87 replies to this topic

[Lamanite]

I work out with a girl who said she has proof that the Government was pressuring the Church to change its policy regarding Blacks and the Priesthood or it would lose its tax exempt status.  I asked for a source.  She said her Dad knew it.  LOL.


Anyway, does anyone have this proof, or am I correct in assuming this is typical anti Mormon clap trap with no hard evidence?


Big UP!

Lamanite

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Lamanite, on Nov 13 2008, 03:56 PM, said:

I work out with a girl who said she has proof that the Government was pressuring the Church to change its policy regarding Blacks and the Priesthood or it would lose its tax exempt status.  I asked for a source.  She said her Dad knew it.  LOL.
Anyway, does anyone have this proof, or am I correct in assuming this is typical anti Mormon clap trap with no hard evidence?
Big UP!

Lamanite

She is blowing smoke. Well we shall see. I handt ever heard anything form anybody about pressure form the government. Mind you I have talked with thousands of people about this too. Well not the specific issue just about the church in general. So it seems really unlikely.

[ttribe]

Lamanite, on Nov 13 2008, 03:56 PM, said:

I work out with a girl who said she has proof that the Government was pressuring the Church to change its policy regarding Blacks and the Priesthood or it would lose its tax exempt status.  I asked for a source.  She said her Dad knew it.  LOL.
Anyway, does anyone have this proof, or am I correct in assuming this is typical anti Mormon clap trap with no hard evidence?
Big UP!

Lamanite

I'm not aware of any such threat.  The only "high profile" thing I know of was Stanford's threat to no longer play BYU in sports.

In the meantime, the some of the best resources I've found on the issue can be found in the following links:

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4

Honestly, this has always been a tough issue for me.  These links helped me a lot.

[jadams_4242]

[quote name='Lamanite' date='Nov 13 2008, 04:56 PM' post='1208537445']
I work out with a girl who said she has proof that the Government was pressuring the Church to change its policy regarding Blacks and the Priesthood or it would lose its tax exempt status.  I asked for a source.  She said her Dad knew it.  LOL.
Anyway, does anyone have this proof, or am I correct in assuming this is typical anti Mormon clap trap with no hard evidence?
Big UP!

Lamanite
quote

   There had always been pressure from a number of angles; so what else is new for us?

[lukas_s]

I think it could have been a possibility. As I don't agree that the Lord had His hand in the Priesthood ban, I don't really have anything to say about it, other than He could have simply gotten tired of how the rest of society was taking huge steps to rid itself of its racist past, and said "enough is enough" and given revelation to the First Presidency and the Twelve to absolve the ban.

I do believe there was an actual revelation that ended the ban. I just don't believe the Lord Himself was behind the ban.

Edited by lukas_s, 13 November 2008 - 04:24 PM.

[Lamanite]

I just want her to produce a document or affidavit that a Government agency or employee exerted pressure, by way of threatening to remove the tax exempt status of the Church.  

I didn't think such a thing existed.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[ttribe]

lukas_s, on Nov 13 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

I think it could have been a possibility. As I don't agree that the Lord had His hand in the Priesthood ban, I don't really have anything to say about it, other than He could have simply gotten tired of how the rest of society was taking huge steps to rid itself of its racist past, and said "enough is enough" and given revelation to the First Presidency and the Twelve to absolve the ban.

I do believe there was an actual revelation that ended the ban. I just don't believe the Lord Himself was behind the ban.

My research has led me to believe that this may be the case as well.

[Lamanite]

The ban and the whys associated with it have been resolved for me so stay on topic if you don't mind.  But I appreciate all the feedback.

[cinepro]

Lamanite, on Nov 13 2008, 02:56 PM, said:

I work out with a girl who said she has proof that the Government was pressuring the Church to change its policy regarding Blacks and the Priesthood or it would lose its tax exempt status.  I asked for a source.  She said her Dad knew it.  LOL.
Anyway, does anyone have this proof, or am I correct in assuming this is typical anti Mormon clap trap with no hard evidence?
Big UP!

Lamanite

I don't know about ending the priesthood ban, but ending polygamy was admittedly the result of governmental pressure.

[ttribe]

Lamanite, on Nov 13 2008, 04:26 PM, said:

The ban and the whys associated with it have been resolved for me so stay on topic if you don't mind.  But I appreciate all the feedback.

Sorry.  

[LifeOnaPlate]

cinepro, on Nov 13 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

I don't know about ending the priesthood ban, but ending polygamy was admittedly the result of governmental pressure.

Guess you missed that little "please keep this one thread on the main topic please" comment by Lamanite.

[cinepro]

LifeOnaPlate, on Nov 13 2008, 03:43 PM, said:

Guess you missed that little "please keep this one thread on the main topic please" comment by Lamanite.

If the topic was more generally "Does the Church make policy changes as a result of governmental pressure?", then my post was on-topic.  If the discussion was to focus only on Official Declaration 2, then I apologize.  

At the very least, it might be informative for Lamanite's co-worker to know that while they were misinformed regarding the Priesthood Ban, there has been precedent nevertheless.  So my comments were offered for informational purposes, and no thread-derailment was intended.  

It's also important to establish that even if such a governmental threat was involved for OD2, it could still be a valid revelation.  That wouldn't change.

Edited by cinepro, 13 November 2008 - 04:50 PM.

[LifeOnaPlate]

cinepro, on Nov 13 2008, 04:49 PM, said:

If the topic was more generally "Does the Church make policy changes as a result of governmental pressure?", then my post was on-topic.  If the discussion was to focus only on Official Declaration 2, then I apologize.  

