- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Thanks for your reply DaddyB. I’ll get back to you later (it’s the middle of the night in UK) DaddyB wrote:After reading this quote, it is hard to conclude anything but the fact that the Lord was definitely okay with the ban.
For you. You believe Jesus is actively involved in the doctrine/policy/practice of the Church. So that makes sense to you. We all bring our confirmation bias to the table.If you are trying to convince people here that God is at the helm, you would be well served to pick a different topic. Few here can stomach an appeal to God’s Will in order to excuse the priesthood/temple ban.
I’ve tried to be diplomatic about this topic, but here is the simplest historical overview and summation possible: Even if we accept our scriptures as reflecting God’s will and that God is at the head of the LDS Church (which I don’t reject, to the extent people can understand God’s will and be lead by God),
EVERY SINGLE instance of Priesthood authority being limited by race or ethnic group (except the ban) is from the Old Testament time period or prior to Jesus’ death. Every. Single. One. Without. Exception. After the death of Jesus (and, in the Book of Mormon, even before that),
EVERY SINGLE verse about race says ALL are alike unto God and that he treats them the same way.I’ve done the research: Tribal / ethnic / racial division as the basis of authority was a Law of Moses (pre-Law of Christ) time period practice. Period. Brigham Young relied on Old Testament scriptures and the Protestantism apostate continuation of that time’s ideology (with which he was raised) to initiate the ban. Period. The simple fact that we had to come up with justification after justification after justification in order to continue it – and that explicit statements have been made saying EVERY SINGLE justification was wrong and the product of limited light and knowledge – speaks volumes.
The explanation is correct: Brigham was influenced by the attitudes of his time and reversed something Joseph has instituted, and there is NOTHING in our canonical or apostolic record to indicate the ban was received by inspiration or revelation.
As another example, I wouldn’t condone genocide, even though it is written in the Old Testament as a command from God. I can’t rationalize such a command in any way, no matter the Old Testament justifications – even though such an understanding is attributed to prophets. Using the Old Testament and ignoring the New Testament and the Book of Mormon is not something I’m willing to do.
First, thanks to the board moderators for not locking this thread or editing DaddyB’s message. This is really, really important to me. I’m currently on the very edge of leaving church and the black priesthood issue is at the very top of my list for considering doing so… by a big margin. I’m grateful for the chance to test my conclusions in a safe place and I genuinely appreciate DaddyB’s courtesy in presenting the other perspective. As my blog title implies, it’s useful to consider the thought “on the other hand” in this process. There are certainly many “other hands.”
DaddyB wrote:mackay11, Thanks so much for taking the time to answer my post. You give some very thoughtful ideas that are not without merit. I do, however, see what seem to me to be some inconsistencies. I hope you won’t mind me pointing them out.
mackay11 wrote:
It’s important to bear in mind that the President does not have executive power. Decisions are made by consensus and unanimity. Even if modern leaders were not racist, there were certainly racist attitudes in the quorum.Do you suppose someone like that was ready/able to get any other answer than “no?” Elder Stapley wrote the following in 1964:
http://mormonmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/delbert_stapley.pdf Is there any wonder that it took so long? Both Elders Peterson and Stapley were in the 12 all through the 1970s. It may, or may not, be significant that they were both living but absent when the revelation was received. They were asked to endorse it later, after the other apostles had reached consensus.
To me these arguments are just too weak. There were people in the twelve that had made very strong statements in favor of the ban for similar reasons, such as Elder McConkie, who were involved with the change.
You’re right to challenge that. I have no direct evidence that Elders Peterson and Stapley had previously held up the ban. Having said that, if you read the Edward Kimball article (linked at the bottom of the LDS.org article) you get a detailed description of the process. Edward is the son of Spencer W. and interviewed many of the apostles involved in the process. What’s clear is that there was extensive discussion first. There was a lot of reasoning and study. The article states that if even one apostle had voiced opposition to the restoration of the priesthood to blacks that SWK would have backed down and not even taken it to The Lord in prayer. I’ll try to find a reference.
Yes, Elder McConkie had written some unpleasant things in Mormon Doctrine before. But nothing as vile as Peterson and Stapley’s outright racist attitudes (which opposed full equal rights for blacks).
