Joanna Brooks Railing Against The Church. Again.

[teddyaware]

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.

What a wonderful account! Isn't it amazing when you're so blown away by the Gospel that the only thing you can say is WOW? I had an extrordinary and miraculous spiritual experience once when I was home teaching, and all I could say was WOW too. The home teachees looked on in bewilderment and wonder, trying to figure out what was happening... LOL!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

What should they have done? Well if everything was as awesome as you said, shouldn't they have just told the white ladies to get over themselves? Also, it wasn't the south, it was Washington D.C. I don't condemn them for being products of there time. You said that the church wasn't segregated and there weren't racist attitudes in the church. I just provided a counter example.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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?

I think the majority of people in the church in the forties held racist attitudes very similar to those found in the rest of America. I provided a quote from a first presidency letter. I can quote from my grandmother's autobiography. I can quote from several apostles at the time. I think church members changed their attitudes gradually over time (like the rest of America) and by the time the ban was lifted (25 years after Brown vs Board of Education) the church was just as you described. You said previously, "The general membership did not seat africans in the back of the church." You say there are countless stories. Can you provide links to a few? Preferably prior to the 1950's (and the civil rights era)?

Please don't think I am looking down on people in the church at that time. I just think the picture you are painting is overly rosy picture.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

The Illinois Legislature did not apologize; they expressed regret. There is a distinction. Some media reports were inaccurate on this point, but I was at the news conference in Salt Lake City when the announcement was made, so I have first-hand information.

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…

If the policy was in line with the mind of God (and no one has persuasively shown me the contrary yet) it would not be appropriate to apologize for it. And it would not be what Jesus would do.

[teddyaware]

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.

Perhaps. But in your scenario it's also possible the Lord deliberately left the leaders bereft of a confirmatory revelation for his own purposes. After all, I understand even President Mckay spent time in the temple praying over this issue without receiving the unmistakable revelation that came to others at a later time.

It could also be that this policy was an Abrahamic test of sorts, a trial to see who would trust in the Lord and his prophets and who wouldn't. Before the 1978 revelation, I found the ban personally distasteful and uncomfortable to contemplate, but I knew the leaders were true men of God and so I trusted in the Lord that there would be a positive outcome in the end, and there was.

One wonders if Abraham were to sacrifice his son today, and if he was caught and videoed in the very act by law enforcement as the knife hovered over Isaac's throat, how many today would actually believe the prophet if he testified he was commanded of the Lord to take his own son's life. I'll bet virtually no one would believe him, except for the possibility of some of the most spiritually in tune among us.

So it is likely that when focusing on the priesthood ban logic, reason and human compassion inform the human mind that it couldn't possibly be true the priesthood ban was of God. But what if in the mysterious economy of God it was his will? Strange, but if the ban was his will -- and if this board is any indication -- there seem to be many who are smarter and wiser than God. Too bad they weren't in charge back in the 19th century, for they would have made it possibe for the Church to enter the 21st century without having the stigma of being "racist' attached to it. And if they were around back in the days of Abraham, they might have prevented an episode of child abuse that, no doubt, traumatized Isaac for the rest of his life.

Edited May 8, 2013 by teddyaware

[Johnnie Cake]

The Illinois Legislature did not apologize; they expressed regret. There is a distinction. Some media reports were inaccurate on this point, but I was at the news conference in Salt Lake City when the announcement was made, so I have first-hand information.

If the policy was in line with the mind of God (and no one has persuasively shown me the contrary yet) it would not be appropriate to apologize for it. And it would not be what Jesus would do.

Why is it so freaking hard for an organization to express regret, ask forgiveness or what ever expression of forgiveness you chose to use. Thats nice that you were there when the Illinois legislature sought to express their regrets for the past deeds of their citizens. I merely used it as an example to show that some people living today can express regret for the sins of their fathers

I don't really thinik it would matter if the LDS church expressed regret asked for forgivenes or whatever...these are all semantics...the mere acknowledgement of the hut=rt and pain that their past policy caused an entire race of people based soley on the color of their their ancestors originated from was racist and should be regretted, asked forgivness of...or any other words that can salve the wound...

