Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Duncan

1st Pres. and NAACP

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't believe the answer that members weren't ready to accept the blacks receiving the priesthood earlier than the 1978.

Yeah, I just don't buy this either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My comment should have included a question mark. I don't believe the answer that members weren't ready to accept the blacks receiving the priesthood earlier than the 1978. That's why I said it's pretty sad if it were true, but in my heart of hearts, it's only a few that weren't, because I believe in the goodness of most people.

 I was there. From my personal experience, I believe that it was generally true for many, not only in the Church but in the country as a whole; however, I avoid judging people who came before me. The timing for ending the ban was right, IMO.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m not understanding what you are saying. Are you suggesting the Prophet made his move because they were out of town at the time and that was his only chance to put it through? Had they been in the room when the Prophet received the revelation, do you suppose they would have opposed it? What was in their hearts at that time? I would like to know what you think. 

I'm not "suggesting" anything.  I'm simply explaining that two apostles weren't in the room when it happened.  Whether or not that was consequential or something different would have happened had they been there, we can never know.  It's just an interesting footnote.

But either way, it's incorrect to frame it as if  "each and every member of the FP and Q12" were there for the experience.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I'm not "suggesting" anything.  I'm simply explaining that two apostles weren't in the room when it happened.  Whether or not that was consequential or something different would have happened had they been there, we can never know.  It's just an interesting footnote.

But either way, it's incorrect to frame it as if  "each and every member of the FP and Q12" were there for the experience.

 To me it is a fact without significance unless there were some ulterior motives involved. 

Despite your disclaimer, this comment about the two apostles’ “traditional” views (using suggestive quote marks) seems to indicate that you were “suggesting” something, which is why I asked. 

Quote

On a totally unrelated note, Petersen and Stapley had a record of being more "traditional" in their views on race and the Priesthood.

Did any of those who were in the room share those “traditional” views? Is it a good thing the two sustained the Prophet despite their “traditional” views? Was it just coincidence that the two outliers were not there? 

I recall another time when two apostles were not in a room when something very significant happened. One of them later had an experience that made it as if he had been there.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 To me it is a fact without significance unless there were some ulterior motives involved. 

Despite your disclaimer, this comment about the two apostles’ “traditional” views (using suggestive quote marks) seems to indicate that you were “suggesting” something, which is why I asked. 

Did any of those who were in the room share those “traditional” views? Is it a good thing the two sustained the Prophet despite their “traditional” views? Was it just coincidence that the two outliers were not there? 

I recall another time when two apostles were not in a room when something very significant happened. One of them later had an experience that made it as if he had been there.

We don't know what the motives involved were.  Someone made it sound like all 15 apostles were together when the revelation to rescind the ban was received.  They weren't.  Two of the most racist apostles weren't there. 

Whether by God's doing, or President Kimball's, I don't know.  None of us know.  I was just pointing out that a false narrative was being presented.

It's interesting to me in the same way that the timing of the Church's break with the BSA happened shortly after President Monson died.  Maybe if Monson had lived a few more months the revelation would have come to him.  I don't know.  It's just interesting timing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks. Yes, timing is interesting. In reference to the current discussion, I think the timing was right for removing the Priesthood ban. But, as you say, it's just interesting timing. Elder Peterson's supposed racism has been discussed several times here. He was a true Apostle of Jesus Christ, but there's no need to rehash it. Even Apostles can change.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/23/2018 at 5:17 PM, cinepro said:

Just in case people forget, there were only 10 apostles who participated in the actual meeting where it was decided to rescind the ban.  Mark E. Petersen was on assignment in South America, and Delbert Stapley was in the hospital.  Both were informed after the fact that the revelation had come and was going to be published, and both supported it, but they weren't there for any deliberation or voting that may have been conducted during the process of receiving that revelation.

On a totally unrelated note, Petersen and Stapley had a record of being more "traditional" in their views on race and the Priesthood.

This is a repeat of what occurred in December 1969 when Hugh B. Brown tried hard to overthrow the racial ban on blacks.  At the time when Hugh B Brown called the meeting he did so while Harold B. Lee and Alvin Dyer were out of the country.  It passed.  However, when Harold B Lee returned he was furious.  He then forced Hugh B. Brown to sign a statement reaffirming the racism.  He broke down in tears over the high pressure coercion.  Elder Spencer Kimball was in tears as he witnessed the injustice.  Elder Kimball said at the time, "We're wrong" and said he did "not have the courage to stand up to Lee".   This is quoted in Mormon Church and Blacks by Harris and Bringhurst pg 80.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 To me it is a fact without significance unless there were some ulterior motives involved. 