DaddyB wrote:
Also, there has never been as much strong opinion on this subject as there was with the introduction of plural marriage, but God made it happen. Such a principle was much more abhorrent to all involved, including Joseph. This issue doesn’t even come close. The ending of that policy also faced much more resistance from those in the leadership than this one we are discussing. To me, your reasoning here is inconsistent with the reality of history.
There is in this heart! I find the racism of black exclusion from priesthood participation, temple worship, ward leadership and praying in church (all restricted for blacks at points during the 20th) deeply disturbing.
While I personally have doubts about polygamy, there is at least a revelation to reference. There is none for black priesthood institution.
Perhaps the reason polygamy’s introduction received more opposition is because it went against the norms of the day. It directly challenged the people’s lives.
The introduction of the black priesthood ban had little to no opposition in 1850s because it confirmed the erroneous assumptions of the time. For example, in Utah slave owning was not illegal. Blacks were still considered an inferior race.
As for the opposition to polygamy ending, you have to remember that the generation ending polygamy had been raised on the teaching that polygamy was an essential principle to achieve celestial glory. BY had been teaching that for years.
Polygamy was wrenched from people’s hands at almost gun point. The US government was going to dissolve the state and the church over polygamy. Pres Woodruff had little alternative but to end the practice.
In many ways the black priesthood restoration is similar. That is, there was a burning platform that was twisting their arm: Brazil. Edward Kimball’s article goes into more detail but, in short, the Brazil temple would soon be opened and there was almost no way of checking everyone’s lineage. Brazil was (and is) such a racial melting pot that too many people had black lineage somewhere. It was coming down to patriarchal blessings to make the call on priesthood or no priesthood. The brethren were finally (thankfully) pushed by this to make a decision about it.
DaddyB wrote:
Also, these quotes from apostles and prophets of the 20th century are based on strong intellectual opinions, not deep emotional feelings.
Could I ask whether you’ve read the sources I linked to? Stapley’s letter to Romney is full of emotive language and scare-mongering. He even goes as far as warning Romney with his life if he pursues a course of campaigning for black equal rights. There is clearly emotion in his letter and pretty poor reasoning.
He also based his arguments on Joseph being the ban’s originator (as did many other 20thC apostles). That’s not very good intellectualism given it’s plain wrong.
DaddyB wrote:
I believe that any of these brethren would have been easily swayed if the present president would have taught them a different paradigm based on new information he had received through revelation. It’s not like these guys felt any hate, fear or animosity toward any particular race. Remember that these men welcomed with open arms, black people from the islands and Aborigines of Australia, not to mention the different Asian ethnicities.
As asked before, did you read the Elder Peterson and Stapley sources? Peterson talks very derogatorily about black and Chinese people and advocates segregation and denial of rights to blacks.
You don’t have to feel racial hatred to be a racist. The word racism means believing ones own race to be superior to the race of another.
Peterson and Stapley certainly exhibit an attitude of superiority. Joseph Fielding Smith (who influenced BRM’s writings) and George Albert Smith both statements that show an attitude of blacks being inferior to white people. Specifically blacks of African decent (because they presume them to be Cain’s cursed lineage).
As for the idea that they would have changed their views if the church president had told them to get in line. Why didn’t they then? Having had a few glimpses into church leadership decision making (due to being privy to casting decisions in the recent Bible video production), the Brethren disagree with each other. They do not “get in line” and they voice different opinions.
DaddyB wrote:
mackay11 wrote:
There are plenty of horrible things taught as God’s will and doctrine that lead to awful attitudes and horrific acts. Why didn’t he intervene with those? Why doesn’t he teach some of the bigots who wave homophobic banners on street corners? Maybe it’s because they won’t listen. If they are not actively seeking an answer then maybe no answer is possible.These examples are not relevant to this discussion. This is not about opinions of people on the street. It is about policy in Christ’s church created and administered by his prophets and apostles.
Are you saying the black priesthood bad was a policy “created” by the church leaders? If so, I agree.
My point is that there are many, many people who say awful things and yet believe they are representing God’s will.
Quote:
mackay11 wrote:
Why didn’t he come down and intervene with the racist views of Apostles? The church has disavowed all but the ban itself. I imagine it won’t be long before that is too.
