Help - Past Church Authorities And Their Words

[CASteinman]

I recall having read statements (“official” statements, by your criterion) made by past Church leaders to the effect that all truth belongs to Mormonism. Every true principle and correct doctrine, be they secular or divine, scientific or theological, are a part of, accepted by, and belong to Mormonism. Mormonism accepts all correct principles, and rejects all false ones. That is official. However, since according to your definition of “official doctrine” it may contain false as well as true doctrine, therefore according to you “official Mormon doctrine” includes both what is accepted as well as what is rejected by Mormonism. Ummm, go figure!

You are right, I think.

I do this so much that its almost automatic to me -- but I accept paradox and inconsistency without necessarily supposing that it is always illogical or a case of untruthfulness or even falsehood. More importantly though, I accept it as something that just happens so much that it is hard to get away from.

But its not how we are trained to think. We want everything to be consistent -- 2 + 2 MUST always equal 4 or we are lost.

The truth is that consistency is very important in most things in our lives. But my experience is that in the Gospel, there is a certain degree of inconsistency that we must learn to live with and navigate by the Spirit.

When I see it, I am not horrified or shocked or upset. I immediately know that I am treading on interesting territory and that I need to be alert, but I do not have to be troubled.

I don't know that many other people look at it this way and so they have a different reaction to these sorts of problems. (Which exist in the Scriptures by the way).

[CASteinman]

Yeah I would be very careful about putting a lot of stock in that saying.

Because you do not believe that all truth is part of God's program?

[CASteinman]

That's not true, it's not that I don't like some of it. It's that the brethren are not unanimously united and agreed on the issue.

I understand your point. I make two observations:

1. You do not know that they are not in agreement. Your quote of Hales does not really suggest that he was being as literal or analytical as Nelson.

2. They do not have to have private agreement for them to all have something published over their names. As I recall, for example, there are some who did not really agree with the wording of Official Declaration 2 but were convinced to sign it anyway.

Just to show that this is not a matter of me not liking the doctrine, there are other official doctrines (which I consider official by my definition) which I have a problem with and have difficulty explaining, but accept as doctrine as outlined in scripture and practiced through history. I do not question it as doctrine, I simply admit that I don't understand it.

I think you are missing my point about not liking it. I did not mean that you merely objected to the doctrine itself. But you objected to it because there wasn't agreement AND you did not like one of the two options. And in particular, if a similar issue raises its head in scripture -- you will still call scripture official, even though it does not meet your criteria of "unity".

I will give you a specific example if you like.

[pogi]

I understand your point. I make two observations:

1. You do not know that they are not in agreement. Your quote of Hales does not really suggest that he was being as literal or analytical as Nelson.

2. They do not have to have private agreement for them to all have something published over their names. As I recall, for example, there are some who did not really agree with the wording of Official Declaration 2 but were convinced to sign it anyway.

1. If it wasn't analytical or literal, what was it? Apathetic and exaggerated? Like I said, Hales quote was the first of many that I have come by. Here are some others:

"God is our father; he loves us; his love is infinite and unconditional. His sorrow is great when we disobey his commandments and break his laws. He cannot condone our transgressions, but he loves us and wants us to return to him. I know of no greater inducement to repentance and reconciliation with our Father in Heaven than an awareness of his unconditional love for us personally and individually."

- Elder Ronald E. Poelman, "God's Love for Us Transcends Our Transgressions," Ensign, May 1982, page 27

"The greatest example of love available to all of us is, of course, found in the scripture from John: 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son.' (John 3:16.) By the greatest of all acts of love and by this supreme sacrifice, God set the pattern. He demonstrated to us that His love was unconditional and sufficient to encircle every person."

-Apostle Marvin J. Ashton, We Serve That Which We Love, Ensign, May 1981, Page 22

"God’s mercy comes from his unlimited and unconditional love for us. Likewise, we should show mercy to others because of our unlimited and unconditional love for them. Our Savior, Jesus Christ, loves us - not because we deserve it, but because we are his brothers and sisters and he has sacrificed for us. Our parents love us - not because we deserve it, but because they have sacrificed for us.

-Elder Robert E. Wells Of the First Quorum of the Seventy, The Beatitudes: Pattern for Coming unto Christ, Ensign, Dec. 1987, Page 8

"I testify that He (Jesus Christ) assisted in the creation and management not only of this planet, but other worlds. His grasp is galactic, yet he noticed the widow casting in her mite. I am stunned at his perfect, unconditional love of all. Indeed, 'I stand all amazed at the love Jesus offers me.'"

