In the Book of Numbers, we are told that the reason the children of Israel had to wander in the Wilderness was because of a lack of faith in God. While Moses had led them out of Egypt, many wanted to return to Egypt instead of conquer the promised land of Canaan, the land God promised to Abraham. God had promised them that they could take the land of Canaan and it was to be their promised land. Israel sent 12 spies to see if the land was ready, but 10 of these men sent “an evil report” saying there was no hope of driving the men out of the land, despite the Lord’s promises. In response, God told Israel that they would wander for 40 years, until the older generation had died off. If God’s people won’t follow him, does he simply wait until the older generation dies off? Does God work by attrition?
Many people thought Wilford Woodruff was wrong for issuing the Manifesto, which ended the official practice of polygamy. Many wondered if Woodruff was leading the church astray. In response Woodruff declared:
The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)
Tying this back to the first paragraph, does God remove obstacles, even a prophet of God, if he does not follow His will?
In 1969, Michael Quinn tells of a vote among the Twelve apostles to rescind the ban on black church members from priesthood and temple ordinances. The vote was unanimous; however, Harold B. Lee was not present for the original vote. Upon his return, he had convinced the quorum to re-vote, and overturned the previously unanimous decision. President David O. McKay died shortly after the vote in January 1970, replaced by Joseph Fielding Smith, who served a short time until July 1972. Harold B. Lee took over as prophet, serving less than 18 months before his death. Three prophets died in 3 years. Did God take these men out, in order to pave the way for President Kimball, a man more open to the promptings of the spirit?
Are we like the children of Israel, no longer walking by faith, trusting in God? In a recent comment at Wheat and Tares, one commenter didn’t desire any new revelations to be canonized, and felt that if the prophet were to come up with a new revelation, it would “betray his God and do what avowed opponents of the Church want.” Yet Joseph Smith didn’t seem to have a problem with people requesting revelations, and didn’t brand them as “avowed opponents of the Church.” As I stated in that post,
*The intro to D&C 4:7 says “The things of God must be sought after.”
*D&C 5: Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, March 1829, at the request of Martin Harris.
*D&C 8: Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to Oliver Cowdery [because Oliver …] desired to be endowed with the gift of translation.
*D&C 9: Oliver is admonished to be patient and is urged to be content to write, for the time being, at the dictation of the translator, rather than to attempt to translate.
*D&C 89: Revelation given because Emma complained about tobacco.
I’m sure I could come up with more.
Apparently some think D&C 4:7 says “Don’t ask, and ye shall receive. Don’t knock, and it shall be opened to you anyway. Amen.”
Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. If we want revelation, we have to desire it. Apparently some don’t want revelation.
JI’s response that we shouldn’t ask the leaders for revelation sounded like this to me she doesn’t really want revelation. Or perhaps, to put it more charitably, JI doesn’t want the church to be perceived as giving into public pressure. Once again, Joseph didn’t have a problem in looking like he was caving in to pressure. As I said in another comment
But, like Emma, I see nothing wrong with asking the Prophet to seek guidance on an issue. I mean if you think about it, Emma being pissed off because she had to clean up tobacco spit seems much more trivial than seeking equality for women with regards to priesthood.
Yet Joseph asked anyway, over a trivial matter and got a groundbreaking revelation. And even when prompted, God didn’t always say yes to the request. As noted above, Oliver wanted to translate but was denied, and there was a lesson to us all in that.
Asking for guidance on female ordination might give a revelation similar to Oliver’s answer, and we shouldn’t be seen as unrighteous for making the request. Do you view Oliver as unrighteous in his request? Of not, why do you have a double standard for asking for revelation?
You sound suspiciously like the Book of Mormon. ‘a D&C! A D&C! We already have a D&C as need no more D&C!’
I fear that like the ancient children of Israel, we are no longer being led by God. We have prophets that tell us to quit asking for revelation. Is this because they aren’t really prophets, but are simply administrators? Loyal members, such as JI, think asking for such revelations is sign-seeking.
[JI] “God still speaks to man. But he doesn’t give signs to satisfy the demands of men.”
[MH] YES HE DOES! I’ve given examples of Emma, Oliver, and Martin (and could find more. This isn’t sign seeking, it is earnest faith. Unless you feel comfortable calling Oliver, Emma, and Martin sign-seekers. Please stop with the double-standard!
Going back to Pres Woodruff’s remarks–do we simply wait for attrition? Do we wait for God to remove the leaders who aren’t seeking revelation to simply die off, as God did with the Children of Israel, before we can enter the Promised Land of Revelation? Is this how God works?
I mean I’ve got a big problem with female ordination, and the new policy on children of gay parents. I’m afraid we’re being led by leaders who aren’t Pres Kimballs, but are like the spies of ancient Israel, afraid to act despite a church supposedly led by modern revelation.
I think it’s important to remember that God doesn’t always say yes to what we want. Oliver Cowdery wanted to translate. Martin Harris wanted to show the manuscript to others and was denied 3 times. I want revelation, even if, like Oliver, it is the opposite of what I would expect. If we are really led by a prophet, it shouldn’t be seen as sinful to ask for the prophet for a revelation on the important issues of the day. The Community of Christ far outpaces us in modern revelations. And judging from the weekend poll, most members don’t wan’t new revelation to be canonized. Comments?
MH – can I take the liberty of finishing your sentence??
Waiting for the brethren to (a) hear from the lawyers or (b) hear from the newsroom.
D&C 89 is hardly groundbreaking
I have had the very same thought about HBL and his very short tenure as president.
I also wonder if this thought crosses the minds of the president of the church, kind of like “if I make one mistake that is big enough, boom – I am gone.” If so, I wonder if that makes them a bit more gun shy on making ANY change? The status quo seems safer than making any change. I would have to say that I don’t feel that Brigham Young lived under this “fear”. He seemed to say whatever was on his mind (even if it contradicted earlier statements he made).
I liked the comic at the start of your blog, but I thought adding “… Recalculating … ” after “arrival time: 40 years”
Pres Hinckley served one of the longest terms as president (nearly 13 years): March 12, 1995 – January 27, 2008. (It was the longest since David O. McKay – April 9, 1951 – January 18, 1970. Before that it was Heber J. Grant – November 23, 1918 – May 14, 1945.) Did you mean Hunter?
