The 1978 Revelation (official Declaration-2)

[Thinking]

I don't know if this will satisfy all the CFR's from this thread.

These are two examples of the types of articles which I read prior to starting this thread. So contrary to the accusations, I did not make up all this stuff on my own.

There was a groundswell of opinion against racism by many Americans who recognized the centuries of injustice against African-Americans. It was an era of desegregation and agitation for civil rights. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service threatened LDS's tax exempt status because of the church's discrimination against African-Americans. Additional opposition came from sports groups which threatened to cancel events with the LDS' Brigham Young University. Anti-Mormon religious groups promoted boycotts of church businesses and of Utah tourism.

The matter of racism was instantly resolved when church received a new revelation from God. On 1978-JUN-6, LDS leaders announced that "all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color." Racism within the church was immediately terminated. Male African-Americans are now regarded as full members of the LDS and are eligible for consideration for ordination. Black women remain excluded, as are all other women.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794415/posts

Because of the circumstances under which the revelation on blacks came, many people have referred to it as "a revelation of convenience." We may never know all the details which led President Kimball to seek this revelation, but it is obvious that it was the result of pressure from many sources. In the July 1978 issue of the Messenger we pointed out that the Church was faced with an almost impossible situation in Brazil where so many of its members had black ancestry. Since that time we have learned from a source within the Church that Church leaders were very concerned that they were going to lose their tax exempt status on property they own in the United States. In the months just prior to the revelation, Church leaders were carefully watching developments in a case in Wisconsin in which an organization was about to lose its tax exempt status because of racial discrimination. The Church leaders finally became convinced that the tide was turning against them and that they would lose their tax exempt status in Wisconsin and eventually throughout the United States because of their doctrine of discrimination against blacks. This was probably only one of many factors which entered into the decision to admit blacks into the priesthood, but it may very well have been the "straw that broke the camel's back." (SLC Messenger, Dec. 1979)

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thinking, short of an apology, you really can't reclaim any credibility in this particular thread. Your tax status assertions are an egregious misrepresentation of fact, your pet theories and speculations have shown to be what they are: ridiculous.

Sometimes it's better to just admit, "hey, I was wrong on this one."

[Sleeper Cell]

I don't know if this will satisfy all the CFR's from this thread.

These are two examples of the types of articles which I read prior to starting this thread. So contrary to the accusations, I did not make up all this stuff on my own.

If I am reading your quoted examples (and your link) correctly, you based your IRS assertion on:

Source 1: a comment by the respected researcher, â??Tulsa Ramjet,â? posted on a political blog thread that was discussing a Romney speech.

Source 2: The SLC Messenger (presumably the Jerald & Sandra Tanner publication).

Sources 3- ?: other (unnamed) articles of the same type as sources 1 & 2

â??Tulsa Ramjetâ? and third-hand hearsay from an anti-Mormon ministry -- these are your sources? Youâ??ve got to be kidding.

[rpn]

In 1978... 1978!!!!!! people still had a problem with Blacks holding the priesthood. Many people left the Church because of that.

I have heard this, but I'd like to know the source. I have never heard of anyone who left the church because of the revelation.

On another issue, after reading the David O McKay and Spencer W. Kimball biographies last year, I found myself wondering whether the timing of the revelation was related to whether the council of the twelve apostles was ready to receive it. After all, revelations require unanimous support. And between 1950 and 1978, there were a number of apostles who died who were apparently quite adamant about the subject.

[Corky Wallace]

rpn:

I found myself wondering whether the timing of the revelation was related to whether the council of the twelve apostles was ready to receive it. After all, revelations require unanimous support. And between 1950 and 1978, there were a number of apostles who died who were apparently quite adamant about the subject.

To me this rings like "the Lord had to wait for all the old racist apostles to die before he could get His revelation approved".

Apologies for butchering your thoughts, but IMHO all the rationales (I've heard, at least) put forward for the ban have all been... well... tortured. Considering President Packer's teachings that analyzing & studying LDS beliefs, doctrines, history, et al, requires inclusion of the Spirit to fully understand & comprehend, and that absent the Spirit LDS teachings, beliefs, doctrine & history are not genuinely understood, the idea that the Spirit was involved in justifying a blatantly racist psuedo-doctrine is frightening, frankly.

As a teenager at the time, this issue was among the strongest that led me to begin disbelieving the truth claims of Mormonism. Looking back at how profoundly tardy the LDS church was in coming around to this social shift - to me, at least - validates my thinking at the time. At age 15 I recognized this 'policy' was fundamentally wrong & essentially incongruent with the God I'd grown to love. I knew with every fiber of my being that this was just flat out wrong.

[Lachoneus]

I don't know if this will satisfy all the CFR's from this thread.

These are two examples of the types of articles which I read prior to starting this thread. So contrary to the accusations, I did not make up all this stuff on my own.

Yep, looks like you had help making it up. Instead of making it all up yourself, you found two others who made it all up themselves. Nice work. If you ever get any actual facts, let us know.

[Thinking]

After performing a search on this website, I now know why some of you were so irritated that I brought this up again. It was discussed one month before I joined last year so I missed it. I would like to thank you, however, because now I know about Byron Marchant.

[Magical Alma]

Yes. By the way, Thinking, this happened more than 25 years ago. Let's live in the "now" my good buddy!

No kidding! When is this going to go away! I'm sick of talking about it. So what if there were several prophets were taught this for quite some time with no intervention from God. Maybe it's just part of God's plan. We don't fully understand God.

I would be fine if everyone just forgot everything about the church's past, and focused on reading the final versions of the three doctrines to confirm their questions. I mean, if other human institutions can change, why can't the church?

[Pahoran]

I don't know if this will satisfy all the CFR's from this thread.

These are two examples of the types of articles which I read prior to starting this thread. So contrary to the accusations, I did not make up all this stuff on my own.

Which accusations? It never occurred to me for a minute, "Thinking," that you had the imagination to independently make up an old recycled canard. Now I realise that you don't have quite enough clues to figure this out for yourself, so I will help you: merely pointing to another opinionated idiot also making the undocumented accusation does not constitute documentation.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran