Downside to reflection and foregiveness?

[alter idem]

My father, a convert once spoke to me about this, as he was somewhat in my opinion a bigot, and told me that the LDS church was, in outward appearances an "elitists" church, and was merely keeping with the social ideals of the time, example the Black's once had separate bathrooms, couldn't go into certain restaurants etc, but because a member ordained a Black man in the north West and was ex-communicated for it caused a national uproar. Since the LDS church could not come up with a rational explanation for why the Blacks could not hold the Priesthood, a few months later Our Prophet suddenly had a "Revelation" allowing the Blacks to hold the Priesthood but my father agreed with many members worldwide that the revelation was merely "Window Dressing" for how the church and it's members really felt.

Not sure when your father was a convert or how much he knew about the church but this is not what happened.

You think the church needed a 'rational explanation' to continue the policy? That's ridiculous-the church never had one. The leadership did not know the reason for the ban, there was no revelation they could point to--they only knew that it had been in place since the time of Brigham Young and though it had been reviewed during the 1880's, no more light on the subject was brought forward, yet, no changes were made. The policy was never explained, but it was certainly questioned and many looked forward to a time when it would be lifed. All knew a revelation was necessary to change it.

I'm glad to say that most members (including myself) welcomed the revelation.

[alter idem]

Baloney. Call for references.

Whatever our failings and no one is denying them, there were never designated separate facilities for blacks in Utah which is a bit odd if we were merely trying to "keep up with the times".

I wouldn't go so far as to say this. Unfortunately, there was some segregation in Utah but not any more than was common in other parts of the US and Utah did break the color barrier earlier than other states. My father mentioned once that when he was a boy, the public swimming pools were segregated here in Salt Lake (1930 and 40's).

This site gives some interesting information on the history here in the state on this topic.

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/utah_today/thecivilrightsmovementinutah.html

[ed2276]

For the record and lest I date myself!

I suspect menu here may not be old enough to remember 1978 in much social awareness. This issue hits home with me and hits hard. I was playing college sports in the deep southwest. Our football team was over 50% African American. The NAACP and NCAA had brought this issue of racism front and center in the public media. I had black teammates and dear friends who, in all honesty probably knew little to nothing about the issue and ban. They all knew I was Mormon cuz I didn't drink and I never hid my faith and most were cool about it. But for the year or two leading up to Kimball's announcement I felt their perception definately changing.

I can't imagine many of you who live within Utah or the Wasatch area ever experiencing this issue in a first hand and direct manner that I did. When ask about this treatment by the Church from my African American friends and teammates I had no reasonable answers to provide then, and even less now!

This is not about finding fault in people, it is, for me, an important matter of reconciliation, reflection, and forgiveness. The Elder Oaks speech and backlash just brought back to me the difficult memories of first hand experiences from the 70s. I am more studied today and as a faithful member easily conclude "we were wrong".

I think I may go back even farther than you by a decade in my own recollections of social awareness. I remember in the late 1960's attending my ward in Vallejo, California where in the midst of all the white membership we had Sister Poole, a black lady, to whom the priesthood ban was no issue. There have been Black members of this Church all along for whom the priesthood ban was not an issue to their remaining faithful latter-day saints and partaking of the blessings of the Saviour's atonement and sacrifice with their brothers and sisters in the Church.

The main body of people raising such a fuss about the priesthood ban, even though it has been lifted for more than 30 years, seems to be made up of those who have no desire to join the Church or to hold the priesthood in any case. Their only desire seems to be getting their pound of flesh for some perceived wrong, not even done to them personally.

[DanGB]

I suggest you read Official Declaration 2, particularly these passages:

I am quite familiar w OD#2. And there is no question that the Church is in a far better place with it. But I also believe, just as with OD#1, there is little question it was induced more by social pressures than divine intervention.

