Joanna Brooks Railing Against The Church. Again.

[canard78]

You say there was no reasonable need, but I trust the First and Second Counselors to President Kimball and the Twelve when they proclaimed they unitedly received confirmation from the Spirit that President Kimball received a revelation from the Lord that the priesthood ban was revoked. There must have been a ban in the first place if a revelation from God was needed to revoke it. Apostle Bruce R McConkie solemnly testified that on the occasion when the First Presidency presented the revelation to the Quorum of the Twelve, there was an outpouring of the Spirit so powerful that it was likened to the Day of Pentacost. As for the use of human reason alone in trying to fathom the mysteries of God, he said his ways are not our ways and that his ways are higher than our ways.

To save you the trouble of looking up Official Declaration 2, I've posted it below. In order for you to be right, the leaders of the Church in 1978 were outright liars. Perhaps you are comfortable second quessing the Lord's anointed; I am not. To each his own...

-snip-

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am certain that President Kimball believed sincerely that he needed a revelation to undo the practice.

My question, which you've not answered, is evidence of a revelation to instigate the practice.

The introduction to OD2 states: "Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance."

(Doctrine and Covenants, Official Declaration, OD 2)

The church is apparently left shrugging its shoulders on the origin of the ban. I find no evidence of it being "received by revelation" (but I accept it was ended by such). Can you provide any?

[Lightbearer]

It makes me want to vomit when I hear people condemning Brigham Young as a racist... but don't dare say anything against "Sister" Brooks! We don't dare speak a word against our "loyal opposition" after all she is a Church member, how dare we say anything about her motives but we can reject the authority of a Prophet of God (Brigham Young) and his successors up to President Kimball. We can call a prophet of God's motives into question! This is just an excuse Satan has manufactured to try to defame the prophets, to try to taint the line of authority that goes to each priesthood bearer on earth today. I went on a mission the year after the curse was lifted and the first people I baptized were black. They were accepted into the Church with open arms. I was glad of the OD-2 and it was a revelation from God. I do not care what anyone says, it was a revelation and it was not "correcting racism" of course you can believe the lies of Satan devised to harden the hearts and blind the minds of our beloved brothers and sister of the black race, but I pity you. I believe (I am not declaring doctrine here so get off the high horse) that it could have began in response to the scripture in the book of Abraham, rather than a bigoted racist notion of Brigham Young or any other Church leader. Perhaps that was the conclusion he made from the following:

"Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood." (Pearl of Great Price | Abraham 1:26)

Maybe this scripture is not talking about the priesthood curse but perhaps this is the conclusion President Young made at the time. The statement President Young made was in 1854, not long before the civil war. Perhaps the Lord allowed him to make such a conclusion and let the policy stand until a time in the history of the U.S. when people would be more accepting of the idea. (Not neccessarily Church members but those to whom they were taking the Gospel, so they would not have a reason to reject the Church, because at the time all other christian churches were segregated). Could you imagine what would happen to a black Elder preaching in the South during the reconstruction era? There are lots of possibilities other than the condemning a Prophet of God who is more righteous than most of the people on this board (myself included). The only reason they are still droning on about this "ban" after 30 plus years is to attack the divinity of the restored Church. To cause doubt and a loss of confidence in the prophets and apostles, to poison the minds of those investigating the Church and to weaken the faith of those in the Church that it may effect. That is the answer, they want to slander the Lord's anointed, they are playing the race card to try to destroy the work of God. So "Sister" Brooks is being a tool in the hands of Lucifer to try to cast shame and doubt on the restoration.

You are out of the thread.

[Robert F. Smith]

With this phrase, you are declaring doctrine, which you have no right to do.

I don't know that he is declaring doctrine since there was no doctrinal basis for that policy -- that was the conclusion of Pres. McKay who researched the entire matter with a view to ordaining African natives. He wanted to open a mission to Black Africa. He received counsel from one Apostle in particular that he should not do so until directed by a revelation. That revelation was years in coming, as you know. Some have suggested in print that the Church membership was not yet ready for a policy change until 1978. I'm just glad that the policy was finally changed.

[Robert F. Smith]

............................................

Perhaps the Lord allowed him to make such a conclusion and let the policy stand until a time in the history of the U.S. when people would be more accepting of the idea. (Not neccessarily Church members but those to whom they were taking the Gospel, so they would not have a reason to reject the Church, because at the time all other christian churches were segregated).

..........................................

You may be right on both counts. However, I think we ought to be more tolerant and understanding of the faults of our leaders as well as our fellow Saints in general. We need to be more understanding of their shortcomings and not constantly place them on pedestals which can only lead to unrealistic expectations and great disappointment when it becomes apparent that all of us (including our leaders) sometimes have feet of clay, and maybe a few warts.

Joseph once advised those who thought him to be perfect to please forgive his imperfections just as he would overlook their imperfections. We should enjoy the common nature of the Saints of the last days. Recall how impressed with Joseph Brigham Young was on first meeting him. Joseph was chopping wood. Brigham always said how much he loved a prophet who chopped wood.

[teddyaware]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am certain that President Kimball believed sincerely that he needed a revelation to undo the practice.

My question, which you've not answered, is evidence of a revelation to instigate the practice.

The introduction to OD2 states: "Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance."

(Doctrine and Covenants, Official Declaration, OD 2)

The church is apparently left shrugging its shoulders on the origin of the ban. I find no evidence of it being "received by revelation" (but I accept it was ended by such). Can you provide any?

I already have provided evidence, but the fact that a revelation from God was needed to rescind the ban is not good enough for you. But ponder the implications of the following:

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come...

Why did God wait so long to give this revelation? Church leaders had been praying for years for the Lord's will on the ban, but He held his peace till 1978? Why?

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...

if promises were made by prophets that at some time in the future the priesthood ban would be lifted, that presupposes there was such an official ban.

