47 replies to this topic

[John Williams]

In Southern California at that time there was nothing but universal joy at the revelation. No one was upset that I can remember.

[MSilva]

busybee, on Aug 1 2008, 10:19 AM, said:

I was in my mid teens living in South Africa at the time. I don't recall hearing about any one leaving the church because of the revelation. I do remember feeling great excitement about how the gospel in South Africa could now be actively taken to the Black people and the effect it would have.

It was the same reception here in Brazil! Indeed the number of converts in Brazil "exploded" after this revelation. In some Missions the average number of converts per coulple was 20 to 30 baptisms/ per month!

I've heard some old members complaining about the poor black ones coming to church with their slippers and worn out pants, but never saw or heard about of anyone who had left the church because of this specific issue.

Bye!

[cjcampbell]

I never have met anyone who says they left the Church for this reason. I suspect that anyone who does say they left the Church for this reason probably really left because of something else.

[NauvooSaint]

Community of Christ D&C 156 was considered an inspired document when it was presented to the 1984 conference for inclusion in the D&C.  It then took on the status as a revelation.  It contained a call for building of the Independence, MO temple, which seemed to sugar-coat it for some to swallow the ordaining of women part more easily.  There was a conference resolution on the books for decades that forbid the ordaining of women to the priesthood and it was removed in 1970s, which allowed the possibility of it happening at a future date.  ERA movement during that decade had some bearing on the policy.  Feb. 1984 'Saints Herald' magazine (just prior to the April conference), Wallace B. Smith wrote an article on disjunctive revelation.  It was the belief that new revelation doesn't have to be in harmony with the scriptures or past revelation to be true.  I simply disagree.

After 156 came out and the more traditional or conservative members realized things were changed for good, they began to resist the change in their individual branches/congregations/districts/stakes until being forced out through priesthood 'silencings' and removal of voice/vote in business meetings of the church.  These Reorganized saints then formed Independent Restoration Branches outside leadership control to worship as RLDS.  Some officially withdrew membership in the RLDS church, while most still have their names on the rolls (which are maintained by the Community of Christ)  Of course any ordainances thus performed over the years among RLDS Restorationists are not recorded or recognized by the Community of Christ even if some priesthood were never 'silenced' from office.

Regards,

Bradley

[cinepro]

Pa Pa, on Aug 1 2008, 05:33 AM, said:

Amen...two quick stories of such individuals

1. One guy left because JS misspelled his name in a revelation

2. A married couple left because JS was rolling around on the floor with some kids playing...they felt that was undignified.

Wow.  Have you considered writing Mormon history professionally?  You have a gift with words, and your research is second to none.  When I read your accounts of the events, I feel like I am actually there.  The names, the places...it all becomes so real.  



But your first comment gives all those who might leave the Church something to think about: in future tellings of the story by the faithful, what's the one-line summary for their crisis of faith that will be used to explain the entire process?  Is it always the most trivial factor?  Or is the complexity of faith doubt ever acknowledged?  Or, heaven forbid, the idea that someone might be intellectually honest (if not justified) by their exit?  

No, it's always the milk strippings.

Edited by cinepro, 03 August 2008 - 09:19 PM.

[Zechariah]

Expositor, on Jul 31 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

I'm asking this without an agenda, I'm really just curious.

There are some older people here who were members at the time of the 1978 revelation that allowed Black men to become priesthood holders. Do you know of any people that left the church because of this revelation?

The thought occurred to me because it was a fairly dramatic change and I figure there must have been some people who thought the church was going down an incorrect road. For instance, if the church brought back polygamy today (assuming it was legalized in the U.S.) I would imagine there would be some people that would leave over it, just as there were in Joseph Smith's time.

I have no doubt that there would be people who would leave if the Church brought back polygamy, just as there were people who left because they couldn't deal with the idea of the priesthood being extended to all worthy male members, though I'm sure polygamy would be a much bigger issue among many more LDS, with far more of us personally knowing those who couldn't handle the idea that would leave over it.

As far as the revelation on the priesthood goes though, I only heard that there were some who left the Church over it, but I never personally knew anyone who did.  I, for one, will never forget that day.  When I heard the news, I was overwhelmed with joy that the time had finally come that all our worthy brethren would be able to hold the priesthood, and to this day I don't personally know anyone who did not feel the same.  If there are any that felt otherwise, none have ever spoken a word in my presence suggesting it, so I personally don't know of any.

[Ron Beron]

rayhale, on Aug 1 2008, 09:41 AM, said:

I don't think that the Priesthood issue was about racism, on a similar note, the Church never had an official or unofficial policy about inter-racial marriages.

I am not sure about this.  I was warned about coming back to Japan and marrying outside my culture due to the nature and difficulty of intercultural marriages.  This is purely anecdotal so I cannot say with any great authority.
I do remember going to the temple after the announcement and seeing a black man there.  Everyone got a bit quiet and then we went and shook his hand.  A very tingling moment.

[cinepro]

rayhale, on Aug 1 2008, 09:41 AM, said:

I donâ??t think that the Priesthood issue was about racism, on a similar note, the Church never had an official or unofficial policy about inter-racial marriages.

In what way can a policy based on race not be about "racism"?  Do you mean it was based on race, but there were no hard feelings?

And there was definitely an unofficial policy on inter-racial marriages.  The policy was "don't do it."  

To the degree that BYU's rules may reflect on the feelings of the Church in general, it should be noted that BYU didn't allow inter-racial dating as recently as 1970.

Quote

As late as 1969, Brigham Young University administrators discouraged blacks from attending the university.  A letter sent to black applicants for admissions advised them that there were few blacks enrolled at the school, and "no families of your race" in the surrounding community.  Blacks were informed that "as an institution, [BYU] does not look with favor upon marriages of any individuals outside their own race, whatever that race might be, and hence frowns upon mixed courtships, which might result in such marriages."  The letter explained that this was "not a matter of race prejudice, . . .but [rather] the out-growth of observations relative to such relationships and the difficulties encountered by individuals participating in such courtships and marriages when attempting to adjust differences in family and cultural backgrounds" (in Bush).52

Until the 1970s, less than one black each year had opted to enroll at BYU.  Only four had ever graduated.  Football coach Tommy Hudspeth echoed the sentiment expressed by administrators in letters to potential black students when he explained that the school "discourage[d] the Negroes because [it was felt] they would not be happy in the social situation here.  We have certain rules and regulations which we won't change; we will not allow inter-racial dating" (Daily Herald, 16 Feb. 1970).

Brigham Young University: A House of Faith, Ch.7, p.298-p.299

It should be noted that almost any reference to inter-racial marriage being discouraged was made with the justification that people from two different cultures would have a more difficult marriage than those from similar cultures.

Edited by cinepro, 04 August 2008 - 01:55 PM.