Despite your disclaimer, this comment about the two apostles’ “traditional” views (using suggestive quote marks) seems to indicate that you were “suggesting” something, which is why I asked. 

Did any of those who were in the room share those “traditional” views? Is it a good thing the two sustained the Prophet despite their “traditional” views? Was it just coincidence that the two outliers were not there? 

I recall another time when two apostles were not in a room when something very significant happened. One of them later had an experience that made it as if he had been there.

Elder Stapley is pushing Stewart's infamous Mormonism and the Negro booklet in this letter to George Romney.   For Romney I'm sure reading this garbage pushed him to redouble his efforts on the advancement of civil rights.  http://sainesburyproject.com/mormonstuff/Mormonism and the Negro.pdf

This booklet has all the folklore false doctrine passed around the general authorities rolled into one.  If you look up on section (II) we are now trying to shift from 2. "Confess we do not know the reason" to 1. "Be apologizers for the church".  Unfortunately the ensign editors are still in the  "we do not know" crowd based on the article in the June 2018 ensign.  A number of sections taught to our seminary kids on OD2 also encourages the teacher to push the "we don't know" ideas and to help the children become comfortable with saying to others "we do not know why".  I think this is an outgrowth of President Hinckley's apologetic to the german news reporter and dodges the "white privilege" and racial environmental reasons promulgated by Brigham Young - facts highlighted in the race and priesthood essay.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, blueglass said:

Elder Stapley is pushing Stewart's infamous Mormonism and the Negro booklet in this letter to George Romney.   For Romney I'm sure reading this garbage pushed him to redouble his efforts on the advancement of civil rights.  http://sainesburyproject.com/mormonstuff/Mormonism and the Negro.pdf

This booklet has all the folklore false doctrine passed around the general authorities rolled into one.  If you look up on section (II) we are now trying to shift from 2. "Confess we do not know the reason" to 1. "Be apologizers for the church".  Unfortunately the ensign editors are still in the  "we do not know" crowd based on the article in the June 2018 ensign.  A number of sections taught to our seminary kids on OD2 also encourages the teacher to push the "we don't know" ideas and to help the children become comfortable with saying to others "we do not know why".  I think this is an outgrowth of President Hinckley's apologetic to the german news reporter and dodges the "white privilege" and racial environmental reasons promulgated by Brigham Young - facts highlighted in the race and priesthood essay.  

Yes. I was familiar with the pamphlet when it was first published. Bro Stewart was dealing as best he could with the information he had at the time. He makes it clear that he does not speak for the Church. I don't care to judge him or Brother Berrett for their efforts. They were attempting to do for their time what the essay published in the current Church library is doing for us. Perhaps there is more to come and we will get further down the road.  In the meantime, check out this story in a recent Church News about the Saints in Ghana. Remarkable!! Let's rejoice and hope all this leads to a brighter future for everyone.

https://www.ldschurchnews.com/members/2018-05-17/the-power-of-ministering-how-the-enduring-faith-of-members-overcame-the-freeze-in-ghana-47161

You may be misunderstanding the Church's opposition to the Civil Rights movement during that time. Were you there?

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, cinepro said:

We don't know what the motives involved were.  Someone made it sound like all 15 apostles were together when the revelation to rescind the ban was received.  They weren't.  Two of the most racist apostles weren't there. 

Whether by God's doing, or President Kimball's, I don't know.  None of us know.  I was just pointing out that a false narrative was being presented.

It's interesting to me in the same way that the timing of the Church's break with the BSA happened shortly after President Monson died.  Maybe if Monson had lived a few more months the revelation would have come to him.  I don't know.  It's just interesting timing.

Who was it who implied that each and every apostle was present at the time? Can you link to the post? 

I’m pretty sure it wasn’t I, as I know better. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. Yes, timing is interesting. In reference to the current discussion, I think the timing was right for removing the Priesthood ban. But, as you say, it's just interesting timing. Elder Peterson's supposed racism has been discussed several times here. He was a true Apostle of Jesus Christ, but there's no need to rehash it. Even Apostles can change.

Peter certainly did. 

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, blueglass said:

This is a repeat of what occurred in December 1969 when Hugh B. Brown tried hard to overthrow the racial ban on blacks.  At the time when Hugh B Brown called the meeting he did so while Harold B. Lee and Alvin Dyer were out of the country.  It passed.  However, when Harold B Lee returned he was furious.  He then forced Hugh B. Brown to sign a statement reaffirming the racism.  He broke down in tears over the high pressure coercion.  Elder Spencer Kimball was in tears as he witnessed the injustice.  Elder Kimball said at the time, "We're wrong" and said he did "not have the courage to stand up to Lee".   This is quoted in Mormon Church and Blacks by Harris and Bringhurst pg 80.