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...

So God told them "the long-promised day had come." That sure makes it sound as if God knew there was going to be a ban and that he was going to lift that ban on the promised day. Note that He didn't rebuke the Church for having been in shameful and humiliating error all along.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will...

Again, we are told the Lord has now made known his will. Why did he not answer similar heartfelt prayers years earlier?

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. 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, (from Declaration 2)

Again, why didn't the Lord answer these fervent prayers sooner rather than later? You'd think that if it was all a big mistake he would have straightened things out years earlier. Why cause such prolonged, unnecessary embarrassment? I doubt you would be willing to chalk up the delay to a lack of spiritual receptivity on the part of the modern prophets.

Finally, did you ever stop to think that the official revelation apropos to priesthood ban and its reasons for existing were, in the wisdom of the Lord, kept from the general knowledge of Church at large and the world?

I take and trust the leaders in 1978 at their word. I will desist from putting words in your mouth.

Edited May 7, 2013 by teddyaware

[BlueDreams]

No, you are right. It's not an "outright" attack in the same sense as Ed Decker or James White are "outright" in their attacks. It's more like a Grant Palmer-style attack.

To clarify, I don’t find it an attack of a grant palmer version either

I guess we'll have to disagree there. Accusing Elder Dikcson of racism was beyond the pale. Fabricating "cross purposes" in the Church was wrong. Vilifying the body of the Church as broadly harboring racism, while simultaneously preening herself as a self-appointed "anti-racist advocate" was appalling. Declaring doctrine was wrong.

Don’t mind disagreeing

To note, I read the article from the primary source on RD before reading any of the commentary about it. I didn’t read her argument as accusing Dikcson of racism at all. I read it a second time to make sure I wasn’t missing something and still don’t see it. At most I would say her argument assumes that comments like Dikcson’s gives room for racist ideas to remain for those members that hold them. That’s not the same.

Agreed. But A) the LDS Church has specifically said that we don't know the origins of the ban, but B) Joanna Brooks presumed to declare its origins anyway and C) accuse the Church of continuing racism despite the fact that D) the LDS Church has expressly condemned racism.

on A/B: true.

On C/D: I don’t think she’s accusing the church as an entity of continuing racism but an ideological faction within the church of doing so. Plus one can expressly condemn racism overtly while still having beliefs, customs, or structures that maintain racial problems/racist ideas covertly. If I had to take a guess, I’d assume she would argue that there are things that are still maintaining racist ideas and that the church does condemn racism. If I had to walk further in her shoes, I’d assume she would argue that the church needs to do more to stamp these out as well.

But all of that is adding onto what she’s stated.

Yep. She wanted to position herself as morally superior to the rest of the Church, including the leaders of the Church (hence her self-referential and self-reverential comment about "anti-racist advocates" juxtaposed with her defamatory accusations against Elder Dikcson). The problem is that, well, Elder Dikcson isn't racist.

Again, to be accurate, I think it’s more along the lines of morally superior to a certain branch of thought within the LDS church that she deems racist. Not the church as a whole or all of the church’s leaders.

I am sure some members of the Church harbor some racist sentiments (I should note, moreover, that racism isn't just something white people struggle with). However, I've been going to Church in the states pretty much nonstop since 1995 (mostly in Utah), and I cannot recall a single disparaging race-based remark uttered in Church. This is not just random chance. In my experience, Church members either A) do not harbor racist sentiments, or B) recognize that such sentiments are incompatible with the society of the Saints, and so keep their bigotries to themselves. I think the vast majority of Church members fall into the former category.

First: Yes, I’m aware that racism isn’t a whites only problem.

Second: I can honestly state that I have heard race-based remarks that have made me uncomfortable in a church setting (ie Sunday lessons/testimonies/discussions or seminary). I doubt the people who espoused them would view themselves as racist. I wouldn’t describe them necessarily as disparaging. More along the lines of racially obtuse. But they were definitely uncomfortable for this brown chica to sit through. Thankfully they are few and far in-between.

This is not the same as members themselves though. I’ve heard plenty of ideas that were racist, racially dense/ignorant, or just plain awkward and insulting from members themselves. Like the time my aunt warned me about polys when a part-poly friend of mine showed interest, or explaining to a friend and another family member that, no, my current interest does not have a drinking problem just because he’s native, or the really awkward and irritating comments that use stereotypes of kool-aid, black physical features, etc to “connect” and “joke” with me like it increases camaraderie when all it does is make me feel like an imprisoned caricature who can never be seen for who I actually am, or having people argue against my own racial ID (like they know my race better than I do), or my investigator who got overwhelmed with helpful members on racist historical comments, or realizing my (white) mom believed the mark or cain idea and the whole less valiant thing (i did have enough wits to nip that one), or the dumb assuming questions that being mixed must be really hard (how do I manage?), etc…etc….etc. I could write a far longer list.

I think members generally fit in with whatever demographic they come from. Like most in the US, few are overtly racist. This does not mean that many are not racially ignorant, obtuse, or fall into believing stereotypes left and right.

My guess is that Brooks would see these connected to leaving space for believing a more divinely instituted priesthood-ban. Minus a few rare incidences in my life, I wouldn’t agree with her.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Yep.

The article is so obtuse, so abusive of its sources, so tendentious in its reasoning, so cynical in its interpretation of the LDS position, and so obnoxiously self-righteous (positioning herself as an "anti-racist advocate" by juxtaposting herself against and defaming a general authority), I have to call it for the spade that it is: a "railing."

And nope for me

Take care,

BD

Edited May 7, 2013 by BlueDreams

[smac97]

BD,

Poignant thoughts, elegantly expressed. I will think on what you have said, and I appreciate you posting here.