If your position is correct, there is no reason that wouldn’t have already happened. To me this is a very weak position.
I don’t understand your point.
If I could clarify. Prophets and apostles (sustained as prophets, seers and revelators too) in the 20thC at different times taught the following:
– Inter-racial marriage was “repugnant” and against God’s doctrine
– Blacks would go to the Celestial Kingdom as servants
– Black people carried the mark of Cain
– Black people were born black (sometimes in “darkest Africa”) because they had been less faithful in the pre-earth life.
– Racial segregation was part of God’s doctrine… even to the point of endorsing having “white only” restaurants.
The list could go on. All of this has been disavowed by the recent statement. A statement approved by the first presidency and twelve apostles.
Our leaders now teach that all of the above attitudes and teachings were wrong and even denounce them as racist.
Earlier you gave the example of Lorenzo Snow having a vision/visitation of Christ telling him to not wait as long to reorganise the first presidency.
If you believe that The Lord can make a visit to teach something as minor as organisational timings, why do you think he didn’t come down and teach George Albert Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Elder Peterson and Elder Stapley that their views on black people and inter-racial marriage were wrong and their explanations/justifications for the ban were wrong.
They taught these things as God’s doctrine. If Jesus was able to visit Pres Snow to correct the slowness of establishing the first presidency, why did He not also make a similar visit to correct the false teachings that were being perpetuated about black people.
We, the church, do not teach any of the above principles any more. Our leaders have denounced them as racist attitudes.
Quote:
mackay11 wrote:
Quote:“From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.”
If it’s a an attitude that they have “never questioned” then it’s also likely that no revelation is possible.
I think you are missing the point here. The assumption is that leaders who are inspired to the degree of apostles and prophets, question things because of inspiration from God.
That’s an assumption. Are you saying that leaders never question things unless God inspired them to question things? I don’t find that reasonable. That would suggest that both the question and answer is from God.
Why did He not cause them to question their false beliefs about inter-racial marriage, segregation and doctrinal origins for the ban?
Further, the statement I quoted says Joseph is the origin for the ban. He wasn’t. They’re making a false assumption while also showing they don’t question the false assumption.
Where’s the evidence of divine guidance in them making a false statement they have never questioned.
Are you saying God was happy with them holding (and teaching) an incorrect and non-doctrinal view and therefore never caused them to question this erroneous belief?
DaddyB wrote:
The reasoning here infers that if God did not inspire any of these great men to question this, God must have a reason for it, which is my argument as well. These were not men of hatred or bigotry. They did not have emotional fears and loathing for people of different races. If so, why did they so easily embrace and love all the other races? This was purely academic to them and perhaps even inspired except for some of the reasons they came up with.
Again, I would refer you to the Peterson/Stapley sources. I don’t think you can describe their perspectives as purely academic. Like I said earlier, you don’t have to feel racial hatred to feel a race is inferior.
Quote:
mackay11 wrote:
Where was the revelation to introduce it? There was none. There were simply erroneous conclusions based on fear and a bad reading of scriptural texts. There was never any revelation given to start the ban on blacks having the priesthood. I’ve asked many apologists on many different forums to provide one and they’ve never been able to offer anything.There are many inspired policies of this church throughout history where no revelation was published. To me this is another weak argument, especially when compared with the reality that there has been no statement that the policy was not of God.
Show me anything that suggests God started the ban. There is not even a claim that revelation was received. There is only false assumptions and invalid arguments supporting the introduction of the ban. BY based his justification of the ban on the curse of Cain. That has now been disavowed. Show me a single scrap of revelation or inspiration for the introduction of the ban. Alternatively show me a doctrinally sound foundation for introducing the ban.
I’ve been searching for one for a long time. To the best of my knowledge, it doesn’t exist.
Quote:
mackay11 wrote:
So perhaps it’s true that God limited the priesthood to the Levites for some reason. There is certainly a scriptural basis for it. Having said that, I’d point out that Mormon theology would say that’s not true. Alma was lived before the law of Moses was fulfilled (i.e. he lived ‘BC’) and he had the priesthood. Was he a Levite?
