General Conference

[Dawminator]

First woman saying a prayer. Pretty cool.

Really enjoyed President Eyring's talk. It was personalized for me.

[UtahDan]

First woman saying a prayer. Pretty cool.

Really enjoyed President Eyring's talk. It was personalized for me.

I guess that ought to finally put to rest the argument change doesn't happen from the bottom up or that when people politely pressure their church they are doing something inappropriate.

[Dawminator]

I guess that ought to finally put to rest the argument change doesn't happen from the bottom up or that when people politely pressure their church they are doing something inappropriate.

I don't agree per se, but I'm not going to have this discussion again.

[UtahDan]

I don't agree per se, but I'm not going to have this discussion again.

Do you agree with me that this does not happen without the whole let women pray letter writing campaign?

[LA Ute]

Do you agree with me that this does not happen without the whole let women pray letter writing campaign?

I'll agree that you may be right if you will agree that there may be benign reasons for the prior absence of women praying. ;). Deal?

For the record, I thought it was cool. I was walking the dog and listening via my iPhone and mid-prayer thought to myself, "Hey! It's a woman praying!

[LA Ute]

I found myself very drawn in to Elder Cardon's talk. I lost my connection for most of Pres. Eyring's talk but the end sounded great.

[Dawminator]

Do you agree with me that this does not happen without the whole let women pray letter writing campaign?

Sure. But there is a big difference between a policy about women praying in gc and ordaining women to the priesthood. Some say that is a policy and not doctrine too. That line of thinking runs 100% contrary to LDS doctrine. Only one person has the authority to say what is doctrine and what is policy. That is the presiding high priest, aka the current president/prophet of the church. It doesnt matter if a former prophet ordained women. The LIVING prophet is the one who holds the keys today.

Furthermore i am not a conspiracy person, but i would not be surprised to find out that some peoples motives were not to try and discredit the notion that the church is led by revelation. There goes Mormonism.

For the record I am not opposed to the idea of women being ordained. But, it comes from God through his prophet.

[UtahDan]

Sure. But there is a big difference between a policy about women praying in gc and ordaining women to the priesthood. Some say that is a policy and not doctrine too. That line of thinking runs 100% contrary to LDS doctrine. Only one person has the authority to say what is doctrine and what is policy. That is the presiding high priest, aka the current president/prophet of the church. It doesnt matter if a former prophet ordained women. The LIVING prophet is the one who holds the keys today.

Furthermore i am not a conspiracy person, but i would not be surprised to find out that some peoples motives were not to try and discredit the notion that the church is led by revelation. There goes Mormonism.

For the record I am not opposed to the idea of women being ordained. But, it comes from God through his prophet.

There is a huge difference I agree. There is plenty of precedent for major changes occurring when times change and/or enough pressure is applied. We can disagree about whether the changes come from God, but the two big changes that happened post BY occurred under a lot of pressure. I think doctrinal and policy shifts have more or less always occurred in response to forces or pressures of some kind whether internal, external or both. This kind of thing is novel mostly because it is visible AND we are in an era where it is not punished.

[DrumNFeather]

First woman saying a prayer. Pretty cool.

Really enjoyed President Eyring's talk. It was personalized for me.

Hopefully she makes it in to the 2013 version of LDS trivial pursuit or some subsequent version. That'd be a great question to earn a wedge.

[Dawminator]

We can disagree about whether the changes come from God, but the two big changes that happened post BY occurred under a lot of pressure.

You're right we can, but members of the church should hopefully believe that it does. Otherwise they are missing the point in my opinion.

[LA Ute]

We can disagree about whether the changes come from God, but the two big changes that happened post BY occurred under a lot of pressure.

As someone who was around at the time and paying a lot of attention (and as an inveterate quibbler ;)) I have to tell you that my strong recollection is that there was not much pressure in 1978 to end the priesthood ban. At that point people had sort of glumly accepted it as a reality that might change someday. The announcement seemed to come right out of the blue.


I'll agree that you may be right if you will agree that there may be benign reasons for the prior absence of women praying. ;). Deal?

:tumbleweed:

[USS Utah]

As someone who was around at the time and paying a lot of attention (and as an inveterate quibbler ;)) I have to tell you that my strong recollection is that there was not much pressure in 1978 to end the priesthood ban. At that point people had sort of glumly accepted it as a reality that might change someday. The announcement seemed to come right out of the blue.

Having read some biographies of Spencer W. Kimball, it is my belief that he was groomed by experience to seek the revelation on the priesthood.

[Jarid in Cedar]

As someone who was around at the time and paying a lot of attention (and as an inveterate quibbler ;)) I have to tell you that my strong recollection is that there was not much pressure in 1978 to end the priesthood ban. At that point people had sort of glumly accepted it as a reality that might change someday. The announcement seemed to come right out of the blue.


Glumly? :blink:

[San Diego Ute Fan]

If anyone has any doubt about the church's current stance on marriage, study Elder Bednar's talk. There was no mincing of words. He was very direct.

He quoted the 1995 Proclamation on the Family early and often. In my opinion, the document very clearly underlined the church's position long before the current climate necessitated it.

[LA Ute]

Glumly? :blink:

I was in college and had black-A-A friends. Glumly is how my peers saw it, at least.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

My wife was just trying to figure out why she keep turning her head back and forth as if she were goin off the teleprompter. After about the fifth minute, I was thinking she might actually be reading it.

[LA Ute]

I was in college and had black-A-A friends. Glumly is how my peers saw it, at least.

I meant to add that I don't remember anyone expressing happiness about the situation, at least not at that time.

[San Diego Ute Fan]

As someone who was around at the time and paying a lot of attention (and as an inveterate quibbler ;)) I have to tell you that my strong recollection is that there was not much pressure in 1978 to end the priesthood ban. At that point people had sort of glumly accepted it as a reality that might change someday. The announcement seemed to come right out of the blue.



:tumbleweed:

I love you like a brother, LA, but I couldn't disagree more. You see, I was one of the boots on the ground in Brazil in 1978, and saw first hand the need for the revelation.

The Sao Paulo Temple (first in all of South America) was quickly nearing completion. Brazil has a population that is something like 2/3 with varying degrees of African descent. The revelation came after prayerful pleading to the Lord by President Kimball to accommodate the needs of that country and Africa. To me, and members in Brazil at the time, the revelation was anything but out of the blue. It was an absolute God send, and the answer to many heartfelt, fervent prayers.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I meant to add that I don't remember anyone expressing happiness about the situation, at least not at that time.


Gotcha.

[LA Ute]

I love you like a brother, LA, but I couldn't disagree more. You see, I was one of the boots on the ground in Brazil in 1978, and saw first hand the need for the revelation.

The Sao Paulo Temple (first in all of South America) was quickly nearing completion. Brazil has a population that is something like 2/3 with varying degrees of African descent. The revelation came after prayerful pleading to the Lord by President Kimball to accommodate the needs of that country and Africa. To me, and members in Brazil at the time, the revelation was anything but out of the blue. It was an absolute God send, and the answer to many heartfelt, fervent prayers.

There's got to be a reason why I am always explaining myself here. I've just got to be more clear!

I was just responding to UtahDan's comment that the two big changes after Brigham Young (the end of polygamy and the priesthood revelation) came as the result of great pressure. That's certainly true of polygamy but I don't recall any hue and cry to end the priesthood ban in 1978. People had pretty much accepted it as an increasingly uncomfortable reality that many hoped would change. Now, I agree with you 100% that the practical realities in places like Brazil were pressing on the church. (I ran into it in Guatemala and lost an investigator family over the ban, one of the low points of my mission.) That problem seems to have been in the forefont of President Kimball's mind. If that's what my friend UD meant, then I agree with him.

[Jeff Lebowski]

There's got to be a reason why I am always explaining myself here. I've just got to be more clear!

I was just responding to UtahDan's comment that the two big changes after Brigham Young (the end of polygamy and the priesthood revelation) came as the result of great pressure. That's certainly true of polygamy but I don't recall any hue and cry to end the priesthood ban in 1978. People had pretty much accepted it as an increasingly uncomfortable reality that many hoped would change. Now, I agree with you 100% that the practical realities in places like Brazil were pressing on the church. (I ran into it in Guatemala and lost an investigator family over the ban, one of the low points of my mission.) That problem seems to have been in the forefont of President Kimball's mind. If that's what my friend UD meant, then I agree with him.

This post is confusing. There was no pressure yet there was pressure? Which is it?

[LA Ute]

This post is confusing. There was no pressure yet there was pressure? Which is it?

Read more carefully.

[UtahDan]

I was just trying to think of some other virtues apart from tolerance that when "exaggerated" (scare quoting because I'm honestly not sure what it means) transform themselves into vices. Kindness? Patience? Love? Humility? Compassion? I don't know. Struggling here.

[Solon]

I was just trying to think of some other virtues apart from tolerance that when "exaggerated" (scare quoting because I'm honestly not sure what it means) transform themselves into vices. Kindness? Patience? Love? Humility? Compassion? I don't know. Struggling here.

Although there are some oversimplifications, the idea of an exaggerated virtue becoming a vice is often connected to the "tragic flaw" in dramatic tragedy, not always as the hero but often as a main character - esp. in Shakespeare. I believe this is what Packer was thinking of.

Hamlet's caution, which became paralysis to act.
Macbeth's ambition.
Oedipus's belief that he could circumvent or avoid his destiny.
Creon's stubbornness in punishing traitors.
Prometheus' foresight and defiance of authority.
Pentheus' concern for his kingdom.

BTW, I don't really believe in the "tragic flaw" in ancient Greek drama. I think the overall theme was much more one of the random and inevitable nature of suffering, even by those considered heroic.

[LA Ute]

I was just trying to think of some other virtues apart from tolerance that when "exaggerated" (scare quoting because I'm honestly not sure what it means) transform themselves into vices. Kindness? Patience? Love? Humility? Compassion? I don't know. Struggling here.

Fair and interesting question. Tolerance, IMO, is a mixture of virtues, primarily love and patience. Can I love my child too much? I think the answer is no. In fact, I don't think we can love anyone too much. The question quickly becomes, what does it really mean to love someone? Think of your kids. At some point tolerance, or love, or patience become permissiveness and tacit approval, and that doesn't always look like love. The question is, where is that point?

[Applejack]

I was just trying to think of some other virtues apart from tolerance that when "exaggerated" (scare quoting because I'm honestly not sure what it means) transform themselves into vices. Kindness? Patience? Love? Humility? Compassion? I don't know. Struggling here.

Chastity.

[Diehard Ute]

Fair and interesting question. Tolerance, IMO, is a mixture of virtues, primarily love and patience. Can I love my child too much? I think the answer is no. In fact, I don't think we can love anyone too much. The question quickly becomes, what does it really mean to love someone? Think of your kids. At some point tolerance, or love, or patience become permissiveness and tacit approval, and that doesn't always look like love. The question is, where is that point?

It's not the love that would be the issue, it's what people do or don't do because of that love that's the problem.

Many love a family member so much they enable a drug habit etc, and literally love them to death.

As for tolerance, if someone has beliefs different than yours and is not keeping you from your beliefs you should, IMO, be tolerant and respectful of their choices as long as they're "lawful". Sort of that whole "love thy neighbor as yourself" thing isn't it?

[Solon]

I've been swallowed by the Tolerance Trap.:(

[Jeff Lebowski]

Read more carefully.

Still confused. When you say "but I don't recall any hue and cry to end the priesthood ban in 1978", I am going to assume that you are referring to members of the church, because there most certainly was loud and vocal opposition from outside. Further, you are contrasting it with polygamy, but do you have any evidence that there was a strong push from inside the church to end polygamy?

[UtahDan]

Chastity.

Lol. You win the internet today. Uncle.

[LA Ute]

Still confused. When you say "but I don't recall any hue and cry to end the priesthood ban in 1978", I am going to assume that you are referring to members of the church, because there most certainly was loud and vocal opposition from outside. Further, you are contrasting it with polygamy, but do you have any evidence that there was a strong push from inside the church to end polygamy?

I was responding to a sequence of discussion.

First:

UD said, regarding the GC prayer by a woman:


I guess that ought to finally put to rest the argument change doesn't happen from the bottom up or that when people politely pressure their church they are doing something inappropriate.

Second:

UtahDan again:


Do you agree with me that this does not happen without the whole let women pray letter writing campaign?


I don't agree per se, but I'm not going to have this discussion again.

Third:


We can disagree about whether the changes come from God, but the two big changes that happened post BY occurred under a lot of pressure.

Fourth, I responded:


As someone who was around at the time and paying a lot of attention (and as an inveterate quibbler ;)) I have to tell you that my strong recollection is that there was not much pressure in 1978 to end the priesthood ban. At that point people had sort of glumly accepted it as a reality that might change someday. The announcement seemed to come right out of the blue.

I see significant differences between the polygamy change and the priesthood change in terms of the nature of the pressures on the church to make either change. For 14 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had passed, the church had steadfastly taken the position, "We aren't changing until we are good and ready to change." People generally accepted that, inside and outside the church. As a then-young college student and rank and file member of the church, I don't recall acts of Congress trying to change the church's position, picketing, letter-writing campaigns, or anything of that nature. The change was totally unexpected to me and to everyone I knew. I gather that you see it differently. I was simply telling the way the priesthood change seemed to me at the time. Honest to goodness.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I see significant differences between the polygamy change and the priesthood change in terms of the nature of the pressures on the church to make either change. For 14 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had passed, the church had steadfastly taken the position, "We aren't changing until we are good and ready to change." People generally accepted that, inside and outside the church. As a then-young college student and rank and file member of the church, I don't recall acts of Congress trying to change the church's position, picketing, letter-writing campaigns, or anything of that nature. The change was totally unexpected to me and to everyone I knew. I gather that you see it differently. I was simply telling the way the priesthood change seemed to me at the time. Honest to goodness.

The only difference is a matter of scale. You really don't recall any of the following?


University of Wyoming suspending 14 football players because they refused to play against BYU (huge controversy at the time)
UTEP track athletes refusing to compete against BYU
Stanford University refusing to schedule any athletic events vs BYU
Several members publicly expressing protest, including one guy who baptized a black guy in his swimming pool and then ordained him (this was national news)

The change was debated by the FP and Q12 starting in the mid-60's through 1978. It is remarkable to me that anyone would imply that it was a spontaneous revelation without any influence or pressure from changing trends in society.

[LA Ute]

It is remarkable to me that anyone would imply that it was a spontaneous revelation without any influence or pressure from changing trends in society.

if you think anyone here is so implying, you're mistaken. Where did you get all that? To me, a 23 year-old poli sci major at the U., the change was thrilling, wonderful, and quite unexpected. I am saying no more than that.

[Solon]

the only difference is a matter of scale. You really don't recall any of the following?


university of wyoming suspending 14 football players because they refused to play against byu (huge controversy at the time)
utep track athletes refusing to compete against byu
stanford university refusing to schedule any athletic events vs byu
several members publicly expressing protest, including one guy who baptized a black guy in his swimming pool and then ordained him (this was national news)

the change was debated by the fp and q12 starting in the mid-60's through 1978. It is remarkable to me that anyone would imply that it was a spontaneous revelation without any influence or pressure from changing trends in society.
...

Another example of the shifting shape of folklore lies closer to home. Most of us will remember the turbulent period in late 1969 and early 1970 when BYU athletic teams and the marching Cougarettes met violent demonstrations in neighboring schools, when a spate of stories was circulating about bus loads of Black Panthers making their way to the state to blow up Mountain Dell reservoir and to invade Temple Square, and when some people feared to travel beyond the state’s boundaries because they had heard gory stories of people with Utah license plates being stopped and beaten up by blacks. Emotions were intensified by the revival and rapid circulation of the apocryphal Horse Shoe Prophecy attributed to John Taylor. (this prophecy was first written down in 1951 by Edward Lunt, who said that in 1903 or 1904 he had learned it from his mother, who said that she had received it from President Taylor in 1885.) in Lunt’s account, President Taylor supposedly saw a day of great trouble and warfare striking the saints, with “blood running down the gutters of Salt Lake City as though it were water.” as versions of the prophecy began to multiply during the violence of 1969 and 1970, a new motif was added to it —the notion that the blood would run in the gutters because of racial warfare. For example, an employee of Seminaries and Institutes stated

that it was common knowledge among teachers in the Church educational system that a confrontation with Black Panthers
was going to take place in the streets of Salt Lake City and that this would be a fulfillment of the prophecy that Blacks
would wreak havoc in the streets of Zion. He said that this prophecy was given to President Taylor. It was common
knowledge from reliable sources [he said] that Blacks and hippies were arming themselves in the canyons east of the city
and that the FBI had uncovered plans by revolutionaries to hit Salt Lake City with a violence campaign.