Thank you,

-Smac

[Calm]

I am sure some members of the Church harbor some racist sentiments (I should note, moreover, that racism isn't just something white people struggle with). However, I've been going to Church in the states pretty much nonstop since 1995 (mostly in Utah), and I cannot recall a single disparaging race-based remark uttered in Church. This is not just random chance. In my experience, Church members either A) do not harbor racist sentiments, or B) recognize that such sentiments are incompatible with the society of the Saints, and so keep their bigotries to themselves. I think the vast majority of Church members fall into the former category.

I have heard some racism among church members, but much more outside the walls of the chapel when I am out and about in the community we live in. I see an experience where racism is much more muted within the faith than without, but it must be hard especially for children not to pick up on racist attitudes when they are not aware of the implications and just think they are factual observations by the adults around them or harmless jokes that have some really cool meaning that they don't quite get yet. The absolutely worst racist comment I heard at church in all my years was just shortly after Obama won and an achievement day girl shared 'her' favourite joke (translated: my favourite uncle shared this joke with me) which equated the President with an ape and then presented the ape as the better 'man' and then she howled and howled about how funny it was. After we got our jaws back to where they were supposed to be, we had a little lesson about showing respect to all and how politics doesn't need to be reduced to mocking...plus not a good discussion for church most of the time. She seemed to take it well, wasn't embarrassed by appearance and she kept coming and no more Obama jokes so it seems to have worked out.

My grandparents (and they were not unusual among their generation in the Church) made comments that had the connotation that nonwhites were more like children, they were generous with their compliments but would add on "in spite of being black, asian, coloured, hispanic, etc." as in "he's a wonderful doctor even though he is from Pakistan" kind of thing. I don't remember them saying anything negative, just very positive comments with that attachment....and of course the use of "girl" and "boy" when talking about adults...all of which caused us kids to cringe and take extra care not to fall into that assumption of condescending by flattery...or the reverse, having unrealistically high expectations of someone because they were a bishop's family or women in general (because we are so much more spiritual in nature, don't you know ). And even when my grandparents were making those comments, I never heard anything similar from either of my parent's mouth...not that they condemn them, they just didn't pay attention to it. Worked much better than when we kids tried to tell them that what they were saying was unkind...they just didn't get it and would accuse us of having the bigoted attitudes because we weren't accepting things as they were.

It is sometimes not easy to take people as they are without the baggage of family or society ideas attached, but it gets easier with practice because the more exposure you have the more one finds that people are pretty consistent overall, while there may be attitudes and styles that are attached to ethnic and social groups, ability is generally spread out consistently through the groups and it is often simply a matter of having opportunities to develop those abilities that may be lacking in one and flowing in another.

I think at times those who are so intent on making the racism, negative issues go away actually contribute to the problem because they keep the wounds open when they could be healing by simple interaction where all see the other is comfortable and okay with him or her, that each is just a normal person after all so why is there any need to concern oneself with what has gone on in the past. We need to learn when a push toward eliminating unworthy behaviour is needed and when to recognize that it has been taken care of already or will be if we allow the wounds to heal. It takes a lot of wisdom to figure this out in the complicated adult world where so many more are prone to hold on to grudges and insist on reparations before expressing a willingness to forgive. It would be better if we could be as children who might go to bed angry certain never to speak to each other again but wake up in a beautiful new day and want to have someone to play with....and holding on to a grudge would spoil all that fun, so let's just forget it and be friends.

And what a shame if a parent came along and refused to let them play together because 'that child owes my child an apology', interfering in a mutual forgiveness society that they had established and needed no outside prodding to accomplish.

When we start being too concerned with keeping track of how much and how many times I've been hurt in comparison to how much and how many times the other has given restitution, when relationships are not about how one feels, but a balance of power determined by accounts of hurts vs. gifts, where the victim has more power due to victimhood than he would if he was allowed to heal and move on or where people want to rescue the 'victims', be the hero of the story***** rather than standing aside and supplying the victims with what they can't get on their own, but allowing them the dignity of doing the work themselves where they can.....I find that approach to race relation very troubling. It seems we only create more victims because we can't heal in such ways.

We will never be able to balance out the bad that occurred and is occurring, we can only take this moment in time and move on from there to improve what we do in the here and now. We have to leave the past to God...not saying ignore it, but rather pray to the Lord that he will give healing where it is needed, take justice and give mercy where they are needed and guide us so that we can help him in his work in the best way we can...even if that means standing outside of it and letting him do the work that only God can.

All this is a long about way of saying 'I don't see how anything can be accomplished by this approach by Sister Brooks'. You don't create healing by turning people into obsessive compulsives when it comes to speech, especially if the benefit of the doubt is never to be given in the war against racism because it is better for an innocent man to be accused of promoting racism than it is to forgive the man for a clumsy phrasing, better to create a picture of a conflict in a community where one wants to progress and the other is holding them back rather than encouraging the community to look upon themselves as one so that all efforts can be poured into progressing rather than having to defend and justify one's own approach before one is allowed to contribute.

****Just a new twist on the white man's burden. I much prefer to see movies that show a community pulling together to grow rather than one man coming from the outside, saving them or if we're lucky simply showing them how to save themselves...as if they couldn't have figured it out on their own if given the resources. How many real success stories come out of someone giving resources along with "you can have all that you need as long as you do it my way"...never seen that work actually, not long term.

Edited May 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

One month. Two high-placed LDS sources. Two very different takes on the faith’s historic racism. One offers no excuses for priesthood segregation. One makes it sound like part of God’s plan.

The events of this spring reveal a Church whose hired historians and high-ranking officials seem at times to be speaking at cross-purposes. They also reveal an ongoing struggle within Mormonism to come to terms with objectionable episodes in its own history without troubling too deeply many members’ profound deference to Church leaders revered as prophets.

Perhaps it is the drugs I've taken tonight in hopes of having some decent sleep (why can't it be the same temperature for all 3 months of a season so there isn't all this up and down so everytime I get everything just so, the wind shifts and the sun shines brighter and my bedroom turns into what feels like a toaster for me), but these comments of Sister Brooks disturb me.