@MH – I can’t tell if you are asking me “Did you mean Hunter?” If so, no. I was agreeing with you on “Did God take these men out, in order to pave the way for President Kimball, a man more open to the promptings of the spirit?” but I had only thought about Harold B. Lee specifically after I heard he was the single person that opposed overturning the restriction on the priesthood (as you mentioned).
To state it another way, even when I was WAY more orthodox than I am now, I did think that HBL was “called home” because he was standing in the way of the will of the Lord.
Sorry if my comments were not clear.
For some reason, when I saw HBL, I thought GBH (Hinckley). My bad!
Frankly it is telling that the Mormon heretic assumes the prophet isn’t actively seeking and receiving revelation… I guess it believes that it (MH) is… We all know what to believe about those who assume leaders are in sin while they themselves are inspired…
This is a problem of words. If I have a three-legged dog and decide to call his tail a “leg”, does that mean he now has four legs and can run like an intact dog? No more than calling a man a prophet endows him with a relationship with God through which he can receive revelation, keys, priesthood, and ordinances that would qualify him for the title.
Joseph Smith, in both his sermons and the scriptures he passed to us, described leaders (men and women) who were like him in that they knew God personally. They were qualified to teach others because they received their calling and commission by God. Even when, like Nephi’s brother Jacob or Elisha after Elijah, they had been called to an intitutional position and set apart by another man, their words were only valid because they had obtained the same revelatory credentials as the one who ordained them (2 Nephi 11:3). The titles “Apostle” and “prophet” are reserved for those people (and we can all become those people). When the titles are applied to those who haven’t yet entered God’s presence, it is under the explicit understanding that they would give everything to seek it and that their service would be incomplete and unsatisfactory without that witness. Oliver Cowdery’s commission to the first Quorum of the Twelve explains this exhaustively.
The word “prophet” (and “apostle”, for that matter) has been divorced from the relationship with God it used to denote. At the same time, those terms are used with ever greater frequency and intensity to enforce compliance, agreement, and acquiescence to the institutional will.
The religion revealed through Joseph Smith is one where charismatic experiences are required not only for leaders but members as well. It is as important to keeping the Church “true” and “living” as food is to a satisfying dinner (http://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1843/2Jan43.html). If any progress is to be made, it will require us to re-learn the function of those experiences and actually seek them. The leaders are not in a position to do that, having painted themselves into a corner by Correlating charisma into irrelevance. The members should consider themselves free to do so.
From what leaders say, I get the impression that they are indeed asking the Lord for revelation about all the issues that face members around the world.
But what I read in the OP is that certain answers are desired, and if the brethren don’t come up with those answers, there must be something wrong.
I think the questions we ask need to be open to pure revelation and not influenced by our own agenda.
“What assignments should women and men have in the Kingdom?” is a far different question than,”When will women have the priesthood like men so that they will no longer be second-class citizens?”
The former is open and humble and seeking. The latter is more problematic, falling very much into the category of no-win “When did you stop beating your wife?” interrogation.
And please, please, please don’t assume that your weekend poll is indicative of what “most members” want. Most members don’t even speak English let alone read your little blog.
Great article, nicely done MH!
@Naismith
I certainly agree that your first question posed isn’t pre-supposing something and your latter statement already has a wrong assumed that must be made right. But it seems to me there is an in-between of, “Are we being correct in limiting the priesthood to only women?” Not much different than “Are we being correct in limiting the priesthood to only white men?” Other than the the first was a smaller % of humankind and the latter would cover half of humankind. I am not upset that the question was asked and the answer was “no”. I am just not happy that those that asked were all but ignored and it seems if the question was asked, they won’t say that they did ask. It appears to me that they feel doing so would bring them down a notch to be listening to mere members. Something like, “WE are the ones that will formulate the questions, so stop bothering us.” I honestly think if it would have been addressed (as in asked and talked about the response) that a good portion of those supporting this would have calmed down. What I feel at the grass roots is that most that were pushing are leaving the church. And some of them are the best and most achieving sisters. I fear this will leave the church with Yes-women married to a bunch of Yes-men. Makes me want to say, “Oh – NO!”
And of course the weekend poll is NOT representative of the church at large, but those that associate with the blog.
I suspect the reason asking is discouraged is the fear those in power have of losing that power. It’s about control. Daring to ask is seen as a threat. I remember one of the arguments was “no problem with you asking, but we don’t like your *tone*”… or something to that effect.
“I am just not happy that those that asked were all but ignored….”
I am not sure what you mean by this. I don’t live in the intermountain west and thus miss things that seem obvious to others.
I don’t see the lack of willingness to ask questions of and by church leadership that others have reported…in my stake, visiting general authorities often have an open mike time when anyone can get up and ask a question (Saturday night stake conference session or leadership meeting), and some of their answers have indicated that the church is aware of the concern and doing a study on that issue, or pondering the best way to proceed.
But in every case that they take the member’s concern seriously and never denigrate the question.
BTW, I am in no way a yes-woman. It takes a lot of courage to stand up to the male-normative notion of gender equality that is being shoved down my throat daily by my employer and colleagues.
“From what leaders say, I get the impression that they are indeed asking the Lord for revelation about all the issues that face members around the world.
But what I read in the OP is that certain answers are desired, and if the brethren don’t come up with those answers, there must be something wrong.”
Did you miss this Naismith?
“And please, please, please don’t assume that your weekend poll is indicative of what “most members” want. Most members don’t even speak English let alone read your little blog.”
While I agree with you that W&T is not a representative sample (and generally skews more liberal than conservative), it appears to me that both liberal and conservative members are in agreement that there is not need for new canonized revelation. I was a bit surprised at the poll results.
I have no problem with canonized revelation as long as it is actually revelation. I have a hard time believing that a revelation given only after much push back from the government or the public, that could put the church in bad light, is necessarily revelation in my book. I also believe section 132 should be removed because I don’t believe it came from Joseph Smith, and I believe the ‘word of wisdom’ ..”Not by command or restraint” should have stayed just that. Lastly ( I think) I believe revelations for individuals, that didn’t pertain to the body of the church, had no place in scripture. My personal opinion.
I wish mormon heretic was an honest person.
I wrote,
I’m all in favor of revelation from God. I’ve been the recipient of some myself — maybe you have, too. But I am opposed to creating our own texts and calling it revelation.
