Blacks, The Priesthood, and 1978

[blooit]

Authors of nearly every news story that discusses Africa, Church growth, or African American Mormons, seem to feel the need to bring up 1978 in depth. Maybe this is acceptable. It is, after all, a part of our history. What I object to is the tone of many of these articles, but oh well.

My question is this: when did the other American churches begin to allow blacks to fully participate in their leadership? How many were actually segregated, while LDS wards were not? In fact, baptist congregations are still among the most segregated in the country (see: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7...g2.html?cat=47), althought voluntarily, and many religions continue to lack significant black leadership. Why is 1978 always brought up with us, but policy changes are rarely if ever brought up with other churches. Is it because it was a definitive date at which this changed, while other churches kind of fazed it in?

My point is that virtually ALL religions and churches have changed their approach to minorities, particularly blacks in the US. (As a point of fact, Jesus Christ changed his church's policy toward whites.) But the LDS continue to be hounded about their "overnight" change in policy.

As a side note, I personally believe the ban on the priesthood was a cultural, and not doctrinal policy, but that is my opinion. However, I loved Elder Sitati's quote in the trash tribune today:

It does not bother him that the church barred blacks from the priesthood until 1978.

"Christ came only to the Jews and not until the end of his mission did he commission the apostles to go to all the world," he said. "Different communities are invited to participate in the plan of salvation at different times. What is important is that the salvation to which they are invited is the same. It doesn't matter that the Jews were the first, if you like, and the Africans are the last."

Oh . . . and

Most of the current anti-Mormon attacks are imported from America, Sitati said. "Some people who are trying to protect their own faith spread bad stories about Mormonism. There is no indigenous hostility to the church."

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12148790?source=most_viewed

[Robspectre]

I don't expect many outside the Church to present us in a good light. The 1978 priesthood deal is old and dated but they keep bringing it up. We are the ones most other churches with questionable issues point the finger. We are the "Cult" and the ones that believe in that "Other Jesus". The priesthood ban is small time.

[blooit]

I don't expect many outside the Church to present us in a good light. The 1978 priesthood deal is old and dated but they keep bringing it up. We are the ones most other churches with questionable issues point the finger. We are the "Cult" and the ones that believe in that "Other Jesus". The priesthood ban is small time.

True - but I meant the "unbiased" media. I expect our detractors to behave that way, but I am surprised how often the media can outrightly be "detractors" as well.

[Mormon Questioner]

Other churches were indeed segregated, and still are in the church.

I think the real difference with us is that there was a theological difference. If I am baptist (and racist) I might not want to attend church with black congregants, or have a black preacher. But I don't think that theologically they believed that black people couldn't get to heaven for example, or that black people should not be able to lead churches. They just wanted them to lead their own.

In the LDS church there was no alternative priesthood, or place for blacks at all, except for in an inferior status. We didn't have separate churches that were lead by black priesthood holders. And we had specific policies that banned blacks from rites that lead to the highest reward in the afterlife. This is very different from a more separate but equal policy followed by most other churches.

I am not supporting that segregation, but I DO think it is better than totally excluding a whole race from any opportunity for exaltation or full church participation in any way.

[blooit]

Other churches were indeed segregated, and still are in the church.

I think the real difference with us is that there was a theological difference. If I am baptist (and racist) I might not want to attend church with black congregants, or have a black preacher. But I don't think that theologically they believed that black people couldn't get to heaven for example, or that black people should not be able to lead churches. They just wanted them to lead their own.

In the LDS church there was no alternative priesthood, or place for blacks at all, except for in an inferior status. We didn't have separate churches that were lead by black priesthood holders. And we had specific policies that banned blacks from rites that lead to the highest reward in the afterlife. This is very different from a more separate but equal policy followed by most other churches.

I am not supporting that segregation, but I DO think it is better than totally excluding a whole race from any opportunity for exaltation or full church participation in any way.

Understood - but (respectfully) disagree that that difference existed. Many churches (early on) even questioned wheher blacks were human at all. During my pre-1978 lifetime - LDS taught that blacks would NOT be denied exaltation, and we looked forward to the day when all our brothers and sisters could enjoy those rites in THIS lifetime.

I mean I understand your point - I just don't think the difference is that clear.

[Nyal]

I could take a whack at this one. The media or other non-Mormons take great interest for two reasons.