Her whole purpose it seems it would be to promote a faith community that is truly of one heart and one mind, but she seems intent on creating unnecessary divisions within it for the purpose of drawing attention to something she sees as a problem. Rather than just focusing on the problem itself--whether or not the ban was God initiated---she turns to assigning members into two or three groups, those who agree with her that it wasn't, those who don't hold a position on it (which is the official position), and those who she sees---accurately or not---as believing that the ban was God instituted for a reason....

And in this last group, she not only assigns people such as Brother Di-ckson who might not hold that view at all but since it is possible to infer that his words meant something along those lines, she plops him into that cave of the benighted, but she essentially informs us of why anyone would hold this idea....they must be racist because no one but racists would hold this view in her world.

And all I can see (metaphorically of course) when I read is how she is putting people who share her ideas in one place, celebrating with her the liberation of the Church from out of date and ungodly beliefs and others with those ideas not so appealing to her are being locked into their room to wait for enlightenment to strike them or some other judgment.

This is the best effort at segregation of church membership that I've seen since the Chapel/Internet Mormon Schism claim was laid on. Hopefully it will be as successful.

The below paragraph got to be a complicated sentence that in my drugged state I wasn't sure made sense, so I made some divisions to see if my points weren't getting lost, I think it works and am leaving in the colouring to help separate the 'essential' argument from the inferences I made about her reasoning. Apologies if I should have stopped writing an hour ago.

For someone who wants the church and beyond that the world, to come together as one in harmony and love....starting out this process of godly unification by segregating members, even leadership, into divisions of 'doctrinally sound' (if I understand her rightly one qualifies for this group by agreeing with Sister Brooks that it is doctrine that the ban was not from God) vs. 'doctrinally unsound' (who rely on allegedly racist ideas including the allegedly racist idea that God started the ban as well as a belief that even if God hadn't started the ban at least he allowed it to continue for his own purposes whatever that might be as even the position of saying "I don't know" seems to have acquired the label of "racist" in Sister Brooks' reasoning since it moves away from the claim that the ban was manmade...or so it seems to me) seems highly counterintuitive and counterproductive, especially since the Church's position is "we don't know at this time what the origin of the ban is" and thus there is no doctrinal foundation on which to plant one's flag or at least the first brick of one's argument.

Why would the first step toward unification be to divide? And it appears to me that she is encouraging everyone to look at each other and ask themselves when they encounter a member/leader 'does s/he agree with me or s/he an 'other' or even worse "is s/he with me or against me" when it comes to this issue as it seems she feels constant vigilance is the only way to root out this abomination. It is an overstatement of what she is doing, but it is a logical progression of what she is telling people to do...examine the Church leaders and members along these lines of their position on the ban and recognize that those who do not agree with her are holding the Church back from its true potential.

The publication of ****son’s talk in the Ensign, LDS anti-racist advocates worry, will provide renewed cover for Mormons who would like to avoid reckoning with the human origins and harmful consequences of the faith’s historic racism. And that, they say, is no cause for celebration.

So what is the outlook for those who agree with her and want change to come to the Church, how can they maximize their POV while minimizing all others that might detract from their success? How to soften, even silence those who speak in less than precise ways like Brother Di-ckson. Does everyone have to get script approval now like she seemed to be encouraging in her article and if that doesn't work, talks should be edited to avoid giving offense or any hint of supporting racism or actions that might be interpreted as supported of racism. And for those who don't see a need for such censorship in communications, well, if this article is a foreshadow of what might be coming, I suspect segregation will continue through dismissive labeling of various members as racists, collaborators, etc. just as it has occurred in the case of the feminist equality controversy, where Sister Hudson Cassler has been accused of being a faux-feminist, trying to dress up the patriarchal nature of our faith to make it appear as promoting the progress of women and encouraging their participation in the world as equals.

I find it extremely sad when the ones that are most insistent that their goal is equality, a sharing of love, charity, hope and understanding to the point that we become of one heart and one mind start out by drawing lines in the sand that they refuse to cross AND then go on to assign to others whether or not they are allowed to cross them or not as well. Emotional and mental walls can be as effective in keeping people separate as physical ones. Sometimes more so because those immaterial walls go with us wherever we go.

LDS Church Public Affairs officials sprung into action to denounce an overtly racist defense of the priesthood ban made by BYU professor Randy Bott to the Washington Post. Any attempt to rationalize the racial segregation of the Mormon priesthood, the Church’s official statement said, should be “viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine.”

Perhaps she feels she is just taking up the mantle from when the Church issued a public statement, denouncing in public a Church representative who took it upon himself to explain the unexplainable (though Sister Brooks seems to feel it is perfectly explainable as "traditions of men'). However I see significant differences:

The Church issued the following statement today in response to news media requests:

The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Postarticle absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. BYU faculty members do not speak for the Church. It is unfortunate that the Church was not given a chance to respond to what others said.

The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form.

For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.

Their approach promoted unity...we are all God's children...was their focus. They did not attempt to rewrite or infer anything from Brother Bott's comments to make them say more than they were saying. They did not call Brother Bott a racist or try to associate him with a pastor that justified slave trade from the Bible to inflate emotion. They did not make it appear as if this issue created or contributed to a conflict within the Church as they were very clear that all racism was condemned by the Church. No inappropriate inferences, no creation of alleged conflict. Ended with a call for unity and a rejection of racism

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't know that he is declaring doctrine since there was no doctrinal basis for that policy -- that was the conclusion of Pres. McKay who researched the entire matter with a view to ordaining African natives. He wanted to open a mission to Black Africa. He received counsel from one Apostle in particular that he should not do so until directed by a revelation. That revelation was years in coming, as you know. Some have suggested in print that the Church membership was not yet ready for a policy change until 1978. I'm just glad that the policy was finally changed.

