Help - Past Church Authorities And Their Words

[Calm]

We used to have microfilm copies of back issues of the Deseret News (I work there), but I'm not sure we still do since we moved to a different building in 2010. But I'm sure you could find such microfilm copies at the Church History Library in Salt Lake City, among other repositories.

BYU and any other major Utah library probably has it as well.

[MormonMason]

Possibly, except when they flat out get it wrong -- which is basically what had happened with the Priesthood ban, if you read the new heading associated with it, and the articles now coming out about what was going on. I don't think that is much a matter of anyone's personal perspective anymore. Although, I have earnestly tried to defend the period from when the Prophet Joseph Smith ordained African Americans until the extension of the Priesthood by Pres. Kimball as being God's Will. I just think the numerous and various justifications spun by GAs and Prophets during that period (with the exception of possibly David O. McKay) to have been just that non-doctrinal spin.

How sure are you that the policy was wrong for its time? Like in Joseph's time, I know of several exceptions that were made, all during the time when the policy was in full effect. One exception was in Brazil during the Administration of Joseph Fielding Smith and another in 1934-1935. Of course, I only have a photo of the one from 1934-1935. I lost the original information for the one in Brazil and someone I know who had much additional information on the subject, including a larger list of names, somehow lost his file in a move.

One thing I have learned in the case of Brigham Young is to cut him some slack. A friend of mine and I used to use as an example of stupid things that even a President of the Church could say was Brigham Young's comment about gold growing like hair in the earth. One day, while reading a copy of Nature (I do not recall the issue) I learned that some of the largest nuggets of gold ever discovered had actually shown evidence of having grown like hair! It turns out that certain types of bacteria remove gold from the water in which they live and form a shell of pure gold around their lipid layer. They then bud out another bacterium, which in turn grows a similar shell. This process occurs so long as conditions are right, giving the appearance of threads of gold hair that in time would form nuggets.

So, it turned out that Brigham Young was right about that but there was no way he could have known something like that in his day because the particular bacteria involved were discovered within the last couple decades.

But, I do not class the blacks and priesthood issue with stuff like this. I think there was a real basis for the policy, whatever it was. We may not know precisely the why, but there is evidence that it was based upon revelation. I have read Council minutes from during the administration of John Taylor that implicate prayer and revelation in the continuation of the policy in his time.

I also know it is consistent with patterns of how God has dealt with mankind for generations in even the Bible. There were even people whom God banned from membership in his congregation and from citizenship in the nation of Israel (the word used by the Lord was "forever" in the Hebrew). But, I also know that exceptions were made, such as in the case of Ruth, David and Solomon, who all had or were of Moabite derivation. We also have the fact that most all men were banned from holding the priesthood except a single family line during the time of Moses when the Gospel was removed from the children of Israel for their disobedience, with a few exceptions here and there.

The ban was consistent with God's actions in the past and I see no reason why he could not have done something like this in our own day for his own reasons. We just need to get with the program. But, I also admit that we have no idea why it was that God did it in our own day (which is what the new heading now implies, anyway). All is speculation and it all really is a moot point now that the ban has been lifted in our own day. We don't need to know the reasons why and it is up to God to decide whether or not to tell us.

[Stone holm]

How sure are you that the policy was wrong for its time? Like in Joseph's time, I know of several exceptions that were made, all during the time when the policy was in full effect. One exception was in Brazil during the Administration of Joseph Fielding Smith and another in 1934-1935. Of course, I only have a photo of the one from 1934-1935. I lost the original information for the one in Brazil and someone I know who had much additional information on the subject, including a larger list of names, somehow lost his file in a move.

One thing I have learned in the case of Brigham Young is to cut him some slack. A friend of mine and I used to use as an example of stupid things that even a President of the Church could say was Brigham Young's comment about gold growing like hair in the earth. One day, while reading a copy of Nature (I do not recall the issue) I learned that some of the largest nuggets of gold ever discovered had actually shown evidence of having grown like hair! It turns out that certain types of bacteria remove gold from the water in which they live and form a shell of pure gold around their lipid layer. They then bud out another bacterium, which in turn grows a similar shell. This process occurs so long as conditions are right, giving the appearance of threads of gold hair that in time would form nuggets.

So, it turned out that Brigham Young was right about that but there was no way he could have known something like that in his day because the particular bacteria involved were discovered within the last couple decades.