This is not consistent wth what President Kimball said later about spending many hours in the temple petitioning the Lord and not acting until he had received the revelation. If he was so certain on the occasion to which you refer, why did he have to spend so much time and energy petitioning the Lord?

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, blueglass said:

Elder Stapley is pushing Stewart's infamous Mormonism and the Negro booklet in this letter to George Romney.   For Romney I'm sure reading this garbage pushed him to redouble his efforts on the advancement of civil rights.  http://sainesburyproject.com/mormonstuff/Mormonism and the Negro.pdf

This booklet has all the folklore false doctrine passed around the general authorities rolled into one.  If you look up on section (II) we are now trying to shift from 2. "Confess we do not know the reason" to 1. "Be apologizers for the church".  Unfortunately the ensign editors are still in the  "we do not know" crowd based on the article in the June 2018 ensign.  A number of sections taught to our seminary kids on OD2 also encourages the teacher to push the "we don't know" ideas and to help the children become comfortable with saying to others "we do not know why".  I think this is an outgrowth of President Hinckley's apologetic to the german news reporter and dodges the "white privilege" and racial environmental reasons promulgated by Brigham Young - facts highlighted in the race and priesthood essay.  

 

The position of the Church is that we do not know. If you assert otherwise, you yourself are speculating as surely as did those who put forth erroneous theories of the reason for the ban. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, blueglass said:

This is a repeat of what occurred in December 1969 when Hugh B. Brown tried hard to overthrow the racial ban on blacks.  At the time when Hugh B Brown called the meeting he did so while Harold B. Lee and Alvin Dyer were out of the country.  It passed.  However, when Harold B Lee returned he was furious.  He then forced Hugh B. Brown to sign a statement reaffirming the racism.  He broke down in tears over the high pressure coercion.  Elder Spencer Kimball was in tears as he witnessed the injustice.  Elder Kimball said at the time, "We're wrong" and said he did "not have the courage to stand up to Lee".   This is quoted in Mormon Church and Blacks by Harris and Bringhurst pg 80.

Will you please share the passage in context?

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/28/2018 at 11:01 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yeah, I just don't buy this either.

It might depend somewhat  on where you lived

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Who was it who implied that each and every apostle was present at the time? Can you link to the post? 

I’m pretty sure it wasn’t I, as I know better. 

Yes, you made the claim:

Quote

This was illustrated in 1978 when longtime members of the Quorum of the Twelve who previously had not favored lifting the priesthood ban were earnestly in favor of doing so when each and every member of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve received and recognized pure revelation.

I understand the claim that all those in the Temple at the time the decision was made "received and recognized pure revelation."  I've never seen any source that would indicate Elder Petersen or Elder Stapley ever claimed to have "received and recognized pure revelation."

Here's how it's described in Ed Kimball's bio of Spender W. Kimball:

Quote

Two  of  the  Twelve  had  not  attended  either  meeting.  Elder  Mark  E. Petersen  was  on  assignment  in  South  America,  and  Elder  Delbert  L. Stapley  was  seriously  ill  in  the  LDS  Hospital.  Later  in  the  day  of  June  8, Spencer telephoned Elder Petersen in Quito, Ecuador, informed him what had  happened,  had  Francis  Gibbons  read  him  the  announcement  about to  be  published,  and  received  his  approval.  Elder  Petersen  later  recalled, “I was delighted to know that a new revelation had come from the Lord. I felt the fact of the revelation’s coming was more striking than the decision itself. On the telephone I told President Kimball that I fully sustained both the revelation and him one hundred percent.”

All three of the First Presidency visited Elder Stapley. He responded, “I’ll  stay  with  the  Brethren  on  this.”  Thus,  support  from  the  Twelve was unanimous.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3908&context=byusq

I'm willing to accept Petersen's statement as implying that he too "received and recognized pure revelation", but it should still be acknowledged that he wasn't actually in the room where it happened.  And he only claims to have recognized that others had received a revelation and agreed to "fully sustain" it. 

Stapley's statement can hardly be interpreted as "receiving and recognizing pure revelation", so unless he made other statements to that effect, it's still a stretch to say every member of the Q12 was so inspired.

Edited by cinepro

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Yes, you made the claim:

I understand the claim that all those in the Temple at the time the decision was made "received and recognized pure revelation."  I've never seen any source that would indicate Elder Petersen or Elder Stapley ever claimed to have "received and recognized pure revelation."