Yes, if the president of the Church came up with his own text and passed it off as revelation to satisfy whatever group was complaining at the moment, he would be betraying God to satisfy public opinion. But the president of the Church is an honorable man who diligently serves God as best he can, so mormon heretic writes the drivel he writes such as the original posting.
God will issue more revelation when he is ready — indeed, I think revelation already happens all the time in the Church. Fast or slow, left or right (or straight ahead), I am content to follow God and sustain the priesthood leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When they’re ready for change, with or without revelation, I’ll change with them. In the meantime, I won’t wish for their deaths and replacements.
Asking, seeking, and knocking and the notion of revelation in general implies a thirst for a greater understanding and license. So if one asks and gets an answer contrary to what one desires or thinks but does not understand the who, what, where, why and how, etc., the conversation doesn’t end there. God saying no doesn’t end a conversation, assuming God represents loving parents talking to a inquisitive kid who really wants to know and understand.
I wish ji would honestly answer questions instead of calling others dishonest.
I’ve never created a text and called it revelation. Perhaps you could expound what you mean instead of calling me dishonest. Who does this?
Was the Manifesto a dishonest revelation because Wilford Woodruff “passed it off as revelation to satisfy whatever group [US Govt] was complaining at the moment”?
Was OD-2 a dishonest revelation because Spencer Kimball “passed it off as revelation to satisfy whatever [civil rights] group was complaining at the moment”?
Because it sounds like it meets your definition that both of these men “would be betraying God to satisfy public opinion.”
So answer the questions honestly and quit accusing. Or keep your dishonest comments to yourself.
I’ve been waiting for a comment along the lines “we don’t get revelation because the members don’t have enough faith.” So here’s my response.
My mission president used to say “When a fish goes bad, it goes bad at the head.” He meant that if a district or zone was struggling, it was because of bad leadership. If the members are faithless, it is because the leaders are not directing us to be faithful. Joseph Smith had no problem being asked for revelation, and receiving it. Since then, the leaders have continually tamped down expectations of revelation. So yes, the members are faithless, because the leaders are.
It’s a shame. Paul told us to “covet to prophesy.” We don’t even desire these gifts any more. We don’t even believe the 9th article of faith anymore.
We believe this in the abstract, but not in reality.
So the mainstream LDS Church is in some sort of competition to produce more ‘revelations’ than the old RLDS Church (Community of Christ)?
What is up with that line of thinking? Volume equals more truth?
Just wondering.
Mormonism is full of nuances… Just like the KJV uses a big “G” for the God of, (little “g” for less powerful) gods, I venture that we now have “p”rophets and “a”postles” rather than “P”rophet like Joseph and “A”postles like Paul. What is interesting too, is on most of the weekend survey items (I didn’t see it or I would have participated) I would love to have said yes! Provide written documentation of the “R”evelations and “V”isions mentioned… as a self aware faithful Saint, who has experienced the nuances between “R”evelation, “r”evelation and inspiration, I feel that this is vital for the leadership to call for common consent and vote on all “R”evelations that chart the course of the church. I WANT to see the revelation dictating withholding priesthood to blacks…(we know there isn’t one)… I want to see the honest acknowledgement that this was false doctrine. I want to see the dictated instructions from GOD about gay marriage, not a skeezy policy and fake insinuation of godly oversight. I want to see the adoption and new and everlasting covenant dictations outside of colliers unpublished volume. If I follow a Prophet, and fall into line as a sheep in that fold, I want to read and feel the word of God for my self, and verify by their fruits in order to understand how NOW, in contradiction to all of history, we have a linear, unbroken, succession of witnesses who have stood in Gods presences, in a dream or a vision, and are authorized to speak in his name. I don’t want politically motivated official declarations, I don’t need policies or procedures from theocratic administrators. I refuse platitudes. I want revelation, visions, gifts of the spirit, and fruit of prophetic calling and discourse.
I venture that we have past those times; our faithful are sheep, simple followers who like the isrealites of old, prefer to have a middle man dictate their actions and behaviors rather than ascending the mount of the Lord and being accountable for themselves. In the end, the modern revelation question boils down to these questions: 1) do we expect every president to be a Prophet like unto Moses? 2) does Church pride, or leadership incapability provide the root cause to hinder Revelation… Ie, what really stifles the heavens?
JB, I’d be happy if the mainline LDS produced a SINGLE revelation since 1918.
When Emma wondered about tobacco, we got the Word of Wisdom. Joseph had a vision of Elijah that is D&C 110. We got over 100 revelations in 25 years!
Since 1843 we’ve had 2 official revelations added to the D&C and 2 official declarations hinting at revelations and section 138 from Joseph F. Smith. The wheatmeister poll has lots of ideas on other revelations that could be canonized.
God knows we have questions about the gay policy and female ordination, and I would argue that these are more important issues than tobacco spit on the floor.
Why is God silent to us, but seemingly speaks to the CoC and FLDS? It’s not so much a competition (they’re killing us!) but why is God not speaking to us? Are we apostate instead of them?
“We thank thee of God for a prophet to guide us in these latter days” is one of our favorite hymns, but why is God so silent? He hasn’t spoken since 1978? Are the leaders not seeking, or is God purposely silent? Why were there over 100 revelations between 1820-1844, and 5 (if we count charitably) since? God said all he wanted to say by 1844? We no longer need him because we are so righteous?
I believe that most revelation comes at request, answering somebody’s prayer. I also tend to differentiate between revelation and inspiration, the former being knowledge revealed from God in a more direct manner, the latter being more of spiritual nudge. I also don’t think that inspiration for the church always comes top down. In my experience in ward leadership, much of the inspiration received (and I do believe it was inspiration) came from the bottom up. The bishop mainly had the responsibility to identify it, not necessarily be the direct recipient. I think it’s entirely appropriate for members of the church to ask the leadership to ask God for revelation, but the asking needs to be in the spirit of humility and faith. I think a lot of times, those asking have already decided the answer and are just trying to get the brethren to catch up, and aren’t actually asking for direction from God.
MH,
I have said this before on the ‘nacle, but here is my take. I think that we have not heard more directly from church HQ about female ordination because they have asked the question and the status quo is the answer (for now, at least). Any inspiration of “maintain the status quo” is not a big deal and does not need to be shouted from the roof tops. It also allows future leaders the flexibility of changing some or all of these policies with new revelation without having to directly contradict previous leaders.