The official position of the Church is that the reason for the restriction is unknown. It has never been stated by the Church, however, that the restriction, while it was in place, was contrary to the will of God. In fact, the wording of OD 2 implies the opposite.

Canard asserts that the restriction was based in racism. In so doing, he contradicts the Church and the Brethren. I say he has no standing to do that. Neither does Brooks.

My personal opinion is that the inability of the Church leaders in the past to arrive at a unified decision with regard to lifting the priesthood restriction was a collective instance of the proverbial stupor of thought that the scriptures say is an indication of a "no" answer when revelation has been sought. I believe it was the Lord's way of saying the time was not yet right.

Contrast that with the perfect unity with which the Brethren received The revelation given to President Kimball in 1978. By all accounts, there was absolute unanimity among them. Elder McConkie compared it to a Day-of-Pentecost outpouring.

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't say it came about due to social pressure. I celebrate President Kimball's persistence (15 years of supplication by some accounts). It's a shame his predecessors weren't more persistent. If the pre-60s & 70s generation would have also welcomed the ban then too ba it wasn't done.

You said you were glad "the '70s generation" got the restriction lifted. It had nothing to do with the '70s generation.

My guess is you are much younger than I and have had far less time to observe conditions in the Church. I was born in the '50s, grew up in the '60s and came of age in the early '70s. My clear recollection is that the older Church members in general who lived during the time of my childhood and youth would have been no more resistant to a lifting of the priesthood restriction than were the collective membership of the Church in 1978. And there was near-universal rejoicing throughout the Church when the announcement was made at that time.

[why me]

Could black people attend the temple? You said earlier that there was no segregation. Isn't that segregation? You can come to our chapels but not to our temples.

The temple was mentioned already. I said that the members treated africans like equals. The general membership did not seat africans in the back of the church. This is what I was trying to bring out. Africans were warmly welcomed as members.

[why me]

I was worried Sister Brooks wasn't going to have anything to write about for her next article, but I can see now that if she stumbles across this thread, that won't be a problem.

And this is the problem. She will not write abou it. A member can certainly soften the impact of the priesthood ban. They can write that it was not about color, that members of all colors received the priesthood. And that members overwhelmingly welcomed africans as members and personaly treated them as equals in church. Yes, there were restrictions but among the membership there was not overwhelming racism present. I never saw any racism within the church membership when it came to africans. Did it exist among some members? Yes. But it was a very small minority.

[why me]

As Scott already pointed out, they were denied entry to the Temple. Depending on how you view the Temple, that might be a big thing.

To frame the problem another way, in addition to asking about Relief Society and visiting teaching, it might also be asked if a woman of presumed African descent could marry a man who wasn't of presumed African descent (i.e. a white guy) in the Temple?

If not, why not?

If you are my age you would certainly know that intermarriage was not encouraged in American society throughtout the culture. And the reasons were many. The inherent racism within the society would be a huge problem for any couple contemplating an interracial marriage between african americans and white americans. It has only been relatively recent that intermarriage became acceptable. But then again, it was also not encouraged within american society to marry someone of a different religion. Now could a white member marry a black member? Yes. It happened in my ward. No one forbid it. And the marriage was warmly welcomed within the ward. And this was in the late seventies.

[Calm]

The temple was mentioned already. I said that the members treated africans like equals. The general membership did not seat africans in the back of the church. This is what I was trying to bring out. Africans were warmly welcomed as members.

By most, there were occasions when they were told to sit at the back or even weren't allowed in the chapel for sacrament meeting.

Survey shows that “the Mormons, in spite of their peculiar doctrine on the Negroes, were no more likely to give anti-Negro responses than were the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans (whether American or Missouri Synod) or Baptists (whether American or Southern), and furthermore the Mormon respondents were very nearly the same as the Protestant averages.”

The survey also shows, “among those of urban origin, the ‘Orthodox’ or ‘believers’ were consistently less likely to express anti-Negro attitudes than were the ‘doubters’ of key Church doctrines.” (Neither White nor Black, Bush and Mauss, Signature Books, 1984, pg. 20-23)

http://www.blacklds.org/history

also:

Besides recruiting black athletes, BYU began inviting black speakers to campus. A black faculty member was also hired. In 1969, when student government leaders had attempted to sponsor a “Brotherhood Week” featuring black speakers, students were informed that the school had a policy of limiting the number of black speakers to two per year. Actually, BYU had not invited more than a handful of blacks to speak on campus in its entire history. The University Speakers Committee had routinely rejected proposals from faculty and students to invite such black spokespeople as Julian Bond and Alex Haley, or black personalities, including Bill Cosby. In a surprising twist, the university not only invited Alex Haley to speak in 1972, but brought him back to receive an honorary degree five years later. Haley commented that he had received wide criticism for accepting an honorary degree from BYU but had decided to come to Provo “deliberately to be a symbol of the philosophy that people should unite and not divide.” In 1970, BYU’s first black instructor, Wynetta Martin, author of I am a Negro Mormon, was appointed to the nursing faculty “because many of the girls [studying nursing had] never talked with anyone of the black race, and to become good nurses one must know different cultures.” By contrast, Edward Minor of the Florida A & M instructional science department, who had been engaged in 1960 to teach classes at BYU during a summer session, had been reassigned to a consulting position when Wilkinson discovered that Minor was black. Wilkinson feared that “students and others [might] take license from [Minor's engagement as a guest lecturer] and assume that there [was] nothing improper about mingling with other races” (Wilkinson Journal, 5-6 May 1960).59