Another individual, a stockbroker who claimed he did not believe the part about Negroes, stated:


John Taylor is supposed to have said that the Negroes will march to the west and that they will tear down the gates
to the temple, ravage the women therein, and destroy and desecrate the temple. Then the Mormon boys will
pick up their deer rifles and destroy the Negroes, and that’s when the blood will run down the street.

On 30 March 1970, the first presidency, concerned by the growing emotionalism, released a statement in which they denounced the Horse Shoe Prophecy and urged members to school their feelings.
http://byustudies.byu.edu/pdflibrary/17.1wilsonparadox-4e59b369-50da-46e1-94c1-f2ea3afa6d65.pdf (page 4 as paginated in lower rt margin; page 6 of the .pdf)

[Dawminator]

I was not alive then, but from what I have read on the subject it sounds like president Kimball had been thinking about it a long time and that even previous leaders, or at least president McKay, had personal revelations of their own. This came before a lot of the pressure if im not mistaken. This is not to totally discount the pressure, merely to suggest that it wasn't the only factor or even the most important one.

[Scorcho]

my top 3 conference talk speakers:

1. Deiter Uchtdorf
2. Dallin H Oaks
3. Jeffery Holland


and my 3 least favorites:

1. Richard Scott
2. D. Todd Christofferson
3. David Bednar

[LA Ute]

...

That's fascinating stuff, Solon. As a purely personal matter to me, it's a source of wonder that I, a kid growing up in Salt Lake and with an intellectual bent, a full participant in Seminary, was oblivious to all of those folk tales, including the Horse Shoe Prophecy. I don't think many conclusions can be drawn from my obliviousness (is that a word?), it's just interesting to me.

Here's a little of what I do remember. I attended a summer debate camp for a month at Loyola Marymount between my junior and senior years of high school and I remember being asked in class why the church had a discriminatory policy. i really had little to say in response. (A memorably awkward and humiliating moment.)

A year later I read Lester Bush's Dialogue piece just a few weeks before leaving on my mission. I remember being very confused by it and wondering what would be done about the issue. On my mission the mother in a family we were teaching was of black African descent (from Belize). I remember the conversation with my MP about how to discuss the "problem" with the family. After an indescribably awkward discussion they sent us away and the mother refused ever to speak to us again.

Still, amid all that I figured we just had to soldier on, and to believe that someday this would all be worked out.

At the U. I was in student government and dealt regularly with Frank Henry, a Utah football player and president of the Black Student Union. I remember how awkward I felt when I was with Frank and any church-related subject came up, and how gracious and sympathetic he was about the situation.

I share all this because I think I was fairly typical. After all that conflict we just gritted our teeth and held on.

Then, on the morning of the day of the announcement, I was in the locker area of the Salt Lake Temple dressing room, just after a friend and his fiancé had received their endowments. An elderly temple worker walked into the area and said to another, "Do you know what I just heard?" The news spread like an electric current throughout the temple. We all went from disbelief and astonishment to excitement and near-giddy joy (and an occasional high-five among the younger set). We couldn't get out on the street fast enough. There was no Internet, but we got to our car radios and then spent the day listening and watching TV as the news unfolded. It was a day I'll never forget.

[LA Ute]

my top 3 conference talk speakers:

1. Deiter Uchtdorf
2. Dallin H Oaks
3. Jeffery Holland


and my 3 least favorites:

1. Richard Scott
2. D. Todd Christofferson
3. David Bednar

I guess Oaks and Holland are up this afternoon. I unexpectedly enjoyed Elder Scott's talk yesterday.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

my top 3 conference talk speakers:

1. Deiter Uchtdorf
2. Dallin H Oaks
3. Jeffery Holland


and my 3 least favorites:

1. Richard Scott
2. D. Todd Christofferson
3. David Bednar

High Five! I'd take out Dallin H. Oaks and put T. Spencer Monson in the top three. Oaks gives good talks, but they are so very often so very dry and academic.

I grew up in awe of President Monson and his stories and, although I'm starting to hear them again and he's getting a bit funny in his delivery, I generally appreciate his messages and his personality. I also noticed a trend a long while back that President Monson really goes very light on use of the scriptures, the Book of Mormon in particular and heavy, strict doctrinal themes. I appreciate his talks for that.

[DrumNFeather]

The ladies in the motab kind of look like peeps at a distance.

[LA Ute]

I guess Oaks and Holland are up this afternoon. I unexpectedly enjoyed Elder Scott's talk yesterday.

Swish! First E. Holland, then E. Oaks.

[Dawminator]

Wow. Elder Holland. Great talk.

[UtahDan]

The ladies in the motab kind of look like peeps at a distance.

Lol. I'm stealing that.

[OrangeUte]

Swish! First E. Holland, then E. Oaks.

447

[USS Utah]

448

[OrangeUte]

449

[OrangeUte]

450

[Harry Tic]

1. Uchtdorf (priesthood session)
2. Uchtdorf (Sunday)
3. Holland (Sunday)
4. Falabella (Sunday)

Since GBH, it's rare that you get a GA that can actually do anything more than elicit a courtesy laugh, but Falabella was really on.

Uchtdorf is pretty much full of win. I always respond better to his talks than I do to the culture warriors.

[Applejack]

I just read the review of Conference in the Trib. No discussion here on Whitney Clayton's talk. Two things stood out to me:

1. He said that treating wives as second class is a no-no, regardless of the era in which you were raised. Now that I'm a new dad, I marvel at the men I've known (various) who bragged about never having changed a diaper.
2. He said that healthy marriages involve an exchange of social network passwords? This seems like a fairly specific request and a strange thing to require.

[San Diego Ute Fan]

451
Wow. Elder Holland. Great talk.

[Rocker Ute]

I just read the review of Conference in the Trib. No discussion here on Whitney Clayton's talk. Two things stood out to me:

1. He said that treating wives as second class is a no-no, regardless of the era in which you were raised. Now that I'm a new dad, I marvel at the men I've known (various) who bragged about never having changed a diaper.
2. He said that healthy marriages involve an exchange of social network passwords? This seems like a fairly specific request and a strange thing to require.

Talked about a few other things spouses should disclose to each other (such as finances) but there is a lot of e-cheating going on out there these days.

[LA Ute]

2. He said that healthy marriages involve an exchange of social network passwords? This seems like a fairly specific request and a strange thing to require.

I must have missed that part of his talk, but it probably came up when he was talking about transparency as a characteristic of a strong marriage. FWIW my wife knows all my passwords and I know all of hers. I think....

[LA Ute]

The only difference is a matter of scale. You really don't recall any of the following?


University of Wyoming suspending 14 football players because they refused to play against BYU (huge controversy at the time)
UTEP track athletes refusing to compete against BYU
Stanford University refusing to schedule any athletic events vs BYU
Several members publicly expressing protest, including one guy who baptized a black guy in his swimming pool and then ordained him (this was national news)

The change was debated by the FP and Q12 starting in the mid-60's through 1978. It is remarkable to me that anyone would imply that it was a spontaneous revelation without any influence or pressure from changing trends in society.

You got me thinking, so I re-read chapters 20-23 of "Lengthen Your Stride," Ed Kimball's biography of his father Spencer W. Kimball. All I'll say is that the contemporaneous statements made by President Kimball and others, both publicly and in private letters and diaries, before and after June 1978, make it very hard to believe the change was made in response to external pressure. If anything, external pressure delayed the change. What does seem clear (to me, at least) is that to President Kimball the priesthood ban was becoming very hard, if not practically impossible, to keep in place as the church grew in places like Brazil and as and as people in African nations kept asking for missionaries. There was nothing "spontaneous" about the change, however.

Those three chapters are a great read, by the way.

[Harry Tic]

You got me thinking, so I re-read chapters 2-23 of "Lengthen Your Stride," Ed Kimball's biography of his father. All I'll say is that the contemporaneous statements made by President Kimball and others, before and after June 1978, make it very hard to believe the change was made in response to external pressure. What does seem clear (to me, at least) is that the ban was becoming very hard, if not practically impossible, to keep in place.

It's been a long time since I looked at Ed Kimball's book, so I'll trust your summary over my memory. I don't think that anyone would argue that there was a simple cause and effect relationship between external pressures and the lifting of the ban. If memory serves, the revelation actually came during a bit of a lull in terms of external social pressures. But there is no doubt whatsoever that social pressures did catalyze the change, albeit at a remove. It merely took a few years for the pressures for social changes to be internalized by senior church leadership and then to be worked into an acceptable form. As I remarked in another thread on another board yesterday, appearances notwithstanding, the church has historically been very much susceptible to social pressures, providing that (1) it deals with the pressures on its own terms; and (2) it pretends that any changes that result have NOT been in response to social pressures.

I've often thought how striking it is that virtually everyone--from general authorities down to the lay member--describe their response to the lifting of the ban in highly emotional terms. The standard trope is to note how they broke down and wept. My very simple question is why this would be the proper reaction to a change in doctrine/policy if one really believed that the original doctrine/policy was indeed inspired of God? Doesn't the fact that seemingly everyone wanted it changed suggest that deep down everyone knew that it was morally wrong or at least unjustified?

[LA Ute]

It's been a long time since I looked at Ed Kimball's book, so I'll trust your summary over my memory. I don't think that anyone would argue that there was a simple cause and effect relationship between external pressures and the lifting of the ban. If memory serves, the revelation actually came during a bit of a lull in terms of external social pressures. But there is no doubt whatsoever that social pressures did catalyze the change, albeit at a remove. It merely took a few years for the pressures for social changes to be internalized by senior church leadership and then to be worked into an acceptable form. As I remarked in another thread on another board yesterday, appearances notwithstanding, the church has historically been very much susceptible to social pressures, providing that (1) it deals with the pressures on its own terms; and (2) it pretends that any changes that result have NOT been in response to social pressures.

Fair enough. It's hard to read the Kimball book and conclude that there was any such pretending going on, but people will disagree about that.


I've often thought how striking it is that virtually everyone--from general authorities down to the lay member--describe their response to the lifting of the ban in highly emotional terms. The standard trope is to note how they broke down and wept. My very simple question is why this would be the proper reaction to a change in doctrine/policy if one really believed that the original doctrine/policy was indeed inspired of God? Doesn't the fact that seemingly everyone wanted it changed suggest that deep down everyone knew that it was morally wrong or at least unjustified?

The historical materials cited in the Ed Kimball book helped me understand that. Pres. Kimball was like many church members at the time -- increasingly uncomfortable with the ban and wishing it would end, but determined to "be loyal" to the president of the church and the other leaders until the Lord made it clear that the ban should end. He said several times he would defend the ban with all his might to the end of his life if that was required of him. For people who felt that way, the tears shed by so many were tears of relief and gratitude, IMO, that the ban had unequivocally ended and there was no doubt among believers that it was the Lord's will. I remember walking around the U. campus the next day feeling as though a weight had been lifted off me.

[UtahDan]

Justed wanted to toss out there that I more or less liked Uchtdorff's talk. There was nothing Mormon in it. Could be that is why. ;)

[UtahDan]

I think you may have misunderstood me. I probably should have said uniquely Mormon. In other words, I could not detect anything in there which would offend a Protestant. It remind me a little of a Joel Olsteen sermon: up lifting, practical and not heavy on doctrine. That he focuses his remarks in this way is the reason people love him, and rightly so. It was a compliment.

[Harry Tic]

The historical materials cited in the Ed Kimball book helped me understand that. Pres. Kimball was like many church members at the time -- increasingly uncomfortable with the ban and wishing it would end, but determined to "be loyal" to the president of the church and the other leaders until the Lord made it clear that the ban should end. He said several times he would defend the ban with all his might to the end of his life if that was required of him. For people who felt that way, the tears shed by so many were tears of relief and gratitude, IMO, that the ban had unequivocally ended and there was no doubt among believers that it was the Lord's will. I remember walking around the U. campus the next day feeling as though a weight had been lifted off me.

I'm a little bit younger, so I remember it happening, where I was when the announcement was made, and that it was significant, but I didn't understand the full ramifications at the time. I guess my question concerns how we are to explain the feeling of relief that so many people experienced. In retrospect, it seems the most natural thing in the world. But, previous to that time, most members presumably believed that the ban was the Lord's will and that the world was simply unbelieving. So, if one believed that the ban was inspired why would one celebrate its lifting? Was it because it meant an end to awkward questions and being placed in a difficult position vis a vis society at large? Or was it because deep down most members believed that it was morally wrong?

I guess I'm trying to understand why tears of "relief and gratitude" were shed if people actually believed that the ban was inspired (or perhaps believed that they believed that the ban was inspired).

I'm sort of curious as to what would happen if another revelation were to common tomorrow, radically shifting the church one way or another on some other social question. Imagine, for instance, that women were to be ordained to priesthood offices. Presumably, some people would weep tears of gratitude and relief (although I wager that many would not!). But my guess is that most of the people that would be happy already believe that our practice of not ordaining women to priesthood offices is not based on any sound doctrinal justification and not because they would believe that the Lord himself had suddenly decided to change the order of things. So I find it actually somewhat puzzling that believing members of the church would feel joy and relief that one inspired doctrine/practice had simply been replaced by another inspired doctrine/practice since they both represented the Lord's will. Who are we to feel happy or disappointed one way or the other, as long as we believe that the Lord's will is clearly revealed through his prophets?

[UtahDan]

There were other pressures at work as well - particularly pressure from the growth of the church in latin america.

Why would tears of joy be the proper reaction for Abraham when told he didn't have to kill Isaac if he really believed that the original command to sacrifice was indeed inspired of God? Doesn't the fact that he seemingly wanted the command changed suggest that deep down he knew it was morally wrong or at least unjustified?

http://secondgospelofmatthew.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/why-the-church-hasnt-condemned-its-racist-past/

[LA Ute]

I think you may have misunderstood me. I probably should have said uniquely Mormon. In other words, I could not detect anything in there which would offend a Protestant.

:D Except for the BofM reference and the invitation to come to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to find the light.

[Harry Tic]

Again, look to the story of Abraham for a dramatic explanation. He certainly believed he was following inspired revelation and was thrilled not to have to anymore. When obedience is a trial of faith, it is a relief and a joy to be released from it.

I don't see why this is hard to understand. Mormons are both loving and obedient. The position of the Church made it hard to reconcile those two things. For many, it was a trial of faith. For others, they simply mourned with those who mourned. The Church's change in position was good news for all. People who had suffered through a trial of faith had rejoice to rejoice. People who were mourning with them rejoiced with them.

On a broader scale, Mormons tend to rejoice at any revelation and change. We take it as a sign that the work is advancing and the plan is unfolding. A change in mission age? Rejoice! Another quorum of the seventy? Allelujah! Women to be ordained? You bet the reaction would be positive. Revelation is always celebrated in the Church.

Was it generally regarded as a kind of Abrahamic trial at the time? My vague impression was that the folk doctrines about the preexistence were alive and flourishing and that many, perhaps most, church members didn't necessarily worry too much about it. They wished the issue would go away but I suspect that they had found ways of reconciling the policy to themselves, often using folk doctrines as a crutch. To be sure, there were the Lester Bushes of Mormonism--and probably a good number of ordinary members as well--that really anguished over it. But I think (suspect) that many members had bought into the folklore and didn't necessarily regard it as a trial of their faith but rather a trial of society itself. In retrospect, I bet most members felt some relief when the policy was eliminated. But feeling that way retrospectively is something different altogether.

I'm not too sure about Mormons rejoicing at any and all revelation and change. Have you ever read the reader comments on the Deseret News site whenever something is written about the church's position on immigration? I find it increasingly common for not only liberal Mormons to occasionally differ with church leadership about this or that, but conservative Mormons as well, particularly when the church takes an apparently non-conservative position.

[LA Ute]

Was it generally regarded as a kind of Abrahamic trial at the time? My vague impression was that the folk doctrines about the preexistence were alive and flourishing and that many, perhaps most, church members didn't necessarily worry too much about it. They wished the issue would go away but I suspect that they had found ways of reconciling the policy to themselves, often using folk doctrines as a crutch. To be sure, there were the Lester Bushes of Mormonism--and probably a good number of ordinary members as well--that really anguished over it. But I think (suspect) that many members had bought into the folklore and didn't necessarily regard it as a trial of their faith but rather a trial of society itself. In retrospect, I bet most members felt some relief when the policy was eliminated. But feeling that way retrospectively is something different altogether.

I'm not too sure about Mormons rejoicing at any and all revelation and change. Have you ever read the reader comments on the Deseret News site whenever something is written about the church's position on immigration? I find it increasingly common for not only liberal Mormons to occasionally differ with church leadership about this or that, but conservative Mormons as well, particularly when the church takes an apparently non-conservative position.

