Joanna Brooks Railing Against The Church. Again.

[Buzzard]

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.

Elder Perry came and visited our mission shortly after the revelation. He provided some insight on exactly what happened.

In a room without windows, while President Kimball was acting as voice and all the quorum were kneeling, a clearly audible sound like a rushing wind came through the room. All present heard it. President Kimball interrupted his prayer and embraced President Benson so forcefully that it almost knocked him over-quite a feat considering their respective sizes.

President Kimball asked for a sustaining vote on the statement that had been prepared, and it was sustained unanimously, without hesitation.

He then related that one apostle was in the hospital (I have read it was Elder Stapely), and he asked two members to visit him and ask for his sustaining vote as well.

FWIW, since we did not have phones, I did not hear about the revelation for several days until we were reporting our weekly statistics to our district leader. He said to sit down, he had some news for us. The way he related it was: "You know the men in the church who couldn't receive the priesthood, well now they can". I still remember sitting on a squeaky bed in a dingy apartment in Roubaix, France and looking at my companion and all we could say was WOW.

[smac97]

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.

Well, that's not totally accurate. See this article about the priesthood restriction by Edward Kimball:

"In 1948, during the George Albert Smith administration, priesthood leaders in the Philippines were authorized by the First Presidency to ordain Negrito men to the priesthood. These were native men with black skin who had no known African ancestry. Descent from black Africans only—not skin color or other racial characteristics—became the disqualifying factor."

"In 1954, President McKay is said to have appointed a special committee of the Twelve to study the issue. They concluded that the priesthood ban had no clear basis in scripture but that Church members were not prepared for change."

In 1958, David O. McKay "authorized Church leaders to ordain Fijian men to the priesthood based on his understanding that, despite their blackness, they were not related to Africans."

This probably does not make the priesthood restriction any less unpleasant. However, there have always been restrictions on the priesthood. Those restrictions don't necessarily make sense to us. However, as I understand it, in ancient times, the priesthood was not available to anyone, but was restricted to the children of Israel. And not to all of Israel, but to the tribe of Levi. And not to the entire tribe, but to the males. And not to all Levite males, but to the adult males.

These days, the priesthood is restricted to worthy male members of the Church.

Were/are these restrictions on the priesthood part of God's plan, established by God? I believe so. What about the priesthood restriction which ended in 1978? That I'm not so sure. I think the findings of the 1954 committee described above are significant. My personal opinion is that the restriction was implemented as a policy during the early days of the Church, which policy became so entrenched as to be nearly doctrinal in its significance. So it took a revelation to unroot 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.

Well, the "reason" was lineage, I think, with skin color being an approximate assumption relating thereto. The question is whether lineage could ever be a legitimate basis for restricting the priesthood. I wonder if any non-Levite Israelites in ancient times resented the priesthood being limited to the Levites.

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.

I can see that and respect the difficulty, particularly given the dubious origins of the restriction.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 7, 2013 by smac97

[Benjamin McGuire]

Smac writes:

The question is whether lineage could ever be a legitimate basis for restricting the priesthood. I wonder if any non-Levite Israelites in ancient times resented the priesthood being limited to the Levites.

But this isn't close to being analogous is it. We talk about the Levites who can become priests (most of them did not), and no one else. This is a far cry from Mormons and the blacks (of African descent) where all men can get the priesthood except for these black men (and women through the temple). It isn't even this - we talk about worthy men, but the reality is that at twelve years old, the vast majority of active boys (whose parents bring them to church) get ordained to the priesthood - something denied to black boys and men until 1978. Further, there isn't any statements within ancient Israelite religion about how important it was to be a priest to obtain exaltation (unlike the issue with Mormonism's priesthood, the temple endowment, sealing, and so on). Nor within Israelite religion is this restriction meaningful in the same way. After all, all men who were Israelites were allowed into the inner courts of the temple. All men in Israel could perform the normal sacrifices (including the ones that get performed in one's own home). There is no restriction in early Israel on ownership of Tephilim. This is all a far cry from the rather universal exclusion of blacks within Mormon policy. There differences are significant enough (far more significant than the similarities) that I think we need to be very cautious about using this as an argument for precedence to support the ban in Mormonism that ended in 1978.