If church leaders could roll back the clock, they would definitely ask the 1949 leaders to not reaffirm the black priesthood ban. If this clear statement had not been published, President McKay would have had more flexibility in asking to overturn the ban and having it done by a vote of the Q12. If public pressure continues to badger the leaders for an answer, it will lead to a more intransigent position.
@24 El Oso
“If pressure continues to badger the leaders for an answer, it will lead to a more intransigent position.”
I actually agree, but I look at it as stubbornness. It does not sound to me like someone trying to hear what God has to say. “We can’t give a revelation that goes along with the world or people are asking” rings more of someone too worried about what the world and others are saying. What God says should be paramount over the world and what others are asking.
A Happy hubby,
It could be both what I say and stubbornness. The leaders have received a revelation, or have prayed and received nothing. They want to preserve future flexibility, but they also want to brush back some of the more fervent advocates, so there are indirect statements that are fine for those who are comfortable with the status quo. These same answers are maddening for the hyper-advocates whom the brethren are fine letting stew. Not everyone gets a theophany the first time they kneel in prayer.
As one looks at Church history one can see many times when the living prophet has received revelation or inspiration, ie Pres. Snow and tithing, Pres McKay and every member an missionary, Ezra T. Benson and the Book of Mormon,etc.They may have not seen a need to canonize their words, who are we to judge?As one looks at Pres. Monson”s life he has shared countless experiences when he has been guided by the spirit. He has acted many times on this guidance even when it has been hard. I don’t believe he has changed. I believe he and his counselors and the Quroum of the !2 would act immediately on any revelation or inspiration concerning the issues of the day.
From the last few posts on this topic and comments, it seems like many (not all) people can be roughly categorized into a few groups.
Grouping things like this is perilous, but I’m going to do it anyway. All standard caveats apply (each person is an individual, everyone is different, these are just rough categories, this is just what my gut tells me, etc.)
One group generally thinks that there is plenty of ongoing revelation, it just isn’t being canonized. People in this group are more likely to support the children-of-gays policy (hereafter “The Policy”) and lack of female ordination, as benchmark. They probably don’t object to adding the canon, but they don’t see it as necessary. They probably voted no on the polls because that vote affirms the decisions of current and former church leadership.
Another group is more jaded. They are likely have concerns about The Policy, or other policies in general. They may think that many of the current policies are a result of administrative inertia that solidifies the status quo. They might think that sometimes cultural bias is presented as revealed truth. It is a mistake to say this group lacks faith or testimony; that may be true for some, but certainly not all. Some people in this group may have voted no on canonization because they worry that philosophies of men may be mistakenly introduced to canon. The more skeptical people in this group don’t believe leaders receive revelation in the first place, but that isn’t true for the whole group.
There are at least a few individuals (perhaps a group) who would like to see something canonized, even if it contradicts their current worldview. These people see the static canon as a contradiction to the idea of continuing revelation, making the church into a paradoxical, or perhaps even hypocritical, organization. Being the smallest group (judging by my intuition) it is harder to make general statements about them. These individuals may yearn for a revelation from the church to measure themselves against. They might see proclamations and policies that have the appearance of canon but not the status of canon as a wishy-washy way to preserve the status quo. Perhaps they object to The Policy, but prefer it to be canonized so that they can know that they need to work on accepting it or rejecting the canon? I’m not sure.
I have to say, I don’t fall in the third group, but I have to respect it. They are in the midst of a big leap of faith. It takes courage to ask for revelation on a topic when the people who need to receive that revelation on your behalf have already presented policies with which you disagree.
Let’s leave all the policy and hot button issues (LGBT rights, ordination of women, etc.). Would it be nice to receive further light and knowledge about what heaven is like, how families will be structured in the hereafter, anything really…?
I see no indication that the Lord is pushing through the leadership to get to one capable of recieving revelation, either open minded enough or sufficiently energetic.
As i may have said before, I think the best way for us to contribute would be to raise an expectation that there be a retirement age of 80 for Apostles, and Prophets, so that we get to some who have the enquiring mind necessary to ask.
In HP group I raised the slightly modifies attitude to religious freedom and civil society that have appeared on the newsroom, and was met by some very agressive assertions that the church will never change its attitude to evil homosexuality. It seems, as has been asserted above that the conservative members don’t want change, even if it were revelation.
I think even though there has been no revelation to bring on official homophobia, it will take one to end it, if it is to end, and I think it will, like racism, become a very difficult belief to express in the world we will live in in a few years. Assuming Trump does not win, and society continues to progress toward Zion more quickly than the church does
@26 el oso
“It could be both what I say and stubbornness.” – agreed.
@28 Rockwell – I agree with your categorization. I would hope that each group could be confident in their own position without needing to tell the other groups they are unequivocally wrong.
Oh boy. You’ve gone and equated inspiration with revelation. That absolutely contradicts the scriptures… Might as well be Catholic at that point.
Some points that the OP seems to either ignore or tacitly/explicitly contradict:
1) Revelation and authority are two very different things, and a lack of the former does not entail a lack of the latter.
2) No shortcoming in the church leaders gives us any authority whatsoever to declare to those outside of our stewardship what God is or is not saying with respect to them.
3) We can each receive as much revelation as we want within our own stewardship, so who cares how much the church does or does not receive?
1)You are exactly backwards on this. Revelation IS authority. D&C 1:5-6 A lack of revelation absolutely means a lack of authority.
2)No objections
3)Actually, the Holy Ghost can and will tell us “all things”, without any limitation of institutional stewardship. God specifically promises that he will teach those who fear and serve him (not just church leaders)”the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom.” So it is perfectly possible for a laurel or mia maid to know more than her bishop, or more than the President of the Church.
Jeff G,
(1) if these guys have the same authority as Joseph Smith, why aren’t they producing revelation?
(2) if these guys have the same authority as Joseph Smith, why aren’t they producing revelation?
(3) If we have questions like Emma, or Oliver, or Martin, or whomever most of the D&C revelations are dictated for, why don’t we just ask the prophet for a revelation like they did so we don’t sit in the dark? Why did God talk to Oliver thru Joseph, and not talk to us through Monson?
Since you can get revelation just as much as Joseph smith, why don’t you ask God?