The fact that God made an exception in the case of the Nephites makes the policy even more suspect in Palestine. Yes there is scriptural basis for it and that scriptural basis becomes scriptural basis for the similar policy in our day.
I don’t understand your point. Are you saying the levitical priesthood restriction was suspect?
There appears to be no restriction in the Book of Mormon. There were people of both black and white origin who appear to have priesthood or authority. Did Samuel the Lamanite have the priesthood? Or did Alma only ordain “pure bloods” to the priesthood?
If the Nephites were living the law of Moses and did not apply any priesthood restriction based on lineage, how can we be certain the Levitical priesthood limitation sets a good precedent for the black ban being justified?
Could you clarify your point about being suspect as I’m not sure I get your point.
Quote:
mackay11 wrote:
There is no revelation nor scriptural basis for denying blacks the priesthood. Any reading of the scriptures that leads to justifying the ban is based on racist assumptions (curse of cain etc). Beyond a false reading of the scriptures you need to look to a modern prophet. Joseph certainly didn’t oppose black having the priesthood. Brigham and his group introduced it but never even claimed to have received a revelation. It was an administrative decision that later became folklore and was perpetuated by one simple thing: assumptions.Throughout the most recent statement by the church on this issue it makes clear the reality that leaders of the church, including Brigham Young felt this was a temporary policy and not eternal. Leaders since Brigham Young all knew that it was temporary, so their strong statements were not so much to say it wouldn’t change as it was to persuade that it should be in place at that present time. Most of us at that time expected to see the end of the policy by the beginning of the Millennium and many of us expected to see it in our lifetimes. The fact that a revelation was needed to reverse it is a strong inference that a revelation started it.
I don’t accept that inference. I would accept that the 1978 leaders believed they needed a revelation to end it but that doesn’t mean a revelation started it. If you read the essay it makes a similar point. It says they believed a revelation was needed.
Imagine the following:
Bishop Harris extends a new calling to appoint a new YM President but does not seek and receive revelation to do so (we all know this sometimes happens). The person serves in their calling for a few years. A new Bishop is called, let’s call him Bishop Jones. Bishop Jones later releases the YM President and seeks inspiration to do so. Does the fact he was released by revelation mean he was called by revelation?
DaddyB wrote:
This following quote from the most recent statement makes it very clear that there was no hesitancy based on racism during the time of David O McKay, or any hesitancy to question it. After reading this quote, it is hard to conclude anything but the fact that the Lord was definitely okay with the ban.“By the late 1940s and 1950s, racial integration was becoming more common in American life. Church President David O. McKay emphasized that the restriction extended only to men of black African descent. The Church had always allowed Pacific Islanders to hold the priesthood, and President McKay clarified that black Fijians and Australian Aborigines could also be ordained to the priesthood and instituted missionary work among them. In South Africa, President McKay reversed a prior policy that required prospective priesthood holders to trace their lineage out of Africa.14
Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.”
[/quote]
I don’t accept that “the Lord was definitely okay with the ban.”
First, Pres McKay didn’t operate as a single leader. He was the senior apostle in a group of 15. He did not have executive power. Like Pres. Kimball, he would have needed unanimity.
This issue leaves 4 options:
1) The ban and the reasons for it were inspired and today’s leaders are wrong to now denounce it. Therefore past leaders were inspired but current ones aren’t.
2) The ban was inspired but the reasons were not. God wanted the ban but did not give a revelation to introduce it and did not ever teach a reason for it, instead leaving people to make their own false conclusions as to His purposes. God started and ended the ban but has never given his prophets a reason for doing so. He was happy for prophets to instead teach false and uninspired justification for a true and inspired practice, instead of simply correcting the the false reasoning with the real one.
3) Neither the ban nor the reasons were inspired but God allowed it to be perpetuated for 120+ years. In doing so He allowed false doctrine to be taught, attitudes of racial superiority to be perpetuated and an entire group of his children to be segregated within his one true church. In doing so the church was lead astray for 120 years and the very purpose of prophets invalidated. Eventually the leaders opened their hearts and minds and were willing/ready to end the ban. A ban that should have never even started. Sometimes God inspires prophets and sometimes he lets them teach false doctrine. We each have to personally work out the difference.
