Question On The 1978 Revelation On Priesthood To All Worthy Males

[DBMormon]

I have a question regarding the 1978 revelation

Elder Legrand Richards says

Well, the last one is pretty true, and I might tell you what provoked it in a way. Down in Brazil, there is so much Negro blood in the population there that it's hard to get leaders that don't have Negro blood in them. We just built a temple down there. It's going to be dedicated in October. All those people with Negro blood in them have been raising the money to build that temple. If we don't change, then they can't even use it. Well, Brother Kimball worried about it, and he prayed a lot about it.

He asked each one of us of the Twelve if we would pray - and we did - that the Lord would give him the inspiration to know what the will of the Lord was. Then he invited each one of us in his office - individually, because you know when you are in a group, you can't always express everything that's in your heart. You're part of the group, you see - so he interviewed each one of us, personally, to see how we felt about it, and he asked us to pray about it. Then he asked each one of us to hand in all the references we had, for, or against that proposal. See, he was thinking favorably toward giving the colored people the priesthood.

Then we had a meeting where we meet every week in the temple, and we discussed it as a group together, and then we prayed about it in our prayer circle, and then we held another prayer circle after the close of that meeting, and he (President Kimball) lead in the prayer; praying that the Lord would give us the inspiration that we needed to do the thing that would be pleasing to Him and for the blessing of His children. And then the next Thursday - we meet every Thursday - the Presidency came with this little document written out to make the announcement - to see how we'd feel about it - and present it in written form. Well, some of the members of the Twelve suggested a few changes in the announcement, and then in our meeting there we all voted in favor of it - the Twelve and the Presidency. One member of the Twelve, Mark Petersen, 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.

Elder McConkie says

"It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. The message was that the time had now come to offer the fullness of the everlasting gospel, including celestial marriage, and the priesthood, and the blessings of the temple, to all men, without reference to race or color, solely on the basis of personal worthiness. And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord."

President Hinkley said

"Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same. All of us knew that the time had come for a change and that the decision had come from the heavens. The answer was clear. There was perfect unity among us in our experience and in our understanding."

It seems to me that Elder Richards wants to downplay speaking of it as revelation publicly and would rather the public see it as a consensus or mutual decision lacking any spiritual manifestation. Elder McConkie seems to want to portray this as a marvelous revelation similar to the day of pentecost and cloven tongues. President Hinckley seems to want to walk the line between them.

I also found it interesting the Elder Richards was ordained an apostle in 1952

President Hinckley was ordained an apostle in 1961

Bruce R McConkie was ordained an apostle in 1972

So the longer one had served as an apostle the more likely they were to publicly treat this pronouncement as a united decision and less likely to speak of it as a grand revelation that involved spiritual manifestations.

Is this due to keeping sacred things sacred or are we to gather that perhaps revealtions are not the big glorious manifestations we hope and want them to be but rather the Lord finding a way to get 15 men to all agree on something.

What are we to make from these three statements regarding the great pronouncement or declaration

Edited July 2, 2012 by DBMormon

[CASteinman]

It seems to me that Elder Richards wants to downplay speaking of it as revelation and would rather see it as a consensus or mutual decision lacking any spiritual manifestation. Elder McConkie seems to want to portray this as a marvelous revelation similar to the day of pentecost and cloven tongues. President Hinckley seems to want to walk the line between them.

I also found it interesting the Elder Richards was ordained an apostle in 1952

President Hinckley was ordained an apostle in 1961

Bruce R McConkie was ordained an apostle in 1972

So the longer one had served as an apostle the more likely they were to publicly treat this pronouncement as a united decision and less likely to speak of it as a grand revelation that involved spiritual manifestations.

Is this due to keeping sacred things sacred or are we to gather that perhaps revealtions are not the big glorious manifestations we hope and want them to be but rather the Lord finding a way to get 15 men to all agree on something.

What are we to make from these three statements regarding the great pronouncement or declaration

Legrand Richards had the most dramatic manifestation of anyone there. But he did not want to talk about it. Others have relayed what happened with him, but I will respect his wishes that it not be too widely discussed. (BTW, Richards was talking with people who were not exactly friendly to the Church, which may also affect his reserve).

Bruce McConkie said we "all heard the same voice". One of the other Apostles went to him and said "No, not so - I heard no voice". Bruce McConkie showed him scriptures whereby certain manifestations that are not literally voices are still called "The voice of God" (or something to that effect). The other Apostle agreed that the manifestation he received fit the definition per the scriptures and signed the statement.

[Mark Beesley]

I have a question regarding the 1978 revelation.