Because I support the prophet’s role in revelation. I guess you missed that with your snark.
My comment actually wasn’t a snark.
Your post is either 1) a case of asking the wrong person, since only God can tell you what He has or has not told other people, or 2) doubt mongering that is very much worthy of snark.
Your “supporting the prophet’s role in revelation” is a total non-sequitur, having nothing to do with posting content like this.
I am not sure who is interested in “limiting the priesthood to only women.” I do understand there are groups interested in extending the priesthood to women.
But that still seems a question that has already set a male-normative agenda, with women as second-class because they do not have priesthood per se.
In reality, women today who are so assigned have the authority to officiate in ordinances in the temple, without being ordained. Feminists like to point to female priestesses in Old Testament times as role models, but we do not actually know if they were ordained or if they functioned the way women do today, officiating in the temple and serving on various boards and speaking to the entire church.
And in April 2014 general conference when Ordain Women (a group whose name is imperative not interrogative) staged an action, Elder Oaks gave an excellent talk on “The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood” that did seem to answer many of the questions being raised. Yet some did not accept those answers as being good enough and are still waiting for the answer they want to hear.
Naismith, bringing up the Oaks talk is a good example of the problem we currently have. Is this revelation? If so, is everything said over the pulpit of GC revelation? If that’s a the case, I think we’d want to distance ourselves from some of the wacko things that have been said over the pulpit in times past. For example the disavowed doctrine that blacks were less valiant in the end preexistence, a doctrine preached by apostles in General Conference (or Adam/God, clearly taught in GC or BY’s sun people)
I like the idea suggested above that some select talks from General Conference be added to the canon. This would of course require a vote of common consent. And we would need to preface any vote by reminding (informing?) the Church body that common consent is not a rubber stamp.
Jeff G, this is the bloggernacle, and I specifically asked *everyone*. Who should I be asking? Can you get me a personal appointment with him/her so I can ask directly?
I have studied it out in my mind and asked God if it was right, and have blogged consistently my answers. I’d be happy to provide blog posts, but I don’t think you’re interested.
Uchtdorf said “doubt your doubts.” Is he doubt-mongering too?
“Your “supporting the prophet’s role in revelation” is a total non-sequitur, having nothing to do with posting content like this.”
I posted the original post. I think I know what content is relevant, and my remark was in response to your comment. I think you just like using big words without actually understanding how they apply. Are you going to tell me I’m guilty of a strawman now like Glenn did too?
I’m not real fond of a conversation with you especially when you go full ad hominem a few days ago. Let me quote your previous comment, because I think it applies equally here. You must be “an idiot… a full-blown moron that is unworthy of serious attention since [you] obviously aren’t willing to give it to others.”
Perhaps if you’d had a little respect a few days ago, this conversation wouldn’t have been derailed so quickly, and I’d have a little respect for you. As it stands now, I’m done talking with you.
Naismith, here’s my response to Elder Oaks address. (You commented there so I know you’ve read it.)
You might be interested to know that women baptized and blessed/passed the sacrament in Ancient Christianity.
One thing to keep in mind is that back when Emma made her complaints, printed books and newspapers were the only format available for transmittal of those revelations. No radio, no television, no internet, no audio-recordings, no setellite dish. Summaries of general conference talks were published in the Millenial Star and later the Deseret News but many members did not have direct access to the full richness of General Conference.
Nowadays General Conference is transmitted around the world, translated into a hundred languages. It doesn’t have to be published into a book. Even though a book might seem to have more gravitas than a mere video.
I love that our leaders can address concerns of members is a more real-time way than was possible in past eras, and that we get recent update to address the issues of our day.
I agree with President Benson that, “The most important prophet, so far as we are concerned, is the one who is living in our day and age. This is the prophet who has today’s instructions from God to us. God’s revelation to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the ark. Every generation has need of the ancient scripture, plus the current scripture from the living prophet. Therefore, the most crucial reading and pondering that you should do is of the latest inspired words from the Lord’s mouthpiece….Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.”
Yes, MH I did read your take on Elder Oaks’ talk…but I disagree with some of the opinion that folks have on that. I am a woman who can study and think for myself.
This post really resonated with me MH.
What has bothered me the most about the Church’s response to the Ordain Women movement is that they didn’t ask the question. That’s all OW was about at first, seeking an answer to the question of female ordination. I’m not a member of OW but as a woman, in essence, I felt ignored and my concerns deemed unimportant. It would have been a much easier pill to swallow had the leadership said “we asked and the answer was no” or even “we asked and haven’t yet received an answer but we will continue to ask.” Those scenarios speak to a leadership that is truly interested in serving its membership. To use the poor umbrella analogy that will be taught to our Primary children this fall, I would actually feel the leadership was keeping me dry. But to not even ask? To not use the power which they have been given to find out what God wants on the matter? I’m sitting out in the rain, sopping wet, with no umbrella at all.
In my (admittedly very little) experience with this blog and its commenters, it seems that there pervades through some an unspoken assumption that political correctness is the real eternal truth, and that the church has some “catching up” to do to get to it. For instance, political correctness would say that women should have the priesthood, or that homosexual behavior should be accepted, else these people are not treated as “equal” in their eyes, and therefore the church is wrong in its current stance.
In my opinion, God sees us all as equals, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that we won’t have different roles. Clearly, men and women were created as being different physically: women can have children, whereas men can’t. That gives one role that only one of the sexes can have. Why, then, couldn’t God restrict the priesthood holders to men only, and have them be the only sex with that role?
The world has its various opinions that it has because they sit well with them, but that doesn’t mean they’re right. Just because I didn’t agree with polygamy doesn’t mean that it was wrong for early church leaders to practice it. The only source of eternal truth is God, and if He revealed that polygamy was what they should practice for that time, then it was correct.
Political correctness may occasionally coincide with the truth, as it did after the 1978 revelation about blacks and the priesthood. That doesn’t mean, however, that it ever will with women and the priesthood, or with homosexual behavior. Personally, I don’t think there will ever be a change within the church concerning these things, and I don’t think there’s anything unjust or unequal or against God’s will about it at all. But perhaps there will be a change someday, who knows.