I struggle to conclude as to the pureness of revelation w respect to OD2 simply because there is no evidence that it was God who took the priesthood right away from blacks in the church to begin with. I cannot fathom, for the life of me how and why a black person was unworthy of Gods blessing. I don't see what they became worthy of in 1978 that they were not worthy of since the day of JS. When did God take this right to His blessing away? And that is why the all too worn response of "we don't know why He did " carries little wieght. The truth is, we have no reason to believe He ever did. I just find greater comfort to reach conclusions on things we know, as opposed to things we don't.

[jwhitlock]

I am quite familiar with OD#2. And there is no question that the Church is in a far better place with it. But I also believe, just as with OD#1, there is little question it was induced more by social pressures than divine intervention.

There is also little question that you really don't understand the background, history, or process of the revelation and how it came about at all.

Your statement about it being driven by "social pressure" is pure bunk. A little familiarity with the history of the civil rights movement would show you how far off base you really are.

[DanGB]

There is also little question that you really don't understand the background, history, or process of the revelation and how it came about at all.

I have been a member all my life. I have as much exposure and teachings to this subject as you do. I suppose I could reply with as much basis that your response is pure emotional. But if you want to support your conclusion with facts and reasons, I am all ears and eyes.

Your statement about it being driven by "social pressure" is pure bunk. A little familiarity with the history of the civil rights movement would show you how far off base you really are.

Again, if you would like to support your emotions that would be helpful to dialogue. The Church does not require that we must subscribe to uniform thinking to be a good member!!! Nor do the scriptures for that matter.

[ebeddoulos]

I am quite familiar w OD#2. And there is no question that the Church is in a far better place with it. But I also believe, just as with OD#1, there is little question it was induced more by social pressures than divine intervention.

I struggle to conclude as to the pureness of revelation w respect to OD2 simply because there is no evidence that it was God who took the priesthood right away from blacks in the church to begin with. I cannot fathom, for the life of me how and why a black person was unworthy of Gods blessing. I don't see what they became worthy of in 1978 that they were not worthy of since the day of JS. When did God take this right to His blessing away? And that is why the all too worn response of "we don't know why He did " carries little wieght. The truth is, we have no reason to believe He ever did. I just find greater comfort to reach conclusions on things we know, as opposed to things we don't.

JWhitlock is correct. You make it clear that in spite of your claim of being "exposed", that your exposure was limited at best. In what is probably a vain hope, I provide you the following, being ever mindful of Samuel Butler's couplet:

[jwhitlock]

I have been a member all my life. I have as much exposure and teachings to this subject as you do. I suppose I could reply with as much basis that your response is pure emotional. But if you want to support your conclusion with facts and reasons, I am all ears and eyes.

Again, if you would like to support your emotions that would be helpful to dialogue. The Church does not require that we must subscribe to uniform thinking to be a good member!!! Nor do the scriptures for that matter.

So, you think that rejecting the 1978 Declaration as revelation from God, and instead saying it was just the Church's response to "social pressure" makes you a good or faithful member?

Not hardly. One of the basic tenets of Mormonism and faithful adherence to it is to accept the concept of modern revelation through prophets. It is also to understand the use of the gift of the Holy Ghost in order to obtain ones own confirming witness concerning that revelation.

Evidently you have trouble with both of those concepts.

The 1978 revelation was exactly that - a revelation. It was confirmed as such by the First Presidency and the Twelve. They have talked about their experiences with that revelation in a number of different venues.

What you don't understand - despite your subjective claim to having as much "exposure" as I have - is that by 1978, pressure on the Church about this issue had decreased from years previously. The civil rights movement was moving in different directions, having obtained most of their major goals. If the change had been made 10 years earlier, "social pressure" might have been a discussion point. It was no longer that way in 1978.

Why don't you take a look at FAIR and some of the other LDS sites (not the anti-Mormon ones that distort the subject) that give the history of this. Find out what Presidents Kimball and McKay thought about it and how they both struggled with it. IIRC, it was especially thought that once Spencer Kimball become president of the Church, the priesthood ban would have been done away with immediately, since his viewpoints on it were well known. However, it wasn't. That, in and of itself, should give you pause about the influence of revelation and God's direction in what happened.