Talk about freaking arogance

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

Actually Elder McConkie just says he was wrong on the timing issue. His 1979 version of Mormon doctrine noted that dark skin color is still explicitly tied to a “degenerate status” and to “racial degeneration.” It also still perpetuates the pre-existence worthiness doctrine that "The race and nation in which men are born in this world is a direct result of their pre-existent life." Also on castes, he states: "To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry."

Even though this statement ("Forget everything that I have said") is used to dispel the "folklore doctrine", I don't think the evidence supports Elder McConkie meaning it this way.

[teddyaware]

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.

It's the leaders explaining in their own words that they had a revelation from God, without going into details about exactly how the revelation came to them, other than to say it was indeed a revelation. In this instance, they elected to keep the exact process of illumination by the Spirit private. That doesn't mean this particular revelation is any different than other revelations found in the D&C, it just wasn't publicized to the world in the same way.

Edited May 8, 2013 by teddyaware

[cinepro]

Even though this statement ("Forget everything that I have said") is used to dispel the "folklore doctrine", I don't think the evidence supports Elder McConkie meaning it this way.

Yes, Elder McConkie specifically says to forget anything he said that is contrary to the present revelation.

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.

That is why the beliefs in the "folk doctrines" have continued to this day.

[rodheadlee]

Why is it so freaking hard for an organization to express regret, ask forgiveness or what ever expression of forgiveness you chose to use. Thats nice that you were there when the Illinois legislature sought to express their regrets for the past deeds of their citizens. I merely used it as an example to show that some people living today can express regret for the sins of their fathers

I don't really thinik it would matter if the LDS church expressed regret asked for forgivenes or whatever...these are all semantics...the mere acknowledgement of the hut=rt and pain that their past policy caused an entire race of people based soley on the color of their their ancestors originated from was racist and should be regretted, asked forgivness of...or any other words that can salve the wound...

Talk about freaking arogance

Mirror, mirror on the wall who is the most arrogant of all?

[canard78]

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.

As I've already mentioned, Elder Stapeley's letter stands as evidence that at least one apostle and, as he mentions in the letter, "several others" (we don't know if he's referencing friends or fellow LDS leaders) display neither the appetite nor the proactive seeking of full equality for black people in general, including ordination.

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

(I've lost track of this thread a little having been off it for a day or two. I can't see that you've addressed this but will have another look.)

[canard78]

The Illinois Legislature did not apologize; they expressed regret. There is a distinction. Some media reports were inaccurate on this point, but I was at the news conference in Salt Lake City when the announcement was made, so I have first-hand information.

If the policy was in line with the mind of God (and no one has persuasively shown me the contrary yet) it would not be appropriate to apologize for it. And it would not be what Jesus would do.

I've asked for on this thread, and have not got, evidence that that it was "in line with the will of God."

The best I've found is BY saying he was convinced it is (but not that God told him so). On what evidence do you base this opinion?

[Calm]

I've asked for on this thread, and have not got, evidence that that it was "in line with the will of God."

The best I've found is BY saying he was convinced it is (but not that God told him so). On what evidence do you base this opinion?

I believe Scott is saying there is no definite evidence one way or the other...which is, I believe, the position of the Church (as in "we don't know the origin of the ban"). And until we know for definite it was not the will of God, it would be inappropriate to apologize....because if it turned out to be the will of God, an apology would not be appropriate. Edited May 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

It's the leaders explaining in their own words that they had a revelation from God, without going into details about exactly how the revelation came to them, other than to say it was indeed a revelation. In this instance, they elected to keep the exact process of illumination by the Spirit private. That doesn't mean this particular revelation is any different than other revelations found in the D&C, it just wasn't publicized to the world in the same way.

This is also useful from Elder Oaks:

Helen Whitney: I know you weren’t there, but you’ve obviously talked to people who were there. Is there anything that you could vivify for us?