1. The doctrinal basis for denying blacks the priesthood. Accurate or not, the doctrine of the church up to and including the sixties reveals a fascinating and morbid basis for the racism. There seems to be a considerable amount of speculation within and without the church about the curse of Cain. Apostles frequently made very racist doctrinal statements, official or not. They are shocking statements of paranoia and extreme racism.

A former believer notes:

During the 1960's President (then Elder) Benson said from the pulpit, in General Conference, that the Civil Rights movement is a communist conspiracy (a common belief among segregationists, which may have had some merit in the 1930's, but none in the 1960's).

According to Elder Mark E. Peterson. blacks were not the equals of whites, who's skin color bordered on sin and could only strive to serve the higher races:

I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace"....

Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, "what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Only here we have the reverse of the thing -- what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood...This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.

This is breathtakingly backward thinking, even for the period. People are not going to forget such rhetoric, let alone such doctrine (official doctrine or not, outsider often mistook proclaimed prophets as speaking as prophets).

2. The restorative nature of the church. One of the primary claims of the LDS church rested on it's divine guidance and restorative nature. The doctrine of black inferiority, followed by a questionably timed proclamation rescinding previous policy seems to contradict that claim. Are we really expected to be surprised when the media learns of the dual claims of racism and perfection.

I think the greater question is why this is not discussed more, both within and without the Saints.

[AndyOne]

Do I recall correctly that Elder Petersen was absent when the temple meeting occurred that led to the change in the policy? He seems to have been especially strong in his views.

Edited to add: Elder Stapley was also absent. Petersen and Stapley were apparently the two hold-outs. Petersen was in South America on assignment and Stapley was sick.

[Heartleap]

Authors of nearly every news story that discusses Africa, Church growth, or African American Mormons, seem to feel the need to bring up 1978 in depth. Maybe this is acceptable. It is, after all, a part of our history. What I object to is the tone of many of these articles, but oh well.

My question is this: when did the other American churches begin to allow blacks to fully participate in their leadership? How many were actually segregated, while LDS wards were not? In fact, baptist congregations are still among the most segregated in the country (see: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7...g2.html?cat=47), althought voluntarily, and many religions continue to lack significant black leadership. Why is 1978 always brought up with us, but policy changes are rarely if ever brought up with other churches. Is it because it was a definitive date at which this changed, while other churches kind of fazed it in?

My point is that virtually ALL religions and churches have changed their approach to minorities, particularly blacks in the US. (As a point of fact, Jesus Christ changed his church's policy toward whites.) But the LDS continue to be hounded about their "overnight" change in policy.

As a side note, I personally believe the ban on the priesthood was a cultural, and not doctrinal policy, but that is my opinion. However, I loved Elder Sitati's quote in the trash tribune today:

It does not bother him that the church barred blacks from the priesthood until 1978.

"Christ came only to the Jews and not until the end of his mission did he commission the apostles to go to all the world," he said. "Different communities are invited to participate in the plan of salvation at different times. What is important is that the salvation to which they are invited is the same. It doesn't matter that the Jews were the first, if you like, and the Africans are the last."

Oh . . . and

Most of the current anti-Mormon attacks are imported from America, Sitati said. "Some people who are trying to protect their own faith spread bad stories about Mormonism. There is no indigenous hostility to the church."

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12148790?source=most_viewed

I was a teenager in 1978 and LDS, we were so excited when this proclamation came down. My parents and grandparents has issue's though if I dated anyone outside my own race. I grew up in a all white community and when I moved to Salt Lake I had more opportunity to date different people. I ended up marrying a LDS French, norwegian. My children have dated african americans but nothing really transpired. I have always enjoyed the culture of other races as I was so protected from it growing up. I think that the LDS church gets slack from the world because they claim to have restored the true gospel and had they, they would have known that they were wrong from the begining on this topic and if they were wrong on this topic can we trust what they say?

Heartleap...

[Doctor Steuss]

Do I recall correctly that Elder Petersen was absent when the temple meeting occurred that led to the change in the policy? He seems to have been especially strong in his views.

Edited to add: Elder Stapley was also absent. Petersen and Stapley were apparently the two hold-outs. Petersen was in South America on assignment and Stapley was sick.