- Neal A. Maxwell, "Jesus of Nazareth, Savior and King," Ensign, May 1976, page 26

"At the conclusion of these twenty-eight years, I testify of our Heavenly Father's love for us. The unconditional love the Father and the Son have for us is so real. The Savior continually invites us to "come unto him and partake of his goodness." I bear witness that He lives, that He loves each one of His children-and that means every human being-every man, every woman, every girl, every boy, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen."

- Victor L. Brown, "A Lifetime of Learning," Ensign, Nov. 1989, page 76

"Remind your family that Jesus' love is unconditional. That means he loves us no matter what we do and say. Explain to your family that if they are to truly love one another as Jesus commanded them, they need to love each other in this same way. Have family members define what is meant by unconditional love. They may wish to give examples, such as "I will go on loving you even if you do things I don't like," or "I will love you whether you love me or not." Discuss the examples given, and help them to refine and clarify their definition of unconditional love."

"Have a scripture search for examples of unconditional love. As you find scriptural examples, draw parallels for your own family so that family members can see how divine unconditional love can be applied in their own lives. Emphasize that this doctrine is not vain and idealistic, that we can learn to love our enemies and have compassion and charity for all if we will exercise our faith in Jesus Christ and apply his teachings.

- Family Home Evening Resource Book, Family Home Evening Lessons, 17: Love at Home, page 74

Do you see the disagreement now?

2. I don't even know what you are saying here. Are you trying to tell me that the brethren are signing their names on doctrine that they are in "private" disagreement about, even though they continue to teach their "private" and contradictory opinions publicly? It is ridiculous to suppose that these brethren are signing their names to establish official church doctrine that they are fundamentally opposed to and teach contrary to. It simply is not the case. They are not published as doctrine of the church. That would require something similar to the proclamation to the world or the other official declarations which is a more orderly, prayerful, careful, thoughtful, and unanimous approach to establishing official doctrine so as to avoid confusion. After such doctrine is established, they will all teach the same principles and not contrary opinions on the matter.

Edited March 21, 2013 by pogi

[CASteinman]

Do you see the disagreement now?

We were talking about two specific apostles. You do not know that THEY disagree. In fact you do not know that ANY of the folks you pointed to disagree. It would not be the first time that someone said one thing one time and something else a different time. Context is really important. The bottom line is: You do not know that they disagree. All you can do is point to statements that do not seem to be in agreement. But that is not the same thing.

Take for example, Russell M. Nelson who went through in great detail to show from the Standard Works that it is technically incorrect to say that God's Love is Unconditional. That very same man also said this: "Godliness characterizes each of you who truly loves the Lord. You are constantly mindful of the Savior’s atonement and rejoice in His unconditional love. "

For your view of things to be reality you must imagine that Elder Nelson is either a liar, has multiple personalities, changed his mind, or is a hypocrite.

But none of those things is really reasonable. What is far more reasonable is the idea that context is important.

2. It is ridiculous to suppose that these brethren are signing their names to establish official church doctrine that they are fundamentally opposed to and teach contrary to. It simply is not the case.

Okie dokie. I guess the issue is resolved. You are correct.

[pogi]

We were talking about two specific apostles. You do not know that THEY disagree. In fact you do not know that ANY of the folks you pointed to disagree. It would not be the first time that someone said one thing one time and something else a different time. Context is really important. The bottom line is: You do not know that they disagree. All you can do is point to statements that do not seem to be in agreement. But that is not the same thing.

"God's love...cannot be correctly characterized as unconditional" It would seem to me that anyone who characterizes God's love as conditional, according to elder Nelson, would be incorrect. "Remind your families that God's love is unconditional" These statements are not in disagreement? What exactly am I missing here? And, what exactly am I supposed to teach my family as a matter of doctrine?

Take for example, Russell M. Nelson who went through in great detail to show from the Standard Works that it is technically incorrect to say that God's Love is Unconditional. That very same man also said this: "Godliness characterizes each of you who truly loves the Lord. You are constantly mindful of the Savior’s atonement and rejoice in His unconditional love. "

For your view of things to be reality you must imagine that Elder Nelson is either a liar, has multiple personalities, changed his mind, or is a hypocrite.

But none of those things is really reasonable. What is far more reasonable is the idea that context is important.

It's not reasonable for a man to change his mind? Why not? Notice that he made that comment back in 1991. 22 years is plenty enough time to develop new perspectives and ideas on God's love. There is nothing wrong with that either.