You make quite a bit about your interaction with African Americans while this was going on. I lived in the Washington DC area then, and it was something that I had to address head on. I remember my dad calling me into his office in June of 1978 and telling me what had just happened, and the joy that we both had, along with the confirmation through the Spirit of the revelatory nature of the Declaration.

The "social pressure" explantion is, again, pure bunk. It was a revelation. It happened at the right time, in the right situation, for the right reasons, and it came from God. Being properly informed from the correct sources about this issue gives one an entirely different perspective on this than what you have expressed.

[Senator]

We do not know the reasons why God waited until 1978 to allow blacks to hold the priesthood. At best, we can merely speculate.

Which is why the speculation of some, that the restriction wasn't Divinely authored, is entirely understandable in my estimation.

[paulpatter]

After much study and personal reflection as a member, I admit I have a great deal of trouble with what little the Church has done in explaining it's history and doctrinal basis for denial f the priesthood to blacks. The entire "Elder Oaks" speech backlash has done nothing but confirm a frustration I wish did not exist. But it does, and it does because of my pride on my beliefs.

Frankly, I find no scriptural, revelatory, nor theological support for this part of our history. Christ's attonement was for all without regard skin color or past lineage.

So what could possibly be so wrong or bad for the Church to tak a page from others and just publically admit that this practice was not right and acknowledge that it was the mistake of imperfect men?

The backlash from Elder Oaks speech shows that it remains a huge public issue for us. The Church remains too embarrassed to ever speak to this practice publically. And all we can say as members is the weakest "we don't know" ! And we say this without ever acknowledging that blacks were allowed the priesthood originally, only to havebit subjectively retracted.

We see the capacity for understanding and forgiveness in the Christian world (because they are Christians), and we cannot nor will not officially support this policy/practice in any way. We wish it did not exist within our membership conversations so we won't talk about it!

So why not do the right thing and just come out officially as a Church and admit our mistake? What could possibly be the downside to us as a Church? We could make many strides forward, IMO, if we finally acknowledged publiclly what many of us already have acknowledgedx privately.

The First Presidency's letter of June 8, 1978--released publicly--constitutes an admission that the prohibition was wrong and the time had come to end it.

[jwhitlock]

The First Presidency's letter of June 8, 1978--released publicly--constitutes an admission that the prohibition was wrong and the time had come to end it.

It does nothing of the sort.

This is a CFR. Provide a quote from the letter that supports your claim that the prohibition was wrong, or retract it.

[Deborah]

The First Presidency's letter of June 8, 1978--released publicly--constitutes an admission that the prohibition was wrong and the time had come to end it.

On the contrary, it specifically states "we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance." They were wanting the Lord to rescind the ban and were praying that he might do so. The time had come to end it not because it was wrong but because the time was right.

[paulpatter]

It does nothing of the sort.

". . .nothing of the sort," eh? Why, then, was the prohibition ended?

Initiating corrective action is, in itself, acknowledgment that an error/problem exists.

[ebeddoulos]

". . .nothing of the sort," eh? Why, then, was the prohibition ended?

Initiating corrective action is, in itself, acknowledgment that an error/problem exists.

Which is why the speculation of some, that the restriction wasn't Divinely authored, is entirely understandable in my estimation.

I didn't say it wasn't understandable. What I said was that thus far the speculative theories do not withstand scriptural scrutiny. For the perpetual adolescent stuck in the repetitive "Why?" stage of life, the "We do not know" answer is just not good enough. Too bad. Sometimes, we mortals just have to accept that "Because I said so, that's why" is the best answer we are going to get. Read God's cautionary statement found in Isaiah:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)

[jwhitlock]

". . .nothing of the sort," eh? Why, then, was the prohibition ended?

Initiating corrective action is, in itself, acknowledgment that an error/problem exists.

Your faulty reasoning indicates that the only reason it was ended was because it was in error. That is incorrect.