I don't know how Stapley was reached, or a part of it (it seems like it took place over the course of several meetings). But according to Richards (regarding Peterson):

One member of the Twelve, Mark Peterson, was down in South America, but Brother Benson, our President, had arranged to know where he could be reached by phone, and right while we were in that meeting in the temple, Brother Kimball talked with Brother Petersen, and read him this article, and he (Petersen) approved of it.

Edit:

Online Transcript

[John Larsen]

Can someone who knows, provide information on similar bans in other Churches? The Catholic church never had any racial requirements, so a Protestant church would have had to add such a requirement in--but I am not aware of any. Of course, the Southern Baptist convention split over the slavery issue, and there were strong ties to racism, but there was no formal banning since pastors were selected by the local congregation and were not necessarily credentialed by the national Church.

By the way, it is not fair to try to reduce the question to merely blacks and the priesthood since prior to 1978, black women could not go through the temple at all, which has nothing to do with priesthood.

[AndyOne]

I don't know how Stapley was reached, or a part of it (it seems like it took place over the course of several meetings). But according to Richards (regarding Peterson):

One member of the Twelve, Mark Peterson, was down in South America, but Brother Benson, our President, had arranged to know where he could be reached by phone, and right while we were in that meeting in the temple, Brother Kimball talked with Brother Petersen, and read him this article, and he (Petersen) approved of it.

Edit:

Online Transcript

Thanks for the link. This exchange is interesting in terms of contemporary thinking:

WALTERS: Is there still a tendency to feel that people are born with black skin because of some previous situation, or do we consider that black skin is no sign anymore of anything inferior in any sense of the word?

RICHARDS: Well, we don't want to get that as a doctrine. Think of it as you will. You know, Paul said "Now we see in part and we know in part; we see through a glass darkly. When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away, then we will see as we are seen, and know as we are known." Now the Church's attitude today is to prefer to leave it until we know. The Lord has never indicated that black skin came because of being less faithful. Now, the Indian; we know why he was changed, don't we? The Book of Mormon tells us that; and he has a dark skin, but he has a promise there that through faithfulness, that they all again become a white and delightsome people. So we haven't anything like that on the colored thing.

[thatjimguy]

Maybe it is because other churches just slowly allowed African Americans to get involved, while we made an official declaration of it. I agree with the declaration of course, but I think that may be the reason.

[Scottie]

I don't expect many outside the Church to present us in a good light. The 1978 priesthood deal is old and dated but they keep bringing it up. We are the ones most other churches with questionable issues point the finger. We are the "Cult" and the ones that believe in that "Other Jesus". The priesthood ban is small time.

I believe Scientolgy has surpassed Mormonism in "weirdness".

[William James]

I have no sympathy for any racist who complains about the Church's practices regarding blacks and the priesthood. Hypocrites hardly have a leg to stand on.

That being said (and with the disclaimer that I am not an expert on the history on this subject), it is my belief that an examination of history will show that, although the LDS church was not at all alone in its failure to grant equal rights in the church to black members, there probably were quite a few religious organizations who were much more progressive and afforded blacks equal rights much earlier than the LDS church did. Also, many of the critics of the LDS church's history with blacks are not themselves racist and had no part in their own organization's history of discrimination. Those people may be, but are not necessarily, hypocrites. They would only be hypocrites if their own organization claimed doctrinal inerrancy but had a racist history. Most evangelicals do not belong to a coherent religious organization with a top-down institutionalized structure. They may come from a generalized "baptist," "methodist," or "pentacostal" background, but they do not generally have leaders who claim the right to exclusive prophetic revelation/authority on behalf of the world at large.

What gets the LDS church in trouble is the simultaneous claim of doctrinal inerrancy and the historical discrimination against blacks. (And anyone who maintains that the "policy" of not giving blacks the priesthood was non-doctrinal apparently has not read the sermons of Brigham Young and Mark E. Peterson). I am not aware of the LDS church ever having admitted error in any of its doctrines. Instead, it attempts to portray its current views at any given time as unquestionably error-free. When changes occur, it has the difficult obstacle of reconciliation. Various attempts to rationalize and reconcile doctrinal changes just leave us asking more questions.

The LDS church needs to face at least three facts, in my opinion:

1. For better or for worse, the true reason for ceasing the practice of polygamy in the late 1800s was not that God just happened to decide at that moment that the church should stop practiciing it, but rather that there was too much opposition from the powerful United States government.