One of the most eloquent addresses delivered on campus was the 1978 presentation by U.S. senator Edward W. Brooke (D-Mass.) on American relations with South Africa. Brooke, who is black, described the difficulties of dealing with South African officials because of apartheid policies, then cautiously broached the subject of Mormonism and blacks. He observed that “the relationship between black [p. 303] Americans and Mormons in general is not all it could or should be.” While admitting that “it would be presumptuous and inappropriate for me to insist that the practices of the Mormon church be altered to fit my preferences,” the senator explained that “the temptation is great to let this obstacle be the justification for alienation or indifference.” He suggested that both Mormons and blacks should strive to appreciate “the decent qualities of both groups.”60

Five months following Brooke’s address, church president Spencer W. Kimball announced an unexpected new policy regarding priesthood ordination, allowing all worthy candidates to be ordained “without regard for race or color.” At the time of the announcement, only four American blacks and a handful of Africans were enrolled at BYU. During the three years following the announcement, the number of blacks rose to eighteen American and twenty-two foreign blacks (BYU Today). As a direct result of the priesthood revision, Stanford University decided in 1979 to remove its ban against athletic competition with BYU. Four years later, BYU invited the national chair of the NAACP to speak in a campus-wide Forum address. Black students at Brigham Young University organized a campus Ebony Club. According to black students, “The way [some students still] glare, or just ignore and look right through you, you’d think there were 500 members of the Ku Klux Klan . . . on campus” (DU, 22 Feb. 1979). On the other hand, according to blacks, students, for the most part, tried to make blacks feel welcome, even becoming “overly friendly,” acknowledging them with forced, but well-intentioned “Hey, brother greetings.” A common error made by some BYU students has been to still assume that most blacks on campus are athletes. While the number of blacks participating on BYU teams has steadily increased, so, too, has the number of blacks enrolled for strictly academic purposes.61

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=13940 Edited May 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

If you are my age you would certainly know that intermarriage was not encouraged in American society throughtout the culture. And the reasons were many. The inherent racism within the society would be a huge problem for any couple contemplating an interracial marriage between african americans and white americans. It has only been relatively recent that intermarriage became acceptable. But then again, it was also not encouraged within american society to marry someone of a different religion. Now could a white member marry a black member? Yes. It happened in my ward. No one forbid it. And the marriage was warmly welcomed within the ward. And this was in the late seventies.

1978: Joseph Freeman is the first black to be ordained an elder. In approximately the third week of June, he was sealed in the Salt Lake Temple to his non-black [samoan] wife and children. The sealing was performed by Thomas S. Monson.

http://www.blacklds.org/history

Not quite white and black, but it was interracial.

Edited May 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

I already have provided evidence, but the fact that a revelation from God was needed to rescind the ban is not good enough for you. But ponder the implications of the following:

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come...

Why did God wait so long to give this revelation? Church leaders had been praying for years for the Lord's will on the ban, but He held his peace till 1978? Why?

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...

if promises were made by prophets that at some time in the future the priesthood ban would be lifted, that presupposes there was such an official ban.

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...

So God told them "the long-promised day had come." That sure makes it sound as if God knew there was going to be a ban and that he was going to lift that ban on the promised day. Note that He didn't rebuke the Church for having been in shameful and humiliating error all along.

Are you aware that there were no words at the moment of revelation? No voice from heaven? No writing in stone tablets?

See here:

I also find this talk a useful indication of how our leaders receive guidance for the church, even on matters as 'big' as the priesthood ban.

They discuss it, then pray, then feel good about it. They create the frame of reference for the question. It's true that this describes a more intense experience, but the structure is the same as other members.

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1570

August 18, 1978

CES Religious Educators Symposium address “All Are Alike

unto God”

Bruce R. McConkie

Well, in that setting, on the first day of June in this year, 1978, the First Presidency and the Twelve, after full discussion of the proposition and all the premises and principles that are involved, importuned the Lord for a revelation. President Kimball was mouth, and he prayed with great faith and great fervor; this was one of those occasions when an inspired prayer was offered. You know the Doctrine and Covenants statement, that if we pray by the power of the Spirit we will receive answers to our prayers and it will be given us what we shall ask (see D&C 50:30). It was given President Kimball what he should ask. He prayed by the power of the Spirit, and there was perfect unity, total and complete harmony, between the Presidency and the Twelve on the issue involved.

And when President Kimball finished his prayer, the Lord gave a revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost. Revelation primarily comes by the power of the Holy Ghost. Always that member of the Godhead is involved. But most revelations, from the beginning to now, have come in that way. There have been revelations given in various ways on other occasions. The Father and the Son appeared in the Sacred Grove. Moroni, an angel from heaven, came relative to instructing the Prophet in the affairs that were destined to occur in this dispensation. There have been visions, notably the vision of the degrees of glory. There may be an infinite number of ways that God can ordain that revelations come. But, primarily, revelation comes by the power of the Holy Ghost. The principle is set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 68, that whatever the elders of the Church speak, when moved upon by the power of the Holy Ghost, shall be scripture, shall be 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. The revelation came to the president of the Church; it also came to each individual present. There were ten members of the Council of the Twelve and three of the First Presidency there assembled. The result was that President Kimball knew, and each one of us knew, independent of any other person, by direct and personal revelation to us, that the time had now come to extend the gospel and all its blessings and all its obligations, including the priesthood and the blessings of the house of the Lord, to those of every nation, culture, and race, including the black race. There was no question whatsoever as to what happened or as to the word and message that came.

Again, why didn't the Lord answer these fervent prayers sooner rather than later? You'd think that if it was all a big mistake he would have straightened things out years earlier. Why cause such prolonged, unnecessary embarrassment? I doubt you would be willing to chalk up the delay to a lack of spiritual receptivity on the part of the modern prophets.

Finally, did you ever stop to think that the official revelation apropos to priesthood ban and its reasons for existing were, in the wisdom of the Lord, kept from the general knowledge of Church at large and the world?

I take and trust the leaders in 1978 at their word. I will desist from putting words in your mouth.