At the very least, it might be informative for Lamanite's co-worker to know that while they were misinformed regarding the Priesthood Ban, there has been precedent nevertheless.  So my comments were offered for informational purposes, and no thread-derailment was intended.  

It's also important to establish that even if such a governmental threat was involved for OD2, it could still be a valid revelation.  That wouldn't change.

I think you make very good points here.

[LeSellers]

cinepro, on Nov 13 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

I don't know about ending the priesthood ban, but ending polygamy was admittedly the result of governmental pressure.

This is true, but slightly misleading.

The Manifesto (and the revelation that prompted it) was a very long time coming if the reason was simply to avoid governmental pressure.

The Lord can and does provide relief for His servants. He does not do this as often, perhaps, as those servants might like, but that is only from a limited perspective.

However, as I recall from living through the time, the governmental pressure had largely subsided, and even much of the non-governmental pressure was fading. I do remember being slapped-up-da-side-o'-de-head surprised when I heard the AFRadio announcer say, "The 'Mormon' Church has ended its 148 [sic] ban on blacks holding the Priesthood."

Besides, in order to apply a tax-exemption loss to one church based on "discrimination" in the clerical population would have been a mammoth problem to implement without hitting Catholic and Orthodox churches with one about women (the feminist movement was in high swing at the same time). Politically, it would have been a tough sell.

Lehi

[Cold Steel]

Whatever else happened, all the evidence points to an actual, real revelation.

From a church doctrinal standpoint, only one man needed to have that revelation: the president of the church. On his word alone, it would have stood.

But what did we see? We had two quorums who had the revelation. Both the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve had the same revelation. That's a lot of witnesses when only one was needed.

How could President Kimball have asked almost fifteen people to be complicit in a political move? Why were there so many incredibly positive reactions of unvarnished enthusiasm from the recipients? President Benson said it was the most amazing spiritual manifestation he'd ever had. Elder McConkie's description was so spiritually charged that he could barely contain it. No matter how the restrictive doctrine began, it's clear that something incredible happened in the temple that day.

Every major event in the Restoration has been witnessed by more than one person. Whenever the priesthood or its keys were conveyed, there was at least one other person; whether it was the return of Elijah or the vision of the Three Degrees of Glory.

Members of the church should not deceive themselves into thinking it was simply a political reaction. It's clear that President Kimball wasn't the first president of the church to go before the Lord on this issue, repeatedly. But when the revelation happened, it rivaled what happened on the Day of Pentecost and went far beyond what many members assume.

Edited by Cold Steel, 13 November 2008 - 05:06 PM.

[TAK]

LeSellers, on Nov 13 2008, 06:56 PM, said:

This is true, but slightly misleading.

However, as I recall from living through the time, the governmental pressure had largely subsided, and even much of the non-governmental pressure was fading. I do remember being slapped-up-da-side-o'-de-head surprised when I heard the AFRadio announcer say, "The 'Mormon' Church has ended its 148 [sic] ban on blacks holding the Priesthood."

Lehi

I dont think that is the was the case. (I was on my mission when the change was announced..) If you really believe it had subsided - ask yourself what would be the climate today if the change had not happened... it would be nightmare.    

ttrib mentioned Stanford, but as I recall Wyoming and UTEP also threatened boycotts. Again today??

I do not know of any pending Govt actions at the time. I do recall a interview w/ LeGrand Richard that they had difficulty figuring out who was black in South America for temple/priesthood ..

[ttribe]

TAK, on Nov 13 2008, 05:11 PM, said:

I dont think that is the was the case. (I was on my mission when the change was announced..) If you really believe it had subsided - ask yourself what would be the climate today if the change had not happened... it would be nightmare.    

ttrib mentioned Stanford, but as I recall Wyoming and UTEP also threatened boycotts. Again today??

I do not know of any pending Govt actions at the time. I do recall a interview w/ LeGrand Richard that they had difficulty figuring out who was black in South America for temple/priesthood ..

Wyoming?  They just didn't want to play BYU anymore!  

[TAK]

ttribe, on Nov 13 2008, 07:12 PM, said:

Wyoming?  They just didn't want to play BYU anymore!  

Hey.. best ASU games in the 70s were against Wyoming !! We did not always win either .. and we rocked the WAC..

[annewandering]

ttribe, on Nov 13 2008, 04:25 PM, said:

My research has led me to believe that this may be the case as well.

ditto. of course we wont know for sure unless there is a revelation about it. or we find out later in next world.

[annewandering]

Cold Steel, on Nov 13 2008, 05:04 PM, said:

Whatever else happened, all the evidence points to an actual, real revelation.

From a church doctrinal standpoint, only one man needed to have that revelation: the president of the church. On his word alone, it would have stood.

But what did we see? We had two quorums who had the revelation. Both the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve had the same revelation. That's a lot of witnesses when only one was needed.

How could President Kimball have asked almost fifteen people to be complicit in a political move? Why were there so many incredibly positive reactions of unvarnished enthusiasm from the recipients? President Benson said it was the most amazing spiritual manifestation he'd ever had. Elder McConkie's description was so spiritually charged that he could barely contain it. No matter how the restrictive doctrine began, it's clear that something incredible happened in the temple that day.

Every major event in the Restoration has been witnessed by more than one person. Whenever the priesthood or its keys were conveyed, there was at least one other person; whether it was the return of Elijah or the vision of the Three Degrees of Glory.

Members of the church should not deceive themselves into thinking it was simply a political reaction. It's clear that President Kimball wasn't the first president of the church to go before the Lord on this issue, repeatedly. But when the revelation happened, it rivaled what happened on the Day of Pentecost and went far beyond what many members assume.

thank you so much for this information. i never questioned it but what an amazing thing.