2. The 1978 official declaration allowing male blacks to obtain the priesthood was not just because God happened to decide that "the time has now come" for blacks to have the priesthood, but rather that church leaders saw the writing on the wall: racism and discrimination are not reasonably supported by logic and reason, and the discriminative denial of the priesthood to blacks was a public relations nightmare for the church.

3. Admitting error by the LDS church, while it will inevitably shake the fragile faith of some people who apparently only have the ability to see things in black and white (no pun intended), will be much better off for the church in the long run and should instill in its leaders the humility that comes with understanding that we do not have all the answers and that some doctrines which we have long accepted as true may actually be erroneous.

[Scottie]

William, there is a bigger problem here.

The LDS church is supposed to have prophets who communicate directly with God, who is really running the church.

Why did God, who is no respecter of culture, allow this ban to take place? And, even though his mouthpiece claimed that the blacks would not get the priesthood until all the sons of Adam, God caved?

Can you not see the difference between religions led by men who follow the culture of the times vs a church led by God?

Well, actually, neither can I. It sure appears that the LDS church is no more led by God than any other religion out there.

[baddonkey]

Authors of nearly every news story that discusses Africa, Church growth, or African American Mormons, seem to feel the need to bring up 1978 in depth. Maybe this is acceptable. It is, after all, a part of our history. What I object to is the tone of many of these articles, but oh well.

My question is this: when did the other American churches begin to allow blacks to fully participate in their leadership? How many were actually segregated, while LDS wards were not? In fact, baptist congregations are still among the most segregated in the country (see: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7...g2.html?cat=47), althought voluntarily, and many religions continue to lack significant black leadership. Why is 1978 always brought up with us, but policy changes are rarely if ever brought up with other churches. Is it because it was a definitive date at which this changed, while other churches kind of fazed it in?

My point is that virtually ALL religions and churches have changed their approach to minorities, particularly blacks in the US. (As a point of fact, Jesus Christ changed his church's policy toward whites.) But the LDS continue to be hounded about their "overnight" change in policy.

As a side note, I personally believe the ban on the priesthood was a cultural, and not doctrinal policy, but that is my opinion. However, I loved Elder Sitati's quote in the trash tribune today:

It does not bother him that the church barred blacks from the priesthood until 1978.

"Christ came only to the Jews and not until the end of his mission did he commission the apostles to go to all the world," he said. "Different communities are invited to participate in the plan of salvation at different times. What is important is that the salvation to which they are invited is the same. It doesn't matter that the Jews were the first, if you like, and the Africans are the last."

Oh . . . and

Most of the current anti-Mormon attacks are imported from America, Sitati said. "Some people who are trying to protect their own faith spread bad stories about Mormonism. There is no indigenous hostility to the church."

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12148790?source=most_viewed

There is a difference between segregation in worship and priesthood denial, you know.

[William James]

William, there is a bigger problem here.

The LDS church is supposed to have prophets who communicate directly with God, who is really running the church.

Why did God, who is no respecter of culture, allow this ban to take place? And, even though his mouthpiece claimed that the blacks would not get the priesthood until all the sons of Adam, God caved?

Can you not see the difference between religions led by men who follow the culture of the times vs a church led by God?

Well, actually, neither can I. It sure appears that the LDS church is no more led by God than any other religion out there.

Thanks for your input, Scottie. I agree that these are major problems, but it seems you are implying that the LDS church cannot possibly be led by God any more than any other church if it denied blacks the priesthood. I respectfully disagree. Because humans including church leaders, are subject to prejudices just like the rest of us, they will err as we do. But I don't believe that necessarily proves that the church is without priesthood authority from God. What it does prove, in my opinion, is that there is no guarantee that church doctrine today is error-free. It also shows, in my opinion, that those who disagree with the church in good faith on a point of doctrine will not be punished God on the ground that their own conscience was at odds with the church. For my own part, I disagree with the church on many doctrinal points, but am willing to accept other doctrines which I feel truly speak peace to my soul. I realize others may have a different experience.