I highly recommend the Ed Kimball account. I was surprised as I reread it at how down-the-middle it is.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Fair enough. It's hard to read the Kimball book and conclude that there was any such pretending going on, but people will disagree about that.



The historical materials cited in the Ed Kimball book helped me understand that. Pres. Kimball was like many church members at the time -- increasingly uncomfortable with the ban and wishing it would end, but determined to "be loyal" to the president of the church and the other leaders until the Lord made it clear that the ban should end. He said several times he would defend the ban with all his might to the end of his life if that was required of him. For people who felt that way, the tears shed by so many were tears of relief and gratitude, IMO, that the ban had unequivocally ended and there was no doubt among believers that it was the Lord's will. I remember walking around the U. campus the next day feeling as though a weight had been lifted off me.

You assume that the book is an accurate depiction of what was happening. I am not stating the opposite, just pointing out your assumptions.

[LA Ute]

You assume that the book is an accurate depiction of what was happening. I am not stating the opposite, just pointing out your assumptions.

Absolutely right. I should have noted that. It is a valuable book because the author (due to being Pres. Kimball's son) had access to a great number of original historical documents and first-person accounts. Ultimately the reader has to decide how much to accept as true. I will say that Ed Kimball's summary of the priesthood ban's history seems unvarnished to me, and that made him all the more credible in my eyes.

[Two Utes]

"2. He said that healthy marriages involve an exchange of social network passwords? This seems like a fairly specific request and a strange thing to require."

Transparency (or a better word, honesty) is obviously one of the most important things in a good marriage.

However, the message misses the mark. Basically the message is: police each other because you can't trust one another. Once again the church attacks the acts rather than the reasons behind the acts.

[UtahDan]

:D Except for the BofM reference and the invitation to come to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to find the light.

I missed the BOM reference.

[USS Utah]

"2. He said that healthy marriages involve an exchange of social network passwords? This seems like a fairly specific request and a strange thing to require."

Transparency (or a better word, honesty) is obviously one of the most important things in a good marriage.

However, the message misses the mark. Basically the message is: police each other because you can't trust one another. Once again the church attacks the acts rather than the reasons behind the acts.

Is having no secrets the same as policing because of a lack of trust?

[Two Utes]

Is having no secrets the same as policing because of a lack of trust?

Depends on why you have secrets.

[LA Ute]

I missed the BOM reference.

It was borderline obscure. I am just messing with you, my friend.

[Scratch]

"2. He said that healthy marriages involve an exchange of social network passwords? This seems like a fairly specific request and a strange thing to require."

Transparency (or a better word, honesty) is obviously one of the most important things in a good marriage.

However, the message misses the mark. Basically the message is: police each other because you can't trust one another. Once again the church attacks the acts rather than the reasons behind the acts.

I didn't take this as an admonition to share passwords or police each other, I took it more as an example of not having any secrets. For example, I'm pretty sure my wife knows my passwords because I use the same 3 or 4 passwords and I've had her look stuff up for me before. It's not like she's policing me, but the point is that it's not a secret or something I wouldn't want her to see.

[tooblue]

"2. He said that healthy marriages involve an exchange of social network passwords? This seems like a fairly specific request and a strange thing to require."

Transparency (or a better word, honesty) is obviously one of the most important things in a good marriage.

However, the message misses the mark. Basically the message is: police each other because you can't trust one another. Once again the church attacks the acts rather than the reasons behind the acts.

He said a healthy marriage is based upon trust and transparency which might include the sharing of social networking passwords. Trust and transparency are the reasons behind any and all acts. So, he was addressing the reasons and not merely the acts ;) And really, is there a good reason to keep social network passwords from your spouse? I guess if you have something to hide. He also talked about sharing all financial information and responsibilities. Is that also about policing? Maybe, for you, it might be. But, does that mean it's the case for me or others?

[FMCoug]

"2. He said that healthy marriages involve an exchange of social network passwords? This seems like a fairly specific request and a strange thing to require."

Transparency (or a better word, honesty) is obviously one of the most important things in a good marriage.

However, the message misses the mark. Basically the message is: police each other because you can't trust one another. Once again the church attacks the acts rather than the reasons behind the acts.

This was my thought as well. Did he even mention trust?

[Dawminator]

Not going to lie I thought there was going to be criticism from conference after the saturday morning session. I didn't think it would be over something as seemingly trivial as this.

[LA Ute]

I found myself feeling unexpectedly impressed and moved by Elder Scott's and Elder Cook's talks Saturday afternoon, both of which addressed the subject of spiritual peace. (I listened to both talks via my iPhone while I was grocery shopping, which added to my surprise at how much I got out of them.) I also was very drawn in by Elder Cardon's talk on forgiveness Saturday morning. I needed the insights for myself, and also for some people I am hoping to help.

[Pheidippides]

This was my thought as well. Did he even mention trust?

That talk was my least favorite of the entire conference, which is saying something for those that know me. Immediately put into my memory's
circular file.

[UtahDan]

It was borderline obscure. I am just messing with you, my friend.

No worries. I do really like him on balance. He is the Joel Osteen of Mormonism (another guy I really like).

[UtahDan]

Not going to lie I thought there was going to be criticism from conference after the saturday morning session. I didn't think it would be over something as seemingly trivial as this.


No kidding. Talk about mountains out of molehills.

What were the non-trivial things you guys thought were worthy of criticism, or at least would provoke criticism?

[LA Ute]

What were the non-trivial things you guys thought were worthy of criticism, or at least would provoke criticism?

The dresses the women in the Tab Choir were wearing Sunday morning.

[Dawminator]

What were the non-trivial things you guys thought were worthy of criticism, or at least would provoke criticism?

I personally had no problem with anything that was said, or that anything was worthy of criticism, but by now I am sure that comes as no surprise. And to be fair you pointed out one of things I thought would be more highly criticized (President Packer's line on being too tolerant, which I agreed with). The other was Elder Ballard's talk which dealt with the ordaining women issue. Like I said, I don't have a problem with either things, but considering popular topics on this board, lack of commentary kind of surprised me.

[Dawminator]

The dresses the women in the Tab Choir were wearing Sunday morning.

That too.

[LA Ute]

What were the non-trivial things you guys thought were worthy of criticism, or at least would provoke criticism?

I expected to hear more blowback about the Packer, Perry, Ballard and Bednar talks.

[UtahDan]

I expected to hear more blowback about the Packer, Perry, Ballard and Bednar talks.

Perry was very worked up. That can't be good for him.

[LA Ute]

Perry was very worked up. That can't be good for him.

Both my wife and I noticed that he was uncharacteristically fiery. I personally enjoyed the talk and found it rather insightful. This, I am sure, does not surprise you. :)

[FMCoug]

Not going to lie I thought there was going to be criticism from conference after the saturday morning session. I didn't think it would be over something as seemingly trivial as this.

Speaking for myself, I tend to get most bent about what I think is going to happen based on the talks than the talks themselves. A couple of years ago sleepovers raised their ugly head again and people started saying "the church says no sleepovers". That is not what is said but give Mormons an inch of something that is not just plain and simple gospel truths and some will "Law of Moses-ize" it in no time. That's what is going to happen here. You are going to see an epidemic of joint facebook accounts and people looking down on those who don't do the same. :)

The GA's need to get away from specifics like this. They always turn into a clusterf#@ck.

[LA Ute]

Speaking for myself, I tend to get most bent about what I think is going to happen based on the talks than the talks themselves. A couple of years ago sleepovers raised their ugly head again and people started saying "the church says no sleepovers". That is not what is said but give Mormons an inch of something that is not just plain and simple gospel truths and some will "Law of Moses-ize" it in no time. That's what is going to happen here. You are going to see an epidemic of joint facebook accounts and people looking down on those who don't do the same. :)

The GA's need to get away from specifics like this. They always turn into a clusterf#@ck.

I hadn't thought about that. It is true that when a GA sneezes, many Mormons get pneumonia. We might well see this topic in Sacrament meeting talks. We'll definitely see it in EQ lessons. I predict the most lively discussions will be sparked by men who don't want their wives to know their passwords. Sorry, just my guess. :)

I also predict endless discussion about what "tolerance" really means, as countless members focus on the trees and remain oblivious to the forest.

[UtahDan]

I also predict endless discussion about what "tolerance" really means, as countless members focus on the trees and remain oblivious to the forest.

Better yet, if the problem is too much tolerance, what is the proper way to manifest intolerance?

[LA Ute]

Better yet, if the problem is too much tolerance, what is the proper way to manifest intolerance?

Yes, good example. There will be questions like that!

[FMCoug]

Better yet, if the problem is too much tolerance, what is the proper way to manifest intolerance?


Yes, good example. There will be questions like that!

Those discussions are okay with me. My issues is with the "we can only see black or white" crowd who won't get the nuance and will see tolerance as bad.

[FMCoug]

Oh no! Not that! Joint facebook accounts make me so mad!

Yeah that's what I said.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Oh no! Not that! Joint facebook accounts make me so mad!

Signed, Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, and Mtn. Dew.

[LA Ute]

Everyone should watch the last 60 seconds of Pres. Monson's final talk. He listed a number of virtues that he encouraged all members to cultivate. The first was tolerance. He paused ever so briefly after stating that word. Did no one else notice this? I thought it was fascinating.

[FMCoug]

I will say this. General Conference by and large is the thing that keeps me active. If more Sac. Mtg. talks and SS/PH lessons were like the bulk of the conference talks and we could stay away from the cultural bullshit, we'd have a very different church.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Everyone should watch the last 60 seconds of Pres. Monson's final talk. He listed a number of virtues that he encouraged all members to cultivate. The first was tolerance. He paused ever so briefly after stating that word. Did no one else notice this? I thought it was fascinating.

Yep. I bet he was thinking, "You hear that, Boyd? Who's your daddy?"

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h205/rcc122/tolerance1_zps969ab5c3.jpg

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h205/rcc122/tolerance2_zps31911d3d.jpg

[FMCoug]

Everyone should watch the last 60 seconds of Pres. Monson's final talk. He listed a number of virtues that he encouraged all members to cultivate. The first was tolerance. He paused ever so briefly after stating that word. Did no one else notice this? I thought it was fascinating.

Maybe I'm just noticing more because I'm getting older but there really does seem to be a hardliner faction and a more loving / christ-like faction.

Maybe a better way to put it is Old Testament / Book of Mormon style vs. New Testament style.

[LA Ute]

There is a valid point to be made about tolerance becoming approval - tacit, de facto or otherwise. That's an issue whether we are talking about tolerance of cross-dressing, profanity, or white supremacism. There's a line that we can cross. The trick is the way the concept is presented. Pres. Monson and Pres. Uchtdorf would do it one way, Pres. Packer another.

[FMCoug]

I don't buy it. Who's in which faction? I think I have heard every member of the quorum of the twelve speak movingly on love and forgiveness, and I'm pretty sure every one has delivered a sermon that you would call "hardliner."

Lebowski's post just above is a great example. Note that I am not saying this is a bad thing. Just like in business or any other endeavor, differing view points and approaches tend to lead to a better overall outcome. The worst thing we could have in the 12 is one leader and a bunch of yes men

EDIT: Anybody who can't identify guys like Packer, Bednar, Benson (as an apostle) as hardliners needs to take off their "GA's are infallible" glasses.

[USS Utah]

Lebowski's post just above is a great example. Note that I am not saying this is a bad thing. Just like in business or any other endeavor, differing view points and approaches tend to lead to a better overall outcome. The worst thing we could have in the 12 is one leader and a bunch of yes men

EDIT: Anybody who can't identify guys like Packer, Bednar, Benson (as an apostle) as hardliners needs to take off their "GA's are infallible" glasses.

Benson was such a hardliner, particularly on Communism, that there were quite a few in the church that thought he would never be president of the church.

Are there really people who think "GA's are infallible"? I always thought it was self-evident that becoming a GA did not stop you from being human.

OTOH, I read some of the happenings in other wards posted here and wonder why I never see anything like that.

[FMCoug]

Benson was such a hardliner, particularly on Communism, that there were quite a few in the church that thought he would never be president of the church.

Are there really people who think "GA's are infallible"? I always thought it was self-evident that becoming a GA did not stop you from being human.

OTOH, I read some of the happenings in other wards posted here and wonder why I never see anything like that.

I think it's more like they think GA's take dictation from God when it comes to their callings thus anythng they say is automatically gospel truth. Infallibility in terms of their callings is what I'd call it. When in reality, I don't think GA's receive revelation or approach their callings any difrerently than the rest of us.

[USS Utah]

I think it's more like they think GA's take dictation from God when it comes to their callings thus anythng they say is automatically gospel truth. Infallibility in terms of their callings is what I'd call it. When in reality, I don't think GA's receive revelation or approach their callings any difrerently than the rest of us.

There were certain things said or written by Bruce R. McConkie that clearly demonstrated this idea to be untrue.

I think it was Joseph Fielding Smith who predicted that man would never walk on the moon. God obviously did not tell him that.

Unless it is prefaced "Thus saith the Lord" I would not assume anything said was the result of dictation from God. Even so, anytime a member of the 12 or First Presidency speaks or writes, I think it is advisable to pay attention and give their remarks thoughtful consideration. The thing I like most about Mormonism is that I have the right to receive personal revelation, so if I have any questions or concerns about anything said by a GA or other church leader, I can go directly to God in prayer and ask about it. I don't have to take anyone's word for anything.

[LA Ute]

Here's what Elder Clayton said:


Where there is respect there is also transparency, which is a key element of happy marriages. There are no secrets about relevant matters in marriages based on mutual respect and transparency. Husbands and wives make all decisions about finances together, and both have access to all information. Loyalty is a form of respect. Prophets teach that successful marriage partners are fiercely loyal to each other. They keep their social media use worthy in every way. They permit themselves no secret Internet experiences. They freely share with each other their social network passwords. They do not look at the virtual profiles of anyone, in any way, that might betray the trust of their spouses. They never do or say anything that approaches impropriety, either virtually or physically.

Seems like sound advice to me.

[Rocker Ute]

Here's what Elder Clayton said:



Seems like sound advice to me.

Once again the church misses the mark focusing on transparency, mutual respect, trust and loyalty in a happy marriage. My misplaced outrage is going to flood all of my secret social networking accounts.

[tooblue]

Once again the church misses the mark focusing on transparency, mutual respect, trust and loyalty in a happy marriage. My misplaced outrage is going to flood all of my secret social networking accounts.

If only someone would take a hard line on the hardliners. Then we wouldn't have such outrage!

[Applejack]

Here's what Elder Clayton said:



Seems like sound advice to me.

Does UtahByFive count as a "secret Internet experience?"

[Scratch]

Does UtahByFive count as a "secret Internet experience?"

It depends on whether or not you accept my repeated requests for a surreptitious rendezvous.

[LA Ute]

Does UtahByFive count as a "secret Internet experience?"

Not according to my wife. To her my participation here is merely evidence that I am an overgrown juvenile.

[Rocker Ute]

Does UtahByFive count as a "secret Internet experience?"

I have been known from time to time to look at your board profile without the knowledge of my wife, and when she walks in the room I close the browser window. I think it has more to do with me wanting to eat Applejacks late at night though.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Here's what Elder Clayton said:



Seems like sound advice to me.

We're close friends with a couple in our ward. In a recent conversation, the wife stated matter of factly to my wife that she had absolutely no idea how much money her husband makes. She doesn't have any access to the finances and doesn't really seem to care about it. He's a personal injury attorney and they live in a giant house, so there doesn't seem to be any reason for her to worry.

We have another set of friends who were married for six years. Never shared passwords or checked each other's phones. Turned out that she had been cheating on him for about 5 1/2 of those years.

I don't have a problem with giving each other full access. My wife knows my passwords and I, hers. I know that she logs in on me from time to time but there's nothing malicious to hide. The only thing that got me in trouble recently was when the iCloud uploaded a photo I had taken to our desktop without me realizing. I had killed a scorpion in our kitchen one morning before leaving for work and failed to tell her about it, because I didn't think it was worth getting excited about. She wasn't too pleased about that.

[Applejack]

It depends on whether or not you accept my repeated requests for a surreptitious rendezvous.

I need to check my boardmails more often.

[Slim]

I don't have a problem with giving each other full access. My wife knows my passwords and I, hers. I know that she logs in on me from time to time but there's nothing malicious to hide. The only thing that got me in trouble recently was when the iCloud uploaded a photo I had taken to our desktop without me realizing. I had killed a scorpion in our kitchen one morning before leaving for work and failed to tell her about it, because I didn't think it was worth getting excited about. She wasn't too pleased about that.

I agree with this. My wife knows all my passwords (because I use the same one just different variations), and I know hers. She's logged on to mine before and I've logged into hers. I'm not worried about it because there is nothing to hide, and I know it's the same for her.

[Slim]

Not according to my wife. To her my participation here is merely evidence that I am an overgrown juvenile.

Agreed. My wife doesn't have to worry about me having an affair, however she does have to worry about me acting like a 13 year old boy.

[FMCoug]

Agreed. My wife doesn't have to worry about me having an affair, however she does have to worry about me acting like a 13 year old boy.

This. My wife and I know each other's passwords more out of convenience than anything else. I might ask her to do something for me and the details are in my gmail or something along those lines. But we have no interest in "policing" each other. It's just a non-issue for us. We have very different interests so really neither of us care about what is going on in the other's world from that standpoint. With her Utah background, I find my wife's collection of Facebook friends incredibly homogenous and boring.

[arizonaute]

I don't buy it. Who's in which faction?."
The Rothschild's, the Getty's , the Kennedys and Col Sanders

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

This. My wife and I know each other's passwords more out of convenience than anything else. I might ask her to do something for me and the details are in my gmail or something along those lines. But we have no interest in "policing" each other. It's just a non-issue for us. We have very different interests so really neither of us care about what is going on in the other's world from that standpoint. With her Utah background, I find my wife's collection of Facebook friends incredibly homogenous and boring.

I'll tell you the biggest mistake that I regret ever making. Letting my wife put the "Find My Phone" app on my phone "just in case I ever lost it." Sometimes, when I REALLY focus, I can remember my life without having to worry about the, "Why are you still at work" text at 5:33 p.m.

[Diehard Ute]

I'll tell you the biggest mistake that I regret ever making. Letting my wife put the "Find My Phone" app on my phone "just in case I ever lost it." Sometimes, when I REALLY focus, I can remember my life without having to worry about the, "Why are you still at work" text at 5:33 p.m.

Turn off location services on your phone and it won't work :)

[Applejack]

Great article in the DezNewz about General Conference Humor: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865577822/Laughs-witty-remarks-from-LDS-general-conference-tweets-and-video.html

[USS Utah]

456

[LA Ute]

456

That comment produced the biggest LOL moment I've ever had during a General Conference session.

[FMCoug]

Turn off location services on your phone and it won't work :)

Either that or retrieve your gonads from the jar your wife keeps them in. :)

[Dawminator]

I want to take a minute to update my stance on something that has been discussed earlier in this thread.

I have changed my mind on agitation. I don't have a problem with members of the church writing to the leaders of the Church on issues like women in the priesthood with one caveat. I think it is perfectly okay for a well intentioned member to ask the leaders of the church if it were possible for women to be ordained. Maybe even asking if the question could be taken to the Lord. Where I think it becomes a problem from an LDS doctrinal perspective is when members of the church start saying what the doctrine/policies SHOULD be.

In other words I think it is perfectly okay and good for a member to ask an honest question. The Lord has revealed truth in the past, why can't he do it now? But I think members are on bad doctrinal ground when they attempt to "educate" the leaders of the Church or try and tell them what the will of the Lord is.

Just my thoughts.

[NorthwestUteFan]

In that case can we expect to see your profile posted on the ordainwomen.org site soon? The stated goal of the group, per the founder, was to implore the church leadership to ask the question.

[Dawminator]

Nope.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Nope.

I get it. You are the strong, silent type.

[LA Ute]

Look, you two -- do I have to come over there?

[Idon'tgnawonmywife]

Lol, sent you a PM, LA. :)

[tooblue]

In that case can we expect to see your profile posted on the ordainwomen.org site soon? The stated goal of the group, per the founder, was to implore the church leadership to ask the question.

That's an interesting assumption on the part of the founder and the group. How do they "know" the question hasn't already been asked ... and answered?

[Rocker Ute]

I want to take a minute to update my stance on something that has been discussed earlier in this thread.

I have changed my mind on agitation. I don't have a problem with members of the church writing to the leaders of the Church on issues like women in the priesthood with one caveat. I think it is perfectly okay for a well intentioned member to ask the leaders of the church if it were possible for women to be ordained. Maybe even asking if the question could be taken to the Lord. Where I think it becomes a problem from an LDS doctrinal perspective is when members of the church start saying what the doctrine/policies SHOULD be.

In other words I think it is perfectly okay and good for a member to ask an honest question. The Lord has revealed truth in the past, why can't he do it now? But I think members are on bad doctrinal ground when they attempt to "educate" the leaders of the Church or try and tell them what the will of the Lord is.

Just my thoughts.

My wife and I have discussed the 'wear pants' and 'ordain women' stuff casually, not getting too much in depth about it, more just about the specifics of what they are saying and doing. You might consider my wife a feminist, so I was surprised she didn't have more to say about this. We have talked about women in the church many many times before, she typically has great insight. When I tried to discuss this, she was pretty quite about the whole thing. I took it as disinterest, and maybe because we've discussed the root of these things often. So I assumed she was probably in support of it at some level or another. I didn't realize she was just contemplating the whole thing.

So yesterday we were going out to Kingsbury Hall to my daughter's ballet. I didn't think much about it. As we are looking for parking for the event she said with a smirk on her face, "I'm wearing pants to protest the standards pushed onto women at the ballet."

I laughed, I knew where she was going. She then went into a mini tirade that time would allow, and said, "You know, this whole 'wear pants / ordain women' push isn't helping women's causes within the church at all. It makes women look insincere, silly, petty and greedy -- the whole thing is a big joke. This is what happens when bored hipster 'mommy-bloggers' set their feeble minds beyond scrapbooking. They've just demonstrated they don't even know what the issues are, and everybody knows it. If they can't even speak on terms the decision-makers are going to relate to, how do they expect to be taken seriously? A woman who is a believer and truly wanted these changes would not take this approach to change things." (A quick aside, my wife is most definitely not the scrapbooking, dressing your kids 'just-so', interior design type, and she has some contempt for women who are, which explains the crack about scrapbooking.)

I remained silent, while she went on for a bit more before we went inside. I don't know that I agree with her about it making women look petty, etc., but whatever.

I'll admit, I didn't see that coming, I thought she would have been more in favor of what they are doing, given that she has stated that women should have a more significant role in church leadership. Not so. She basically feels like this is a push that is meant to agitate not advance. I told her I was making a website, 'impregnatemen.org' designed to encourage church leadership to let men get pregnant. She didn't think that was funny either, she said, "Your joke is equally likely to be successful, but also shows you don't get what is going on either."

More to come I'm sure. I've seen this look in her eye many times before, and it is the look that precedes her getting whatever she wants.

[LA Ute]

That is not the stated goal on the website or in the mission statement.

Website title:


Ordain Women (http://ordainwomen.org)
Mormon women seeking equality and ordination to the priesthood


Opening paragraph:


Ordain Women aspires to create a space for Mormon women to articulate issues of gender inequality they may be hesitant to raise alone. As a group we intend to put ourselves in the public eye and call attention to the need for the ordination of Mormon women to the priesthood.

[Applejack]

My wife and I have discussed the 'wear pants' and 'ordain women' stuff casually, not getting too much in depth about it, more just about the specifics of what they are saying and doing. You might consider my wife a feminist, so I was surprised she didn't have more to say about this. We have talked about women in the church many many times before, she typically has great insight. When I tried to discuss this, she was pretty quite about the whole thing. I took it as disinterest, and maybe because we've discussed the root of these things often. So I assumed she was probably in support of it at some level or another. I didn't realize she was just contemplating the whole thing.

So yesterday we were going out to Kingsbury Hall to my daughter's ballet. I didn't think much about it. As we are looking for parking for the event she said with a smirk on her face, "I'm wearing pants to protest the standards pushed onto women at the ballet."

I laughed, I knew where she was going. She then went into a mini tirade that time would allow, and said, "You know, this whole 'wear pants / ordain women' push isn't helping women's causes within the church at all. It makes women look insincere, silly, petty and greedy -- the whole thing is a big joke. This is what happens when bored hipster 'mommy-bloggers' set their feeble minds beyond scrapbooking. They've just demonstrated they don't even know what the issues are, and everybody knows it. If they can't even speak on terms the decision-makers are going to relate to, how do they expect to be taken seriously? A woman who is a believer and truly wanted these changes would not take this approach to change things." (A quick aside, my wife is most definitely not the scrapbooking, dressing your kids 'just-so', interior design type, and she has some contempt for women who are, which explains the crack about scrapbooking.)

I remained silent, while she went on for a bit more before we went inside. I don't know that I agree with her about it making women look petty, etc., but whatever.

I'll admit, I didn't see that coming, I thought she would have been more in favor of what they are doing, given that she has stated that women should have a more significant role in church leadership. Not so. She basically feels like this is a push that is meant to agitate not advance. I told her I was making a website, 'impregnatemen.org' designed to encourage church leadership to let men get pregnant. She didn't think that was funny either, she said, "Your joke is equally likely to be successful, but also shows you don't get what is going on either."

More to come I'm sure. I've seen this look in her eye many times before, and it is the look that precedes her getting whatever she wants.

Your wife is certainly entitled to feel that way. Obviously not every woman (or man) will have the same interest or desire in seeing change occur. But I think it is unfair to characterize any woman (or man) who wants to see change occur as "not a true believer" or "greedy." How should a "true believer" who truly wanted women to have the priesthood proceed? By doing nothing? Letting change occur organically? I think ordainwomen.org is a pretty innocuous approach to internal change. Aside from being harmless, it seems fairly effective. Indeed, by advocating for women to pray in G.C. it appears that the group achieved a tangible change with which everyone (from what I can tell) is pleased. Seems like a win-win to me.

[LA Ute]

I'm kinda thinking I'd like to be the first male Relief Society president, but I also feel guilty aspiring to the calling.

[DrumNFeather]

I'm kinda thinking I'd like to be the first male Relief Society president, but I also feel guilty aspiring to the calling.

Go for RS greeter instead.

[Applejack]

I'm kinda thinking I'd like to be the first male Relief Society president, but I also feel guilty aspiring to the calling.

Terrible choice. Outside of Bish, that is the hardest job in the church. Primary Presidency is where it's at.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

When questioned by a reporter regarding women and the priesthood, President Hinckey stated that "there has been no agitation for that."



RB: At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church. Why is that?

GBH: That’s right, because the Lord has put it that way. Now women have a very prominent place in this Church. They have there own organisation. Probably the largest women’s organisation in the world of 3.7 million members. There own ???. And the women of that organisation sit on Boards. Our Board of Education things of that kind. They counsel with us. We counsel together. They bring in insight that we very much appreciate and they have this tremendous organisation of the world where they grow and if you ask them they’ll say we’re happy and we’re satisfied.

RB: They all say that?

GBH: Yes. All except a oh you’ll find a little handful one or two here and there, but in 10 million members you expect that.

RB: You say the Lord has put it that way. What do you mean by that?

GBH: I mean that’s a part of His programme. Of course it is, yes.

RB: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ?

GBH: He could change them yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen.

RB: So you’d have to get a revelation?

GBH: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organisation are very happy. Ask them. Ask my wife.


It was a curious response. Essentially, he said that women hadn't "agitated" for change in that regard.

While I respect Rocker and, I am sure, his wife, I take exception to his wife's characterization of her sisters in Zion on many levels. Not every "mormon mommy blogger" has a feeble mind. Nor do those that scrapbook have feeble minds.

There are plenty of good, smart, educated, socially progressive women in and out of the church that blog, scrapbook, and design interiors. Women that know the issues.

This down-the-nose view of other women baffles me.

[LA Ute]

Terrible choice. Outside of Bish, that is the hardest job in the church. Primary Presidency is where it's at.

Yes. Primary Secretary. Sunday-only, light work.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Terrible choice. Outside of Bish, that is the hardest job in the church. Primary Presidency is where it's at.

Dealing with everyone's kids for 2 hours? I don't even like my kids at church.

[Rocker Ute]

Your wife is certainly entitled to feel that way. Obviously not every woman (or man) will have the same interest or desire in seeing change occur. But I think it is unfair to characterize any woman (or man) who wants to see change occur as "not a true believer" or "greedy." How should a "true believer" who truly wanted women to have the priesthood proceed? By doing nothing? Letting change occur organically? I think ordainwomen.org is a pretty innocuous approach to internal change. Aside from being harmless, it seems fairly effective. Indeed, by advocating for women to pray in G.C. it appears that the group achieved a tangible change with which everyone (from what I can tell) is pleased. Seems like a win-win to me.

I don't think my wife is opposed to change at all, she questions their methods and motives. I will say the change she wants doesn't involve women getting the priesthood though. She could explain her thinking on that, it is too nuanced for me to do it justice.

The one thing she did say was a pretty good analogy. Our neighbors have given our kids permission to go and jump on their trampoline whenever we want. Just because they've given us permission to do so, doesn't give us permission to invite every other kid in the neighborhood to also go jump on their trampoline. So her point was, if they wanted to be ordained, the first step would be to go to the owner of that power, meaning God, and not the people it has been delegated to.

Now as to how my wife might approach that, if she felt that God wanted women to hold the Priesthood and she needed to take action, would be to work through the channels of the church, which she has proven she isn't afraid to do that at all. And no, that doesn't mean to go and ask the bishop to please spread the word if they could, she isn't so passive. She is the type of person who would find a way to meet with general authorities or whatever else she needed to do to get her audience. When I have time I'll tell you about how a little change she wanted in the state law eventually led to her getting a meeting with a number of people in the Utah State legislature.

One thing to know about my wife is that she is quiet, very nice and very pleasant. Most people who first meet her mistake her for a wilting flower. I've seen the surprise many times when people discover that that thinking about her is quite false. She cannot be deterred when she is going after what she wants. She is very fair, but also doesn't suffer a fool lightly (which then brings the question as to how our marriage succeeds at all).

So to answer your question about the methods that she thinks a 'true believer' would take, according to her would be to go to God directly with that request and get their thinking in alignment to what he wants, and if they then felt that he wanted that change, she'd pray for that to happen, and then she would go to work and meet and discuss directly with the people on the ground who could make such a change, versus showing up to church in pants or putting their picture up on a website.

And I'm not saying I agree with her feelings about the people doing this, but I will tell you this is a woman who knows how to get results. I just think her perspective was interesting, and also surprising to me. Like I alluded to in the OP, I thought she would have been at least okay with women making themselves heard.

[SoCalCoug]

There's got to be a reason why I am always explaining myself here. I've just got to be more clear!

I was just responding to UtahDan's comment that the two big changes after Brigham Young (the end of polygamy and the priesthood revelation) came as the result of great pressure. That's certainly true of polygamy but I don't recall any hue and cry to end the priesthood ban in 1978. People had pretty much accepted it as an increasingly uncomfortable reality that many hoped would change. Now, I agree with you 100% that the practical realities in places like Brazil were pressing on the church. (I ran into it in Guatemala and lost an investigator family over the ban, one of the low points of my mission.) That problem seems to have been in the forefont of President Kimball's mind. If that's what my friend UD meant, then I agree with him.

You were in Utah at the time, right? I can accept that there wasn't a lot of pressure from the church members in Utah at the time to end the priesthood ban.

[Rocker Ute]

When questioned by a reporter regarding women and the priesthood, President Hinckey stated that "there has been no agitation for that."



It was a curious response. Essentially, he said that women hadn't "agitated" for change in that regard.

While I respect Rocker and, I am sure, his wife, I take exception to his wife's characterization of her sisters in Zion on many levels. Not every "mormon mommy blogger" has a feeble mind. Nor do those that scrapbook have feeble minds.

There are plenty of good, smart, educated, socially progressive women in and out of the church that blog, scrapbook, and design interiors. Women that know the issues.

This down-the-nose view of other women baffles me.

No there aren't.

I'm just kidding. I know she doesn't think all scrapbookers and mommy bloggers don't know the issues, or she is going to have some issues with close friends and family members. Her contempt is actually towards the people organizing these protests and their methods.

That doesn't mean she is going to show up to scrapbooking Enrichment Night though.

[Applejack]

Dealing with everyone's kids for 2 hours? I don't even like my kids at church.

It's often better than dealing with the adults.

[LA Ute]

You were in Utah at the time, right? I can accept that there wasn't a lot of pressure from the church members in Utah at the time to end the priesthood ban.