Here's how it's described in Ed Kimball's bio of Spender W. Kimball:

I'm willing to accept Petersen's statement as implying that he too "received and recognized pure revelation", but it should still be acknowledged that he wasn't actually in the room where it happened.  And he only claims to have recognized that others had received a revelation and agreed to "fully sustain" it. 

Stapley's statement can hardly be interpreted as "receiving and recognizing pure revelation", so unless he made other statements to that effect, it's still a stretch to say every member of the Q12 was so inspired.

This is bunkum. 

I said the members of the First Presidency and the Twelve recognized and enthusuastically embraced the revelation when they received it. I never said they were all together in the same room at the time. I have long been aware that two were absent and were filled in later. I didn’t need to have you point it out to me. 

And it’s not my fault you jumped to a false conclusion about my meaning. 

And the one who is making a stretch is you when you insinuate, with absolutely nothing to go on, that Elder Stapley harbored secret and unexpressed opposition to the lifting of the priesthood restriction in 1978. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's worth noting that those getting hung up on who was in the room and who was not when the revelation was received and those accusing President Kimball of having "convenient" timing (my word) since Elders Petersen and Stapley were not present seem to be forgetting that Elder McConkie was in no rush to lift the Priesthood restriction, either: Rather infamously, in fact, he had gone on record, more than once, in print, stating that it wasn't likely to be lifted anytime soon. 

Surely, if President Kimball were interested simply in getting the ban's proponents out of the way so that there would be no impediment to the hoped-for revelation lifting it, he could have arranged for Elder McConkie to be sent to some far-flung corner of the globe where the only viable means of contact would have been smoke signals: "By the way, your Brethren in the First Presidency and in the Quorum of the Twelve have all ratified a revelation extending the Priesthood to all worthy males.  You're on board with this, too, right?"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is bunkum. 

I said the members of the First Presidency and the Twelve recognized and enthusuastically embraced the revelation when they received it. I never said they were all together in the same room at the time. I have long been aware that two were absent and were filled in later. I didn’t need to have you point it out to me. 

And it’s not my fault you jumped to a false conclusion about my meaning. 

And the one who is making a stretch is you when you insinuate, with absolutely nothing to go on, that Elder Stapley harbored secret and unexpressed opposition to the lifting of the priesthood restriction in 1978. 

I wasn't pointing it out to you.  I was pointing it out to those who might have read your comment and thought all 15 Apostles shared the same unanimous experience. 

You can contend that it would not be possible for someone to read your statement that way, but I disagree.  So I clarified it.  If my clarification only added support to your original statement, then there's nothing to complain about. 

I never said anything about "secret and unexpressed opposition" on Elder Stapley's part.   He was in the hospital and wasn't consulted, so he didn't get to offer any opposition or support before the fact (secret or otherwise).  And while Elder Petersen later acknowledges the change as a "revelation", the only comment we have from Elder Stapley seems grounded in loyalty. 

So if we're going off the evidence, it would still be more correct to say that 13 and maybe 14 of the 15 apostles "received and/or recognized pure revelation."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I think it's worth noting that those getting hung up on who was in the room and who was not when the revelation was received and those accusing President Kimball of having "convenient" timing (my word) since Elders Petersen and Stapley were not present seem to be forgetting that Elder McConkie was in no rush to lift the Priesthood restriction, either: Rather infamously, in fact, he had gone on record, more than once, in print, stating that it wasn't likely to be lifted anytime soon. 

Surely, if President Kimball were interested simply in getting the ban's proponents out of the way so that there would be no impediment to the hoped-for revelation lifting it, he could have arranged for Elder McConkie to be sent to some far-flung corner of the globe where the only viable means of contact would have been smoke signals: "By the way, your Brethren in the First Presidency and in the Quorum of the Twelve have all ratified a revelation extending the Priesthood to all worthy males.  You're on board with this, too, right?"

According to Ed Kimball's biography of Spender W. Kimball, Elder McConkie was in support of lifting the ban in 1978:

Quote

In June 1977, Spencer invited at least three General Authorities to give him memos on 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 extremely 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."

"Lengthen Your Stride", Working Draft, Chapter 22, page 3.

There are also other stories in the book about Elder McConkie hearing about promises made in Patriarchal blessings and other blessings regarding Black members receiving Priesthood and Temple blessings in their lifetime and being supportive of those promises having been made.

 

I haven't listened to all the episodes, but this podcast series appears to have some interesting background info on the circumstances leading up to the ban:

https://gospeltangents.com/tag/delbert-stapley/

 

 

Edited by cinepro
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...