[John Larsen]

Thanks for your input, Scottie. I agree that these are major problems, but it seems you are implying that the LDS church cannot possibly be led by God any more than any other church if it denied blacks the priesthood. I respectfully disagree. Because humans including church leaders, are subject to prejudices just like the rest of us, they will err as we do. But I don't believe that necessarily proves that the church is without priesthood authority from God. What it does prove, in my opinion, is that there is no guarantee that church doctrine today is error-free. It also shows, in my opinion, that those who disagree with the church in good faith on a point of doctrine will not be punished God on the ground that their own conscience was at odds with the church. For my own part, I disagree with the church on many doctrinal points, but am willing to accept other doctrines which I feel truly speak peace to my soul. I realize others may have a different experience.

If good faith is all that is required, why a "true church" at all?

[ttribe]

The "Cain" idea is not exclusive to the LDS Church. Read here: Wiki Link

[Grace de Maya]

As a side note, I personally believe the ban on the priesthood was a cultural, and not doctrinal policy, but that is my opinion.

?? What is a "cultural policy"? I've never heard of this. Do they always need the consent of the First Presidnecy and 12 Apostles to undo them? What "cultural policies" do we have today that aren't doctrinal, but will need an Offical Declarations to change them? LDS.org doesn't have a single mention of "cultural policies" or "doctrinal policies", so I'm not sure where this would come from. I've always been taught that it was doctrine (and taught as doctrine by the Prophets), so I'm confused by your statement.

[ttribe]

?? What is a "cultural policy"? I've never heard of this. Do they always need the consent of the First Presidnecy and 12 Apostles to undo them? What "cultural policies" do we have today that aren't doctrinal, but will need an Offical Declarations to change them? LDS.org doesn't have a single mention of "cultural policies" or "doctrinal policies", so I'm not sure where this would come from. I've always been taught that it was doctrine (and taught as doctrine by the Prophets), so I'm confused by your statement.

Whether it was "doctrine" or not seems to be a matter of debate. David O. McKay actually stated that it wasn't a doctrine, but was a practice in place. I'd suggest some reading here: Link 1, Link 2

[Scottie]

Thanks for your input, Scottie. I agree that these are major problems, but it seems you are implying that the LDS church cannot possibly be led by God any more than any other church if it denied blacks the priesthood. I respectfully disagree. Because humans including church leaders, are subject to prejudices just like the rest of us, they will err as we do. But I don't believe that necessarily proves that the church is without priesthood authority from God. What it does prove, in my opinion, is that there is no guarantee that church doctrine today is error-free. It also shows, in my opinion, that those who disagree with the church in good faith on a point of doctrine will not be punished God on the ground that their own conscience was at odds with the church. For my own part, I disagree with the church on many doctrinal points, but am willing to accept other doctrines which I feel truly speak peace to my soul. I realize others may have a different experience.

When God says that He will never let a prophet lead the church astray, one has to wonder just how far astray he would have to go before God would intervene??

I would think the priesthood ban would be a big enough snafu that God might want to appear in a vision or something and tell BY, "Hey, you're doing a great job as prophet, but this whole banning the blacks thing.... I can't have you doing that." It also seems strange to me that JS was getting revelation from God every other day, but as soon as he died, BY is left alone to figure the rest out by himself?

I can accept that God lets men run the church as best they can, but some things are just too big to think God would just let them slide. Which, to me, makes it appear that God is not running the LDS church. Men are.

[Grace de Maya]

Whether it was "doctrine" or not seems to be a matter of debate. David O. McKay actually stated that it wasn't a doctrine, but was a practice in place. I'd suggest some reading here: Link 1, Link 2

Neither of those links have President McKay stating that "it wasn't a doctrine." Did he say it in conference so everyone in the Church would know? Or was it more like "he secretly said it to his best friend and now years later we know about it."

I've always been told that the Prophets state the Doctrine publicly, and their opinions privately.

[ttribe]

Neither of those links have President McKay stating that "it wasn't a doctrine." Did he say it in conference so everyone in the Church would know? Or was it more like "he secretly said it to his best friend and now years later we know about it."

I've always been told that the Prophets state the Doctrine publicly, and their opinions privately.

See here (on that same site): Link

By the way, I did happen to mention that it is still a matter of debate, didn't I?

[Pahoran]

I could take a whack at this one. The media or other non-Mormons take great interest for two reasons.

1. The doctrinal basis for denying blacks the priesthood. Accurate or not, the doctrine of the church up to and including the sixties reveals a fascinating and morbid basis for the racism. There seems to be a considerable amount of speculation within and without the church about the curse of Cain. Apostles frequently made very racist doctrinal statements, official or not. They are shocking statements of paranoia and extreme racism.