Dallin H. Oaks: What I heard about the revelation on the priesthood can’t add anything to the eyewitnesses that were there. But I would like to speak of that in terms of what I know about revelation. Revelation comes in a lot of different ways. God speaks to His children in many ways. A face-to-face vision of God is very rare. That was the First Vision of God to Joseph Smith. Another way that revelation comes is by the appearance of an angel. The Apostle Paul had that kind of experience. Revelation can also come in a dream or a vision. None of those were the experience in the revelation on the priesthood. Other ways that revelation comes are in comfort (feeling of comfort), information, communicating restraint, or impelling one to do something, or to give a feeling.

I think in the context of the descriptions that I have heard from my Brethren in the Quorum of the Twelve about the revelation on the priesthood that was revelation that confirmed what they desired and gave them a feeling of rightness about the time. The prophet of the Lord, President Spencer W. Kimball, had pleaded with the Lord for guidance on this problem the Church faced as it became a worldwide church. It came in contact with more and more good and worthy and wonderful people who desired the blessings of the restored gospel and were blocked by the Church’s position that they could not receive the priesthood. And I think everyone in that room desired and wished and hoped that the Lord would say, “This is the time.”

So they went to the Lord, I think with a semi-proposal, that this be done. But I was not there. I didn’t hear the words spoken. But I have the feeling that everyone felt the need, everyone felt the rightness of it. I say a “semi-proposal” because often when we pray for guidance we say, “I’m inclined to do this, is this right?” We look for confirmation. I’ve had that experience many times of confirming an action. Sometimes I’ll feel a restraint. I propose to do something and the feeling is profound: “Don’t do it!” And I think that as I’ve heard the explanations that this was a profound feeling to confirm the rightness and the timing of what was being asked, and the feeling was sufficiently profound and sufficiently individual that people have described it in different ways. But it fits for me within many revelatory experiences I’ve had in my life.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/additional-resource/elder-dallin-h-oaks-reaction-to-priesthood-revelation

[blackstrap]

We can go back and forth on this issue , but what about the original concept? That of the blood of Cain and the denial of the priesthood to descendants of Cain and through Egyptus , the seed of Ham. Whoever these folks were , did the 1978 revelation then remove the restriction from them also or does the original declaration still apply ? The PoGP states that Pharaoh claimed the priesthood through Ham but that it was a false claim. We know now that for the vast majority of Egyptian history the Pharaohs were not black so that lineage was for some other people. Joseph served the Pharaoh and married presumably an Egyptian ,yet his lineage was unaffected by the restriction.

[teddyaware]

This is also useful from Elder Oaks:

http://www.mormonnew...hood-revelation

Brother Oaks is describing the well-known process of receiving revelation the way the Lord sets forth in the Doctrine & Covenants 9. Rather than sitting around idle, doing nothing, waiting for the Lord to infuse inspiration out of the blued, he commands us to study out the issue at hand in our own mind with the aid of the degree of light, truth and Spirit we already possess, and then going to the Lord to ask if the provisional and tentative decision reached is the correct one. This is how the Lord teaches us to receive revelation; and this is how the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve approached coming to the Lord on the policy of the priesthood ban. It's good to know the leaders of the Church do as the Lord has commanded and don't just give lip-service to the the Lord's teachings. Does this mean the revelation on the lifting the priesthood ban is any less a revelation than other revelations from God? No, because this very process is how the Lord teaches his people to receive revelation.

Edited May 8, 2013 by teddyaware

[canard78]

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?

I understand that all black members were barred from the temple regardless of gender. I'm not sure about "youth baptisms."

I don't know about the callings you mention either.