If context is what is important, please share. What about the context makes both statements cohesive?

Edited March 21, 2013 by pogi

[CASteinman]

If context is what is important, please share. What about the context makes both statements cohesive?

Thorough going technical analysis vs cheery but unexamined platitude.

[pogi]

Thorough going technical analysis vs cheery but unexamined platitude.

In other words, he changed his mind.

Several of those quotes I listed were thorough analysis of scripture with reference to John 3:16. Others were testimonies about the nature of God's love beginning with "I know." I would not casually classify any GAs testimony as cheery but unexamined platitude. There is clear disagreement.

[CASteinman]

In other words, he changed his mind.

Several of those quotes I listed were thorough analysis of scripture with reference to John 3:16. Others were testimonies about the nature of God's love beginning with "I know." I would not casually classify any GAs testimony as cheery but unexamined platitude. There is clear disagreement.

No. In other words, context is important.

[Stone holm]

Because you do not believe that all truth is part of God's program?

No. It's just there is truth and then there is truth. Ultimately, truth is a perfect knowledge of thing as they have been, are, and will be. But for us we deal with what you might call a working truth. As much as it annoys people, religion and science are more alike than we would like to admit. They are both involved with the search for truth with an emphasis on what works. For example, and aim getting a bit out of my depth here, but Newtonian physics worked quite well for its time and was true. But, eventually we needed something more precise and which provided a better grasp on reality, so along comes Einstein and provides a somewhat altered view, which is also true, but allowed us to progress to another level of technology, assuming improved technology is progress. Religious truth works in a similar way. There appears to have been a time when The Lord was preparing a people to give birth to the savior and to establish certain building blocks for the future, so He revealed a part of the ultimate truth. And it was true and it worked for His purposes, and apparently for theirs as well since they have survived now for thousands of years while other peoples have lost their identities. What they had was a powerful truth. Then the savior comes along and more truth is revealed and because of that our perception of truth and even of reality changes. Both were truths, but though we like to pretend that it all looked the same to those living it, that is highly doubtful. Now today because of Joseph Smith , we Mormons sometimes get the arrogant belief that we have a monopoly on truth. I rather doubt that. Don't get me wrong, I believe the Church is true, etc. but that does not mean that I believe that we are the only ones having insight to the truth. I believe that God is always working on the entire world, that he and Satan are contending out there and as a result some people outside the Church are inspired to do things, good things. I think that Rosa Parks was inspired to do what she did, which helped set in motion changes that The Lord wanted to happen and which needed to happen. But His Church could best be described as having sat out the conflict (that is a generous way of viewing it). And, I don't think that is likely to be the only example in the future. So no I don't believe that the Church is the sole repository of truth.

[pogi]

No. In other words, context is important.

And your explanation of how context makes both remarks cohesive was: he didn't really think it through the first time, but he did the second time. (in other words, he changed his mind from an unexamined standpoint to a more thorough analytical, yet different conclusion) Stop playing word games with me.

Edited March 21, 2013 by pogi

[CASteinman]

So no I don't believe that the Church is the sole repository of truth.

But that is not what was said nor what you objected to. This justification is sort of about a strawman, not about what you objected to.

[CASteinman]

And your explanation of how context makes both remarks cohesive was: he didn't really think it through the first time, but he did the second time. (in other words, he changed his mind from an unexamined standpoint to a more thorough analytical, yet different conclusion) Stop playing word games with me.

Here is how see it.

You heard a talk that offended you and now you are doing your best to find ways to discredit it so you can feel comfortable not being observant of its teachings.

As a result, your biases have made you unable to accept certain things -- things that are obvious. We all have blind spots, so its not like you are especially "bad" in this matter. But it makes the discussion impossible to carry on. Your mind is not open to anything that would suggest to you that you must accept that teaching you do not like (even though, my definition of official doctrine does not require that you accept it, to your mind it does, and thus you have to oppose it).

I think that before we could ever discuss something as trivial as what is and what is not official doctrine, you would have to come to the discussion without such an emotional burden.

For example, I think that given your specific concerns, you would need to come to the discussion recognizing that Nelson's talk is exactly in line with the teachings of Jesus the Christ. Right now you would not think so. But Jesus never taught that God's Love was unconditional. In fact, he explicitly taught that it was conditional.

This is unacceptable to you to a very high level. And that has clouded or distorted the process of conversation. I feel like additional discussion will circle around this issue that is really at the core of your problem but it is at the periphery of what I have been talking about.