Ben M.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Benjamin McGuire

[smac97]

The church had a racist policy.

Well, possibly. Implicit in the term "racism" is "hatred or intolerance of another race." So you are making a few assumptions here. The Church has said that we do not know the origins of the priesthood ban. Are its origins based on solely on hatred/intolerance, or were there other factors in play?

Why do we want to lay this at God's feet?

I don't think anyone is doing that. The Church has said we don't know the source of the ban, so we are left to infer that it was implemented by man, and not by revelation.

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.

I don't think anyone is doing this.

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.

Well, we don't exactly know that with certainty, do we?

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 was essentially the assessment of the 1954 committee referenced in my previous post.

(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?)

The souls of black people were put at risk because of the priesthood ban? I don't think so. That's what the Atonement is all about. It will right all wrongs, including this one (assuming, as we both appear to, that it was wrong).

This sort of thinking does nothing to help . Does this imply that the majority of the church were closet racists?

I sense something of a presentist fallacy in your remark.

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?

Is that such a remote possibility? Did not race relations in the United States change dramatically during that period? Also, the article I linked to in my previous post does a pretty good job of summarizing the chronology of the priesthood restriction, including incremental changes going back to the 1940s.

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.

Yes. And? Are you suggesting that the 1978 revelation was not a revelation?

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.

What "rhetoric of the past" are you talking about?

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.

How do you propose we "come to grips" with this issue?

Race-baiters will continue to harangue us regardless of what we say or do. Fanning racial hostilities is their raison d'être. This is why we see the likes of Joanna Brooks fanning racial discord by fabricating division in the Church while simultaneously declaring herself to be an "anti-racist advocate."

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.

I guess I haven't been following this thread very closely, as I don't recall anyone disagreeing with you on this point.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 7, 2013 by smac97

[sheilauk]

I'm curious about something. This conversation is always about black men not being ordained and thus not able to go to the Temple and hold certain callings. What about black women? Were they able to go to the Temple? Ordination isn't required for them. Did they hold callings in the Relief Society and Primary? Sunday School? Music? Did black brethren and sisters hold any callings?

[smac97]

Smac writes:

But this isn't close to being analogous is it.

Insofar as the ancient restriction was expressly scriptural, while the modern restriction was not, you are correct. Otherwise, the comparison is worthy of discussion.

We talk about the Levites who can become priests (most of them did not), and no one else.

Right. A restriction based on lineage. The scope of the exclusivity was much broader, but that's a difference of degree, not type.

This is a far cry from Mormons and the blacks (of African descent) where all men can get the priesthood except for these black men (and women through the temple).

One lineage restriction was scriptural, whereas the other was not. But both were restrictions based on lineage, one being "inclusive" of lineage (worthy Levite males only) the other exclusive (those of black African descent). Again, this is a difference of degree, not type.

It isn't even this - we talk about worthy men, but the reality is that at twelve years old, the vast majority of active boys (whose parents bring them to church) get ordained to the priesthood - something denied to black boys and men until 1978.

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that some unworthy males in the Church received the priesthood? Are you likewise suggesting that no unworthy Levites received it? What is the distinction you are trying to create here?

Further, there isn't any statements within ancient Israelite religion about how important it was to be a priest to obtain exaltation (unlike the issue with Mormonism's priesthood, the temple endowment, sealing, and so on).

The saving ordinances of the temple were generally not available to the children of God until this dispensation, hence the great work of the temple in this dispensation (to be continued during the Millennium). Are you suggesting that black people who lived between 1830 and 1978 have no access to exaltation because of the priesthood ban? That the Atonement is inoperative as to these brothers and sisters? That temple work for them is forbidden and is not being performed? What is it that you are saying here?

Nor within Israelite religion is this restriction meaningful in the same way.

Please explain to me how the modern priesthood restriction was "meaningful."