Second CFR. Provide a reference from the letter that supports your claim, or retract it.

In addition, CFR on your claim that it was a "corrective" action from the letter - or retract it that false assumption also.

[DanGB]

So, you think that rejecting the 1978 Declaration as revelation from God, and instead saying it was just the Church's response to "social pressure" makes you a good or faithful member?

I can only answer this question for myself. And the best answer I can provide you is that it makes me an honest member to myself.

What I do know is that our founding prophet, Joseph Smith, who received virtually all the revelations in our doctrines, determined that blacks were worthy of the priesthood blessing as part of the restored gospel. It was therefore allowed by our heavenly Father. I know of no scriptural changes nor revelation from God since that time changing their status of worthiness. But I am all eyes if anyone here can provide His command to withdraw this blessing since allowed by JS.

Hence my struggle with the OD#2 and the obvious conflict I see with the early practice of the Church. Why would God need to reinstate the practice if their was no command to withdraw the blessing to begin with?

I just don't see the relevance to debate what OD#2 may or may not say. It merely changed a practice back to what our Heaveny Father originally wanted, allowed and obviously never took away from our African American bretheren.

[jwhitlock]

I just don't see the relevance to debate what OD#2 may or may not say. It merely changed a practice back to what our Heaveny Father originally wanted, allowed and obviously never took away from our African American bretheren.

First, there's nothing "obvous" about what occurred. You yourself admitted that the historical record is inadequate as to what happened; hence, you are not in a position to make a declaration as to what was "obvious". It was nothing of the sort.

Second, the fact that the Declaration was revelation from the Lord has everything to do this particular issue. That you want to dismiss it as a revelation in order to strengthen your own position about it being some kind of "obvious mistake" is irrelevant. What you're doing is selectively picking evidence to support your own preconceived notions about the subject.

What is troubling is that you are even willing to go to the length of denying the Declaration as revelation in order to stick to your assumption that the ban was just an error. The problem is that you're putting the cart before the horse, and declining to consider evidence that would - and should, in this case - alter your preconception. The First Presidency and the Twelve were absolutely clear about the nature of this revelation. That you reject that calls into question your commitment and understanding, as a member of the Church, to the process of revelation in the restored gospel. That's a serious problem.

The fact that you are "unaware" of any revelation relating to the subject from Brigham Young simply doesn't matter. Again, since we don't have everything pertaining to the history of the ban, we have to be careful what we present as "fact" on the subject.

Finally, this had nothing to do with "worthiness" on the part of blacks. You need to also lose that particular preconception if you're going to figure this out - something that I'm not convinced, yet, that you really want to do.

[paulpatter]

Your faulty reasoning indicates that the only reason it was ended was because it was in error. That is incorrect.

Unable to respond credibly to my claim that the First Presidency's letter constituted an admission that the prohibition was wrong (which is what DanGB seeks in his opening post), you resort to the "shifting ground" argumentive fallacy with a touch of strawman. I never said that the "only reason [the prohibition] was ended was because it was in error." That is an assertion of your manufacture. Hence, the "faulty reasoning"--forgive me--is your own.

: Second CFR. Provide a reference from the letter that supports your claim, or retract it. In addition, CFR on your claim that it was a "corrective" action from the letter - or retract it that false assumption also.

No need for me to respond to the above paragraph. There is a need, however, for you to learn to read contextually.

[Deborah]

". . .nothing of the sort," eh? Why, then, was the prohibition ended?

How many times do I have to repeat this:

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

". . .nothing of the sort," eh? Why, then, was the prohibition ended?

Initiating corrective action is, in itself, acknowledgment that an error/problem exists.

Who said that this is a "corrective action"? You did, were is your evidence for it?

So when God finally gave the priesthood to more than just the tribe of Levi that was a "corrective action"? I see no evidence of that.

[Daniel Peterson]

So what could possibly be so wrong or bad for the Church to tak a page from others and just publically admit that this practice was not right and acknowledge that it was the mistake of imperfect men? . . . So why not do the right thing and just come out officially as a Church and admit our mistake?