It seems, in other words, that we are not having the same conversation. You have one topic and I have another. So I would rather not continue.

[pogi]

Here is how see it.

You heard a talk that offended you and now you are doing your best to find ways to discredit it so you can feel comfortable not being observant of its teachings.

As a result, your biases have made you unable to accept certain things -- things that are obvious. We all have blind spots, so its not like you are especially "bad" in this matter. But it makes the discussion impossible to carry on. Your mind is not open to anything that would suggest to you that you must accept that teaching you do not like (even though, my definition of official doctrine does not require that you accept it, to your mind it does, and thus you have to oppose it).

I think that before we could ever discuss something as trivial as what is and what is not official doctrine, you would have to come to the discussion without such an emotional burden.

For example, I think that given your specific concerns, you would need to come to the discussion recognizing that Nelson's talk is exactly in line with the teachings of Jesus the Christ. Right now you would not think so. But Jesus never taught that God's Love was unconditional. In fact, he explicitly taught that it was conditional.

This is unacceptable to you to a very high level. And that has clouded or distorted the process of conversation. I feel like additional discussion will circle around this issue that is really at the core of your problem but it is at the periphery of what I have been talking about.

It seems, in other words, that we are not having the same conversation. You have one topic and I have another. So I would rather not continue.

And here is how I see it. You have backed yourself into a corner and instead of offering logical arguments to get out of it, you play word games. When that doesn't work, you slander me by calling me a closed minded, emotional, and offended individual. I am not offended in the least by Nelson's remarks. He is a giant to me, a man of God that I admire greatly, whom I happen to disagree with in one particular instance. If I seem emotional, it is only because I am getting tired of your games. I do not consider myself closed minded on this issue. While I currently feel strongly that God's love is unconditional, which view is in-line with many other GAs, I am open to any reasonable or spiritual enlightenment I might receive from others. You have offered me neither.

I am not trying to discredit his teachings so as to not be observant of it. You have mis-characterized me. There is no commandment to be observant of here. Even if it was a matter of observance, to be observant to Nelson I would have to disobey the others. I am not even really trying to discredit his teachings. I am simply pointing out that the church has not taken an official stance on the matter and either interpretation, at this point, is a matter of opinion not doctrine.

The difference between us is that I do not consider what constitutes official doctrine to be a trivial matter. If I am to be a member of this church, I must understand and accept it's doctrines to be compliant with them and teach correct principles to my family.

But Jesus never taught that God's Love was unconditional.

I guess we understand the scriptures differently. He may not have used the word "unconditional" but neither did he use the word "conditional" No, he just demonstrated it by giving his life as a sacrifice of unconditional love for the world to prove it.

The fact is, Nelson and the other GAs that I quoted cannot all be speaking the words of Christ. Either his love is conditional or it is not. They are not all correct. This is a fact that you have to come to accept.

I would rather not continue as well.

Edited March 21, 2013 by pogi

[CASteinman]

And here is how I see it. You have backed yourself into a corner and instead of offering logical arguments to get out of it, you play word games. When that doesn't work, you slander me by calling me a closed minded, emotional, and offended individual. I am not offended in the least by Nelson's remarks. He is a giant to me, a man of God that I admire greatly, whom I happen to disagree with in one particular instance. If I seem emotional, it is only because I am getting tired of your games. I do not consider myself closed minded on this issue. While I currently feel strongly that God's love is unconditional, which view is in-line with many other GAs, I am open to any reasonable or spiritual enlightenment I might receive from others. You have offered me neither.

The difference between us is that I do not consider what constitutes official doctrine to be a trivial matter. If I am to be a member of this church, I must understand and accept it's doctrines to be compliant with them and teach correct principles to my family.

I guess we understand the scriptures differently. He may not have used the word "unconditional" but neither did he use the word "conditional" No, he just demonstrated it by giving his life as a sacrifice of unconditional love for the world to prove it.

The fact is, Nelson and the other GAs that I quoted cannot all be speaking the words of Christ. Either his love is conditional or it is not. They are not all correct. This is a fact that you have to come to accept.

I would rather not continue as well.

I did not intend or mean to slander you in any way. Sorry. I don't think anything bad.

Edited March 21, 2013 by CASteinman

[pogi]

I did not intend or mean to slander you in any way. Sorry. I don't think anything bad.

Thank you

[Stone holm]

But that is not what was said nor what you objected to. This justification is sort of about a strawman, not about what you objected to.

