Pres. Nelson to Speak at NAACP Convention

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't think I used the word "evil."  If I did, and if you'd like to point it out to me, I'll be happy to rephrase.

Didn't mean to imply that you did.

13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

And you doubt that President McKay was told, essentially, "Not yet, and don't ask again"?  Why?

Because he didn't have the support of the Twelve.  And wouldn't in his lifetime.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't think I used the word "evil."  If I did, and if you'd like to point it out to me, I'll be happy to rephrase.  And you doubt that President McKay was told, essentially, "Not yet, and don't ask again"?  Why?

 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Didn't mean to imply that you did.

Because he didn't have the support of the Twelve.  And wouldn't in his lifetime.

I'm not sure I follow.  President McKay didn't need the support of the Twelve to seek or to receive the will of the Lord with respect to lifting the ban.  He may have needed the support of the Twelve to implement any change, but he certainly didn't need it to inquire about the Lord's will concerning any change.  And before the receipt of the revelation lifting the ban, President Kimball "didn't have the support of the Twelve," either--at least, not unanimously.  Otherwise, why would Elder McConkie have needed to deliver his well-known "Forget everything that I have said ..." comment?  And if memory serves, all of the Twelve weren't present when President Kimball announced that he had received revelation on the matter.  An absent member of the Twelve (I forget who it was at the moment, and I believe it was someone who had opposed ending the ban previously), when contacted later and advised what had transpired in that meeting said, "I'll go with the brethren on this."

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  I can accommodate the Ban in my perspective on the Restored Gospel as either "a mistake" or as something that "came from God."  While I presently lean toward the former, I do not preclude the possiblity of the latter.  And at present, I don't think we can definitively place the ban in one category or the other.

And if we don't know which explanation is correct, then . . .?........................

 

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't think I used the word "evil."  If I did, and if you'd like to point it out to me, I'll be happy to rephrase.  And you doubt that President McKay was told, essentially, "Not yet, and don't ask again"?  Why?

Our lesson in Sunday School today was on Acts 10, in which Pete and his Brethren had to come to terms with the demand by God that they give up their kosher rules and begin eating with Gentiles.  It was a hard sell, but it had to take place.  Circumcision was no longer required. One no longer had to be an orthodox Jew to satisfy God.

Wrenching oneself out of previously held, sincere, hard-core beliefs is not easy.  That applies to Brother Brigham as much as to anyone else.  Brother McConkie said that he, Brigham, and the others spoke without light and knowledge.  In other words, they were mistaken.  Sincere, but mistaken.  We need to be understanding, but we also need to own up to our mistakes and the mistakes of others.  Our human leaders are not infallible, and never have been.

Pres McKay's heart was right, but his long time good buddy Joseph Fielding Smith said you need a revelation.  He tried, but it didn't come.  I blame the LDS people. They weren't ready for the truth yet.  Had to wait until the time of Pres Kimball.  I had good friends in the older LDS generation who were frankly racist.  1978 did not come easy for them.

We as a people had taken a detour away from the teachings of Joseph Smith.  It took a while to get back.  That's what I'd tell the NAACP in private.

[Robert F. Smith]

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900080551/naacp-church-of-jesus-christ-latter-day-saints-inner-city-problems.html? .

Tad Walch, "How the NAACP and Latter-day Saints are working together to address inner city problems," Deseret News, July 20, 2019.

 

 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

I'm not sure I follow.  President McKay didn't need the support of the Twelve to seek or to receive the will of the Lord with respect to lifting the ban.  He may have needed the support of the Twelve to implement any change, but he certainly didn't need it to inquire about the Lord's will concerning any change.  And before the receipt of the revelation lifting the ban, President Kimball "didn't have the support of the Twelve," either--at least, not unanimously.  Otherwise, why would Elder McConkie have needed to deliver his well-known "Forget everything that I have said ..." comment?  And if memory serves, all of the Twelve weren't present when President Kimball announced that he had received revelation on the matter.  An absent member of the Twelve (I forget who it was at the moment, and I believe it was someone who had opposed ending the ban previously), when contacted later and advised what had transpired in that meeting said, "I'll go with the brethren on this."

We've been taught that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve must reach unanimity in the decisions.  I suspect, based on my reading of the McKay biography, that the 15 may have been too far apart on this particular issue to get to that unanimity.  Membership in general also may not have been ready to sustain such a move.  Obviously this is speculation but you were asking me to speculate when you asked for the "why" behind the answer that President McKay received.

I suspect that the state of both the Q12 and membership had changed by the time President Kimball began leading them in prayer in the upper room of the temple.

This is what makes sense to me as I've tried, faithfully, to understand the situation.  I respect others who have come to view it differently.

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We as a people had taken a detour away from the teachings of Joseph Smith.  It took a while to get back.  That's what I'd tell the NAACP in private.

I like that.