After all, all men who were Israelites were allowed into the inner courts of the temple. All men in Israel could perform the normal sacrifices (including the ones that get performed in one's own home). There is no restriction in early Israel on ownership of Tephilim. This is all a far cry from the rather universal exclusion of blacks within Mormon policy.

First, there was not a "universal exclusion of blacks." Many aspects of the Restored Gospel were available to black people (baptism, partaking of the sacrament, etc.), which seems somewhat comparable to non-Levites being allowed into the inner courts of the temple, performing sacrifices, etc.

Second, there was also a "universal exclusion" of non-Levites from the priesthood. The distinguishing feature in my mind is that this one was scriptural, whereas the modern one was not.

There differences are significant enough (far more significant than the similarities) that I think we need to be very cautious about using this as an argument for precedence to support the ban in Mormonism that ended in 1978.

I think you seriously misunderstand/misconstrue my comments. I am not "supporting" the ban. Based on what we know, I do not believe the priesthood restriction was a product of revelation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

Well there was this story related by Lester Bush:

Occasionally the few Negro members did pose a problem; and, not unexpectedly, these difficulties were resolved after the manner of their contemporaries. Responding to a situation in Washington, D.C., in which some Relief Society sisters had objected to being seated with “two colored sisters who are apparently faithful members of the Church,” the First Presidency advised: “It seems to us that it ought to be possible to work this situation out without causing any feelings on the part of anybody. If the white sisters feel that they may not sit with them or near them, we feel sure that if the colored sisters were discretely approached, they would be happy to sit at one side in the rear or somewhere where they would not wound the sensibilities of the complaining sisters.”

This was in the 40's. I'm sure that by the time the ban was lifted in the 70's the situation was more in line with what you are describing.

[Johnnie Cake]

I just can’t understand why the leadership of the church can’t mouth the words... “We’re Sorry”

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

Just to be clear, the church was very racist in its theology - stating that blacks had been poor performers in the preexistence. As shown above, the first presidency in the forties was willing ask black sisters to sit in the back so the sensibilities of the white sisters wouldn't be offended. Again what you say is probably true about the church in the late 60's and 70's to an extent, but fails as you go back further.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Smac,

I don't think I am going to have much of a civil discussion with you on this topic, so I am going to make a few final comments and then withdraw from it.

The saving ordinances of the temple were generally not available to the children of God until this dispensation, hence the great work of the temple in this dispensation (to be continued during the Millennium). Are you suggesting that black people who lived between 1830 and 1978 have no access to exaltation because of the priesthood ban? That the Atonement is inoperative as to these brothers and sisters? That temple work for them is forbidden and is not being performed? What is it that you are saying here?

You complained about presentism right? Was there a time - any time - between 1880 and say 1940 that you can find a statement suggesting that blacks can be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom? I only know of one that comes close (but it isn't the same thing). It comes from the special sealing of Jane Manning James who was "adopted to the prophet" Joseph Smith "as a servant". This eventually led to Mark E. Peterson's well known discourse on the Negro problem where he suggested: "If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection." Or the Conference talk by Elder George Richards: the "Negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fullness of glory in the celestial kingdom." Prior to 1978, the only proxy ordinances that were allowed for blacks were baptism and confirmation. And it was church belief that blacks could not gain exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom just as the rest of us couldn't (if we didn't have the proper ordinances) - but the rest of us could get the proper ordinances prior to 1978, while the blacks simply could not. Had the 1978 revelation never come, would we still have a doctrine that denied them exaltation?

At any rate, I am done for now, so have the last words.

Ben M.

[smac97]

Smac,

I don't think I am going to have much of a civil discussion with you on this topic,

Have I said something to give offense?

so I am going to make a few final comments and then withdraw from it.

You complained about presentism right?

I think blandly painting all 19th century Mormons as "racist," certainly one of the most loaded terms of our day, is not entirely accurate.

I don't think we folk in 2013 have a monopoly on racial tolerance. Unfortunately, we do not live in a colorblind society. Racism, whether overt (the KKK, for example) or covert (affirmative action) is sadly alive and well.