I agree that it is possible to find isolated statements that can be interpreted in such a way, if only one has the will to do so.

And clearly you do.

To those who do not share your predisposition to prejudicially select and then interpret every available Mormon statement with the most unfavourable spin possible, these statements show something quite different: in a church whose membership was concentrated in an area with relatively few black people, white members with few "external" stimuli to remind them of the ban, nevertheless wondered about why it existed. The speculation was developed to answer this need. Which shows, incidentally, that the ban came first, and the explanations--none of which carried any official weight--afterwards.

A former believer notes:

According to Elder Mark E. Peterson. blacks were not the equals of whites, who's skin color bordered on sin and could only strive to serve the higher races:

CFR that Elder Peterson taught:

1. That blacks were not the equals of whites;
   
2. That their skin colour "bordered on sin;"
   
3. That could only strive to serve the "higher races."
   

The quote you offered might possibly be interpreted with the last assertion in mind, but it clearly does not assert that, and it certainly does not support either of the other two.

So please either provide documentation in support of these assertions, or else withdraw them as unsupported false accusations. I'm particularly fascinated about the sinful skin colour. While Elder Peterson was giving his talk, there were thousands of Polynesian priesthood holders every bit as dark as his "negroes."

I'm by no means defending Elder Peterson's view; he was clearly wrong on several points. But if you are going to criticise him, you need to criticise him for what he got wrong. However, like all anti-Mormons, which is clearly what you are, you cannot be satisfied with that. It is not enough for any given Church leader to be wrong on any subject; Mormonism must be at fault. Therefore you must find a way to parlay Elder Peterson's errors into something much darker.

2. The restorative nature of the church. One of the primary claims of the LDS church rested on it's divine guidance and restorative nature. The doctrine of black inferiority, followed by a questionably timed proclamation rescinding previous policy seems to contradict that claim.

In another recent thread, your claim that the timing of the proclamation was in any way "questionable" was challenged. You offered a discredited hate propaganda site in support of that claim; their arguments were promptly shredded. When asked for further support for your claim, you defaulted. Have you since found better arguments in support of your accusation? If so, please produce them. If not, then you have no valid basis to make the claim. The correct term for a claim you know to be unfounded is a "lie." I invite you to obtain some honesty and stop telling such.

By the way, it is not fair to try to reduce the question to merely blacks and the priesthood since prior to 1978, black women could not go through the temple at all, which has nothing to do with priesthood.

John,

Are you really so completely uninformed that you can assert, with a straight face, that going through the Temple "has nothing to do with priesthood?"

That explains a great deal.

The LDS church needs to face at least three facts, in my opinion:

1. For better or for worse, the true reason for ceasing the practice of polygamy in the late 1800s was not that God just happened to decide at that moment that the church should stop practiciing it, but rather that there was too much opposition from the powerful United States government.

And ark-steadiers and critics of the Church need to face the fact that at no time has the Church ever denied that this was the case.

Furthermore, such critics need to face the fact that if they think this is an issue, then they simply do not understand the nature of revelation in the LDS paradigm. From the day Joseph walked out of the grove, we have always understood revelation to be dialogic in nature. If you don't get that, then you know nothing at all, and merely advertise your own ignorance every time you try to make a song and dance about it.

2. The 1978 official declaration allowing male blacks to obtain the priesthood was not just because God happened to decide that "the time has now come" for blacks to have the priesthood, but rather that church leaders saw the writing on the wall: racism and discrimination are not reasonably supported by logic and reason, and the discriminative denial of the priesthood to blacks was a public relations nightmare for the church.

And ark-steadiers and critics of the Church need to face the fact that this opinion in not reasonably supported by logic and reason, but is a textbook example of the post hoc fallacy.

Unless, of course, you have actual evidence supporting your claim...?

3. Admitting error by the LDS church, while it will inevitably shake the fragile faith of some people who apparently only have the ability to see things in black and white (no pun intended), will be much better off for the church in the long run and should instill in its leaders the humility that comes with understanding that we do not have all the answers and that some doctrines which we have long accepted as true may actually be erroneous.

As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger: who "we," paleface?

Scottie: you don't understand anything about revelation either. Which isn't surprising, really.

Regards,

Pahoran