[Kenngo1969]

46 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We've been taught that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve must reach unanimity in the decisions.  I suspect, based on my reading of the McKay biography, that the 15 may have been too far apart on this particular issue to get to that unanimity.  Membership in general also may not have been ready to sustain such a move.  Obviously this is speculation but you were asking me to speculate when you asked for the "why" behind the answer that President McKay received.

I suspect that the state of both the Q12 and membership had changed by the time President Kimball began leading them in prayer in the upper room of the temple.

This is what makes sense to me as I've tried, faithfully, to understand the situation.  I respect others who have come to view it differently.

I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, primarily because I lack enough firsthand or other knowledge to conclude definitively either way, but, with all due respect (and again, I'm not saying you're wrong; I simply don't know), there wasn't unanimity among the Twelve in President Kimball's administration, either ... until after the revelation was received, which, again, is a big part of the reason why Elder McConkie made his, "Forget everything that I have said ..." statement.  I think the statement of Elder Banks (DeSean Terry) in the Richard Dutcher film God's Army is appropriate here, especially since he, an African American Elder, was talking about the priesthood ban: "It's like God gives you a hundred reasons to believe, along with one or two not to ... just so you can choose."  

 

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, primarily because I lack enough firsthand or other knowledge to conclude definitively either way, but, with all due respect (and again, I'm not saying you're wrong; I simply don't know), there wasn't unanimity among the Twelve in President Kimball's administration, either ... until after the revelation was received, which, again, is a big part of the reason why Elder McConkie made his, "Forget everything that I have said ..." statement.  I think the statement of Elder Banks (DeSean Terry) in the Richard Dutcher film God's Army is appropriate here, especially since he, an African American Elder, was talking about the priesthood ban: "It's like God gives you a hundred reasons to believe, along with one or two not to ... just so you can choose."  

 

I love Dutcher's "God's Army" and that is a great quote from the Elder Banks character.

I also don't seek to speak definitively on this.  My comments represent where *my* study and *my* faith have led *me* as I wrestled with this topic.

That said, I don't think that Elder McConkie's "Forget everything that I have said..." statement contradicts the narrative I've laid out.  For whatever reason... revelation, the Spirit, the answer received by his beloved First Presidency, etc... Elder McConkie changed his position.  He along with the rest of the quorum presumably reached unanimity by 8 June, 1978.

As I said in my earlier response to you, I think that the Q12 at the time of President McKay was likely too far apart on the matter to reach this unanimity.  And I think the attitude of members also could have been why the answer wasn't given to President McKay when he sought it.  Again, just my opinion.

Edited July 21, 2019 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

President McKay lacked the support of the full Quorum of the Twelve. Otherwise I think he would have ended it. 

I don’t consider them evil nor do I consider an acknowledgement of the different environments (then and now) to be virtue signaling. 

If it’s accurate as reported that he was told by the Lord through revelation the time was not yet for lifting the ban, then the matter of whether he had the full support of the quorum is irrelevant. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

I'm not sure I follow.  President McKay didn't need the support of the Twelve to seek or to receive the will of the Lord with respect to lifting the ban.  He may have needed the support of the Twelve to implement any change, but he certainly didn't need it to inquire about the Lord's will concerning any change.  And before the receipt of the revelation lifting the ban, President Kimball "didn't have the support of the Twelve," either--at least, not unanimously.  Otherwise, why would Elder McConkie have needed to deliver his well-known "Forget everything that I have said ..." comment?  And if memory serves, all of the Twelve weren't present when President Kimball announced that he had received revelation on the matter.  An absent member of the Twelve (I forget who it was at the moment, and I believe it was someone who had opposed ending the ban previously), when contacted later and advised what had transpired in that meeting said, "I'll go with the brethren on this."

There were actually two. One was Mark E. Petersen, who was traveling on Church business, and the other was Delbert L. Stapley, who was in the hospital (he died not long afterward). Both men gave their full support to the announced revelation, though each had earlier harbored somewhat racist leanings as reflected in some of their writings and/or speeches. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Our lesson in Sunday School today was on Acts 10, in which Pete and his Brethren had to come to terms with the demand by God that they give up their kosher rules and begin eating with Gentiles.  It was a hard sell, but it had to take place.  Circumcision was no longer required. One no longer had to be an orthodox Jew to satisfy God.

Wrenching oneself out of previously held, sincere, hard-core beliefs is not easy.  That applies to Brother Brigham as much as to anyone else.  Brother McConkie said that he, Brigham, and the others spoke without light and knowledge.  In other words, they were mistaken.  Sincere, but mistaken.  We need to be understanding, but we also need to own up to our mistakes and the mistakes of others.  Our human leaders are not infallible, and never have been.

Pres McKay's heart was right, but his long time good buddy Joseph Fielding Smith said you need a revelation.  He tried, but it didn't come.  I blame the LDS people. They weren't ready for the truth yet.  Had to wait until the time of Pres Kimball.  I had good friends in the older LDS generation who were frankly racist.  1978 did not come easy for them.