4) Neither the ban nor the reasons were inspired. God didn’t start or want it but no change was made because God does not speak through Mormon prophets.
Is there a fifth option? None of them are particularly satisfying. Unfortunately I’m more drawn to the 4th but would happily consider an alternative if you can offer one.
If you believe “2” then could you provide a precedent and a purpose?
I lean toward 3 but could accept 4. I’m clearly not neutral on this issue, and I do understand that this issue has some real meaning to you, Mac. But it appears to me that you are both set in your beliefs on the subject. Might you want to consider carrying on the discussion in private? Arguing does not seem to fit the purpose of this forum. You have both stated your beliefs quite clearly.
DarkJedi wrote:I lean toward 3 but could accept 4.
I’m clearly not neutral on this issue, and I do understand that this issue has some real meaning to you, Mac. But it appears to me that you are both set in your beliefs on the subject. Might you want to consider carrying on the discussion in private? Arguing does not seem to fit the purpose of this forum. You have both stated your beliefs quite clearly.
I’m really not trying to argue. Where else can we explore these things? I think it’s all to easy in the ‘middle-way’ to write off leaders as uninspired and racist. If I try to have this conversation on MormonDialogue I’ll get attacked. If I tried it on NOM they’d all agree with me. It’s healthy to have places and people who can respectfully challenge our conclusions. I think DaddyB has been very respectful and considerate.
I agree with mackay11 that this conversation has been respectful so far. I think it’s fine for it to continue, as long as the same respectful attitudes continue. Frankly, I lean strongly toward mackay11’s #3. It is a pretty good practical explanation of Jacob 5, imo. I have no problem accepting people as prophets even if they say or do things that I find objectionable, since, as Pres. Uchtdorf or Elder Holland said recently, all God has to use are flawed people – and that must frustrate God regularly. I think God is MUCH more patient and long-suffering than we tend to realize, and I think the ban is a great example of that aspect of his love and charity.
I believe in a God who weeps (who is willing to wait, even if that causes weeping) – MUCH more than a God who micro-manages or pulls puppet strings.
mackay11 wrote:
This issue leaves 4 options:1) The ban and the reasons for it were inspired and today’s leaders are wrong to now denounce it. Therefore past leaders were inspired but current ones aren’t.
2) The ban was inspired but the reasons were not. God wanted the ban but did not give a revelation to introduce it and did not ever teach a reason for it, instead leaving people to make their own false conclusions as to His purposes. God started and ended the ban but has never given his prophets a reason for doing so. He was happy for prophets to instead teach false and uninspired justification for a true and inspired practice, instead of simply correcting the the false reasoning with the real one.
3) Neither the ban nor the reasons were inspired but God allowed it to be perpetuated for 120+ years. In doing so He allowed false doctrine to be taught, attitudes of racial superiority to be perpetuated and an entire group of his children to be segregated within his one true church. In doing so the church was lead astray for 120 years and the very purpose of prophets invalidated. Eventually the leaders opened their hearts and minds and were willing/ready to end the ban. A ban that should have never even started. Sometimes God inspires prophets and sometimes he lets them teach false doctrine. We each have to personally work out the difference.
4) Neither the ban nor the reasons were inspired. God didn’t start or want it but no change was made because God does not speak through Mormon prophets.
Number 3 is closest to my feelings, but I wouldn’t say “God allowed it.” Maybe indirectly He did because earth life is established with agency and not compulsion. He doesn’t “allow” false doctrines in the sense of approval, but as we have agency to teach whatever we will these circumstances will exist. As imperfect humans we create hardships on others, when we open our hearts and allow the spirit of Christ to influence us then revelations will come and confirm the straight path. So to correct I would say God always inspires, but sometimes we listen and sometimes we’re not open to the further light and knowledge. As Ray said God is willing to wait, I picture God having patience where he has no other choice. The “other choice” would be to remove mortal agency, and He knows that is completely contrary to the divine plan of mortal existence with agency.
This has turned into quite a respectful lovefest over such an absolutely ugly aspect our Church’s history. I hope nobody will mind if I state that if God instituted the ban, then I would have to view God as a racist God and I would want no part of Him. God… if you are listening and you really do discriminate against black people, then please, for all future interactions, count me as a black person. I would prefer to stand with them than with You.