Yep, I was in college being mentored by shrinking violets like Prof. J.D. Williams. ;)

The Kimball book seems to be a fair source of contemporary info on what was happening at the time. It confirms my recollection that the outside pressure had died down considerably by 1978. But my point is that it's simply an overreach to claim the 1978 change came in response to pressure. All the evidence is to the contrary. My larger point is this: if anyone is claiming that if we want a major change in policy or doctrine, history has shown that agitating for the change will produce success, I don't think they will find historical support for that claim. You are welcome to disagree. You'll be wrong, of course, but that's your privilege. ;)

[San Diego Ute Fan]

Yep, I was in college being mentored by shrinking violets like Prof. J.D. Williams. ;)

The Kimball book seems to be a fair source of contemporary info on what was happening at the time. It confirms my recollection that the outside pressure had died down considerably by 1978. But my point is that it's simply an overreach to claim the 1978 change came in response to pressure. All the evidence is to the contrary. My larger point is this: if anyone is claiming that if we want a major change in policy or doctrine, history has shown that agitating for the change will produce success, I don't think they will find historical support for that claim. You are welcome to disagree. You'll be wrong, of course, but that's your privilege. ;)

J.D. lived in our stake. He was a pretty controversial guy as I recall.

[LA Ute]

J.D. lived in our stake. He was a pretty controversial guy as I recall.

Yes, he agitated unsuccessfully for lots of change, in the church and elsewhere. :D I loved the guy although I agreed with him on very little.

[OrangeUte]

Dealing with everyone's kids for 2 hours? I don't even like my kids at church.

ditto. and they have to do sharing time and handle classes where teachers call in sick, etc. it's not a great calling from a lazy' man's perspective. teaching primary is an awesome gig - so long as it is senior primary. first, you download the lesson power point from sugardoodle.net and just go through the slides with the kids. SEcond, you show a video every sunday from the church history dvd set (i can't find a link but it is a 3 dvd set with tons of movies and artwork, etc.). Third, you don't have to be in sharing time unless you have a horrible class, so you can hang out with buddies in the hall or just leave.

yessiree, primary teaching in the senior primary is an awesome gig.

[NorthwestUteFan]

A male Primary President will never be allowed for liability reasons. A 58 yr old lawyer down in Vancouver just received an 8 years prison sentence for sexually assaulting a 9 yr old girl in his primary class. The church can't afford that kind of liability.

Sheri Dew's new book is full of references demonstrating that women held the priesthood from ~1842 until the late 19th century, or perhaps even later. It is very apparent from her sources that Joseph Smith intended for women to hold at least a form of the priesthood, and had even promised a new set of Priesthood keys for women in the near future, but he died before he could make that happen.

The argument, "It has always been this way, and thus will always be so" is invalid.

[Two Utes]

A male Primary President will never be allowed for liability reasons. A 58 yr old lawyer down in Vancouver just received an 8 years prison sentence for sexually assaulting a 9 yr old girl in his primary class. The church can't afford that kind of liability.

Sheri Dew's new book is full of references demonstrating that women held the priesthood from ~1842 until the late 19th century, or perhaps even later. It is very apparent from her sources that Joseph Smith intended for women to hold at least a form of the priesthood, and had even promised a new set of Priesthood keys for women in the near future, but he died before he could make that happen.

The argument, "It has always been this way, and thus will always be so" is invalid.

I actually think woman giving blessings and stuff like that will happen in the future. Women would dig conducting those ceremonies and there seems to be no real harm in doing so--in fact the wives will likely buy in more to the system. And despite General Authorities constantly saying god's laws do not change, we know for a fact that God's laws, as interpreted by Mormon hierarchy, actually do change quite a bit.

[LA Ute]

A male Primary President will never be allowed for liability reasons. A 58 yr old lawyer down in Vancouver just received an 8 years prison sentence for sexually assaulting a 9 yr old girl in his primary class. The church can't afford that kind of liability.

Sheri Dew's new book is full of references demonstrating that women held the priesthood from ~1842 until the late 19th century, or perhaps even later. It is very apparent from her sources that Joseph Smith intended for women to hold at least a form of the priesthood, and had even promised a new set of Priesthood keys for women in the near future, but he died before he could make that happen.

The argument, "It has always been this way, and thus will always be so" is invalid.

So what other practices from the Joseph Smith era you want to go back to? (Kidding. Kidding!!)

[Jarid in Cedar]

I don't think my wife is opposed to change at all, she questions their methods and motives. I will say the change she wants doesn't involve women getting the priesthood though. She could explain her thinking on that, it is too nuanced for me to do it justice.



So to answer your question about the methods that she thinks a 'true believer' would take, according to her would be to go to God directly with that request and get their thinking in alignment to what he wants, and if they then felt that he wanted that change, she'd pray for that to happen, and then she would go to work and meet and discuss directly with the people on the ground who could make such a change, versus showing up to church in pants or putting their picture up on a website.

And I'm not saying I agree with her feelings about the people doing this, but I will tell you this is a woman who knows how to get results. I just think her perspective was interesting, and also surprising to me. Like I alluded to in the OP, I thought she would have been at least okay with women making themselves heard.

The fatal flaw here is that she assumes that they didn't take the path that you outline. I would bet that many of the women involved already pray fervently to God about this issue. They talk about it at a local level(ever tried to get audience with a GA?), and have found the resistance frustrating and never-ending. Your wife only sees the end product and makes waaaay too many leaps in assumption about the process on her way to condemning these women.

[NorthwestUteFan]

So what other practices from the Joseph Smith era you want to go back to? (Kidding. Kidding!!)

Make the Word of Wisdom a suggestion again, at least for beer and wine. Keep smoking as verboten because that is a filthy habit.

I don't want any of the other bat$#it crazy stuff though...

[Rocker Ute]

The fatal flaw here is that she assumes that they didn't take the path that you outline. I would bet that many of the women involved already pray fervently to God about this issue. They talk about it at a local level(ever tried to get audience with a GA?), and have found the resistance frustrating and never-ending. Your wife only sees the end product and makes waaaay too many leaps in assumption about the process on her way to condemning these women.

Yes, and it really isn't that hard. If there isn't a GA in your stake there is one in the one adjacent to you. But you can call and make an appointment with an area authority or more quite easily. One time as a WML I found myself after a few calls on the phone with GBH himself, which was an amazing experience and story.

Anyway...

Nowhere on the site that I could find, nor apparently my wife was any advocation for prayer as an action plan.

In fact it is conspicuously missing. From their FAQ on how people can help:

As much as possible, encourage the Mormon community to coalesce around the goal of women’s ordination. Help them see that anything less is insufficient to address the gender inequality in the Church. Talk to your ward members and local leaders. Write letters. Use social media. Send us an “I support ordination” profile for our website. Volunteer to help us online.

(Sorry can figure out how to quote on tapatalk)

My wife noted that her first plan of action she would take isn't even mentioned as a last resort, no where is a mention of God's will in any of this.

But the bigger point is one woman I know and respect is not impressed by their actions who I though might be in favor, and she makes some good, if not jarring, points.

I should mention that I am a believer, as was Spencer W Kimball in what is essentially trickle up inspiration. In that inspiration can happen on a individual level that can be good for the whole church. In fact it happens all the time. My wife is a big believer in direct access to God that is afforded to all people so to her it seems very foreign that that wouldn't be the primary consideration. Couple that with their methodology and she isn't impressed.

[NorthwestUteFan]

(ever tried to get audience with a GA?),.

Russell Nelson is a close family friend. If Mormons had Godparents, then one of his daughters and her husband would be my Godparents.

I was at my cousin's wedding in the late 90s. While the bride and groom were taking pictures my wife and I strolled around the plaza, and saw Elder Nelson speaking with Elder Packer. I wanted to say chat with Elder Nelson for a minute and reintroduce him to my wife (this was 5 years after our wedding, and hadn't seen him since).

I walked up and introduced myself to them, and Nelson remembered me immediately. Elder Packer on the other hand was very put out and definitely off his game. For the entire duration of our conversation he kept clearing his throat and harrumphing, obviously getting angry. You don't mess with a Grizzly Bear.

I turned and said goodbye to Elder Nelson, and then said "Goodbye Elder McConkie" to Packer and winked at Nelson, and walked away smiling.

[Pheidippides]

Yep, I was in college being mentored by shrinking violets like Prof. J.D. Williams. ;)

The Kimball book seems to be a fair source of contemporary info on what was happening at the time. It confirms my recollection that the outside pressure had died down considerably by 1978. But my point is that it's simply an overreach to claim the 1978 change came in response to pressure. All the evidence is to the contrary. My larger point is this: if anyone is claiming that if we want a major change in policy or doctrine, history has shown that agitating for the change will produce success, I don't think they will find historical support for that claim. You are welcome to disagree. You'll be wrong, of course, but that's your privilege. ;)

Not only do I disagree, I have anecdotal evidence from your contemporaries to the contrary, and this to go with the historical evidence to the same. Just because there weren't any Molotov cocktails tossed in 1977 doesn't mean that the pressure wasn't there.

As for agitating for change, I'll start by raising the garment change in the earlier part of the 1900s. That was in direct response to agitation by women who were refusing to wear them, and the change itself ran directly contrary to several statements made by the church a decade before. That's to start. We can talk about shifting birth control and sexual standards as well if you'd like, although that change was made over time and by letting the issue drop.

In fact, I'd submit that the pattern is pretty well established at this point: pressure (internal or external, usually the latter) to change is accompanied by absolutist refusal and statements to that effect, followed by moderation, an actual change when politically expedient or necessary (i.e., for missionary/temple work in Brazil, adverse Supreme Court decisions, etc.), followed by an eventual denial of the practice in the first place and/or statement that it's God's will.

You will fairly point out that I don't believe the GAs get any more revelation than I do nor to I believe anything they say is binding or of God. But my response is that this is the exact reason why. So please be careful asking for historical evidence, because if I should happen to find a lot of time on my hands you're going to have to sort through a doctoral thesis.

[LA Ute]

Not only do I disagree, I have anecdotal evidence from your contemporaries to the contrary, and this to go with the historical evidence to the same. Just because there weren't any Molotov cocktails tossed in 1977 doesn't mean that the pressure wasn't there.

As for agitating for change, I'll start by raising the garment change in the earlier part of the 1900s. That was in direct response to agitation by women who were refusing to wear them, and the change itself ran directly contrary to several statements made by the church a decade before. That's to start. We can talk about shifting birth control and sexual standards as well if you'd like, although that change was made over time and by letting the issue drop.

In fact, I'd submit that the pattern is pretty well established at this point: pressure (internal or external, usually the latter) to change is accompanied by absolutist refusal and statements to that effect, followed by moderation, an actual change when politically expedient or necessary (i.e., for missionary/temple work in Brazil, adverse Supreme Court decisions, etc.), followed by an eventual denial of the practice in the first place and/or statement that it's God's will.

You will fairly point out that I don't believe the GAs get any more revelation than I do nor to I believe anything they say is binding or of God. But my response is that this is the exact reason why. So please be careful asking for historical evidence, because if I should happen to find a lot of time on my hands you're going to have to sort through a doctoral thesis.

(Loud buzzer goes off.) As you will see from reading my post, I said "if anyone is claiming that if we want a major change in policy or doctrine, history has shown that agitating for the change will produce success, I don't think they will find historical support for that claim." I don't consider the garment change a major one. (You left out the switch to two-piece garments in the late 1970s, BTW. To me that was huge. ;)) Remember, the discussion was about women receiving the priesthood. As for the 1978 end of the priesthood ban, it remains true that the change came during a relative lull in outside protests, and in any event it is simplistic at best to argue that external pressure caused the change. From reading the diaries and letters of those involved, David O. McKay through Spencer W. Kimball, it is clear that the primary factor in motivating Pres. Kimball to dig like crazy and push for guidance from God was the practical problem of administering a growing worldwide church with the ban in place. He was not motivated by public pressure.

[Jeff Lebowski]

(Loud buzzer goes off.) As you will see from reading my post, I said "if anyone is claiming that if we want a major change in policy or doctrine, history has shown that agitating for the change will produce success, I don't think they will find historical support for that claim." I don't consider the garment change a major one. (You left out the switch to two-piece garments in the late 1970s, BTW. To me that was huge. ;)) Remember, the discussion was about women receiving the priesthood. As for the 1978 end of the priesthood ban, it remains true that the change came during a relative lull in outside protests, and in any event it is simplistic at best to argue that external pressure caused the change. From reading the diaries and letters of those involved, David O. McKay through Spencer W. Kimball, it is clear that the primary factor in motivating Pres. Kimball to dig like crazy and push for guidance from God was the practical problem of administering a growing worldwide church with the ban in place. He was not motivated by public pressure.

Wow. OK, so let's pretend for a minute that the civil rights movement had nothing to do with ending the ban. As you are spinning it, it was in response to administrative issues. Why would a fundamental core doctrine change in response to administrative issues? If a core doctrine can change for that reason, why couldn't it change in response to societal pressure (within and without)?

And what about polygamy? Are you seriously going to claim that polygamy was not stopped due to external pressure?

[Pheidippides]

(Loud buzzer goes off.) As you will see from reading my post, I said "if anyone is claiming that if we want a major change in policy or doctrine, history has shown that agitating for the change will produce success, I don't think they will find historical support for that claim." I don't consider the garment change a major one. (You left out the switch to two-piece garments in the late 1970s, BTW. To me that was huge. ;)) Remember, the discussion was about women receiving the priesthood. As for the 1978 end of the priesthood ban, it remains true that the change came during a relative lull in outside protests, and in any event it is simplistic at best to argue that external pressure caused the change. From reading the diaries and letters of those involved, David O. McKay through Spencer W. Kimball, it is clear that the primary factor in motivating Pres. Kimball to dig like crazy and push for guidance from God was the practical problem of administering a growing worldwide church with the ban in place. He was not motivated by public pressure.

The people at the time considered the garment change to be huge, and among more conservative members there was considerable discord. Please try again. I don't care to take the time to cite all the references - bouts of employment and all - but the overwhelming evidence here is not in your favor, as well as common sense. I hesitate to say it, but this may be one of the more ridiculous assertions you've made.

Journals are not always an accurate reflection of inner thought, as you should know, especially of high profile individuals who have expectations they will be read posthumously.

I wouldn't expect you to have knowledge of of a situation like this or the discontented segments of the church. The next time you agitate in a significant way against anything the church says will be the first. I don't mean that as a slight, but why would you think that you would know the circles or groups of people that harbored discontent in or out? What I mean by this is that it's entirely understandable that you would say you didn't see the agitation within the church while people your age (and just a bit older) have been very clear about the opposite. They've also been clear about the fear of excommunication at the time for their agitation, which is also a factor to consider.

As to women and the priesthood, there is a problem with the internal agitation, and it is this: many women are simply choosing to leave. I know many. My sister left for exactly this reason and no other. My wife is agitating for change now and would leave if we didn't have a good ward community, in my estimation. My daughter is already asking the questions that will lead her to leave in the future, most likely, unless you have a good answer to the question, "what do I get when I'm twelve?" I don't, nor does my wife, and I'm not going to push her to stay around if she'd rather not.

You're not talking about a minority (speaking numerically) population anymore. You're talking half or slightly more. And while I get that people are willing to go along with it because they believe, the church helps them in other ways, etc., that is increasingly not the case, and good powerful women who would otherwise stay have left and are leaving, and many others are less than fully engaged. Many people are simply saying, "my heart tells me the Mormon God," as spouted from the pulpit, is a farce and I don't believe in him. I believe he's something better." And then they find another place to be. It makes little difference as to what history shows; this is a unique problem unlike what has happened before because of the sheer number of internal people potentially affected, and if even half of the active women of the church start thinking in this way, the church will
change.

I'm a bit fired up about general conference (which I hated, on the whole - I would have been better spiritually nourished by spending more time on my bike and less listening) so I apologize for the rant.

[LA Ute]

Wow. OK, so let's pretend for a minute that the civil rights movement had nothing to do with ending the ban. As you are spinning it, it was in response to administrative issues. Why would a fundamental core doctrine change in response to administrative issues? If a core doctrine can change for that reason, why couldn't it change in response to societal pressure (within and without)?

You need to stop putting words into my mouth. I said "the primary factor." I do think it's obvious that societal changes focused the issue. Let's remember what started this debate: An advocate of ordaining women to the priesthood, my friend UtahDan, said:

"We can disagree about whether the changes come from God, but the two big changes that happened post BY occurred under a lot of pressure."

I think UD is essentially right, but I am simply saying that it is a stretch to say the end of the priesthood ban resulted from public pressure. I think the public pressure was a factor that if nothing else focused the minds of members and leaders on the issue. There was also pressure from thousands of Africans demanding baptism as early as DOM's administration, and then you have the globalization of the church. All those pressures sent SWK to the Lord. I really do recommend Ed Kimball's book for that perspective on the events.