The lack of canonized revelation says nothing as to whether the church is guided by revelation. And neither does every revelation have to be “groundbreaking.” Just because other churches are canonizing their claimed revelations, it doesn’t mean that God is speaking to them “more” (or at all) than He is to the LDS church. As I indicated in another comment (#92 on “Are We Really a Church of Revelation?”), I see nothing wrong with calling revelation “anything already canonized and anything said in General Conference or in other ‘official’ statements by the church.”
Some individualized responses:
@Mormon Heretic, #19: it wouldn’t surprise me if the reason we don’t get more so-called “groundbreaking” revelations really is because the members lack in faith — perhaps more specifically, they lack faith in the current revelations. The children of Israel were subject to the Law of Moses for over a thousand years because they apparently weren’t ready for the higher law. Pres. Benson said we were still under condemnation pronounced in the 19th century for taking the Book of Mormon too lightly. And with all due respect to your mission president, that quote applies in some places, but not necessarily to all: sometimes it’s more the leadership’s fault, yes, but other times it’s more the members’.
@Bob Sonntag, #34: I’m not convinced that D&C 1:5-6 necessarily implies what you say, that is, that “A lack of revelation absolutely means a lack of authority.” I’m not sure exactly what it means; we’re not official scripture interpreters, but my personal guess is that it does not necessarily imply that for all times and cases.
@Mormon Heretic, #35: I believe that God does talk to us through Pres. Monson, say through General Conference, to reiterate my point from before. I believe that most active members see General Conference as the primary medium through which the prophet leads the church. Just because it isn’t immediately canonized (if ever) doesn’t mean that God doesn’t talk to us through him. What is shared through General Conference or through other official statements you may regard as God’s word spoken through the prophet.
@Mormon Heretic, #42: I downloaded those slides from the talk you referenced in that link. The scriptures mentioned in that talk differ slightly in our LDS version. The LDS version does not necessarily imply what the talk inferred from them. I suppose I’ll take Option #1, “(I) don’t care if apostate Christian groups were ordaining women,” since that’s what was referred to after all of the scriptural references. Perhaps women did hold a priesthood in ancient times, but was it the correct priesthood? And in any case, it certainly does not imply that women should hold the priesthood now. Option #3, “Acceptance,” seems to be a sanctimonious presentation of seeing what is wanted to be seen in the “data.”
@bfh529
I don’t want to drive anyone away that wants to have an honest discussion.
I don’t see some of my disagreements with some church policies as anything to do with political correctness. It deals with how I feel after I study and pray about topics. As I have studied much of church history is see plenty of times church leaders got it wrong.
@A Happy Hubby
What times in church history are you referring to?
“political correctness” is a red herring and has nothing to do with this conversation.
I simply want to know what Christ would do. I know I’ve prayed, I’ve studied it out in my mind, and I feel very much like like Maybee in 44. Just ask God. Let us know what the response was, whether it is yes, no, not yet. Just let us know that you care enough to ask.
The brethren may be asking, they may not be asking. Just let us know. Why the secrecy?
@Mormon Heretic:
I respectfully disagree that political correctness has nothing to do with this conversation. While “A Happy Hubby” points out that it may not be the driving force behind why people believe certain things that may seem to align with political correctness philosophy, I think it would be naive to claim that it does not affect it. In recent decades, it seems to me that many have become too preoccupied with what constitutes “equal” in their minds, and it has pervaded our society to the degree that there is a continual witch hunt for those things that don’t perfectly satisfy their definition of equality. I feel that many church members have tried to apply these same ideas to the church and think that it’s more important for the church to “get with the times” by satisfying their own definition of equality by doing things such as give women the priesthood, accept same-sex couples as equal to heterosexual, etc. This all fits nicely within the philosophy of political correctness, whereas if political correctness had never come about, there probably wouldn’t be this kind of haranguing of church leaders to change policies, at least not to the degree that there has been. It’s this same notion of equality that political correctness espouses that leads some church critics to presume that they, and not the Brethren, are right about certain issues and that eventually God will correct the “wrong.” While of course it is fine to ask questions (and, as you have pointed out, some have in the past and their questions led to revelations), it is not right for one to presume that he has received a revelation for the church about it differing from what the Brethren have, as this goes against God’s order prescribed in D&C 28. In other words: if you claim that you have received a revelation that (for instance) states that women should have the priesthood now, you received that revelation from a source different from God.
You asked, in your last comment, what sounded to me like a sincere question, which deserves a sincere answer, which is what you’re going to get from me. Though it may seem so, in no way do I intend the following several paragraphs to be condescending, but I genuinely believe that this is the appropriate response I should give, as a fellow church member:
I’m not your priesthood leader, and I’m not sure what it is that you want to know “what Christ would do” about, but since you asked, let me offer this: talk to your priesthood leader(s), continue to pray and study, and listen carefully in Stake and General Conferences. I imagine you have, but there’s no reason you can’t do it again and again, making sure each time that you approach it as humbly as possible, as everyone should approach such questions. If God is not a God of confusion (and He isn’t), why would He reveal something to you different from what He would to His chosen servants? Therefore, if you would approach it in this manner, you should eventually come to the same conclusion that the Brethren have, though it may even take years. One thought that occurs to me is that you consider pondering about the origin of your current definition of “equality:” is it of God or of the world?
Some other things to consider: you linked, in comment #42, to your take on Elder Oaks’ Oct. 2014 talk, wherein you quoted him as saying “But even though these presiding hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divine decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood.” He may not explicitly say so, but I take this to mean that the church has not received any revelation to ordain women to the priesthood, which of course they would need to “alter the divine decreed pattern.” Does the prophet or an apostle have to explicitly say “the matter was prayed about and such-and-such was the result?” The prophet does not always have to say “Thus saith the Lord.”
And why should the Brethren respond to this question over the many other concerns that they have? They’re not just sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for people to ask them to ask God about certain things. Furthermore, if they asked about this question in particular, it might send the message that it’s more important than other questions or concerns that get brought up to them, which is not necessarily true. For example, I can think of many things that I personally think are of far greater importance than these matters, such as how can we improve home teaching? or how can we help people be more active in the church, or in their testimonies? or how can we help people strengthen their families? or how can we improve the efficacy of our missionaries? These are the things that I imagine the Brethren spend a large amount of their time on, and rightfully so; they simply don’t have time to deal with other concerns and questions that really don’t have a significant bearing on people’s salvation — if they did, I feel confident that the Spirit would prompt them to give it more attention than they otherwise would. (The charts in this article suggest to me that there really isn’t that much concern within the church about women receiving the priesthood anyway, by the way.)