It seems to me that Elder Richards wants to downplay speaking of it as revelation publicly and would rather the public see it as a consensus or mutual decision lacking any spiritual manifestation. Elder McConkie seems to want to portray this as a marvelous revelation similar to the day of pentecost and cloven tongues. President Hinckley seems to want to walk the line between them.

I also found it interesting the Elder Richards was ordained an apostle in 1952

President Hinckley was ordained an apostle in 1961

Bruce R McConkie was ordained an apostle in 1972

So the longer one had served as an apostle the more likely they were to publicly treat this pronouncement as a united decision and less likely to speak of it as a grand revelation that involved spiritual manifestations.

Is this due to keeping sacred things sacred or are we to gather that perhaps revealtions are not the big glorious manifestations we hope and want them to be but rather the Lord finding a way to get 15 men to all agree on something.

What are we to make from these three statements regarding the great pronouncement or declaration

The longer you serve, the more accustomed you become to experiencing revelation so it's no big deal . . . How's that for an explanation.

And, like CASteinman pointed out, you need to consider the audience for the individual statements.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[BCSpace]

What are we to make from these three statements regarding the great pronouncement or declaration

That D&C 9:8 works.

[Darren10]

Bruce McConkie said we "all heard the same voice". One of the other Apostles went to him and said "No, not so - I heard no voice". Bruce McConkie showed him scriptures whereby certain manifestations that are not literally voices are still called "The voice of God" (or something to that effect). The other Apostle agreed that the manifestation he received fit the definition per the scriptures and signed the statement.

I'm unfamiliar with that account. Is there aname to that apostle? Here's what i understand to have happened:

"It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. . . . And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord.

"…On this occasion, because of the importuning and the faith, and because the hour and the time had arrived, the Lord in his providences poured out the Holy Ghost upon the First Presidency and the Twelve in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced."

Elder Gordon B. Hinckley described his impressions as follows: "There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren. . . .

"It was a quiet and sublime occasion. . . .

"…There was a Pentecostal spirit, for the Holy Ghost was there….

"…Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same….

"…There was perfect unity among us in our experience and in our understanding."

(snip)

The manner in which this revelation came is unique in our Church history because of the power with which it came, the numbers who received it, and the powerful effects it would have upon so many. Both President Kimball and President Benson said that they had never "experienced anything of such spiritual magnitude and power" as this revelation. The reason the Lord chose to reveal this to the First Presidency and the Twelve, rather than only to his prophet, is due to the tremendous import and eternal significance of what was revealed, according to Elder McConkie. Hence, "the Lord wanted independent witnesses who could bear record that the thing had happened."

http://www.blacklds.org/declare2#thoughts

[CASteinman]

I'm unfamiliar with that account. Is there aname to that apostle? Here's what i understand to have happened:

I may have spoken too much. It might have been told confidentially and I feel badly that I may have said something in breach. I hope I did not. But I don't recall hearing a warning about it. That does not mean that I should have relayed it to others.

[Stargazer]

I may have spoken too much. It might have been told confidentially and I feel badly that I may have said something in breach. I hope I did not. But I don't recall hearing a warning about it. That does not mean that I should have relayed it to others.

There are some who need to hear such things.

And others who will mock when they do.

Perhaps then it is best for all concerned to keep it more closely held -- but what faithful Latter-day Saint wouldn't want to know the full story?

[CASteinman]

Several people have asked privately about the LeGrand Richards information. I would like to provide the information. Apostle Richards did not share this outside the 12 and a few others, but since his death, some of them have shared it in public. Not sure exactly how I feel about that, but it allows me to give everyone references without repeating the story verbatim.

God bless Elder Richards. I loved him. Aged but DYNAMIC. (Plus in his younger days, he sounded sort of like John Wayne!)

The best reference would be the book: LEGRAND RICHARDS: BELOVED APOSTLE by Lucile C. Tate p 291-292. She quotes a source that exists but was not published. It was a Eulogy at Elder Richard's Funeral. I am unable to find a link to that Eulogy.

This should be sufficient for people to find the information. I note that until she published it, it had remained a private story and though told by another Apostle, it was not released to general publication. I think the same respect for Elder Richard's humble approach should continue and hope it does.

[selek1]

Is this due to keeping sacred things sacred or are we to gather that perhaps revealtions are not the big glorious manifestations we hope and want them to be but rather the Lord finding a way to get 15 men to all agree on something.

What are we to make from these three statements regarding the great pronouncement or declaration

Anything you "make of it" will be speculation, at best.

"Blatant mind-reading" comes a close second.

You have three statements from three different individuals, with three different perspectives to three different audiences, on three different occasions.

Trying to read more into those statements than what they say- especially without much deeper context from the men in question- is a fool's errand.

Let's put it another way:

How do you think these men might have phrased themselves had they known someone was going to wander in (thirty years after the fact) and try to engineer a "contradiction" between their statements?