Ah my misunderstanding, may have imputed to you what is implied by so many that anything outside the Church is at best a counterfeit truth -- whereas in reality, it may be a better reflection of the truth than is currently being accepted as revealed by the Church and its members -- you may not have actually argued against that, sometimes all the various commenters blur in this aging mind of mine.

[CASteinman]

Ah my misunderstanding, may have imputed to you what is implied by so many that anything outside the Church is at best a counterfeit truth -- whereas in reality, it may be a better reflection of the truth than is currently being accepted as revealed by the Church and its members -- you may not have actually argued against that, sometimes all the various commenters blur in this aging mind of mine.

Well, to clarify, this is appears to be what you objected to:

"Every true principle and correct doctrine, be they secular or divine, scientific or theological, are a part of, accepted by, and belong to Mormonism."

And I asked "Because you don't believe all truth is part of God's Program?"

I was surprised at that.

[Stone holm]

"Every true principle and correct doctrine, be they secular or divine, scientific or theological, are a part of, accepted by, and belong to Mormonism."

Okay, I took that to mean that Mormonism is currently accepting and teaching such, in that such is reflected in what is necessarily coming out of Salt Lake (not necessarily what you can figure out on your own in Mormonism) -- and I don't think that what is coming out of Church Headquarters in the way of public comments of GAs, Ensign Articles, etc. is necessarily the truest principles or most correct doctrine.

[CASteinman]

is necessarily the truest principles or most correct doctrine.

It is the most correct doctrine, by definition. What it is not is the entire spectrum of truth for all eternity.

The original context of the quote that came up was the Brigham Young and other Apostles of the 19th century who said that all the truth wherever it is found in the world or in eternity belongs to God and is thus part of the Gospel and it is up to the Elders to seek it out.

You seem to express a perspective of the Church being some narrow minded pedantic bunch of old has beens. Is that what you are thinking?

[Stone holm]

The original context of the quote that came up was the Brigham Young and other Apostles of the 19th century who said that all the truth wherever it is found in the world or in eternity belongs to God and is thus part of the Gospel and it is up to the Elders to seek it out.

I agree with that whole heartedly.

You seem to express a perspective of the Church being some narrow minded pedantic bunch of old has beens. Is that what you are thinking?

Yes and no. I believe that the Church like all established churches has strong conservative tendencies, and that as such the Church as an institutional body will tend to lag behind culture by anywhere from 40 years to possbily even 1,000 years. I futher believe that such is often God's will because He has to bring people along if He wants to keep the Church strong. So He works both in the Church and outside the Church. I don't think that the Church leaders are a bunch of "old has beens" -- heck I am not exactly a spring chicken, but I do think they are strongly influenced by the culture that they operate in and their life experiences in that culture. We tend to forget that the younger generation has no concept of the culture that we grew up in and as a consequence they have trouble understanding us. For example, last night at an adult education class at Church where we are studying the article that recently came out about the extension of the Priesthood. The person who was leading the discussion is a brilliant young man with a degree in ancient religion from, I believe BYU -- but he was born after the extension occurred. Towards the end of the discussion I remarked on the fact that the article made no mention of the cover letter that went with the declaration. He asked what it said, and I said well I didn't remember all of it, but I certainly remembered the part which had the admonition against inter-racial marriage. And he looked a little stunned -- and thankfully so, because to the credit of the members that cover letter was almost immediately disregarded and dropped from history. So I think that was a situation where the Lord had worked on the culture building up to the moment when the whites in the Church would be able to accept their African brethern without a bunch of ugliness in the Church -- and when the culture outside the Church had progressed sufficiently far, that anybody inside the Church who resisted would have been nearly universally condemned (and therefore unlikely to display ugliness), then bingo it happened. And, I don't think that is an isolated example -- there are going to be additional changes that will occur in exactly the same path -- I don't know what they are, I just know they are out there.

[CASteinman]

The person who was leading the discussion is a brilliant young man with a degree in ancient religion from, I believe BYU -- but he was born after the extension occurred. Towards the end of the discussion I remarked on the fact that the article made no mention of the cover letter that went with the declaration. He asked what it said, and I said well I didn't remember all of it, but I certainly remembered the part which had the admonition against inter-racial marriage. And he looked a little stunned -- and thankfully so, because to the credit of the members that cover letter was almost immediately disregarded and dropped from history.

As far as I know there was no cover letter. And I was a bit connected back then. I think I would have remembered this. Do you have any reference at all about this? Maybe there was one (it seems that there should have been) but I do not recall it. In fact, what I do recall was that it was very strange that they did NOT announce it in Church with a letter but instead announced it to the world over the Press. Which I found to be extremely odd.