Remember also D&C 58:26-27: it need not be explicitly dictated to you through the prophet’s mouth to the whole church what should be done. We can go forward without needing to know the Lord’s will on these matters at this time, and focus on the commandments He’s already given, working to “bring about much righteousness.” There’s also this essay, which I imagine you’ve read, which is probably about the most official thing you’ll ever get the church to say about this topic.
Perhaps you’ve heard all this before from your church leaders. If that’s the case, I don’t know if you’ll ever be satisfied, since there’s nothing left to do but what they suggest, and leave the questions of “what about women and the priesthood” or “what about homosexuals in the church,” etc., “on the shelf” for when the Lord sees fit to reveal more than what He has through the Brethren.
Yeah I’m done with this conversation.
bfh529 – I think we will have to agree to disagree on how PC is involved. To me it was personal experience with individuals that made me think better
You had asked when had the upper church leaders “gotten it wrong”. I am sure if you have done some studying of church history you will be familiar with them. You may not come to the same conclusion as I do and I respect that. I ask for the same respect in return. I heard one of THE best recaps (from 2 believing Mormons) discuss the Adam God theory on mormondiscussionpodcast.org. It won’t be released to the public until the 22nd or so of September. I find it hard to understand how someone can listen to that and not see how others can have an issue. I am ok if someone listens to it and does not agree it is a huge problem, but I just find it hard to see if anyone can say, “not a problem. What’s your problem”
I don’t understand why God would give different inspirations to different people. It confuses me. I have been trying to get a confirmation but instead I keep getting the feeling I need to focus on loving people and zilch on support for things like the policy change. I know you say “keep trying”, but I am getting to the end of my life. If after my entire lifetime I don’t get any confirmations. I have done all the check boxes. I would ask what you would tell a jehovas witness in the same situation. Should he keep doing what he has done for 50 years without God confirming what he is taught?
I recognize that with my ridiculously long comments, especially coming at the point where everyone else is ready to move on, and my admittedly vague idea of PC being involved, people might be somewhat exasperated with me. I’m not trying to prove anyone wrong here, or to supposedly “win” an argument, or to have the last word. (At least I hope I’m not.) My understanding is that this is all a discussion, and I’m just trying to honestly respond to people’s statements, hopefully without being offensive.
I guess my concluding statement about PC and this stuff is just that I think that we need to be careful whether or not to adopt the world’s definition of “equality,” which I believe has its roots in PC and is at the crux of discussions such as these.
I’m guessing “Mormon Heretic” won’t read this comment, but if he genuinely wants to know what Christ would do, as he asked in a previous comment, and which we all should be asking at all times, my genuine response to that was in the succeeding comment, and I did not mean for it to be provoking/offensive/accusatory/condescending/etc. in any way. Furthermore, I thought of another option, and that is to write church leaders about it. Perhaps he already has, but I mention it because I once wrote Elder Oaks about a different question I had (addressed further below) and he responded to me.
@Happy Hubby:
As I mused about what you were thinking of when you claimed earlier that church leaders had “gotten it wrong,” my first guess really was the Adam-God theory. I came across this when it was presented as anti- material when I was a missionary, and was disturbed at the time by the fairly thorough analysis that was given of it in that material. Since then I’ve studied up about it a bit, and my conclusion is basically that, as Elder Holland mentioned in a Conference talk a little while back, it proves no more or less than that the church is led by imperfect men. It set my mind at ease concerning it, but I do certainly understand having difficulty with it. I imagine it may take a lot more detail than you may be willing to go into right now for you to feel the same way about it, but I would be willing to discuss it if otherwise.
I can’t, of course, know why you wouldn’t be getting any confirmations. I have great confidence that God would be understanding of both you and the hypothetical Jehovah’s Witness you mentioned, and that if you both genuinely tried your best, no blessing will be withheld from either of you. I believe that goes for anyone who sincerely tries their best. When you say “keep trying” to me, that reminds me of Elder Oaks’ response to me, when I expressed to him my frustrations of not getting married (I remain single at age 38): “keep trying!” he said. I may never get married in this life, but I recognize it as something I’ll have to keep trying at for the remainder of it until it happens, and I’m comforted in the belief that it will not be withheld from me in the next life, provided I legitimately try my best.
Incidentally, I would probably tell a Jehovah’s Witness to try our church; perhaps he hadn’t tried it before. And it doesn’t mean that everything that he’s done for the previous 50 years is wrong. Despite all this, I know that God does not give conflicting revelations. It may seem thus at times now, but there is an explanation, and it may take until the next life to arrive at it.
bfh529 – I appreciate your dialog. This is probably my last post on this as I don’t know that deep conversations are hard enough to resolve, but anonymously and via comments section makes it many times harder (and slower). I do not doubt you have studied about the Adam-God theory. I would ask that you listen to the podcast at the end of next month I mentioned. I think you are saying Brigham Young, an imperfect human and didn’t get this right. Given that this was taught for decades consistently by BY and even put in the temple ceremony for decades, then I see it as entirely possible that the brethren (imperfect men) today have it wrong on much of the fight against the gays. Stating my view – not looking for rebuttal or arguments. I think we don’t see eye to eye – fine. And there were people consistently opposed to BY on this doctrine and they would even give contradictory talks in general conference (of course LDS.org stops hosting them just after correlation has fully kicked in in the early 70’s).
But on to the other part that to me is much more important to my salvation. If I was able to get a confirmation to “stick with the Mormon plan”, I honestly say I could do it. Heck – I am already following all the commandments needed for a recommend. But if you suggest that the hypothetical JW should try Mormonism, then it seems perfectly logical that I should try something other than Mormonism. I worry that I was just brought up in it and like the vast majority of people on this earth just take what I was born with and accept that without testing it. I have been led to believe that if I didn’t get a confirmation, it was my sins. Looking at past presidents, I don’t see that someone sinning keeps an honest person from getting to hear from God. My test so far is that the church does help people be very good (in fact better in many ways that most other religions). But I can’t make the puzzle fit together anymore. And “wait until the next life” seems like a cop out. If that is the case, lets stop sending out missionaries because if everyone just needs to try to be good/follow God the best that we can and God will sort it all out in the next life.