One salient objection that occurs to me is that we don't know that this practice was not right, nor that it was the mistake of imperfect men.

You, of course, know it. But I don't. And it seems that several others don't, either.

Perhaps you need to apologize for us, as well?

[Senator]

I didn't say it wasn't understandable.

I didn't say that you did. My remark was in general relation to the OP's expressions.

For the perpetual adolescent stuck in the repetitive "Why?" stage of life, the "We do not know" answer is just not good enough. Too bad.

Geez, some folks need to learn how to engage in adult, civil discourse, without resorting to personal belittlement.

And for the record I hope to be stuck in the How, What, When, Where, Why Stage till my dieing day, while simultaneously consigned to the "I don't know" stage. (Actually, I take that back. I hope to get a few answers along the way.)

Difficulties are encountered when there is uncertainty whether or not "His thoughts and ways" are the impetus behind certain doctrines or policies. Can that happen in the Church?

[ed2276]

Unable to respond credibly to my claim that the First Presidency's letter constituted an admission that the prohibition was wrong (which is what DanGB seeks in his opening post), you resort to the "shifting ground" argumentive fallacy with a touch of strawman.

I have read Official Declaration 2, and nowhere within the text of that declaration do I see the First Presidency making any admission that the prior prohibition on blacks receiving the priesthood was wrong. I see the First Presidency acknowledging that:

(1) The priesthood had been withheld from blacks.

(2) The withholding of the priesthood was understood to be a temporary condition.

(3) The Brethren were desirous that the blessings of the priesthood be extended to those from whom it had been withheld.

(4) After long prayerful supplication to the Lord in His holy temple, the Lord by revelation confirmed to President Kimball that the time had arrived for extending the priesthood to all from whom it had been previously withheld.

(5) The First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, all other general authorities accepted the revelation for the Church.

The general membership of the Church then accepted the revelation. At that time, Official Declaration 2 became scripture and part of LDS canon.

You are reading into the text an admission of wrongdoing which is nowhere found in the text itself.

[handys003]

I read everyones rhetoric so far. Let's be objective about it. Apparently some feel the African-Americans warrant an apology for past discrimination by the GA's. It's not gonna happen! No matter the hissy fits that may prevail. The GA's who felt warranted in denying the PH to AA are long gone. The GA's now cannot speak for the dead. They can only go forward. Those who still feel slighted need to learn from many AA's today and learn the lesson of forgiveness. If you cannot I suggest you come have a nice chat with the Polynesians.

2 Nephi 10:21

21 But great are the promises of the Lord unto them who are upon the ^aisles of the sea; wherefore as it says isles, there must needs be more than this, and they are inhabited also by our brethren.

2 Nephi 29:7

7 Know ye not that there are more ^nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the ^bisles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the ^cearth beneath; and I bring forth my ^dword unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?

The Missionaries were sent to Hawaii to convert the Polynesians. Polynesians were given the right to the PH. Why would not the GA's deny this to them. The reason was the literally took the instructions from the BoM as interpretation from HF. This does not mean that discrimination by certain members did not occur from those arriving from SLC. Discrimination did occur and continues today. However, the Polynesians take it in stride and disregard such attitudes when it rears it's ugly head. They understand the principle of forgiveness and the spirit of Aloha.

BTW Aloha in Hawaiian also means breath of life, not just hello and goodbye. In other words it's bad for your health to not have Aloha. Now get over your grudges and press forward.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I am quite familiar w OD#2. And there is no question that the Church is in a far better place with it. But I also believe, just as with OD#1, there is little question it was induced more by social pressures than divine intervention.

I struggle to conclude as to the pureness of revelation w respect to OD2....

So, according to your 'belief,' when President Kimball and the other apostles at the time repeatedly stated that they had received a 'revelation'--the word is used no less than three times in OD2 itself--and even declared 'with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel,' they were really just lying?