I don't know why it wasn't answered sooner. We are taught that we first study it out and then seek confirmation of the conclusion we have reached.

Perhaps there were some apostles who based their frame of study on their existing world view. It's possible that world view limited the question they were ever willing to ask.

Given Elder Stapeley's attitude manifested in 1964 (see the link), it's possible that the delay was not due to God not being willing to say yes, but some of the leaders unwillingness to ask. They were waiting for instruction, not pleading for it.

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/24/delbert_stapley.pdf

[teddyaware]

Are you aware that there were no words at the moment of revelation? No voice from heaven? No writing in stone tablets?

At the moment of revelation there may not have been the above, but there was this -- according to the quote you supplied from MccConkie:

"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. The revelation came to the president of the Church; it also came to each individual present. There were ten members of the Council of the Twelve and three of the First Presidency there assembled."

Now that's saying something! A Prophet of God, his counselors, and a quorum (10) of the Twelve Apostles experienced revelation from God in a "in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced." I find it inexplicable that you seemingly try to minimize the "miraculous and marvelous manner" in which the revelation was given to thirteen prophets, seers and revelators gathered in the temple, because the revelation wasn't also written by the hand of the Lord on a tablet of stone. And this even though we are told that the revelation was so powerful as to be "beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced."

You seem to make my point in attempting to refute it. Perhaps this is a demonstration of just how far we humans are willing to veer off into the realm of illogic and inconsistency once we're totally wedded, heart and soul, to a pet idea. Apostle McConkie testifies to us that the occasion of the revelation to lift the ban was the most powerful spiritual experience of all of their lives, yet you seem to be saying the revelation and its unanimous approval was little more than a meeting of the minds at a corporate board meeting of Ford Motor Company.

Edited May 7, 2013 by teddyaware

[Storm Rider]

Those that strain on gnats by relying on the arm of flesh only see and focus on the what they can understand. Upon the rock of revelation; the reality that the heavens are open and God talks to man is fundamental to the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Too many still try to deny the power of revelation and any experiences an individual or a prophet experiences. I believe that this is one of the first steps into apostasy. How often does humanity have to go through the same cycles before subsequent generations learn the lessons of their forefathers? God still talks to man; sometimes with a voice of thunder and sometimes with a still, small voice; the import is the same.

[teddyaware]

Those that strain on gnats by relying on the arm of flesh only see and focus on the what they can understand. Upon the rock of revelation; the reality that the heavens are open and God talks to man is fundamental to the restored Church of Jesus Christ. Too many still try to deny the power of revelation and any experiences an individual or a prophet experiences. I believe that this is one of the first steps into apostasy. How often does humanity have to go through the same cycles before subsequent generations learn the lessons of their forefathers? God still talks to man; sometimes with a voice of thunder and sometimes with a still, small voice; the import is the same.

Well said.

[canard78]

You may be right on both counts. However, I think we ought to be more tolerant and understanding of the faults of our leaders as well as our fellow Saints in general. We need to be more understanding of their shortcomings and not constantly place them on pedestals which can only lead to unrealistic expectations and great disappointment when it becomes apparent that all of us (including our leaders) sometimes have feet of clay, and maybe a few warts.

Joseph once advised those who thought him to be perfect to please forgive his imperfections just as he would overlook their imperfections. We should enjoy the common nature of the Saints of the last days. Recall how impressed with Joseph Brigham Young was on first meeting him. Joseph was chopping wood. Brigham always said how much he loved a prophet who chopped wood.

Great points Robert. One of the most crucial elements of my changed perspectives on the church has been around the fallibility of prophets.

[canard78]

At the moment of revelation there may not have been the above, but there was this -- according to the quote you supplied from MccConkie:

"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. The revelation came to the president of the Church; it also came to each individual present. There were ten members of the Council of the Twelve and three of the First Presidency there assembled."

Now that's saying something! A Prophet of God, his counselors, and a quorum (10) of the Twelve Apostles experienced revelation from God in a "in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced." I find it inexplicable that you seemingly try to minimize the "miraculous and marvelous manner" in which the revelation was given to thirteen prophets, seers and revelators gathered in the temple, because the revelation wasn't also written by the hand of the Lord on a tablet of stone. And this even though we are told that the revelation was so powerful as to be "beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced."

You seem to make my point in attempting to refute it. Perhaps this is a demonstration of just how far we humans are willing to veer off into the realm of illogic and inconsistency once we're totally wedded, heart and soul, to a pet idea. Apostle McConkie testifies to us that the occasion of the revelation to lift the ban was the most powerful spiritual experience of all of their lives, yet you seem to be saying the revelation and its unanimous approval was little more than a meeting of the minds at a corporate board meeting of Ford Motor Company.

Again, a bit of a misrepresentation of my previous point.

I'm not saying I expect a voice/tablet of stone at all. It was clearly an impressive and impactful experience, even the most spiritual they'd ever had.

I had replied to your post where you had speculated on the words God had or hadn't said in giving the revelation. But the point I've made is that there was no 'voice of the Lord' to write down. In the D&C we have Joseph's revelations where he is the channel for dictating the direct words of the Lord. In the OD2 it is the leaders own words explaining they had received revelation/confirmation to end the practice.

[BlueDreams]

And this is the problem. She will not write abou it. A member can certainly soften the impact of the priesthood ban. They can write that it was not about color, that members of all colors received the priesthood. And that members overwhelmingly welcomed africans as members and personaly treated them as equals in church. Yes, there were restrictions but among the membership there was not overwhelming racism present. I never saw any racism within the church membership when it came to africans. Did it exist among some members? Yes. But it was a very small minority.