Was there a time - any time - between 1880 and say 1940 that you can find a statement suggesting that blacks can be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom?

Not offhand. But that is neither here nor there. My questions about the actual impact of the priesthood ban remain: Are you suggesting that black people who lived between 1830 and 1978 have no access to exaltation because of the priesthood ban? That the Atonement is inoperative as to these brothers and sisters? That temple work for them is forbidden and is not being performed? What is it that you are saying here?

I am not attempting to diminish the harmful effects of the priesthood ban, nor am I attempting to justify the ban itself. The issue is this: There are some restrictions to the priesthood, some scriptural, some (apparently) not. I think some of the people who vilify the Church in 2013 for a priesthood restriction which ended in 1978 are not doing so because they are concerned about race relations in the Church (hence the race baiting apparent in Joanna Brooks' article). I think they are positioning this issue as a leverage point against the LDS Church relating to the ordination of women to the priesthood. In other words, this issue is being raised to put the LDS Church on the defensive, to "soften it up" by accusing it of racism as a preparatory step toward accusing it of sexism for not giving the priesthood to women.

So what is the response to this? Well, I think I can present principled distinctions and explanations. There are obviously some legitimate ways in which the priesthood is restricted, and those ways are not all tainted just because the one under discussion - the one based on black African lineage - was apparently not legitimate.

Prior to 1978, the only proxy ordinances that were allowed for blacks were baptism and confirmation. And it was church belief that blacks could not gain exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom just as the rest of us couldn't (if we didn't have the proper ordinances) - but the rest of us could get the proper ordinances prior to 1978, while the blacks simply could not. Had the 1978 revelation never come, would we still have a doctrine that denied them exaltation?

First, we did have the 1978 revelation, so your question is pure conjecture.

Second, there were several indications from the Brethren (David O. McKay comes to mind) that the priesthood restriction had a limited shelf life.

Third, black people have never been denied exaltation, previous comments from 19th century leaders to the contrary notwithstanding. Elder McConkie's comments about speaking with limited light and understanding come to mind.

At any rate, I am done for now, so have the last words.

Ben M.

As you like. I am puzzled by your hostility. I bear you no ill will, and I don't think I have said anything that warrants your response.

Thank you,,

-Smac

Edited May 7, 2013 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

Smac,

I don't think I am going to have much of a civil discussion with you on this topic, so I am going to make a few final comments and then withdraw from it.

This strikes me as a bit of uncalled-for snarkiness, which seems uncharacteristic of Benjamin McGuire from what I have seen of his past discourse. Smac has been vigorous and forceful in expressing his opinions, but has not, in my judgment, been uncivil.

In saying this, I recognize that I am dangerously close to violating my own policy against board nannying (not to mention the board's policy). But long ago, on a message board far, far away, Smac defended me against a personal attack from another board participant, so I feel inclined to return the favor.

[cinepro]

Elder Perry came and visited our mission shortly after the revelation. He provided some insight on exactly what happened.

In a room without windows, while President Kimball was acting as voice and all the quorum were kneeling, a clearly audible sound like a rushing wind came through the room. All present heard it. President Kimball interrupted his prayer and embraced President Benson so forcefully that it almost knocked him over-quite a feat considering their respective sizes.

President Kimball asked for a sustaining vote on the statement that had been prepared, and it was sustained unanimously, without hesitation.

He then related that one apostle was in the hospital (I have read it was Elder Stapely), and he asked two members to visit him and ask for his sustaining vote as well.

To be fair to President Kimball, I think it's important that we present the experience as he wished:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[cinepro]

I'm curious about something. This conversation is always about black men not being ordained and thus not able to go to the Temple and hold certain callings. What about black women? Were they able to go to the Temple? Ordination isn't required for them. Did they hold callings in the Relief Society and Primary? Sunday School? Music? Did black brethren and sisters hold any callings?

Black women could not receive Temple ordinances, or be married in the Temple to a priesthood holder.

Black members of the Church could hold any calling that didn't require the Priesthood or Temple ordinances.