References:

"From the mid-1800s until 1978, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) had a policy which prevented most men of black African descent from being ordained to the church's lay priesthood. This resulted in these members being unable to participate in some temple ordinances."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism

"Temple Work for Black Members

Blacks were not allowed to enter LDS temples (due to requirement to hold the priesthood), but white members were able to do temple work for ancestors of black members. (Elder Mark E. Petersen in an address to teachers at BYU, August 27, 1954.)"

http://www.blacklds.org/history

I struggle to read that timeline without feeling ashamed. Especially given how progressive Joseph was.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why is it so freaking hard for an organization to express regret, ask forgiveness or what ever expression of forgiveness you chose to use. Thats nice that you were there when the Illinois legislature sought to express their regrets for the past deeds of their citizens. I merely used it as an example to show that some people living today can express regret for the sins of their fathers

I don't concede in this instance that the "fathers" sinned.

I don't really thinik it would matter if the LDS church expressed regret asked for forgivenes or whatever...these are all semantics...the mere acknowledgement of the hut=rt and pain that their past policy caused an entire race of people based soley on the color of their their ancestors originated from was racist and should be regretted, asked forgivness of...or any other words that can salve the wound...

Talk about freaking arogance

The arrogance I see here is in making shrill demands for apology where it is not clear such a thing is appropriate.

[Scott Lloyd]

I believe Scott is saying there is no definite evidence one way or the other...which is, I believe, the position of the Church (as in "we don't know the origin of the ban"). And until we know for definite it was not the will of God, it would be inappropriate to apologize....because if it turned out to be the will of God, an apology would not be appropriate.

Thank you, calmoriah!

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, Elder McConkie specifically says to forget anything he said that is contrary to the present revelation.

And the folk doctrines -- which purport to give explanations that God Himself has not provided -- are contrary to the present revelation.

That is why the beliefs in the "folk doctrines" have continued to this day.

Folk doctrines are highly persistent. It is naive to think a single public statement will dispel them. And Elder McConkie's statement was not all that public. It was given to an in-house group, as I recall, CES educators or some such gathering.

[Scott Lloyd]

As I've already mentioned, Elder Stapeley's letter stands as evidence that at least one apostle and, as he mentions in the letter, "several others" (we don't know if he's referencing friends or fellow LDS leaders) display neither the appetite nor the proactive seeking of full equality for black people in general, including ordination.

http://www.boston.co...ert_stapley.pdf

(I've lost track of this thread a little having been off it for a day or two. I can't see that you've addressed this but will have another look.)

Delbert L. Stapley, according to what I've seen, had some rather unpalatable attitudes with regard to racial equality. I will grant that. I hope he did some growing; the fact that he shared in the unanimous acceptance by his brethren of the Twelve of the revelation on the priesthood gives me cause for optimism that he did.

I can only share my recollection, having grown up and come of age not long prior to the 1978 revelation. And I have given that recollection to you twice now.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

Brother Oaks is describing the well-known process of receiving revelation the way the Lord sets forth in the Doctrine & Covenants 9. Rather than sitting around idle, doing nothing, waiting for the Lord to infuse inspiration out of the blued, he commands us to study out the issue at hand in our own mind with the aid of the degree of light, truth and Spirit we already possess, and then going to the Lord to ask if the provisional and tentative decision reached is the correct one. This is how the Lord teaches us to receive revelation; and this is how the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve approached coming to the Lord on the policy of the priesthood ban. It's good to know the leaders of the Church do as the Lord has commanded and don't just give lip-service to the the Lord's teachings. Does this mean the revelation on the lifting the priesthood ban is any less a revelation than other revelations from God? No, because this very process is how the Lord teaches his people to receive revelation.

Again, either you misunderstand me or I express myself badly. I am not criticising the manner of their revelation.

This whole exchange is based on you quoting OD2 to reference what God did or did not say.

You quoted, for example:

"He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come..." and attributed 'long promised day' as a phrase that God had used in giving the revelation.

I've been quoting sources to show that there were no words of revelation, instead a (very powerful) witness that it was the right time. A confirmation received, not an instruction spoken.

That doesn't invalidate the revelation at all. But does mean that it's difficult to draw any conclusions about anything that was 'said.'

[canard78]

Delbert L. Stapley, according to what I've seen, had some rather unpalatable attitudes with regard to racial equality. I will grant that. I hope he did some growing; the fact that he shared in the unanimous acceptance by his brethren of the Twelve of the revelation on the priesthood gives me cause for optimism that he did.