And what about polygamy? Are you seriously going to claim that polygamy was not stopped due to external pressure?

Come on, JL. Why do you do this? I have throughout the discussion here excluded polygamy from my argument. I'm just talking about the priesthood ban. I think this may be the third time in this thread (at least once in response to you directly) that I have said so. When you have a federal law, a Supreme Court decision, both about polygamy; a church about to be put in receivership; and a declaration from the president of the church that there was now no other way for the church to survive; I'd say yes, the polygamy change was in response to public pressure.

My point remains: Anyone who says that the priesthood ban ended because the church was concerned about P.R. has a very tough burden of proof to carry. I think the evidence is to the contrary. I may be wrong.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You need to stop putting words into my mouth. I said "the primary factor." I do think it's obvious that societal changes focused the issue. Let's remember what started this debate: An advocate of ordaining women to the priesthood, my friend UtahDan, said:

"We can disagree about whether the changes come from God, but the two big changes that happened post BY occurred under a lot of pressure."

I think UD is essentially right, but I am simply saying that it is a stretch to say the end of the priesthood ban resulted from public pressure. I think the public pressure was a factor that if nothing else focused the minds of members and leaders on the issue. There was also pressure from thousands of Africans demanding baptism as early as DOM's administration, and then you have the globalization of the church. All those pressures sent SWK to the Lord. I really do recommend Ed Kimball's book for that perspective on the events.



Come on, JL. Why do you do this? I have throughout the discussion here excluded polygamy from my argument. I'm just talking about the priesthood ban. I think this may be the third time in this thread (at least once in response to you directly) that I have said so. When you have a federal law, a Supreme Court decision, both about polygamy; a church about to be put in receivership; and a declaration from the president of the church that there was now no other way for the church to survive; I'd say yes, the polygamy change was in response to public pressure.

My point remains: Anyone who says that the priesthood ban ended because the church was concerned about P.R. has a very tough burden of proof to carry. I think the evidence is to the contrary. I may be wrong.

People keep bringing it up because it proves that UD's main point is correct: major doctrinal changes can occur due to pressure. Your nitpicking about the circumstances of the end of the priesthood ban notwithstanding.

[LA Ute]

I'm a bit fired up about general conference (which I hated, on the whole - I would have been better spiritually nourished by spending more time on my bike and less listening) so I apologize for the rant.

Sorry. I wish it had gone better for you. Your post raises a different discussion than the one I'm having with Lebowski, which arose from my semantic quibble with UD. Different people -- of all ages -- approach change in the church differently. That's what we are really talking about. I do not believe it is a generational issue.

[LA Ute]

People keep bringing it up because it proves that UD's main point is correct: major doctrinal changes can occur due to pressure. Your nitpicking about the circumstances of the end of the priesthood ban notwithstanding.

If you want to argue that polygamy and the priesthood ban ended because of a letter-writing campaign from church members or because of members leaving the church over either, that's fine. You can't support that argument, that's all.

[Jeff Lebowski]

If you want to argue that polygamy and the priesthood ban ended because of a letter-writing campaign from church members or because of members leaving the church over either, that's fine. You can't support that argument, that's all.

We are talking about change in response to pressure. Now you are going to bob and weave over the mechanics of the pressure?

As for polygamy, I think it is quite remarkable that the change was made in response to external pressure. That would seem more extraordinary than change due to internal pressure.

[Rocker Ute]

The people at the time considered the garment change to be huge, and among more conservative members there was considerable discord. Please try again. I don't care to take the time to cite all the references - bouts of employment and all - but the overwhelming evidence here is not in your favor, as well as common sense. I hesitate to say it, but this may be one of the more ridiculous assertions you've made.

Journals are not always an accurate reflection of inner thought, as you should know, especially of high profile individuals who have expectations they will be read posthumously.

I wouldn't expect you to have knowledge of of a situation like this or the discontented segments of the church. The next time you agitate in a significant way against anything the church says will be the first. I don't mean that as a slight, but why would you think that you would know the circles or groups of people that harbored discontent in or out? What I mean by this is that it's entirely understandable that you would say you didn't see the agitation within the church while people your age (and just a bit older) have been very clear about the opposite. They've also been clear about the fear of excommunication at the time for their agitation, which is also a factor to consider.

As to women and the priesthood, there is a problem with the internal agitation, and it is this: many women are simply choosing to leave. I know many. My sister left for exactly this reason and no other. My wife is agitating for change now and would leave if we didn't have a good ward community, in my estimation. My daughter is already asking the questions that will lead her to leave in the future, most likely, unless you have a good answer to the question, "what do I get when I'm twelve?" I don't, nor does my wife, and I'm not going to push her to stay around if she'd rather not.

You're not talking about a minority (speaking numerically) population anymore. You're talking half or slightly more. And while I get that people are willing to go along with it because they believe, the church helps them in other ways, etc., that is increasingly not the case, and good powerful women who would otherwise stay have left and are leaving, and many others are less than fully engaged. Many people are simply saying, "my heart tells me the Mormon God," as spouted from the pulpit, is a farce and I don't believe in him. I believe he's something better." And then they find another place to be. It makes little difference as to what history shows; this is a unique problem unlike what has happened before because of the sheer number of internal people potentially affected, and if even half of the active women of the church start thinking in this way, the church will
change.

I'm a bit fired up about general conference (which I hated, on the whole - I would have been better spiritually nourished by spending more time on my bike and less listening) so I apologize for the rant.

I'm curious where you are getting that figure. Are you saying that all women are dissatisfied with the church? I have no hard data either way, but I would say the problem in my community is just the opposite, where it is the men who are checking out and the women who are still going and trying to hold things together.

On another note, I'm sorry to have dragged you all into this, I showed my wife that I posted what she said earlier and she is going to provide a rebuttal. Run for the hills.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Backlash from members is affecting the church's opposition to gay marriage:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/prop-8-mormons-gay-marriage-shift


In the five years since the LDS church sent busloads of the faithful to California to canvass neighborhoods, and contributed more than $20 million via its members to support the initiative, it has all but dropped the rope in the public policy tug of war over marriage equality. The change stems from an even more remarkable if somewhat invisible transformation happening within the church, prompted by the ugly fight over Prop. 8 and the ensuing backlash from the flock.

Although the LDS's prophet hasn't described a holy revelation directing a revision in church doctrine on same-sex marriage or gay rights in general, the church has shown a rare capacity for introspection and humane cultural change unusual for a large conservative religious organization.

"It seems like the [Mormon] hierarchy has pulled the plug and is no longer taking the lead in the fight to stop same-sex marriage," says Fred Karger, the LGBT activist who first exposed the church's major role in the passage of Prop. 8. "The Mormon Church has lost so many members and suffered such a black eye because of all its anti-gay activities that they really had no choice. I am hopeful that the Catholic Church cannot be far behind."


The LDS church had always struggled for public acceptance, and the negative press wasn't helping. One poll, conducted a year after Prop. 8 passed, showed that the church's favorability rating had fallen from 42 percent to 37 percent. But its image problem was nothing compared to the internal rifts the Mormons were experiencing. "The church probably deserved the black eye we got from Prop. 8," says Mitch Mayne, an openly gay Mormon leader in the San Francisco area. "What the non-Mormon world didn't get to see was how destructive that was inside the faith."

LAU, I am guessing you will reply to this and say that the underlying doctrine has not changed. That is true, but significant change is occurring due to internal and external pressure.

[Scratch]

Backlash from members is affecting the church's opposition to gay marriage:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/prop-8-mormons-gay-marriage-shift





LAU, I am guessing you will reply to this and say that the underlying doctrine has not changed. That is true, but significant change is occurring due to internal and external pressure.

How can the author of this piece have any idea whether or not backlash from the membership is affecting this? The LDS church has continued to support Prop 8 through the appellate process, so its support of Prop 8 hasn't changed. There were other gay marriage movements before Prop 8 that the church wasn't as involved with, so I don't see how movements in other states mean anything. Finally, and most importantly, even if the LDS Church has changed its approach to cease actively combatting same sex marriage laws, that doesn't mean that the change came as a result of membership backlash. Do we really need to have a correlation/causation discussion here?

[LA Ute]

:snack: I'm done setting you guys straight. It's hard work and you don't appreciate it. Besides, it's Friday.

[Jeff Lebowski]

How can the author of this piece have any idea whether or not backlash from the membership is affecting this? The LDS church has continued to support Prop 8 through the appellate process, so its support of Prop 8 hasn't changed. There were other gay marriage movements before Prop 8 that the church wasn't as involved with, so I don't see how movements in other states means anything. Finally, and most importantly, even if the LDS Church has changed its approach to cease actively combatting same sex marriage laws, that doesn't mean that the change came as a result of membership backlash. Do we really need to have a correlation/causation discussion here?

Let me guess. You are one of those that thinks women praying in GC last week was simply a coincidence.

[LA Ute]

Let me guess. You are one of those that thinks women praying in GC last week was simply a coincidence.

Hey, there's no need to respond to Scratch's reasoned point by personalizing it and trying to make him into an advocate of a marginal view that he has not even raised, much less espoused. This isn't CUF, you know. We don't do that here. (Rimshot.)

[Scratch]

Let me guess. You are one of those that thinks women praying in GC last week was simply a coincidence.

I <3 misdirection. Frankly, I imagine it had something to do with the issue being raised by members, but I'm not going to be a cavalier as to state it as a fact. Furthermore, to compare women praying in church to a possibly imagined change in policy re: active gay marriage opposition is absurd for numerous reasons.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Hey, there's no need to respond to Scratch's reasoned point by personalizing it and trying to make him into an advocate of a marginal view that he has not even raised, much less espoused. This isn't CUF, you know. We don't do that here. (Rimshot.)

Oh come on. There was nothing personal in that post. I was responding to his correlation/causation point.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I <3 misdirection. Frankly, I imagine it had something to do with the issue being raised by members, but I'm not going to be a cavalier as to state it as a fact. Furthermore, to compare women praying in church to a possibly imagined change in policy re: active gay marriage opposition is absurd for numerous reasons.

Speaking of misdirection, your nitpicking is obfuscating the main point in question: does the church respond to pressure (internal and external)?

[LA Ute]

Oh come on. There was nothing personal in that post. I was responding to his correlation/causation point.

You keep this up and I will have no choice but to challenge you to a duel.

[Scratch]

Speaking of misdirection, your nitpicking is obfuscating the main point in question: does the church respond to pressure (internal and external)?

Do you want my personal opinion? If so, absolutely yes in some areas. To me, "policy" is essentially the application of unchanging doctrine to God's church and society. Since society changes, the way doctrine applies (again, as policy) is also subject to change. For example, I don't believe that the doctrinal aspect of polygamy has ever changed, but the application of that doctrine changes over time based upon what's going on in the world and with the church (in other words, with internal and external pressures).

Again, that's just my opinion and probably not expressed very well and subject to your critiques.

[LA Ute]

Speaking of misdirection, your nitpicking is obfuscating the main point in question: does the church respond to pressure (internal and external)?

That's not the main point. It's your main point. But the answer is yes.

Getting back to the main point, do you think efforts like ordainwomen.org's will result in women receiving the priesthood? Do you think that is the best way to approach such issues? Those are the questions that started this sub-topic.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's not the main point. It's your main point. But the answer is yes.

Getting back to the main point, do you think efforts like ordainwomen.org's will result in women receiving the priesthood? Do you think that is the best way to approach such issues? Those are the questions that started this sub-topic.

Yes and yes.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Do you want my personal opinion? If so, absolutely yes in some areas. To me, "policy" is essentially the application of unchanging doctrine to God's church and society. Since society changes, the way doctrine applies (again, as policy) is also subject to change. For example, I don't believe that the doctrinal aspect of polygamy has ever changed, but the application of that doctrine changes over time based upon what's going on in the world and with the church (in other words, with internal and external pressures).

Again, that's just my opinion and probably not expressed very well and subject to your critiques.

That's interesting. How do you distinguish between doctrine and "application of doctrine"? For example, I suppose you are aware that D&C 132 is about polygamy, not eternal marriage (contrary to what your seminary teacher may have told you). Thus, it would appear that the highest degree of the celestial kingdom is reserved for polygamists. Unless the doctrine changed, of course.


Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my protest against this idea, for I know it is false.... Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith ... an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed....
If then, this principle was of such great importance that the Prophet himself was threatened with destruction, and the best men in the Church with being excluded from the favor of the Almighty, if they did not enter into and establish the practice of it on earth, it is useless to tell me that there is no blessing attached to obedience to the law, or that a man with only one wife can obtain as great a reward, glory or kingdom as he can with more than one....
I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned. I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that (Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, pp.28-31).

We formerly taught to our people that polygamy or Celestial Marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith was right; that it was a necessity to man's highest exaltation in the life to come.
That doctrine was publicly promulgated by our president, the late Brigham Young, forty years ago, and was steadily taught and impressed upon the Latter-Day Saints up to September, 1890 (Reed Smoot Case, vol. 1, p.18).

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p.269).

[LA Ute]

Yes and yes.

Fine. I knew it -- you're an apostate in embryo. And a heretic. And you probably cheat at poker. But I mean nothing personal by any of that. ;)



(The foregoing is a bit of ribbing directed at my virtual friend JL. Just in case there's any question about that.)

[Jeff Lebowski]

Fine. I knew it -- you're an apostate in embryo. And a heretic. And you probably cheat at poker. But I mean nothing personal by any of that. ;)



(The foregoing is a bit of ribbing directed at my virtual friend JL. Just in case there's any question about that.)

I am a lousy actor and therefore terrible at poker. I have to cheat!

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't understand what your claim about polygamy has to do with Scratch's explanation about doctrine and policy? Can you explain?

Side note: since journals are not valid sources, no more of this journal of discourses stuff.

I don't know how I could make it any more clear. We were discussing polygamy and Scratch said that doctrine is unchanging. D&C 132 (that is my main source, btw) states that one cannot achieve the highest degree of salvation without practicing plural marriage. If salvation is not a core doctrine, I don't know what is. This was our doctrine for 60 years (my references are just a small sample). So either Scratch is going to explain how polygamy is a policy and not a doctrine or we are going to agree that our doctrine on polygamy has changed, because in the modern church we most certainly do not teach that polygamy is essential for salvation.

[Pheidippides]

I'm curious where you are getting that figure. Are you saying that all women are dissatisfied with the church? I have no hard data either way, but I would say the problem in my community is just the opposite, where it is the men who are checking out and the women who are still going and trying to hold things together.

On another note, I'm sorry to have dragged you all into this, I showed my wife that I posted what she said earlier and she is going to provide a rebuttal. Run for the hills.

That's the number of women in the church and the world, give or take. Not the women agitating (I agree we need to get a new word). I'm just saying that the blacks and the priesthood problem affected a small minority of the population and an even smaller minority of the church, but women and the priesthood affects half the church and world. The point is that even if not all of the women care about the issue (and I think that's obviously the case), the sheer numbers of people who do, and the percentages of the church that do, are bound to be much larger.



My favorite internet argument - you have't experienced what I've experienced, so your opinion is invalid.

Yes, this is exactly what I said. It surely couldn't have been a plausible reason why LA Ute wouldn't have seen the agitation (again, I agree the word is silly) while others clearly did. Maybe I should just save us time next time and call him a f$&*ing liar.


Sorry. I wish it had gone better for you. Your post raises a different discussion than the one I'm having with Lebowski, which arose from my semantic quibble with UD. Different people -- of all ages -- approach change in the church differently. That's what we are really talking about. I do not believe it is a generational issue.

It was a bad conference, at least what I listened to. I am not the only one who thought so, but my facebook feed seems to believe it was the best thing since sliced manna. Although I did enjoy DFU, JRH and TSM, which should not surprise you. I think the individual issues are generational, but Lebowski and I are not the same generation and I think we approach change pretty much the same. Which should help prove your point.

[Applejack]

LAUte, I understand you to be making a distinction about external and internal pressure in regards to doctrincal/policy changes. I.E. that the rule barring blacks from holding the priesthood was not changed because of external pressure (bad press), but was the result, at least partially, of internal pressure (black members wanted the priesthood). Even if one accepts your distinction, doesn't it cut in favor of ordainwomen.org's methods? Just like in 1978, we have a group of members advocating for a doctrinal/policy change from within. That is not to say that they will or will not ultimately achieve their goals, but their methods look to be of the sort that you believe have resulted in revelations in the past.

[Scratch]

That's interesting. How do you distinguish between doctrine and "application of doctrine"? For example, I suppose you are aware that D&C 132 is about polygamy, not eternal marriage (contrary to what your seminary teacher may have told you). Thus, it would appear that the highest degree of the celestial kingdom is reserved for polygamists. Unless the doctrine changed, of course.