FWIW, I’ve actually been relatively patient with the Church’s 20th Century stand on the issue. I don’t believe the perpetuation had much to do with actual racism. I believe it had everything to do with leaders stuck in an impossible situation; believing a revelation was needed, and no revelation came until the delay had caused irreparable damage to the image of the Church. But to continue to look for God in the institution of the Ban under BY is just perpetuating the dangerous myth that God wanted it. The ban was a sad product of its time. At the time the ban was instituted, human bondage was a constitutionally-protected and legitimate form of commerce. No wonder something like the ban could be put into place and allowed to continue. But the Church’s failure during the mid-20th Century to look at the ban and say, “Wait a minute. How can this be? Let’s figure out a way to change this.” portends ill toward the Church’s future stance on SSA or equal treatment of women.
On the topic of the ban, though, I’ll stick with the Church’s own statement:
Quote:Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse
I think that is a pretty clear statement that in the Church’s own view, there was no “curse” or “divine disfavor” that could possibly result in a ban of this type coming from God.mackay11, if you do wind up leaving the Church behind, I hope it won’t be over this issue. Church leaders made a big mistake long ago, but as abhorrent as it seems to us, it was similar to the mood of the environment in which the Church existed. Later Church leaders, bless them, tried to walk a tight rope, but just wound up hurting the Church by the attempt, and that’s a very human type failure. At least we can say that the Church got it right in 1978 and got it right all over again, and in some ways even better, in December with the release of the essay. I feel that I have long-ago forgiven the Church over this issue. Polygamy would be a much better reason to leave the Church today, because the Church continues to say what it no longer says about the ban… that it IS something from God.
On Own Now wrote:This has turned into quite a respectful lovefest over such an absolutely ugly aspect our Church’s history. I hope nobody will mind if I state that if God instituted the ban, then I would have to view God as a racist God and I would want no part of Him.
God… if you are listening and you really do discriminate against black people, then please, for all future interactions, count me as a black person. I would prefer to stand with them than with You.
Well said. Add me to that list.
I remember speaking to a friend who left the church. One of his biggest issues was polyandry (especially the wives apparently married when the men were on missions). He said: “If it really was a commandment from God, then that’s a God I’m not prepared to worship. If it wasn’t a commandment from God, then that’s a leader I’m not prepared to follow.” Either way, discovering polyandry was a deal breaker for him. I don’t reach the same conclusion as him (I see polyandry more as a form of Joseph attempting a form of spiritual adoption of families – not a justification of wife robbing), but I understand the point he makes.
I feel a similar way about 1 and 2 in the list. That’s a god I’m not prepared to worship. Fortunately I don’t believe I need to. I agree with Nephi who said: “…he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female… all are alike unto God.”
Quote:
FWIW, I’ve actually been relatively patient with the Church’s 20th Century stand on the issue. I don’t believe the perpetuation had much to do with actual racism. I believe it had everything to do with leaders stuck in an impossible situation; believing a revelation was needed, and no revelation came until the delay had caused irreparable damage to the image of the Church.
This is a good point and one to consider. There were a few people in the leadership group who show certain racist* attitudes (in the literal sense of the word) but I agree that the majority felt hamstrung by the conviction that it WAS a revealed doctrine. Like I quoted earlier, the 1940s First Presidency clearly show that they were not even willing to question the doctrine because they (falsely) believed God had revealed the policy to Joseph Smith.
Again, it’s only one personally held view, but Elder Stapley’s (private) letter speaks volumes:
He says “God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by his counsel.” He gives an example of a friend suggested Elder Stapley should “ask President McKay to inquire of the Lord to see if the Lord would not lift the curse from the colored race and give them the privileges of the Priesthood. I explained to him that the Lord had placed the curse upon the Negro… therefore, it was the Lord’s responsibility–not man’s–to change His decision.”
He seems to be sat waiting for a “sent” revelation. Not even willing to consider President McKay should approach God to ask. He seems even scared of asking God, with the implication that people who have advocated for the Black cause (including his friend) have ended up prematurely dead.