Thanks again for your comments and I do appreciate them.
bfh529 – Here’s the thing: a major impetus around the drive for women to have the priesthood is the stupidity of brethren. Good brethren who mean well but offend women.
Young women leaders whose programs are underfunded while the young men go on high adventure trips. Female military veterans who sit in the audience on Veteran’s Day while male reservists who have never served on active duty are asked to speak in sacrament meeting about service and patriotism. A woman who asks young men to tune down their noise level in the hall at church so that the young women can listen to a video, only to be told that young men don’t have to listen to her since they outrank her with their priesthood.
I could go on and on and on and on.
Of course that is not how the Lord wants his church run, and it doesn’t happen everywhere. My daughter went on a whitewater rafting trip as a Laurel. But this variation is the source of the term “bishop lottery.”
So there is the hope that with a woman serving in leadership, there would be less of these misogynist actions.
And thus male stupidity is much more of a concern and motivation among LDS women than “political correctness.” MUCH MORE. Even those of us who find value in male-only priesthood appreciate this reality of LDS women’s lives. To ignore that pain and assume their desire for priesthood is due to mere political correctness is mansplaining at its worst.
@A Happy Hubby:
You probably have studied the Adam-God theory more than I have, as I was unaware of some of the concerns you brought up. I’m skeptical about their validity, as I’ve seen many times people make inferences from things that do not necessarily follow (see, for example, the talk linked by “Mormon Heretic” in comment #42, which I mentioned in comment #45 does not imply the things he asserted they did. I’ve done it a bunch of times as well; don’t we all?) However, I’m guessing I’d just have to listen to the podcast you were mentioning to know for certain.
One thing I feel the need to offer is a reminder about the principle of multiple witnesses. As far as I know only Brigham Young taught the Adam-God principle, and even then I imagine there are multiple things about it that are true and other things we simply don’t understand. However, it appears to me that just about all the Brethren, if not all of them, are united on the same-sex marriage front. That should probably hold more water as true doctrine than just one person, even if he is the prophet.
I forgot to mention one thing in the previous comment, and that is that the thought occurs to me that you perhaps actually have had a confirmation, you just don’t know that you have. Elder Callister spoke in a recent Conference about an experience Heber J. Grant had with John Taylor and Joseph F. Smith, wherein Joseph F. Smith was appalled that Heber J. Grant, recently sustained as a Stake President, claimed that he didn’t know for certain the truth of the gospel/church/etc. John Taylor assured both Joseph and Heber that Heber knew it, he just did not “know that he knew it.” The talk lays it out in better detail.
I see no reason, by the way, why you can’t try looking outside the church for truth. We don’t have a monopoly on truth. I will say, however, that I don’t think God expects us to scour every last religion on Earth to make sure that everyone else is wrong. Obviously there are many in this life who will never hear the gospel, try though our missionaries want to share it with them. That clearly cannot mean those people are doomed to a lesser eternal reward.
“Waiting until the next life” would be a cop-out only if we stop trying. Lastly, there is still value in sending out missionaries, because they make people aware of things they would otherwise not know that help them be happy in this life, and get a “leg up” for the next life (see D&C 130:18-19). As soon as people hear the gospel, they will be accountable for how they respond to it. If they refuse to improve, that’s their loss.
I further agree that the comments section is hardly the place to carry on such a conversation. Feel free to contact me at bfh529@hotmail.com if you’d like.
@Naismith:
I’ve heard stories like what you mentioned from time to time and they’re not really unique to the issue of women holding the priesthood. Both men and women complain that they’ve perceived judgment from others because of the way they act, dress, and so on. Personally I haven’t observed these things to be the case and have concluded that those perceptions are simply perceptions; people see what they want to see. But even if they’re right, all it shows is that there are imperfect people in the church everywhere, including among the bishops, as you insinuated. If the solution to this is to ordain women to the priesthood, then the Lord will do that in His own due time, as usual through revelation to the leadership of the church. I tend to think, however, that He will just continue to try to improve the imperfect (perhaps in some cases even less-efficient) men He has in those positions already. One might argue, for instance, that the 18- and 19-year-olds we send out aren’t our best options for the mission field, but if that’s the Lord’s way, it’s the Lord’s way. We may not understand it, but through study, prayer, and faithfulness we may begin to, and in the meantime chalk it up to “God moves in mysterious ways.”
While I personally believe that women are generally more inherently *spiritual* than men are, I would argue that your observation of what you call “male stupidity” is still a result of political correctness and its silent but heavy infiltration throughout our society. I may have a broader definition of that term than most (perhaps it would be better for me to use the term “the world” instead), but in my view one of PC’s agendas is to belittle the role of men. Maybe this is something that I “want to see,” but it seems to me that men are ridiculed far more often in the media than women are, especially in television, commercials, and movies; a man being mocked on television is far more likely than a woman is to be, in my own observation. A natural reaction to this treatment of men would be the tendency to believe that men are generally silly, untrustworthy, unintelligent, and unreliable. Whether this reaction is actually being made at a significant level or not is debatable, but it’s my belief that the perception that men are thus wholly incapable of handling their priesthood duties (without the existence of women who also hold those callings) is ultimately borne of political correctness.
If you’d like to continue this conversation elsewhere, you may also feel free to email me at bfh529@hotmail.com
“Personally I haven’t observed these things to be the case and have concluded that those perceptions are simply perceptions; people see what they want to see.”
Whoa! Blame the victim, in other words. It is the woman’s fault if it happens to her.
No way was I looking for those things. It is disappointing when it happens. And your denial just adds to the pain.
“I would argue that your observation of what you call “male stupidity” is still a result of political correctness…”
No, it is a result of some men being stupid. That is the most polite word I can think to describe such behavior.
“…but in my view one of PC’s agendas is to belittle the role of men.”
I am not belittling the role of men. I WANT men to step up and be great servant leaders, like Christ, with the sensitivity of Elder Holland and the kindness of Elder Uchtdorf. If all leaders were such men as that, these things would NOT happen.
I have no desire to be lectured by you further. So MH and I agree that there is nothing left to discuss.
@Naismith:
I apologize for my insensitivity. If ever you’d like to continue this discussion further, please feel free to email me. I resolve to be more friendly and cordial in such a discussion.