? Sincere question.

I know that there are many members that believe that but there are many members that don't, and as far as I am aware, the church has remained silent on that issue.  The essays on the priesthood ban are also very careful to only talk about the reasons given for the ban, and not the genesis of the ban itself.

Edit to add--But regardless, I think you can actually have it both ways.

Edited March 29, 2022 by bluebell

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Where is it is that says that the stance now is that the ban was never really from God? Sincere question.

I know that there are many members that believe that but there are many members that don't, and as far as I am aware, the church has remained silent on that issue.  The essays on the priesthood ban are also very careful to only talk about the reasons given for the ban, and not the genesis of the ban itself.

Edit to add--But regardless, I think you can actually have it both ways.

I would have to dig through the Church essay on this.  Don't have time right now.  I may be mistaken.  But I do not think you can have it both ways.  In fact I think it is disingenuous to toss all prior LDS leaders comments about why the ban existed under the bus.