In the 1970s, there was an issue where black young men who were Boy Scouts in LDS troops couldn't be the Senior Patrol Leader, since that position was traditionally held by the Deacon's Quorum President, which they could never be. The policy was changed.

[cinepro]

In my mind, the biggest error in Brooks' article is not including this quote from President Hinckley from 2006:

Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/the-need-for-greater-kindness?lang=eng

It is disingenuous to discuss current LDS racial attitudes and not include the words of President Hinckley, spoken in General Conference, specifically addressing the subject.

Edited May 7, 2013 by cinepro

[KevinG]

It is disingenuous to discuss current LDS racial attitudes and not include the words of President Hinckley, spoken in General Conference, specifically addressing the subject.

Perhaps she is just 7 years behind on her General Conference reading?

[KevinG]

I just can’t understand why the leadership of the church can’t mouth the words... “We’re Sorry”

That would be apologizing for someone else for a policy they didn't implement but in fact did away with. However there were admissions that the ban was wrong. This one in particular gets to the point:

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." - Bruce R. McConkie - August 1978

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

(Of course having re-read the date of this post I now suspect Joanna Brooks is 25 years behind in her reading.)

[Scott Lloyd]

That would be apologizing for someone else for a policy they didn't implement but in fact did away with. However there were admissions that the ban was wrong. This one in particular gets to the point:

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." - Bruce R. McConkie - August 1978

http://speeches.byu....iewitem&id=1570

This is not stating that the restriction itself was wrong, only that "certain statements" by some Church leaders -- including Elder McConkie himself -- were wrong. I interpreted this to apply to conjectural explanations for it when, in actuality, no explanation has been revealed by the Lord as far as can be ascertained.

[smac97]

That would be apologizing for someone else for a policy they didn't implement but in fact did away with. However there were admissions that the ban was wrong. This one in particular gets to the point:

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." - Bruce R. McConkie - August 1978

http://speeches.byu....iewitem&id=1570

(Of course having re-read the date of this post I now suspect Joanna Brooks is 25 years behind in her reading.)

Unless, of course, she is intentionally omitting such obviously relevant comments from LDS Church leaders. Golly, it's almost as if she wants to give a less-than-flattering depiction of the Church to Salon readers, or something.

-Smac

[why me]

Well there was this story related by Lester Bush:

This was in the 40's. I'm sure that by the time the ban was lifted in the 70's the situation was more in line with what you are describing.

I wouldn't go by one story. I said that the majority weren't racist. Racism was ingrained in the culture. All were infected by it through culture and history. Mormons were no exception. However, what about the countless stories not recorded where blacks and whites worshipped together?

Edited May 7, 2013 by why me

[BlueDreams]

Taking a 5 minute breather from work, so this'll may be messy

Well, that's not totally accurate. See this article about the priesthood restriction by Edward Kimball:

I'm aware of this. Though thank you for the article. I read about this a long time ago and couldn't remember the source.

I was using it in the common American vernacular used today...where black is eqcuivilant to african decent.....though still technically I was still correct. The authorization came in 1948....which meant previously it was at least in question and probably not authorized. Though it was still based heavily on a belief that because of their looks their ancestors must have been from africa. The understanding altered over time.

This probably does not make the priesthood restriction any less unpleasant. However, there have always been restrictions on the priesthood. Those restrictions don't necessarily make sense to us. However, as I understand it, in ancient times, the priesthood was not available to anyone, but was restricted to the children of Israel. And not to all of Israel, but to the tribe of Levi. And not to the entire tribe, but to the males. And not to all Levite males, but to the adult males.

Yes....I have a different take on it....but I agree basically that the priesthood has been restricted to some extent in the past. I don't take it as a sign of a green light per se....more so as a fault of the society they resides. They were given the LoMoses and likewise this priestly order because they would not receive something higher. This was preparatory for things greater. You do not see this same restriction with the NT (or BoM) era. And still not at the beginning of the restoration. And then another restriction was added in after such. It's a restriction...restrictions are historically capable. But I honestly don't see these as necessarily a good thing

What about the priesthood restriction which ended in 1978? That I'm not so sure. I think the findings of the 1954 committee described above are significant. My personal opinion is that the restriction was implemented as a policy during the early days of the Church, which policy became so entrenched as to be nearly doctrinal in its significance. So it took a revelation to unroot it.