So are you referring to 132:4, or are you basing this off of something else in 132?

[Applejack]

I guess you would have to split internal pressure into two groups then because the pressure you talk about with 1978 was pressure due to growth and governance and not merely pressure of people wanting a change in policy.

I'm not sure I see the distinction. Both situations involve "people wanting a change in policy." In 1978 it was black members, today it is women. I don't know what you mean by "growth and governance"; I assume it has to do with leadership in Africa/Brazil. Having served a mission in Brazil, I can assure you that there is a real leadership crisis today - many wards have numerous strong sisters and few to no strong brothers.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So are you referring to 132:4, or are you basing this off of something else in 132?

I am referring to the entire section (check out verse 1). And also to D&C 131.

The term "new and everlasting covenant" was code for polygamy in Nauvoo at the time of these revelations. It wasn't until later that we decided to try to separate the concept of eternal marriage from polygamy. Either way, there is overwhelming evidence in the historical record that we believed that polygamy was necessary for the highest degree of exaltation until 1890.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Code names and old opinions don't really matter. The question is what Joseph Smith (or God, if you like) meant by "new and everlasting covenant."

If the cultural interpretation or general assumption was that polygamy was necessary, that fits very well with Scratch's idea of there being a change in policy but not doctrine.

Not following the logic. How could that possibly be interpreted as a change in policy? If that is not doctrine, what is?

[Scratch]

I am referring to the entire section (check out verse 1). And also to D&C 131.

The term "new and everlasting covenant" was code for polygamy in Nauvoo at the time of these revelations. It wasn't until later that we decided to try to separate the concept of eternal marriage from polygamy. Either way, there is overwhelming evidence in the historical record that we believed that polygamy was necessary for the highest degree of exaltation until 1890.

What do you mean that "we believed that polygamy was necessary for the highest degree of exaltation?" Because if you mean that the belief was that a man must have multiple wives for the highest degree of exaltation, I'm not sure that I would agree. Indeed, I think 132:19 speaks to the contrary:

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man amarry (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#) a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the bnew and everlasting covenant (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#), and it is csealed (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#) unto them by the Holy Spirit of dpromise (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#), by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the ekeys (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#) of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit fthrones (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#), kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths . . . and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their jexaltation (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#) and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the kseeds (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#) forever and ever.

Sounds like this applies to a man and a wife, no mention of multiples there. Similarly, 132:4 doesn't seem to require that every man have multiple wives. It says "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting acovenant (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#); and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye bdamned (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#); for no one can creject (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#) this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory." What are the meanings of "abide" and "reject" here? I read abide as meaning accept; indeed, I feel strongly that I abide polygamy, and I have never rejected the doctrine of polygamy. To my uninformed reading, this is what 132 says; the new and everlasting covenant refers to temple marriage between a man and 1+ women. How that doctrine is practiced as a policy depends on what's going on at the time and what application will help God best achieve his work and his glory - bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. At times, practicing/allowing polygamy has been the best policy for maximizing God's return on his eternal life investment, and at other times monogamy has been the best policy.

Again, this is just my limited reading and understanding.

[LA Ute]

AJ, I dislike Internet discussions of the priesthood ban. It's better discussed around the fireplace or barbecue pit with a few friends, a few books, and a few hours. That's because so many people understandably have such strong, often angry or otherwise emotional opinions about it. So, with that caveat, I'll just try this very narrow rifle shot.

From what I've read the following seems clear.

As societal attitudes about racism evolved (improved and became more enlightened) lots of members and leaders were asking, "Now, why is it we have this doctrine/policy/practice?" People raised that question in different ways. Practicality raised its hand along the way. Black Africans wanted baptism and church organization. Members were being baptized who had mixed racial ancestry and the FP was increasingly being asked to make difficult calls about how to deal with those situations. All those factors focused the issue and caused presidents of the church (and Q12 members) to agonize about it. DOM and SWK in particular wrestled with it. It got to the point that SWK, according to his private journals, correspondence, and statements to family and friends, wanted an answer, and he repeatedly said he didn't care what the answer was as long as he was sure it was the lord's will.

It's equally clear to me that the FP and Q12 were totally committed to not making a decision because it would please critics, or even giving the appearance thereof. This is an eminently defensible and understandable approach if one views it from the perspective of a church based on divine direction. It makes sense to me, anyway.

So I think members can and should bring issues and concerns to their leaders' attention. That results in changes at all levels - in a ward or church-wide. When it comes to a major doctrinal or policy change, I think members ought to speak their minds. At the end of the day, however, the decision isn't the members' to make. I think ordainwomen.org is free to do what they are doing as a matter of conscience. I don't think it will be effective, and in any event it's not the approach I would adopt or encourage others to adopt. I personally think it's spiritually dangerous for the individuals involved and may even be damaging to their cause. But that's my opinion and I know others disagree.

[UtahDan]

Not following the logic. How could that possibly be interpreted as a change in policy? If that is not doctrine, what is?

I think the policy/doctrine distinction is a great example of starting with the conclusion and working backwards. God is unchanging and yet practices and beliefs in Mormonism (though it is by no means unique to them) are ever changing. Therefore anything that changes HAS to be policy.

It's hard to think of anything you couldn't change and call policy.

[LA Ute]

I think the policy/doctrine distinction is a great example of starting with the conclusion and working backwards. God is unchanging and yet practices and beliefs in Mormonism (though it is by no means unique to them) are ever changing. Therefore anything that changes HAS to be policy.

It's hard to think of anything you couldn't change and call policy.

The law of Moses was a policy. It was fulfilled by the later doctrine of the Atonement. The efforts of redeem_us.org are largely credited for this change, but have been lost to history. Legend has it they were recorded in the lost Book of Agitatus.

[UtahDan]

The law of Moses was a policy. It was fulfilled by the later doctrine of the Atonement. The efforts of redeem_us.org are largely credited for this change, but have been lost to history. Legend has it they were recorded in the lost Book of Agitatus.

Ha! You don't know how right you are!

[Pheidippides]

What do you mean that "we believed that polygamy was necessary for the highest degree of exaltation?" Because if you mean that the belief was that a man must have multiple wives for the highest degree of exaltation, I'm not sure that I would agree. Indeed, I think 132:19 speaks to the contrary:

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man amarry (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#) a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the bnew and everlasting covenant (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#), and it is csealed (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#) unto them by the Holy Spirit of dpromise (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#), by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the ekeys (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#) of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit fthrones (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#), kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths . . . and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their jexaltation (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#) and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the kseeds (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#) forever and ever.

Sounds like this applies to a man and a wife, no mention of multiples there. Similarly, 132:4 doesn't seem to require that every man have multiple wives. It says "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting acovenant (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#); and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye bdamned (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#); for no one can creject (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng#) this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory." What are the meanings of "abide" and "reject" here? I read abide as meaning accept; indeed, I feel strongly that I abide polygamy, and I have never rejected the doctrine of polygamy. To my uninformed reading, this is what 132 says; the new and everlasting covenant refers to temple marriage between a man and 1+ women. How that doctrine is practiced as a policy depends on what's going on at the time and what application will help God best achieve his work and his glory - bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. At times, practicing/allowing polygamy has been the best policy for maximizing God's return on his eternal life investment, and at other times monogamy has been the best policy.

Again, this is just my limited reading and understanding.

Brigham Young is rolling in his grave, and has been since 1906. You know all those wacky FLDS beliefs about three wives being necessary for exaltation and more priesthood=more power=more wives=more exaltation? They didn't make them up.

Just FYI, Section 132 was not public knowledge until the early 1850s. It was released to the world and the membership at large by Brigham Young in connection with is announcement to the world that we believed in...wait for it...polygamy. Let's not get into the rest of the history - for example, how 132 contains a reference to Emma entering into a sexual relationship with William Law as a response to Joseph's multiple wives, if some people are to be believed (she didn't actually enter into it, even under the worst narratives, but it was apparently discussed). Emma was not admitted to the Anointed Quorum (the endowment) until she accepted polygamy by giving the Partridge sisters to Joseph (they had already married Joseph at the time, but she didn't know that). Only after that was she permitted to be endowed, and was the first woman.

If we're not going to ever depart from the text of the scriptures, then prophets are completely unnecessary and I'll never pay attention to them again (I probably won't anyway, after this last conference). Spend 10 minutes in the journal of discourses - sermons preached from the pulpit at the time - and you'll see a lot of stuff, stuff essential to salvation Brigham Young and others said, that we just don't believe anymore. Including everything you never wanted to know about polygamy. And the study of the use of code words and euphemisms is, frankly, fascinating - the early church leaders were magnificent at it, and some would say we are now as well. (Secret Internet Experiences? UtahDan, care to comment?)

I don't have time to carry on here but I can recommend a score of books (largely from apologetic or church sources) that will enlighten your reading and understanding about the early church period, if you are interested. And if you're not that's fine too.

[UteBeliever aka Port]

I guess you would have to split internal pressure into two groups then because the pressure you talk about with 1978 was pressure due to growth and governance and not merely pressure of people wanting a change in policy.

The reality is that the "market" demanded the change. Without it, growth in areas, like Brazil, wouldn't have happened as quickly as it did. Plenty of people with black heritage would have said, "No thanks!"

The change had to happen for growth to occur in those areas.

If you want to get REALLY cynical, maybe it was the need for increased membership and possibly tithes that drove the change?

[Scratch]

Emma was not admitted to the Anointed Quorum (the endowment) until she accepted polygamy by giving the Partridge sisters to Joseph (they had already married Joseph at the time, but she didn't know that).

Both Laurie and Tracy? This changes everything.

[LA Ute]

Both Laurie and Tracy? This changes everything.

Wait. Jane Austen never said anything in Emma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma) about anything "anointed." Then again, it was a novel about youthful hubris and misconstrued romance, so....

[Dawminator]

I was reading in the bible today and by pure chance I found precedent for agitation leading to change. Though not the kind some will appreciate me pointing out. But it does add to the discussion.

1 Samuel 8: 5-22. The people of Israel got what they wanted. Even if it wasn't the will of God.

[Idon'tgnawonmywife]

I await with bated breath, LA, our continued correspondence--in large part because of this thread.

[DrumNFeather]

Brigham Young is rolling in his grave, and has been since 1906. You know all those wacky FLDS beliefs about three wives being necessary for exaltation and more priesthood=more power=more wives=more exaltation? They didn't make them up.

Just FYI, Section 132 was not public knowledge until the early 1850s. It was released to the world and the membership at large by Brigham Young in connection with is announcement to the world that we believed in...wait for it...polygamy. Let's not get into the rest of the history - for example, how 132 contains a reference to Emma entering into a sexual relationship with William Law as a response to Joseph's multiple wives, if some people are to be believed (she didn't actually enter into it, even under the worst narratives, but it was apparently discussed). Emma was not admitted to the Anointed Quorum (the endowment) until she accepted polygamy by giving the Partridge sisters to Joseph (they had already married Joseph at the time, but she didn't know that). Only after that was she permitted to be endowed, and was the first woman.

If we're not going to ever depart from the text of the scriptures, then prophets are completely unnecessary and I'll never pay attention to them again (I probably won't anyway, after this last conference). Spend 10 minutes in the journal of discourses - sermons preached from the pulpit at the time - and you'll see a lot of stuff, stuff essential to salvation Brigham Young and others said, that we just don't believe anymore. Including everything you never wanted to know about polygamy. And the study of the use of code words and euphemisms is, frankly, fascinating - the early church leaders were magnificent at it, and some would say we are now as well. (Secret Internet Experiences? UtahDan, care to comment?)

I don't have time to carry on here but I can recommend a score of books (largely from apologetic or church sources) that will enlighten your reading and understanding about the early church period, if you are interested. And if you're not that's fine too.

Good to see you haven't lost your flare for the dramatic! Not many pull it off as well as you do. :)

[Pheidippides]

Good to see you haven't lost your flare for the dramatic! Not many pull it off as well as you do. :)

Or the truth.

[Dawminator]

As far as i know the church has never changed its stance on polygamy. Its not practiced now, but still has dictrinal foundation. In that sense it wouldn't surprise me to see it return.

[UtahDan]

As far as i know the church has never changed its stance on polygamy. Its not practiced now, but still has dictrinal foundation. In that sense it wouldn't surprise me to see it return.

This is the right answer.

[UtahDan]

(Secret Internet Experiences? UtahDan, care to comment?)

Ha! Someone is listening.

[Sullyute]

As far as i know the church has never changed its stance on polygamy. Its not practiced now, but still has dictrinal foundation. In that sense it wouldn't surprise me to see it return.

I believe we have an active polygamist on the board, if I am not mistaken socalcoug is married, in the eyes of the lord, to two living women. This is one of those PR nightmares that the church doesn't want to touch with a 10 foot pole.

The church has worked for the last century to seperate the LDS church from the fundamentalist. We want to be main stream Christian not some sex-crazed polygamist cult. Women will get the priesthood well before the church practices 19th century polygamy again.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The reality is that the "market" demanded the change. Without it, growth in areas, like Brazil, wouldn't have happened as quickly as it did. Plenty of people with black heritage would have said, "No thanks!"

The change had to happen for growth to occur in those areas.



I have to think that Brazil played a significant role. The first temple in the country was about to open, and it was funded to a large extent by local members. Telling tens of thousands of active church members that they were not to be admitted to the temple they just funded and built solely because they had one black grandparent would have led to a revolt in the church in the country. Either the church wouldn't have lost tens other church members to inactivity, or perhaps more likely, to a new Mormon splinter group in Brazil.

Additionally there would have been a significant drop in converts as you mention.


Ha! Someone is listening.

You dadgummed better have hustled home to take advantage of that offer. Otherwise you just let down billions of married men. (Rhetorical statement, keep your TMI to yourself) :)

[Pheidippides]

Ha! Someone is listening.

It stuck out because I thought the same thing. Did SuperG ever teach you what they were?

[DrumNFeather]

Or the truth.

Right. Yes. That. Of course.

[UtahDan]

It stuck out because I thought the same thing. Did SuperG ever teach you what they were?

Yes. :)

I actually agreed with the point being made that connecting romantically online when you are married is not harmless.

[tooblue]

Or the truth.

Or Myth-making. The pageantry of the past is always intoxicating.

[Pheidippides]

Yes. :)

I actually agreed with the point being made that connecting romantically online when you are married is not harmless.

I did too. But my exact thoughts at that phrase were "why can't we just say things instead of obfuscating with weird terms?"

[LA Ute]

I have not been able to hear all the talks yet but these are my favorites:

*Elder Cardon, on forgiveness (a pleasant surprise - I was really drawn in by his talk)

*Elder Scott, on peace (his style is often hard for me to like, but he got me this time).

*Elder Cook, also on peace.

*Elder Holland on belief. A classic.

The talks on peace were powerful to me and are responsive to D&F's question in the other thread about the human existence (http://www.utahby5.com/showthread.php?653-The-Plan-of-Salvation-this-Earth-Life-and-the-Human-Experience&p=12240&viewfull=1#post12240). The gospel Mormons believe in is called the Plan of Happiness, and yet clearly we don't spend every minute if every day walking around happy. To me the blessing of peace is among the greatest that we get from church membership. I know that peace can be elusive for many but for me it makes everything work, and it makes that Plan of Happiness real for me.

Anyway, I came away wanting to be a better man, which is what I always hope to get out of General Conference.

[Idon'tgnawonmywife]

LA Ute, white courtesy phone :)

[Pheidippides]

Or Myth-making. The pageantry of the past is always intoxicating.

Tooblue, I'm only going to say this once. There is a very small group of people whose opinion I value so little that I won't even interact with them. You have been at the head of that list for multiple years now. Respond to me all you like, but I have no interest in having a dialog with you on religious matters. Ever.

[USS Utah]

*Elder Scott, on peace (his style is often hard for me to like, but he got me this time).

His delivery is unexciting, but his content it usually excellent.

[USS Utah]

Tooblue, I'm only going to say this once. There is a very small group of people whose opinion I value so little that I won't even interact with them. You have been at the head of that list for multiple years now. Respond to me all you like, but I have no interest in having a dialog with you on religious matters. Ever.

Only bullies and flat out jerks make my list.

[Dawminator]

Tooblue, I'm only going to say this once. There is a very small group of people whose opinion I value so little that I won't even interact with them. You have been at the head of that list for multiple years now. Respond to me all you like, but I have no interest in having a dialog with you on religious matters. Ever.