But, I do not class the blacks and priesthood issue with stuff like this. I think there was a real basis for the policy, whatever it was. We may not know precisely the why, but there is evidence that it was based upon revelation. I have read Council minutes from during the administration of John Taylor that implicate prayer and revelation in the continuation of the policy in his time.

I also know it is consistent with patterns of how God has dealt with mankind for generations in even the Bible. There were even people whom God banned from membership in his congregation and from citizenship in the nation of Israel (the word used by the Lord was "forever" in the Hebrew). But, I also know that exceptions were made, such as in the case of Ruth, David and Solomon, who all had or were of Moabite derivation. We also have the fact that most all men were banned from holding the priesthood except a single family line during the time of Moses when the Gospel was removed from the children of Israel for their disobedience, with a few exceptions here and there.

The ban was consistent with God's actions in the past and I see no reason why he could not have done something like this in our own day for his own reasons. We just need to get with the program. But, I also admit that we have no idea why it was that God did it in our own day (which is what the new heading now implies, anyway). All is speculation and it all really is a moot point now that the ban has been lifted in our own day. We don't need to know the reasons why and it is up to God to decide whether or not to tell us.

Actually, if you will look back you will see that I have said that I have said that I have defended the policy for the period in question. I have also shied away from throwing Brigham Young under bus as many have been doing of late. I was more inclined to remember some of the nonsense that McConkie spread abroad before President Kimball requested that he actually research the matter and some of the rather nasty stuff attributed to Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee. I do believe there was a reason and I in my own, completely undocumented opinion, believe it had to do with the need for the white culture inside and outside the Church to progress to the point that they were not so racist and bigoted that they couldn't treat their African brothers as fellow children of God. I no longer believe it had anything to do with the pre existence or any curse.

[MormonMason]

Actually, if you will look back you will see that I have said that I have said that I have defended the policy for the period in question. I have also shied away from throwing Brigham Young under bus as many have been doing of late. I was more inclined to remember some of the nonsense that McConkie spread abroad before President Kimball requested that he actually research the matter and some of the rather nasty stuff attributed to Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee. I do believe there was a reason and I in my own, completely undocumented opinion, believe it had to do with the need for the white culture inside and outside the Church to progress to the point that they were not so racist and bigoted that they couldn't treat their African brothers as fellow children of God. I no longer believe it had anything to do with the pre existence or any curse.

Possibly, but it doesn't really explain the exceptions that were made even when the ban was in full force. Nor does it fit with the pattern that can be seen in God's actions with other peoples of similar/same races, as we have it in the Bible. There also is precedent in the Book of Abraham.

But I do agree with you concerning the nonsense that Elder McConkie and others spouted off about the Premortal existence. Even he himself agreed that a lot of things he and others spoke on the subject were nonsense after he learned differently.

Edited March 27, 2013 by MormonMason

[Stone holm]

Possibly, but it doesn't really explain the exceptions that were made even when the ban was in full force. Nor does it fit with the pattern that can be seen in God's actions with other peoples of similar/same races, as we have it in the Bible. There also is precedent in the Book of Abraham.

But I do agree with you concerning the nonsense that Elder McConkie and others spouted off about the Premortal existence. Even he himself agreed that a lot of things he and others spoke on the subject were nonsense after he learned differently.

I don't think that we can lightly ignore the fact that the ban was in place for an extended period of time. In fact, the length of period of time which it had been in place caused David O. McKay to resist pressure from at least one GA to simply lift the ban by administrative fiat. Under those circumstances, I believe that the ban was in place for a reason -- the problem was and is that when such a practice eventually becomes very noticeable and on people's personal radar screens....well if we do not have a Divine explanation set out, we tend to make up reasons and it is pretty clear from that particular case, the Brethern began making up justifications. I guess its just the natural human thing to do, and its actually a very logical thing to do. We belong to the true Church, we have this policy therefore it must be a Divine policy, therefore there must be some reason for it and off we go. I have noticed over the years we seem to do the same thing with the Scriptures, especially the Old Testament. The Old Testament has lots of interesting stories -- we assume that since its Scripture that every little detail must have some kind of significance -- so off we go spinning stuff that sometimes, if you bluntly repeat it back to people you could then add "Really? You really believe that God expected you to get that out of that story?"