Generally speaking, you remind me of some guys I knew once who were what I called "religious atheists" and they kind of agreed with me. They attended Church, they filled callings, they brought their kids, they were good to their wives. They were sure the Church was generally a force for good in their lives and in the world.

But they didn't actually believe that the Church was led by a real prophet of God -- just someone with that title who was more of an administrator. They did not actually believe the Holy Spirit operated and gave Bishops or Stake President's inspiration and they weren't even really sure there was a God -- but they felt that if there was a God, this Church was good and maybe other Churches were too. And if there was a God, that God was not a real personal tangible personal God but more of an influence in the world and that social systems -- virtually all of them -- were under the influence of this guiding principle and were all getting better. But maybe the Church just had a more authoritative way of expressing that "will of God".

Is that how you look at things?

[Stone holm]

As far as I know there was no cover letter. And I was a bit connected back then. I think I would have remembered this. Do you have any reference at all about this? Maybe there was one (it seems that there should have been) but I do not recall it. In fact, what I do recall was that it was very strange that they did NOT announce it in Church with a letter but instead announced it to the world over the Press. Which I found to be extremely odd.

Generally speaking, you remind me of some guys I knew once who were what I called "religious atheists" and they kind of agreed with me. They attended Church, they filled callings, they brought their kids, they were good to their wives. They were sure the Church was generally a force for good in their lives and in the world.

But they didn't actually believe that the Church was led by a real prophet of God -- just someone with that title who was more of an administrator. They did not actually believe the Holy Spirit operated and gave Bishops or Stake President's inspiration and they weren't even really sure there was a God -- but they felt that if there was a God, this Church was good and maybe other Churches were too. And if there was a God, that God was not a real personal tangible personal God but more of an influence in the world and that social systems -- virtually all of them -- were under the influence of this guiding principle and were all getting better. But maybe the Church just had a more authoritative way of expressing that "will of God".

Is that how you look at things?

Oh there definitely was a cover letter that went out and it definitely did caution against interracial marriage. I definitely do believe in a tangible personal God. I further believe that He works primarily through us. He does not normally act in big dramatic ways, but through small inspirations both in and outside the Church tweaking this tweaking that changing culture that no longer serves His purposes. And his purpose is to save and exalt as many as He can without resorting to coercion or force if He can. He knows that the Saints cannot thrive in an environment of repression, but He also knows that we are a tough race to deal with. The will of God is for His Children to become like He is. There apparently is a recipe for that--but it is not one that any mortal knows. Have you ever read Isaac Asimov's Foundation series? If not, I highly recommend it, if you have then I guess you might say I think it gives insight as to how Gods may function.

[Stone holm]

As far as I know there was no cover letter. And I was a bit connected back then. I think I would have remembered this. Do you have any reference at all about this? Maybe there was one (it seems that there should have been) but I do not recall it. In fact, what I do recall was that it was very strange that they did NOT announce it in Church with a letter but instead announced it to the world over the Press. Which I found to be extremely odd.

Generally speaking, you remind me of some guys I knew once who were what I called "religious atheists" and they kind of agreed with me. They attended Church, they filled callings, they brought their kids, they were good to their wives. They were sure the Church was generally a force for good in their lives and in the world.

But they didn't actually believe that the Church was led by a real prophet of God -- just someone with that title who was more of an administrator. They did not actually believe the Holy Spirit operated and gave Bishops or Stake President's inspiration and they weren't even really sure there was a God -- but they felt that if there was a God, this Church was good and maybe other Churches were too. And if there was a God, that God was not a real personal tangible personal God but more of an influence in the world and that social systems -- virtually all of them -- were under the influence of this guiding principle and were all getting better. But maybe the Church just had a more authoritative way of expressing that "will of God".

Is that how you look at things?

Look at the Church's news release published in the Deseret News announcing the extension of the Priesthood, you will find Pres. Kimball's statement discouraging interracial marriage in it.

[CASteinman]

Look at the Church's news release published in the Deseret News announcing the extension of the Priesthood, you will find Pres. Kimball's statement discouraging interracial marriage in it.

Tried to. Archives don't seem to go back further than 88.

I did, however, find this cover letter:

June 8, 1978

To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, 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.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows there from, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to ensure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare 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.

Sincerely yours,

SPENCER W. KIMBALL

N. ELDON TANNER

MARION G. ROMNEY

The First Presidency