He later says, “The position of the Church cannot change until the Lord changes it Himself… we can’t get around the Lord’s position in relation to the Negro without punishment for our acts; going contrary to that which he has revealed. The Lord will not permit his purposes to be frustrated by man.”
It seems there was, among some leaders, a reluctance to even ask the question of God. If we’re not willing to ask questions we’re unlikely to be able to get any answers.
Elder Uchtdorf put it best when he said:
Quote:
“Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?”
Elder Uchtdorf
Some of the church leaders simply seemed unwilling to even ask the question and, according to Elder Uchtdorf’s advice, thwarted the revelations of the Spirit.
Quote:
But to continue to look for God in the institution of the Ban under BY is just perpetuating the dangerous myth that God wanted it. The ban was a sad product of its time. At the time the ban was instituted, human bondage was a constitutionally-protected and legitimate form of commerce. No wonder something like the ban could be put into place and allowed to continue. But the Church’s failure during the mid-20th Century to look at the ban and say, “Wait a minute. How can this be? Let’s figure out a way to change this.” portends ill toward the Church’s future stance on SSA or equal treatment of women.
Indeed. I worry about the apparent retrenchment in the April 2014 conference. It seemed to be a 2-day back-up.
Quote:
On the topic of the ban, though, I’ll stick with the Church’s own statement:Quote:Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse
I think that is a pretty clear statement that in the Church’s own view, there was no “curse” or “divine disfavor” that could possibly result in a ban of this type coming from God.
mackay11, if you do wind up leaving the Church behind, I hope it won’t be over this issue. Church leaders made a big mistake long ago, but as abhorrent as it seems to us, it was similar to the mood of the environment in which the Church existed. Later Church leaders, bless them, tried to walk a tight rope, but just wound up hurting the Church by the attempt, and that’s a very human type failure. At least we can say that the Church got it right in 1978 and got it right all over again, and in some ways even better, in December with the release of the essay. I feel that I have long-ago forgiven the Church over this issue. Polygamy would be a much better reason to leave the Church today, because the Church continues to say what it no longer says about the ban… that it IS something from God.
Thanks. It’s a good point. I wouldn’t leave solely over the race issue but over what it implies. I’m drawn to somewhere between 3 and 4. I think the leaders can be inspired and inspiring but I also find it wearing when people around me accept their every word without question. I’m fortunate to have a good Branch President who won’t demand any form of conformity of belief for me to be part of the community (as long as I don’t actively agitate and cause doubt for others).
*I recognise that calling someone “racist” is using a ‘hot’ word… especially among a group of predominantly American people. It does not mean racial hatred. It does not mean that the person wishes to persecute the race. The dictionary definition of racism is:
Quote:The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or racesI know this thread has gone quiet but just wanted to share something. It was suggested in an earlier post that it couldn’t have been the Apostles who held back the timing of the ban. DaddyB even suggested that the apparent ‘racism’ of Peterson and Stapley that might have been part of an attitude holding back the priesthood restoration to blacks was invalid given Elder McConkie was still a member of the quorum and had personally expressed similar views. Firstly, the views expressed by Elder McConkie pale in comparison to Peterson and Stapleys.
Second, Elder McConkie came round to the idea of blacks having the priesthood before the revelation. One of the best write-ups of the whole issue is by the son of President Kimball. He’s probably the closest to write about the whole thing behind the 15 who had the revelation. It’s well worth reading (and is linked to from LDS.org so carries legitimacy among TBMs).
Quote:In June 1977, Spencer (W. Kimball) invited at least three General Authorities to give him memos on the implications of the subject. Elder McConkie wrote a long memorandum concluding that there was no scriptural barrier to a change in policy that would give priesthood to black men. Considering Elder McConkie’s traditional approach to the topic during the Lee administration, this conclusion explains why, according to Elder Packer, “President Kimball spoke in public of his gratitude to Elder McConkie for some special support he received in the days leading up to the revelation on the priesthood.”
Although minutes of quorum meetings are not available and participants have not commented in detail, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve discussed the issue repeatedly, at length, and over a period of months.
p. 46-47
President Kimball clearly made this a priority and kept pushing and discussing it.
Quote:During the months leading up to June 1978, President Kimball spoke with the Twelve repeatedly about the question, asking them to speak freely. He invited associates who had not expressed themselves in the group setting to talk with him in private.