Edited March 27, 2013 by Stone holm

[MormonMason]

There is one thing that many who discuss David O. McKay leave out of the equation. That is the fact that David O. McKay also prayed about it and would have pushed to end it had the Lord instructed him to do so. The same was the case with John Taylor. He really wanted to get to the bottom of things. He had interviews, discussions, checked Church records, and ultimately stated that he would check further records and take it to the Lord in prayer because he could not decide the matter on his own with what he had. After all this the decision to continue the ban came and the policy continued. Exceptions, however, were made, as is evidenced by Church records that I have seen with my own eyes. But, even with all you say, the Old Testament and New Testament both have instances of denials of blessings and limitations of blessings to certain peoples on the Lord's own timetable. In point of fact, in the New Testament, they were about to preach the Gospel to a certain group of people and the Lord sent the Holy Spirit to forbid them from bringing the Gospel to those people and to go elsewhere to another people instead. Likewise, the Lord Jesus himself at first told the apostles at first not to go preach to anyone but Israel and this continued for three years. So, you cannot just nitpick the Old Testament. The patterns of denials and delays and timetables are consistent between both Testaments.

Edited March 27, 2013 by MormonMason

[Stone holm]

There is one thing that many who discuss David O. McKay leave out of the equation. That is the fact that David O. McKay also prayed about it and would have pushed to end it had the Lord instructed him to do so. The same was the case with John Taylor. He really wanted to get to the bottom of things. He had interviews, discussions, checked Church records, and ultimately stated that he would check further records and take it to the Lord in prayer because he could not decide the matter on his own with what he had. After all this the decision to continue the ban came and the policy continued. Exceptions, however, were made, as is evidenced by Church records that I have seen with my own eyes. But, even with all you say, the Old Testament and New Testament both have instances of denials of blessings and limitations of blessings to certain peoples on the Lord's own timetable. In point of fact, in the New Testament, they were about to preach the Gospel to a certain group of people and the Lord sent the Holy Spirit to forbid them from bringing the Gospel to those people and to go elsewhere to another people instead. Likewise, the Lord Jesus himself at first told the apostles at first not to go preach to anyone but Israel and this continued for three years. So, you cannot just nitpick the Old Testament. The patterns of denials and delays and timetables are consistent between both Testaments.

I don't think that we are actually in disagreement. McKay obviously came to the conclusion that what was being spun about Africans and the Priesthood was wrong, but that did not lead him to the conclusion that he should change the policy, it just led him to the conclusion that what was being said was wrong. President Kimball struggled with it in prayer as well before finally getting the confirmation he was seeking, and after having McConkie go back and research the question. And to McConkie's credit after researching the subject he acknowledged that what he had been saying and publishing was wrong.

[CASteinman]

And to McConkie's credit after researching the subject he acknowledged that what he had been saying and publishing was wrong.

An interesting story about McConkie.

For years, McConkie talked about the visit of the Magi or the Wise Men and would say that the traditional number of Wise men was shear fantasy and that the number was unknown.

One evening, there was an exhibit of some archaeological findings from close to the time of Christ. Apparently a crude sort of drawing showed 3 Wise men. Amelia, Bruce's wife, nudged him with her elbow and said "See -- there were three!". Bruce responded back "I never said that there weren't!".

[Stone holm]

An interesting story about McConkie.

For years, McConkie talked about the visit of the Magi or the Wise Men and would say that the traditional number of Wise men was shear fantasy and that the number was unknown.

One evening, there was an exhibit of some archaeological findings from close to the time of Christ. Apparently a crude sort of drawing showed 3 Wise men. Amelia, Bruce's wife, nudged him with her elbow and said "See -- there were three!". Bruce responded back "I never said that there weren't!".

Yeah. McConkie is normally a good read, kind of like reading a novel -- but it is interesting that Pres. Kimball kept nudging him and he would go back and come up with a revised edition of this or that. "Mormon Doctrine" which was a truly misnamed tome used to be pretty much a household item in every Mormon home back in the day -- it has some truly hair curling stuff in it. People are less likely to know of it now, and more likely to know of the Mortal Messiah series.

[CASteinman]

Yeah. McConkie is normally a good read, kind of like reading a novel -- but it is interesting that Pres. Kimball kept nudging him and he would go back and come up with a revised edition of this or that. "Mormon Doctrine" which was a truly misnamed tome used to be pretty much a household item in every Mormon home back in the day -- it has some truly hair curling stuff in it. People are less likely to know of it now, and more likely to know of the Mortal Messiah series.

I think it is still widely known and respected. It is used on a large number of official Church Publications. With good reason. It was edited by a committee of senior apostles.

Having said that -- it is unfortunately named.