I can only share my recollection, having grown up and come of age not long prior to the 1978 revelation. And I have given that recollection to you twice now.

I appreciate your recollections. The question is about whether there was an appetite among the members and leaders in the 50s/60s/70s generation. I imagine your personal experiences were probably representative of many others (and the views of Elder Oaks who I mentioned).

The problem is that among the people that really mattered (the leaders) at least one person had personal reservations and who, importantly, says the revelation on black priesthood should not be saught but sent. Personal attitude might have framed the questions he and others (Alvin R Dyer and Harold B Lee for example*) studied out and saught confirmation for - or even whether they were willing to ask in the first place.

Without unity it was not be possible. I've read a few pieces with indication that this had been tried before but not unanimously supported. Individuals could effectively veto it.

I'm grateful that his 1978 support show he also had a change of perspective.

*Sources:

http://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Dialogue_V35N01_157.pdf

[canard78]

I understand that all black members were barred from the temple regardless of gender. I'm not sure about "youth baptisms."

I don't know about the callings you mention either.

References:

"From the mid-1800s until 1978, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) had a policy which prevented most men of black African descent from being ordained to the church's lay priesthood. This resulted in these members being unable to participate in some temple ordinances."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism

"Temple Work for Black Members

Blacks were not allowed to enter LDS temples (due to requirement to hold the priesthood), but white members were able to do temple work for ancestors of black members. (Elder Mark E. Petersen in an address to teachers at BYU, August 27, 1954.)"

http://www.blacklds.org/history

I struggle to read that timeline without feeling ashamed. Especially given how progressive Joseph was.

I found an answer.

This article says that under President McKay there were changes made including:

- black members could be baptised for the dead in the temple.

- they could serve in auxiliary callings.

Before Pres McKay they apparently couldn't even hold a calling (whether it needed priesthood or not).

Source:

http://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Dialogue_V35N01_157.pdf

[teddyaware]

Again, either you misunderstand me or I express myself badly. I am not criticising the manner of their revelation.

This whole exchange is based on you quoting OD2 to reference what God did or did not say.

You quoted, for example:

"He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come..." and attributed 'long promised day' as a phrase that God had used in giving the revelation.

I've been quoting sources to show that there were no words of revelation, instead a (very powerful) witness that it was the right time. A confirmation received, not an instruction spoken.

That doesn't invalidate the revelation at all. But does mean that it's difficult to draw any conclusions about anything that was 'said.'

Now I get ya!

I remember reading something from Joseph Fielding Smith, wherein he said there are many unpublished revelations given to the Church Presidents, kept in a vault. He said that in his post as church historian he was given permission to have access to these revelations and testified there was much more going on by way of revelation, behind the scenes, than the members of the Church at large realized. Perhaps someday we'll learn there were actual "words" given in the revelation lifting the ban that are as yet unpublished to the world. Time will tell...

My main point in engaging in dialogue on this thread has been to try to get the folks who are angry and mortified by the priesthood ban to take a deep breath, then take a step or two back to consider the possibility that for some wise purpose in the Lord the members of the Church -- most especially its black members -- have been given an Abrahamic test by the Lord; a test to see if we will trust in him and in his living prophets enough to reserve judgement on a controversial issue, like this one, until all the facts are revealed.

Jumping to conclusions that the priesthood ban was an inherently racist policy, perpetrated by "bigoted" 19th century Church leaders, and then getting chronically angry and insulted about it all could provide the adversary with a foot in the door into one's heart, making future disaffection and apostasy more likely. The fact that an extraordinarily powerful revelation was given -- regardless as to exactly how that revelation came -- to lift the ban at a specific day and time cogently argues that the Lord had his hand in this from the beginning. At the risk of appearing to be a nanny, my counsel is to trust in the Lord and his prophets and to not allow a destructive spring of bitterness to spout forth from within the heart. As the Lord said, "Be still, and know I am God."