Is it at all reasonable to believe they'd "go along" with such an effort?

Edited July 3, 2012 by selek1

[Pahoran]

I was a serving missionary when the announcement was made. It came absolutely out of the blue. I received a powerful witness that it was right almost as soon as I heard about it.

Note that any "external influences" that might have impelled the brethren to seek guidance on this issue would in no way count as evidence against it having been a fully authentic revelation; however, such influences are remarkably difficult to find. The claim that it came in response to anything the American IRS had done, was doing or might subsequently have done has no basis in reality, and is a rather typical anti-Mormon FDF.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited July 4, 2012 by Pahoran

[Palerider]

Acts 26: 13-19

13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a alight from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, aSaul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick bagainst the pricks.

15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have aappeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a bwitness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I asend thee,

18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from adarkness to blight, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

I love this! Straight forward, no pu55yfooting around or playing hide and seek with innuendo. The forum was relatively public. The audience not terribly sympathetic and yet Paul speaks clearly, unabashedly, unequivocally, with great courage.

Now there was a true Apostle..........

I was a young married man with a family when I heard the news regarding the lifting of the ban. I immediately thought...."What took you guys so long....??????"

Edited July 4, 2012 by Palerider

[cinepro]

If I recall, Edward Kimball says that his father (President Kimball) took exception to Elder McConkie's characterization of the experience. When I have access to the biography, I'll see if I can find it.

And then there was Elder Petersen, for whom the revelation came like a voice over the telephone.

Edited July 4, 2012 by cinepro

[Kerry A. Shirts]

If I recall, Edward Kimball says that his father (President Kimball) took exception to Elder McConkie's characterization of the experience. When I have access to the biography, I'll see if I can find it.

And then there was Elder Petersen, for whom the revelation came like a voice over the telephone.

So they didn't all have the same experience, but interpreted it differently?

[CASteinman]

So they didn't all have the same experience, but interpreted it differently?

Some of the experiences were apparently seen as the same. Some were clearly not seen as the same.

[Storm Rider]

Anything you "make of it" will be speculation, at best.

"Blatant mind-reading" comes a close second.

You have three statements from three different individuals, with three different perspectives to three different audiences, on three different occasions.

Trying to read more into those statements than what they say- especially without much deeper context from the men in question- is a fool's errand.

Let's put it another way:

How do you think these men might have phrased themselves had they known someone was going to wander in (thirty years after the fact) and try to engineer a "contradiction" between their statements?

Is it at all reasonable to believe they'd "go along" with such an effort?

I thought people were supposed to recount the same experience in exactly the same words every time regardless of audience or occasion. If they don't, then it is obvious they are liars; just ask Joseph Smith and his critics. If we take their perspective, then it is obvious that these men are all mendacious in the retelling of the story.

[selek1]

I thought people were supposed to recount the same experience in exactly the same words every time regardless of audience or occasion. If they don't, then it is obvious they are liars; just ask Joseph Smith and his critics. If we take their perspective, then it is obvious that these men are all mendacious in the retelling of the story.

Indeed.

Except for Palerider's mendacious "my God is bigger than your God" nonsense, that does seem to be the thrust of some of the critics arguments.

Fortunately, the faithful are not so contrained.

I don't believe that this was DBMormon's intent- but he does seem to have afforded the less than scrupulous the opportunity to roil the waters.

[DBMormon]

This is a discussion board right? Am I only to post threads on what trees grow on the hill cumorah? what year did Bro. Ryder leave the church? or am I allowed to ask questions that strike a discussion on a discussion board? Guys this isn't about evil intent it is about getting us thinking and learning and talking about things we had not considered before....

[Storm Rider]

This is a discussion board right? Am I only to post threads on what trees grow on the hill cumorah? what year did Bro. Ryder leave the church? or am I allowed to ask questions that strike a discussion on a discussion board? Guys this isn't about evil intent it is about getting us thinking and learning and talking about things we had not considered before....

I have no problems with questions generally. I dislike manipulation, which will often attempt to ask specific kinds of questions in order to lead the unsuspecting to a specific conclusion (I don't think you were doing this). I also dislike disingenuous questions, which we all have seen on this board (which I also don't think you were doing).

As I reread your question you make several assumptions about the motivations of the individuals involved. Then you deduce what these assumptions might mean. This kind of foundation for a discussion is built upon sand...your personal assumptions. I think it might be wiser to approach topics more directly and without the assumptions. Does that make sense?

[selek1]

This is a discussion board right? Am I only to post threads on what trees grow on the hill cumorah? what year did Bro. Ryder leave the church? or am I allowed to ask questions that strike a discussion on a discussion board?