The process seems clearly to be a changing of hearts and minds of the leadership. Part of President Kimball’s studying and discussions was about getting HIM and other leaders ready and willing to accept a change… not simply seeking an unanswered revelation to instigate the change.
In his own words, President Kimball said:
Quote:I was very humble . . . I was searching for this . . . I wanted to be sure. . . . I had a great deal to fight . . . myself, largely, because I had grown up with this thought that Negroes should not have the priesthood and I was prepared to go all the rest of my life until my death and fight for it and defend it as it was
The need for a revelation seems to not have been because the ban was instituted as doctrine, but because the leaders were convinced that they could only change it with a revelation. President Kimball seemed insistent on getting consensus that the change could happen, rather than imposing a prophetic “revelation” on the other 14.
Quote:On March 9, 1978, as the First Presidency and Twelve met in the temple, the Apostles unanimously expressed their feeling that if the policy were to change, any change must be based on revelation received and announced by the prophet. President Kimball then urged a concerted effort from all of them to learn the will of the Lord. He suggested they engage in concerted individual fasting and prayer
…This answer had become clear in Spencer’s mind as early as late March, but he felt unity within the leadership was important, and he continued to discuss the matter with others. He sensed resistance from some, which he fully understood. He did not push, lobby, pressure, or use his office to seek compliance.
He outlined to them the direction his thoughts had carried him—the fading of his reluctance, the disappearance of objections, the growing assurance he had received, the tentative decision he had reached, and his desire for a clear answer. Once more he asked the Twelve to speak, without concern for seniority. “Do you have anything to say?”… Eight of the ten volunteered their views, all favorable. President Kimball called on the other two, and they also spoke in favor… Elder Packer said, a few weeks later, “One objection would have deterred him, would have made him put it off, so careful was he . . . that it had to be right.”
Here’s the link to the article from an LDS page:
https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood#14 Here’s the PDF on BYU.edu:
https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=7885&linkURL=47.2KimballSpencerb0a083df-b26b-430b-9ce2-3efec584dcd9.pdf “Miracle of Forgiveness” notwithstanding, I loved that man. I am glad I missed this thread. I would not have been as polite as Mackay11 was. Being in an interracial marriage…. This kind of apologetic is terribly offensive.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
cwald wrote:This kind of apologetic is terribly offensive.
Yes, as well as completely unnecessary. The Church and its people have nothing to gain and everything to lose when people start trying to defend past racism. So people long ago had racist views and practices… that’s not exactly a shock in any context.To get back to the intend of this thread, I’m just glad the Church is being clear that it was a man-made policy; driven by the social and political climate of the time, without guidance from God.
I’m new to this forum and recognize I’m pretty late in this discussion but I was hoping to get some feedback from the other people here. I probably fall into Mackay11’s category #3, but here’s where I get very frustrated: President Benson taught that the prophet will never lead the church astray. I’ve heard it taught that if the prophet were to lead the church astray he would die. I guess President Benson could have been teaching false doctrine when he said that, and wouldn’t that be ironic? However, if the LDS church is lead by Prophets, Seers, and Revelators why did it take 120 years and 10 prophets to change this false practice?
Secondly, if policies like this are enacted by prophets without revelation, and can be disregarded as mistakes, what about all of the other changes made by prophets without citing revelation. Namely, prohibiting tea, coffee, alcohol, and tobacco, or paying 10% of our income as tithing. If it’s up to us to personally decide what teaching by the prophets are revelation and what is misguided policy, what is the purpose of being lead by a prophet?
Since this announcement about race and the priesthood I’ve started drinking coffee because I feel good when I drink it (don’t worry I drink iced coffee so I’m not drinking “hot drinks”). I’ve stopped paying tithing because my family needs the money to stay out of debt.
I’m worried because I might be on a slippery slope, feeling like there isn’t a lot that is inspired going on in the church. Despite all this I can’t deny my testimony of Christ and I really do believe Joseph Smith was a prophet who restored Christ’s church. Generally when I have doubts like this I can place them on the shelf, keep going about my business, and eventually an answer comes up. On this issue I’ve found nothing that resolves my concerns.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.