Pheidippides, I don't want this to turn into one of those you're not a very good Mormon discussion, but I am curious to know where you fall on the issue. What if the first presidency released a statement that said, "We prayed about women and the priesthood and the Lord said 'no.'" Would that satisfy you?

I have been thinking about what you say to your daughter to answer her question sufficiently. As best as a non-parent can, I feel you pain. Wish I had a good answer to that myself.

[UtahDan]

Pheidippides, I don't want this to turn into one of those you're not a very good Mormon discussion, but I am curious to know where you fall on the issue. What if the first presidency released a statement that said, "We prayed about women and the priesthood and the Lord said 'no.'" Would that satisfy you?

I asked the Ordain Women folks exactly that.

[mUUser]

...What if the first presidency released a statement that said, "We prayed about women and the priesthood and the Lord said 'no.'" Would that satisfy you?...


I know it wouldn't satisfy me. I'd try to hang in there till they get it right though....even if they're a generation late.

[Dawminator]

I asked the Ordain Women folks exactly that.

What was their response if I may ask?

[DrumNFeather]

Pheidippides, I don't want this to turn into one of those you're not a very good Mormon discussion, but I am curious to know where you fall on the issue. What if the first presidency released a statement that said, "We prayed about women and the priesthood and the Lord said 'no.'" Would that satisfy you?

I have been thinking about what you say to your daughter to answer her question sufficiently. As best as a non-parent can, I feel you pain. Wish I had a good answer to that myself.

I think he's already addressed this in this thread where either said or essentially said he's not buying anything the church or its leaders are selling anymore.

[DrumNFeather]

I asked the Ordain Women folks exactly that.

I'd be curious to know the response as well. The question I'd had and articulated to you a while back was whether or not this was being approached from a faithful perspective, or if this was being approached as a change to the organization...probably somewhere in between the big C and little c of the church.

What i find a bit interesting is that a big foundation of the push is the idea that Joseph intended for women to have the priesthood in some form or fashion...but was this Joseph the prophet? Or the womanizing charlatan? Is it too narrow a view to say that in this instance, you cannot believe he is both and support the movement if it is strictly from a faithful perspective?

[UtahDan]

I think I covered the waterfront with tough questions. Sorry to be a tease but I think it is best to let people hear what they said than try to characterize it. In the mean time, Mormon Stories already has an interview up. Ours will come out this week.

[tooblue]

Tooblue, I'm only going to say this once. There is a very small group of people whose opinion I value so little that I won't even interact with them. You have been at the head of that list for multiple years now. Respond to me all you like, but I have no interest in having a dialog with you on religious matters. Ever.

Do you somehow believe I hold your opinion in great esteem and that's why I respond? I will respond to whatever I choose, whenever I choose to, regardless of your sentiments, especially in the face of the vitriol with which you approach this subject matter. I don't suppose you have even considered what the concept of myth-making and the pageantry of the past represents. Or, are you satisfied with what you believe it means on the surface. You purport to be well read, but I don't believe it. Good luck to you and all of the other hypocrites of the site formally known as CUF.

[USS Utah]

Do you somehow believe I hold your opinion in great esteem and that's why I respond? I will respond to whatever I choose, whenever I choose to, regardless of your sentiments, especially in the face of the vitriol with which you approach this subject matter. I don't suppose you have even considered what the concept of myth-making and the pageantry of the past represents. Or, are you satisfied with what you believe it means on the surface. You purport to be well read, but I don't believe it. Good luck to you and all of the other hypocrites of the site formally known as CUF.

If a poster is approaching a subject like this with vitriol, I wouldn't waste my time responding.

[tooblue]

If a poster is approaching a subject like this with vitriol, I wouldn't waste my time responding.

Needless to say, there is a long history here. Vitriol may be too strong a word, regardless the cruelty of the company one must keep as a BYU fan is ironically tragic.

I enjoyed your creative writing piece USS. I very much like your post about "Usable past" in the politics forum. I love the concept. I just couldn't think of anything equally interesting to say in response to it.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Do you somehow believe I hold your opinion in great esteem and that's why I respond? I will respond to whatever I choose, whenever I choose to, regardless of your sentiments, especially in the face of the vitriol with which you approach this subject matter. I don't suppose you have even considered what the concept of myth-making and the pageantry of the past represents. Or, are you satisfied with what you believe it means on the surface. You purport to be well read, but I don't believe it. Good luck to you and all of the other hypocrites of the site formally known as CUF.

I am going to recklessly stick my neck into this foray. Doesn't this concept apply to the bible, Joseph Smith's story of the restoration, the Journal of Discourses, every biography written about any past prophet, The History of the CHurch(BH Roberts version), etc. The ability of people to deify historical figures is almost universal and across every concept. Another parallel is the deification by the far right of the founding fathers of the United States. Ultimately, we pick and choose which myths that we want to put full stock and faith into.

[tooblue]

I am going to recklessly stick my neck into this foray. Doesn't this concept apply to the bible, Joseph Smith's story of the restoration, the Journal of Discourses, every biography written about any past prophet, The History of the CHurch(BH Roberts version), etc. The ability of people to deify historical figures is almost universal and across every concept. Another parallel is the deification by the far right of the founding fathers of the United States. Ultimately, we pick and choose which myths that we want to put full stock and faith into.

There is nothing reckless in your post Jarid. USS's post about "Usable Past" in the Hinckley forum provides an abstract and even more interesting insight into the subject of myth-making:

http://www.utahby5.com/showthread.php?631-quot-Usuable-Past-quot

Yes, the concept applies to all of the above you sited. Not only do we deify and venerate historic figures in a positive sense but, also in the negative sense. One man's hero is another man's villain. It is essential to our own need and ability to craft a personal narrative. To, in part, explain our life choices and come to terms with our heritage or what we inherit from family and culture. As well, it helps us contend with the immutable aspects of our genetic heredity and the abject cruelty of mortal existence.

The pageantry of the past is a type of nostalgia. Nostalgia is not truth. Affectionate longing isn't always a positive. Yes, we pick and choose both good and bad myths to put full stock and faith into. Calling it "the truth" is a matter of perspective and perspective is relative.

[USS Utah]

Instead of picking and choosing between myths, can we not choose to pursue accuracy? Granted, we cannot entirely divest ourselves of interpretation, but can we not put a higher value on accuracy?

[tooblue]

Instead of picking and choosing between myths, can we not choose to pursue accuracy? Granted, we cannot entirely divest ourselves of interpretation, but can we not put a higher value on accuracy?

Personally, I prefer to pursue sincerity as apposed to accuracy. We are emotional beings. And emotion is the only true measure by which the past—our own or another’s—may be judged. After all, according the fundamental tenants of my Mormon faith, I believe it is mercy that will prevail over the demands of justice, not logic or the inherent notion of accuracy found therein.

[USS Utah]

Personally, I prefer to pursue sincerity as apposed to accuracy. We are emotional beings. And emotion is the only true measure by which the past—our own or another’s—may be judged. After all, according the fundamental tenants of my Mormon faith, I believe it is mercy that will prevail over the demands of justice, not logic or the inherent notion of accuracy found therein.

Wait, what? I'm a historian, this makes no sense to me.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Instead of picking and choosing between myths, can we not choose to pursue accuracy? Granted, we cannot entirely divest ourselves of interpretation, but can we not put a higher value on accuracy?

Who determines accuracy? All historical accounts are written from the POV of the writer so are tainted by bias and interpretation. Even the accuracy of eyewitness accounts are highly suspect.

[Solon]

Who determines accuracy? All historical accounts are written from the POV of the writer so are tainted by bias and interpretation. Even the accuracy of eyewitness accounts are highly suspect.

Postmodern angst aside, historians are concerned with the accuracy of facts, sure. And a good historian is able to criticize sources in order to assess these biases & interpretations.

But more than the "what" of events, they're more concerned with the "hows" and "whys". Things like causality, far-reaching effects, proliferation of ideas, meaning, and memory - things that defy easy categorization as "factual" or "inaccurate." The word "historiē" in Greek refers to "inquiry," or "figuring out why/how something happened." This is why History is usually considered one of the Humanities.

Those concerned with only facts are considered more antiquarians than historians.

[USS Utah]

Who determines accuracy? All historical accounts are written from the POV of the writer so are tainted by bias and interpretation. Even the accuracy of eyewitness accounts are highly suspect.

As I said, we cannot completely get away from interpretation, and we can add bias. But we do have more than just author POV or eyewitness accounts; there is also documentary and physical evidence. Now, I am not suggesting that 100% accurate is necessarily achievable, certainly not in every case, but we do have the ability to look for facts, to discover and examine evidence.

Example: Frederick G. Williams was my great great great grandfather; it has always been believed by his descendents that he donated the property the Kirtland Temple and other church structures were built upon. One descendent, Frederick G. Williams III, spent decades researching Dr. Williams and recently published a documentary history of the man. He could have published years ago, but he continued to look for documents establishing ownership of the property in Kirtland, Ohio. It wasn't enough to publish the POV of Dr. Williams's descendants, he needed the documentation. Unfortunately, based on available documentation, we cannot say with absolute certainty that Frederick G. Williams owned the property the temple was built on, but we can establish that a contract was made for the purchase of that property and that Dr. Williams believed he had rights of ownership to donate it. It seems, however, that the seller backed out of the deal believing he could get a better price by selling it to the church, and this led to the sale being negotiated by an agent for the church.

[tooblue]

Wait, what? I'm a historian, this makes no sense to me.

∨ This in part ∨


Who determines accuracy? All historical accounts are written from the POV of the writer so they are tainted by bias and interpretation. Even the accuracy of eyewitness accounts are highly suspect.

Eye witness accounts are not only suspect they are, in part, as with all history, fiction. The moment we assign written language to illustrate a past event we impose embellishment upon the subject in question. I am not suggesting embellishment is a nefarious act, I am merely asserting that it is a consequence of the imperfect nature of words. Words are limited in their capacity to truly describe a historical figure or historical instance as a matter of accurate factuality. So, what do we do ... or how do we judge a historical account and measure it's respective value? For me, I look for instances of sincerity, in whole or in part, in the accounts. Granted, it is not a guarantee, but it is no less accurate a means of determining validity as is demanding accuracy.

[tooblue]

Postmodern angst aside, historians are concerned with the accuracy of facts, sure. And a good historian is able to criticize sources in order to assess these biases & interpretations.

But more than the "what" of events, they're more concerned with the "hows" and "whys". Things like causality, far-reaching effects, proliferation of ideas, meaning, and memory - things that defy easy categorization as "factual" or "inaccurate." The word "historiē" in Greek refers to "inquiry," or "figuring out why/how something happened." This is why History is usually considered one of the Humanities.

Those concerned with only facts are considered more antiquarians than historians.

In principle I agree but what about issues of cultural and sociological influence? For example, if I were to draw a picture of a dragon, I could call it or title it such, not because it is a dragon but, primarily because you the viewer permits me to call it a dragon. Our collective experience will, in large part be agreeable to the notion of what a dragon is versus what may not be called a dragon. Now, add fifty, seventy or two hundred years to the equation. How do current cultural and sociological influences further influence what may or may not be considered a dragon?

Is this or dragon:

http://jennykellerford.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/amethyst-dragon.jpg

Or, is this a dragon:

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/a/a2/Flying_Pig.jpg

[USS Utah]

∨ This in part ∨



Eye witness accounts are not only suspect they are, in part, as with all history, fiction. The moment we assign written language to illustrate a past event we impose embellishment upon the subject in question. I am not suggesting embellishment is a nefarious act, I am merely asserting that it is a consequence of the imperfect nature of words. Words are limited in their capacity to truly describe a historical figure or historical instance as a matter of accurate factuality. So, what do we do ... or how do we judge a historical account and measure it's respective value? For me, I look for instances of sincerity, in whole or in part, in the accounts. Granted, it is not a guarantee, but it is no less accurate a means of determining validity, especially in the Spinozan a like philosophers school of thought.

See this post on another thread:

http://www.utahby5.com/showthread.php?469-quot-American-Fleet-Nearly-Destroyed!-quot-and-Other-Mistaken-First-Reports&p=7516&viewfull=1#post7516

If eyewitness accounts are suspect -- and they are -- sincerity is as well. People willingly believe what they want to; an individual can sincerely believe something that just isn't so. Eyewitnesses often sincerely believe they saw something that in actuality they did not see.

[tooblue]

See this post on another thread:

http://www.utahby5.com/showthread.php?469-quot-American-Fleet-Nearly-Destroyed!-quot-and-Other-Mistaken-First-Reports&p=7516&viewfull=1#post7516

If eyewitness accounts are suspect -- and they are -- sincerity is as well. People willingly believe what they want to; an individual can sincerely believe something that just isn't so. Eyewitnesses often sincerely believe they saw something that in actually they did not see.

I agree that initial sincerity is equally suspect but, you offered up the notion of accuracy as a measure to which I proposed sincerity as an alternative. Ultimately, what we are after is the same thing: a truth we can accept. I believe accumulative sincerity wins the day. As a historian you likely believe accuracy wins the day. Regardless, my notion that Pheidippides' "the truth" may be a type of myth-making is not an attack on him or his ideas, nor is it an irrational thought.

[Solon]

I agree that initial sincerity is equally suspect but, you offered up the notion of accuracy as a measure to which I proposed sincerity as an alternative. Ultimately, what we are after is the same thing: a truth we can accept. I believe accumulative sincerity wins the day. As a historian you likely believe accuracy wins the day. Regardless, my notion that Pheidippides' "the truth" may be a type of myth-making is not an attack on him or his ideas, nor is it an irrational thought.

Philosophers and Historians (and Philosophers of History) have already gone through the arguments of semantics, signifiers/signified, and other crap from the postmodern legacy. While it's important to be aware of the subjectivity of human experience, those who argue that there is no such thing as "facts" still have resumes, addresses, and bank-accounts.

BTW, I don't disagree about your use of sincerity as something worth investigating. The motivation is often more interesting than the facts.

Finally, the word "myth" doesn't imply falsehood or inaccuracy (the way I understand it). It just refers to the way a story functions in society.

[tooblue]

Philosophers and Historians (and Philosophers of History) have already gone through the arguments of semantics, signifiers/signified, and other crap from the postmodern legacy. While it's important to be aware of the subjectivity of human experience, those who argue that there is no such thing as "facts" still have resumes, addresses, and bank-accounts.

BTW, I don't disagree about your use of sincerity as something worth investigating. The motivation is often more interesting than the facts.

Finally, the word "myth" doesn't imply falsehood or inaccuracy (the way I understand it). It just refers to the way a story functions in society.

Speak for yourself but I have a vitae, geolocation and a transactional relationship with a financial institution!

[Jarid in Cedar]

As I said, we cannot completely get away from interpretation, and we can add bias. But we do have more than just author POV or eyewitness accounts; there is also documentary and physical evidence. Now, I am not suggesting that 100% accurate is necessarily achievable, certainly not in every case, but we do have the ability to look for facts, to discover and examine evidence.

Example: Frederick G. Williams was my great great great grandfather; it has always been believed by his descendents that he donated the property the Kirtland Temple and other church structures were built upon. One descendent, Frederick G. Williams III, spent decades researching Dr. Williams and recently published a documentary history of the man. He could have published years ago, but he continued to look for documents establishing ownership of the property in Kirtland, Ohio. It wasn't enough to publish the POV of Dr. Williams's descendants, he needed the documentation. Unfortunately, based on available documentation, we cannot say with absolute certainty that Frederick G. Williams owned the property the temple was built on, but we can establish that a contract was made for the purchase of that property and that Dr. Williams believed he had rights of ownership to donate it. It seems, however, that the seller backed out of the deal believing he could get a better price by selling it to the church, and this led to the sale being negotiated by an agent for the church.

The difference here is that they were looking for a tangible object. A piece of paper that would give you the facts (facts can be correct or incorrect, but they are tangible). It its not observational data.

Observational data is what we are discussing. There is no tangible object that could verify the story of Moses, or Daniel in the Lion's den. They are stories of oral tradition passed through generations. The only verifiable data that is definitively correct is the physical location if cities like Jericho,etc.

Look at JS's first vision. There are 8(9?) Different versions that JS conveyed to different people in different settings. Which would be accurate? How could you gather any data to verify which version was most historically correct?

[Jarid in Cedar]

Yes, and it really isn't that hard. If there isn't a GA in your stake there is one in the one adjacent to you. But you can call and make an appointment with an area authority or more quite easily. One time as a WML I found myself after a few calls on the phone with GBH himself, which was an amazing experience and

You obviously didn't want to talk to them about anything controversial. My experience was 11 months of trying to get an appointment.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

So what other practices from the Joseph Smith era you want to go back to? (Kidding. Kidding!!)

The garment style for sure.