We as a people had taken a detour away from the teachings of Joseph Smith.  It took a while to get back.  That's what I'd tell the NAACP in private.

We have seen only too clearly the folly of assigning speculative reasons for the ban when, in fact, the reason has not been revealed by the Lord. Telling the NAACP what you suggest strikes me as coming perilously close to repeating that error. 

Edited July 21, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it’s accurate as reported that he was told by the Lord through revelation the time was not yet for lifting the ban, then the matter of whether he had the full support of the quorum is irrelevant. 

I was asked why I thought President McKay would have received that answer if the ban was originally not the will of the Lord.  My answer is that it may not have been time because the quorum wasn’t prepared to reach unanimity on the matter and the members may not have been fully ready to sustain it.

The Lord knew where His apostles were on the matter before He gave the answer to President McKay. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

My repeated personal experience has been that revelation creates unanimity amongst even the most disparate group of people. I'm not sure, in fact, if anything else can or does. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We have seen only too clearly the folly of assigning speculative reasons for the ban when, in fact, the reason has not been revealed by the Lord. Telling the NAACP what you suggest strikes me as coming perilously close to repeating that error. 

Perhaps, but I'm sure you will forgive me one more sincere error, Scott.  

Anyhow, I stand with Brother Joseph and with Brother Orson Pratt on that one, and am quite willing to take it on the chin.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

......................  An absent member of the Twelve (I forget who it was at the moment, and I believe it was someone who had opposed ending the ban previously), when contacted later and advised what had transpired in that meeting said, "I'll go with the brethren on this."

My understanding is that was Elder Mark E. Petersen, who was out of the country.  I understand that he cried when he heard of the new revelation.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

My understanding is that was Elder Mark E. Petersen, who was out of the country.  I understand that he cried when he heard of the new revelation.

See my post wherein I identified Elder Petersen and Elder Delbert L. Stapely as the quorum members who were not present and who were informed later. 

And why, according to your source, did Elder Petersen cry when he got word? Not from displeasure, I hope. 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps, but I'm sure you will forgive me one more sincere error, Scott.  

Anyhow, I stand with Brother Joseph and with Brother Orson Pratt on that one, and am quite willing to take it on the chin.

Harboring personal conjecture is one thing; conveying it to others as definitive is quite another. I dearly wish that hadn’t been done in the years prior to 1978. 

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My repeated personal experience has been that revelation creates unanimity amongst even the most disparate group of people. I'm not sure, in fact, if anything else can or does. 

Hence the counsel we have received over the years from Elder Ballard about counseling with our councils. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Harboring personal conjecture is one thing; conveying it to others as definitive is quite another. I dearly wish that hadn’t been done in the years prior to 1978. 

I agree and feel that may have been a reason why remedying the situation took as long as it did. 

[rockpond]

54 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My repeated personal experience has been that revelation creates unanimity amongst even the most disparate group of people. I'm not sure, in fact, if anything else can or does. 

According to our prophet, revelation and unanimity among the 15 may be one and the same.

From President Nelson, Oct 2014:

"The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous. Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached!"

[smac97]

Here is a news item summarizing president Nelson's remarks to the NAACP:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900080599/president-russel-m-nelson-national-naacp-convention-latter-day-saints.html

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Harboring personal conjecture is one thing; conveying it to others as definitive is quite another. I dearly wish that hadn’t been done in the years prior to 1978. 

I agree, and dearly wish that the Brethren had held to the teachings of Brother Joseph, thus making 1978 unnecessary.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

See my post wherein I identified Elder Petersen and Elder Delbert L. Stapely as the quorum members who were not present and who were informed later. 

And why, according to your source, did Elder Petersen cry when he got word? Not from displeasure, I hope. 

No, my impression was that he was happy, but I can barely recall hearing about it now, in my old age.

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here is a news item summarizing president Nelson's remarks to the NAACP:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900080599/president-russel-m-nelson-national-naacp-convention-latter-day-saints.html

Quote

The speech was a landmark. A speaking role at the convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in the Motor City for the president of a church that once banned black members from priesthood ordinances and temple blessings was unimagined by either the church or the NAACP 18 months ago.

Now the two organizations are partners.

"They're getting acquainted with us, and they're finding out we can help them," President Nelson said in an interview.

For the past four months, NAACP branches in Chicago and San Francisco have used materials from the church, customized for inner-city audiences, to teach personal finance principles to at-risk African Americans. The NAACP's national board of directors decided Saturday to expand the program.

Glad to see this.  Meaningful work, not just PR.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Here is a news item summarizing president Nelson's remarks to the NAACP:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900080599/president-russel-m-nelson-national-naacp-convention-latter-day-saints.html

Beautiful!  Love it!  Thanks for posting the article.