I'd basically agree with that

Well, the "reason" was lineage, I think, with skin color being an approximate assumption relating thereto. The question is whether lineage could ever be a legitimate basis for restricting the priesthood. I wonder if any non-Levite Israelites in ancient times resented the priesthood being limited to the Levites.

Funny, I was going to mention this in my previous post as another cousin to the other argument that is of absolutely no help with softening the ban on the priesthood. The question to me doesn't even get to whether lineage is a legitimate basis for restricting the priesthood. It's a nice way to fluff up the 19th century ideals about race and lineage and shows little actual understanding of African lines/ancestries. They don't all have the same root ancestors. It begs the question of whether a basic phenotype from africa can indicate the same lineage and I would argue no.

The other problem is the fact that the means of carrying down lineage in this instant is based heavily in 19th century ideals about black ancestry that were fundamentally racist....namely the one-drop rule (that one drop of black blood makes you black). It was a means to maintain separation of the races and to maintain social stratification. "Lineage" in the ban is not used in any means similar to lineage in general ethnic ideals about lineage (esp. jewish) and it certainly doesn't follow the concept of lineage in LDS theology (where individuals in one family can be different lines). It parallels best with the one-drop rule and some common beliefs about biblical lines found in the 17th-19th century. Not a good way to go IMHO.

I can see that and respect the difficulty, particularly given the dubious origins of the restriction.

Thanks...it doesn't bother me now. I found an answer that works for me after reading a ton of material about it. I'm content with that

With luv,

BD

Edited May 7, 2013 by BlueDreams

[why me]

This is simply another way of protecting the leadership who did not want to see the change.

Ben M.

what leadership? It is my understanding that the leadership was debating this issue for quite some time. Some wanted the ban lifted and there were debates. I wouldn't take a brush and give it one big stroke. Edited May 7, 2013 by why me

[why me]

As shown above, the first presidency in the forties was willing ask black sisters to sit in the back so the sensibilities of the white sisters wouldn't be offended. Again what you say is probably true about the church in the late 60's and 70's to an extent, but fails as you go back further.

What should they have done if there were complaints from some white members? I am sure that in the south it was difficult for all concerned since members can be so imperfect in their understanding of the gospel. However, we also need to remember that america was a very segregated society and during WWII even the army was segregated. And this had to reflect on the church membership too.

[Johnnie Cake]

That would be apologizing for someone else for a policy they didn't implement but in fact did away with. However there were admissions that the ban was wrong. This one in particular gets to the point:

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." - Bruce R. McConkie - August 1978

http://speeches.byu....iewitem&id=1570

(Of course having re-read the date of this post I now suspect Joanna Brooks is 25 years behind in her reading.)

Yup...Exactly...Kind of like the 2004 Illinois Legislature apologized to the LDS church for the actions of it's 1847 citizens who expelled members of the church from Illinois....even though the 2004 Illinois legislature had absolutely nothing to do with the actions of its 1847 citizens...they did it to move on and to help heal a wound.

There is a wound in Mormon history caused by this racist policy. For this wound to be fully healed the church needs to take responsibility the policy and ask forgiveness to those that the policy hurt.

Its what Christ would do…

[Johnnie Cake]

Yup...Exactly...Kind of like the 2004 Illinois Legislature apologized to the LDS church for the actions of it's 1847 citizens who expelled members of the church from Illinois....even though the 2004 Illinois legislature had absolutely nothing to do with the actions of its 1847 citizens...they did it to move on and to help heal a wound.

There is a wound in Mormon history caused by this racist policy. For this wound to be fully healed the church needs to take responsibility the policy and ask forgiveness to those that the policy hurt. Or they can continue on their current path of denial...and hope that in time this issue will simply disappear...

Its what Christ would do…