To be dead honest, stating that it was not about color and that members of all colors received the priesthood does little to nothing to soften the impact of the priesthood ban. Especially when you have black ancestry. To be frank, for me at least, whenever I hear that it sounds like a cop-out and makes me squirm. It doesn't ring true. People with obvious black ancestry (ie color/physicaly feature) were systematically excluded from the priesthood and the greatest blessings tied to it. And sure one could say dark colored people received the priesthood, but melanin count does not equal race...that's a social designation. And for 100+ years a group of people, socially derived as a people/distinctive group, were systematically excluded for no known/currently accepted reason today. Plain and simple. There's no softening the fact that if I was just a century behind, I would not be able to enter the temple because my dad is black....because I have african ancestry. Despite who I actually am as a person, as a daughter of God, I would have been excluded from some of my favorite places on earth and be limited in my calls in my faith. That that would extend to my children no matter who I married and their personal caliber. That it would profoundly effect how I could live my life and express my faith.

There's things that have made me ok with the past and even to see some revelatory pattern as Dikcson indicated....to, as you say, soften the blow. But stating it was not really about color was never one of them. That'd fly out the window with just one or 2 quotes from BY.

Perhaps it is the drugs I've taken tonight in hopes of having some decent sleep (why can't it be the same temperature for all 3 months of a season so there isn't all this up and down so everytime I get everything just so, the wind shifts and the sun shines brighter and my bedroom turns into what feels like a toaster for me), but these comments of Sister Brooks disturb me.

I think my main problem with Brooks' assumptions and argument is that it divorces any divine hand from anything to do with blacks and the priesthood. To me, dikcson talking about the divine hand/pattern does not necessitate that the implementation of the ban in the first place was necessarily a great and divine policy change as well. That kind of irks me. And I'd agree that her unnecessary division does little good. Her portrayal of others is excessive, but for some reason it doesn't bother me as much as her underlying assumption and blanket statements about racism with very little nuancing.

With luv,

BD

Edited May 7, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Benjamin McGuire]

The church had a racist policy. Why do we want to lay this at God's feet? Is it so that we can continue to accept that for some unknown reason God was racist? Do we fall back on any of the teachings that we used to justify the ban (that have been torn down by the leadership of the church) - that the Blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence and so deserved to not get the priesthood? Do we continue to try and make that bad comparison to the Priesthood of the Israelites (despite the fact that in that period only one group got it, and everyone else was denied, whereas with this, it is where everyone gets it except the one group). If our real purpose in doing this is to protect our leaders from charges of racism (and some of them were definitely racist), then we have a problem.

Robert wrote:

Some have suggested in print that the Church membership was not yet ready for a policy change until 1978. I'm just glad that the policy was finally changed.

This is simply another way of protecting the leadership who did not want to see the change. In the long run there is no real justification for this. And the issues with this sort of defense are even worse once you look at the implications. Are we suggesting on some level that the reason why the priesthood ban lasted so long was over some sort of concern for the faith and testimonies of the white members of the church who were troubled by the idea of allowing blacks to be ordained? (That is, did we really value the souls of white people so much more than the souls of black people that their salvation, and their qualifications for temple ordinances took a back seat - isn't this the definition of racism?) This sort of thinking does nothing to help . Does this imply that the majority of the church were closet racists? Do we really think that something changed between say 1960 and 1978 that suddenly the members of the church would be more open to a revelation from the presiding quorums of the church?

The larger reality is that while we have a revelation, it was almost a forgone conclusion by 1978. Steps had already been taken to begin reversing earlier policies. A few examples - before 1978, the policy of releasing a man from any priesthood calling the moment he married a black woman had been reversed. The policy of not ordaining any man with even the slightest amount of African heritage had been reversed. The policy of not actively proselytizing black people and families had been reversed. And of course, let's not forget that we were building a temple in Brazil, where, due to the way in which ordinations were handled in areas with high black populations (you couldn't be ordained unless you could prove you were of an appropriate ancestry) the vast majority of the members would not have been able to even attend the temple. (Perhaps we shouldn't mention the impending problem of doing work for the dead - where the ancestry of people was often completely unknown). This was an effort to move the leadership of the church in the right direction, and not so much an effort to convince the rank and file members of the church (who were for the most part unaware of the internal discussions and policies of the church) that the priesthood should be given to all worthy members. Members who, for the most part, were not opposed to this change (let's face it, this is not purely an academic issue yet - how many of us were alive in 1978 who would have greeted this change enthusiastically even earlier than it happened).

In the long run, if the Church and its leaders cannot learn to discuss this issue in a different way - and to abandon the rhetoric of the past - then this sort of challenge is going to continue to surface over and over and over again. If we cannot come to grips with the racism in our past then it is going to continue to haunt us. This isn't going to be a one time thing.

President David O. McKay is related to have said this in 1954:

"There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it."

I think that for those of us who choose to believe that the ban was motivated in part by culturally motivated racist views (and not by some revelation of the Lord), we are in good company.

Ben M.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Benjamin McGuire

[David T]

I'm sure you're well aware of the fact that the Lord and his apostles were commanded of the Father to not offer the gospel to the gentiles for a period of years, as can be verified by the following scriptural references:

Years later, a dramatic special revelation given directly to Peter, the President of the Church, was required to revoke the "gospel for the Jews only" Church policy. Even though this revelation, in the form of a vision from the Lord, was given to Peter three consecutive times, he still didn't understand the meaning and import of the intended message, and this, likely, because of his own deeply entrenched thinking .

Canonically, this appears as a repeat to a specific declaration given, in person, to all of the Eleven (including Peter) as well as others by the Risen Lord to " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." - you might say Peter's revelation wasn't a New Revelation - it was yet another attempt to get him to understand something The Lord had already explicitly said they should be doing, but they had rationalized that he must not have really meant it.

In this context, I see OD2 as very much the same as Peter's revelation. The revelation that finally stuck and got the Church and its stewards to acknowledge what the Lord had already said they should already be doing.

Edited May 7, 2013 by David T