I’ve amended the original post so it is now accurate.

Will Bagley,
Editor, with David L. Bigler, “Army of Israel: Mormon Battalion Narratives.”

Both the liturgy and the covenants have changed over the years. The liturgical change of 1990 is well known. The chastity covenant has changed; in the late ’60s, its only prohibition was intercourse with someone of the opposite sex other than one’s legal and lawful spouse.

Homosexual activity of all kinds may have been thought of as an “unholy and impure practice,” but it did not violate the chastity covenant.

Sexual activity that did not include intercourse may have been unholy, but it did not violate the chastity covenant.

Perhaps because greater light and knowledge has been revealed concerning the myriad ways that sexual activity can be accomplished, all “sexual activity” – other than with one’s spouse – is interdicted by the present wording of the covenant.

Before I sit down I want to say a word to the Elders of Israel on another subject. . . . Cease troubling yourselves about who God is; who Adam is, who Christ is, who Jehovah is. For heaven’s sake, let these things alone. Why trouble yourselves about these things? . . . God is God. Christ is Christ. The Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. That should be enough for you and me to know. I say this because we are troubled every little while with inquiries from Elders anxious to know who God is, who Christ is, and who Adam is. I say to the Elders of Israel, stop this. . . . We have had letter after letter from Elders abroad wanting to know concerning these things. Adam is the first man. He was placed in the Garden of Eden, and is our great progenitor. God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are the same yesterday, today, and forever, that should be sufficient for us to know. [Millennial Star 57 (June 6, 1895), 355-56, as quoted and cited in Boyd Kirkland, "Jehovah as the Father: The Development of the Mormon Jehovah Doctrine." Sunstone: Mormon Experience, Scholarship, Issues & Art 9 (Autumn 1984), 40, 44 n. 57 (all ellipses in the quote are Kirkland's)]

If I traveled back in time and experienced a full year of Mormonism from each of the years 1973, 1933, 1902, 1881, 1849, 1833 (picking #s out of the air), could I recognize the common doctrinal threads and rituals that compose my spiritual identity? Those six decades between JS and the Foote letter were quite the roller coaster.

Observation #2:

Questions like Elder Foote’s are now directed towards local authorities rather than SLC. I wonder how the variety of age, experience, and the international culture of local leadership shapes the appeal to tradition as interpretation.

Now that I think about it, that may be right. I was thinking of other things, but that may be because I am older, and remember some things that thank goodness, have changed about the ceremony.

Your example of the priesthood ban is a good example of how the balance can be lost. When it became obvious that there were no scriptural proscriptions, it finally became recognized as tradition. Edward Kimball gives a good glimpse into how difficult it was for his father to overcome that tradition of a hundred years plus in his recent article in BYU Studies (actually, if I recall, it is an amplification of a chapter from his biography of Spencer W. Kimball). Makes a good read, and an appreciation for how hard Pres. Kimball worked to get consensus and agreement before the final revelation was received.

I am not sure, however, that there is any evidence that JS had anything to do with the exclusions either from the priesthood or temple ordinances. Stapley or someone else may be able to back me up on this, but there is nothing that I recall that links Joseph Smith to the ban that is verifiable. He did discourage missionary work to black slaves in the South, and made a statement or two about Mormons not being abolitionists during the Missouri difficulties, but I would need to consult my copy of RSR or other books I don’t have access to right now.