You may pose any questions you like. Conversely, we are allowed to offer our opinions on the merit or inanity of the question.

This is, after all, a "discussion board"- not a private soap box.

Guys this isn't about evil intent it is about getting us thinking and learning and talking about things we had not considered before....

Still hitting the Saints for reactions, I see....

Still and all, for some of the posters here- it is about "evil intent". They come here not to learn or discuss, but to sow seeds of discord, of doubt, and contention.

I have no trouble with a genuine intellectual exchange, nor with exploring the boundaries of what we know (or think we know). I have no trouble exploring issues that can be examined and analyzed in a logical, methodological, and measurable fashion through doctrine and the scriptures.

Your OP, however, is a flight into the purely hypothetical. Your argument can neither avoid nor escape uninformed speculation nor wild "what-ifs".

The product of your line of argument will unavoidably and inevitably be one form of unadultered, uniformed, and meaningless opinion or another.

By its very nature, it is impossible for your OP to produce anything factual, concrete, or doctrinal- hence it is "a fool's errand" that can only serve to stir the pot of contention and expose our leaders to ridicule, scorn, and abuse.

[rpn]

You'll recall that Elder McKonkie had long propounded reasons for the ban. It may well have been that he received the inspiration exactly as he described, even though others wouldn't describe the same events the same way. After all, Elder McKonkie had to get to the point where he was prepared to tell everyone to forget everything that had been said (and HE KNEW A LOT OF WHAT had been said, as a known scholar).

But it is true (and there are several accounts) that the decision to act on inspiration to go forward with the Brazil temple, knowing they didn't have the qualified people to staff it, might have been one of those required demonstrations of trust in the Lord that was needed in order to be in tune to accept the inspiration. For sure it would have been confirmation to me of the revelation eliminating the ban, that the earlier inspiration to build a temple that couldn't be staffed otherwise came from God.

Edited July 4, 2012 by rpn

[Deborah]

What are we to make from these three statements regarding the great pronouncement or declaration

That three men are speaking from different perspectives at different times and to different audiences.

To me the fact that many factors came into play at the same time all point to the Lord's timing. These include the temple in Brazil, the African people who had discovered the Book of Mormon and were pleading for baptism and the many members of the then "Negro" population who had joined the church in America and were faithful despite the ban. How could the Lord any longer withhold the Priesthood and so when a group of men of diverse opinions became united in one voice, that was revelation no matter how you describe it.

[cinepro]

If I recall, Edward Kimball says that his father (President Kimball) took exception to Elder McConkie's characterization of the experience. When I have access to the biography, I'll see if I can find it.

Here it is:

President Kimball desired that people not sensationalize the revelatory experience. "Some people would try to figure it out that I had a personal visitation from the Almighty as in the First Vision. I would not want to make the revelation different from what it was." Still, he had no doubts that he had received a revelation and that its source was divine. The strong, distinct, sacred impression he experienced banished for him the thought of questioning its source.

Speaking to seminary and institute teachers a few months after the revelation, Elder McConkie described the events in poetic language that some misunderstood. He said of the experience:

"From the midst of Eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet...And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord.

"President Kimball's prayer was answered and our prayers were answered. He heard the voice and we heard the same voice."

His ecstatic phrasing left some with the mistaken impression that the group had heard an audible voice speaking specific words. When President Kimball read the talk as published in 1981, he asked Elder McConkie to revise the statement to avoid possible misunderstanding.*

*Alexander B. Morrison equates Elder McConkie using the phrase "voice of the Lord" with Enos's experience, but Elder McConkie said he did not experience a "voice in the mind" as Enos did. The change President Kimball recommended was not made.

"Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball", Edward Kimball, p.234.

[theplains]

"From the midst of Eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet...And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord.

"President Kimball's prayer was answered and our prayers were answered. He heard the voice and we heard the same voice."

Who is the "we" and "our" in the above passage and why does it differ from what is stated on the church's website?

According to http://www.lds.org/s...t/od/2?lang=eng, "President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had

received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he

presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles,

who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it

unanimously".

If it really came from God to a prophet, why would it need a vote of approval?

Thanks,

Jim

[cinepro]

Who is the "we" and "our" in the above passage and why does it differ from what is stated on the church's website?

As far as I can tell, McConkie is referring to the group of 10 Apostles and 3 First Presidency members who were present at the time of the decision.

I suspect the statement in OD2 is summarizing the revelatory experience of the Apostles in the statement "It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it..."

As for why a vote was needed, check out D&C 26:2.

[theplains]

As for why a vote was needed, check out D&C 26:2.

What does "And all things shall be done by common consent in the church" mean? Does it mean that all revelations, declarations,

social issues, what is taught in seminary manuals, etc are voted upon and the majority wins?

Thanks,

Jim