[Calm]

It is used on a large number of official Church Publications.

Not as much as it used to be. For example, the new Gospel Principles doesn't use it very much, if at all, IIRC.

[omni]

But, even with all you say, the Old Testament and New Testament both have instances of denials of blessings and limitations of blessings to certain peoples on the Lord's own timetable. In point of fact, in the New Testament, they were about to preach the Gospel to a certain group of people and the Lord sent the Holy Spirit to forbid them from bringing the Gospel to those people and to go elsewhere to another people instead. Likewise, the Lord Jesus himself at first told the apostles at first not to go preach to anyone but Israel and this continued for three years. So, you cannot just nitpick the Old Testament. The patterns of denials and delays and timetables are consistent between both Testaments.

How do you reconcile the idea of an all-loving and just God with the fact that the OT teaches that he restricted his priesthood (and gospel) to a very small subset of the world's population? Not only that, but he did on it based on their lineage, something they have absolutely no control over. Then thousands of years later he opens up his priesthood to everyone but blacks, based once again on their lineage. Now if you were living in OT times this would make perfect sense, in general people believed they were superior or chosen based solely on there lineage. The priesthood ban made perfect sense in BY's time because people believed blacks were inferior. I can give a pass for people being a product of their time and having ignorant even bigoted views, but not God.

[ERayR]

How do you reconcile the idea of an all-loving and just God with the fact that the OT teaches that he restricted his priesthood (and gospel) to a very small subset of the world's population? Not only that, but he did on it based on their lineage, something they have absolutely no control over. Then thousands of years later he opens up his priesthood to everyone but blacks, based once again on their lineage. Now if you were living in OT times this would make perfect sense, in general people believed they were superior or chosen based solely on there lineage. The priesthood ban made perfect sense in BY's time because people believed blacks were inferior. I can give a pass for people being a product of their time and having ignorant even bigoted views, but not God.

I am glad you feel omnipotent and omniscient enough to pronounce your judgement on God.

[Stone holm]

How do you reconcile the idea of an all-loving and just God with the fact that the OT teaches that he restricted his priesthood (and gospel) to a very small subset of the world's population? Not only that, but he did on it based on their lineage, something they have absolutely no control over. Then thousands of years later he opens up his priesthood to everyone but blacks, based once again on their lineage. Now if you were living in OT times this would make perfect sense, in general people believed they were superior or chosen based solely on there lineage. The priesthood ban made perfect sense in BY's time because people believed blacks were inferior. I can give a pass for people being a product of their time and having ignorant even bigoted views, but not God.

No I don't think God is racist but I do think He works sometimes within the cultural framework of the time, and there may have been world creating elements at play in OT times that we do not understand. But that does not absolve us from the duty of analyzing our own times and culture just because such and such was true a couple thousand years ago or even a half dozen decades ago.

[omni]

I am glad you feel omnipotent and omniscient enough to pronounce your judgement on God.

ERaYR, do you believe people are superior or chosen based solely on their lineage?

[omni]

I am glad you feel omnipotent and omniscient enough to pronounce your judgement on God.

This was not a judgement of God, but on those who would create the ideas or doctrines that they are somehow superior or chosen based on their lineage. I don't believe God would ever make such a pronouncement.

[mathonihah]

This was not a judgement of God, but on those who would create the ideas or doctrines that they are somehow superior or chosen based on their lineage. I don't believe God would ever make such a pronouncement.

The Bible is full of pronouncements of blessings (and cursings) on people based on their lineage.

[Calm]

those who would create the ideas or doctrines that they are .....chosen based on their lineage. I don't believe God would ever make such a pronouncement.

You don't believe it is possible that God might call a certain group to perform a certain necessary task for Him?

[Bikeemikey]

I have seen a number of apologists deride various past Church authorities' works when someone uses them as a support for some position or other. I do not always understand where this comes from. I am starting this thread to discuss this. John A. Widtsoe and B.H. Roberts are two. I have also seen statements by Talmage as held in contempt as well. Not to mention the huge amount of this occuring with BY. I am wanting to understand this better.

If there is a particular authority you view in this manner, or know of one that others view in this manner, I am interested in the reasoning behind such a view. The same goes for an authority's specific work if it is only a specific work that is critiqued in this manner.

Even ones works ought to be subject to review and criticism... Earnestly seeking confirmation by the spirit is itself a form of criticism inquiry as you are seeking either confirmation or denial of the object of your inquiry.

That said, case by case criticisms, and even out right rejections, of earlier leaders teachings is acceptable if it arrived out through honest study and prayer. Much of what has been taught earlier lack the greater light and knowledge that we have developed today and therefore, whilst possibly a reasonable position based on the knowledge of the time is not tenable based on what we know today.

This of course requires the underlying belief that our leaders are 1) fallible and 2) not always speaking the mind and will of god.

I would like to say, however, that it is never acceptable to discount anyone's entire body of work just because there are instances and specifics that you disagree with.

Therefore stating that because person x said it it must be wrong would be totally inappropriate.

[Bikeemikey]

You don't believe it is possible that God might call a certain group to perform a certain necessary task for Him?

The scriptures repeatedly state we are called based on our works and repentance ... If lineage could be a work then it would be possible. I don't see any evidence that lineage is a work.

[Bikeemikey]

The Bible is full of pronouncements of blessings (and cursings) on people based on their lineage.

The Book of Mormon is a denunciation of the notion that we get anything based in lineage alone... It also proclaims the principle that what is eligible if one based on repentance and works is eligible to all.

Alma 13 is an excellent chapter on this... Verse 3 is a very good overview of the whole chapter.

[mathonihah]

The Book of Mormon is a denunciation of the notion that we get anything based in lineage alone... It also proclaims the principle that what is eligible if one based on repentance and works is eligible to all.

Alma 13 is an excellent chapter on this... Verse 3 is a very good overview of the whole chapter.

I never disputed that. Do you deny that “The Bible is full of pronouncements of blessings (and cursings) on people based on their lineage”? Here is a typical example:

“And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt;” (Deut. 4:37)

[teddyaware]

The scriptures repeatedly state we are called based on our works and repentance ... If lineage could be a work then it would be possible. I don't see any evidence that lineage is a work.

When a preexistent spirit child of God is assigned by divine edict to be born into a particular lineage here on earth, the mere process of being born into that lineage cannot be described as some sort of work of faith performed by the unaccountable newborn infant; but the faithful choices performed by the same individual, as a spirit in heaven, prior to his or her birth here on earth, do constitute actual works of faith that could persuade the Lord to choose said spirit child to be foreordained to be born into a favored lineage and favorable life circumstances (insofar as the gospel is concerned) here on earth. And so we read:

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. (Abraham 3)

This is the doctrine of election, or foreordination, so often taught in the epistles of the Apostle Paul. And the election of these especially righteous and valient preexistent spirits does indeed also include the blessing of being born into a special and choosen lineage here on earth...

There was a group of souls tested, tried, and proven before they were born into the world, and the Lord provided a lineage for them. That lineage is the house of Israel, the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their posterity. Through this lineage were to come the true and tried souls that had demonstrated their righteousness in the spirit world before they came here. (“The Three Degrees of Glory,” Melvin J. Ballard)

Edited March 29, 2013 by teddyaware

[mathonihah]

When a preexistent spirit child of God is assigned by divine edict to be born into a particular lineage here on earth, the mere process of being born into that lineage cannot be described as some sort of work of faith performed by the unaccountable newborn infant; but the faithful choices performed as a spirit in heaven by the same individual, prior to his or her birth here on earth, do constitute actual works of faith that could persuade the Lord to choose said spirit child to be foreordained to be born into a favored lineage and favorable life situation (insofar as the gospel is concerned) here on earth. And so we read:

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born. (Abraham 3)

This is the doctrine of election, or foreordination, so often taught in the epistles of the Apostle Paul. And the election of these especially righteous and valient preexistent spirits does indeed also include the blessing of being born into a special and choosen lineage here on earth...

There was a group of souls tested, tried, and proven before they were born into the world, and the Lord provided a lineage for them. That lineage is the house of Israel, the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their posterity. Through this lineage were to come the true and tried souls that had demonstrated their righteousness in the spirit world before they came here. (“The Three Degrees of Glory,” Melvin J. Ballard)

Except that the true seed of Abraham are not necessarily those who are born into that lineage, but those who qualify for the priesthood of Abraham! (Abraham 2:10–11)

[Stone holm]

Except that the true seed of Abraham are not necessarily those who are born into that lineage, but those who qualify for the priesthood of Abraham! (Abraham 2:10–11)

True, and the Ballard quote smacks a little of the reasoning of Brigham Young and Bruce R McConkie which was spun regarding the Africans, and is part and parcel with the type of reasoning which led Germany into a very dark place in the last century.