Legrand Richards' "Truth" On The 1978 Priesthood Restoration

[canard78]

In August 1978 Elder LeGrand Richards (of the quorum of the 12 at the time) gave an interview with Wesley Walters and Chris Vlachos.

I can only find a full (or even partial) transcript on 'anti' websites. I presume it is genuine? Has it been discussed or reviewed by anyone at BYU etc? It seems a little different to account given by Elder McConkie.

Here are a few quotes from the interview:

Down in Brazil, there is so much Negro blood in the population there that it's hard to get leaders that don't have Negro blood in them. We just built a temple down there. It's going to be dedicated in October. All those people with Negro blood in them have been raising the money to build that temple. If we don't change, then they can't even use it. Well, Brother Kimball worried about it, and he prayed a lot about it.

He asked each one of us of the Twelve if we would pray - and we did - that the Lord would give him the inspiration to know what the will of the Lord was. Then he invited each one of us in his office - individually, because you know when you are in a group, you can't always express everything that's in your heart. You're part of the group, you see - so he interviewed each one of us, personally, to see how we felt about it, and he asked us to pray about it. Then he asked each one of us to hand in all the references we had, for, or against that proposal. See, he was thinking favorably toward giving the colored people the priesthood.

Then we had a meeting where we meet every week in the temple, and we discussed it as a group together, and then we prayed about it in our prayer circle, and then we held another prayer circle after the close of that meeting, and he (President Kimball) lead in the prayer; praying that the Lord would give us the inspiration that we needed to do the thing that would be pleasing to Him and for the blessing of His children. And then the next Thursday - we meet every Thursday - the Presidency came with this little document written out to make the announcement - to see how we'd feel about it - and present it in written form. Well, some of the members of the Twelve suggested a few changes in the announcement, and then in our meeting there we all voted in favor of it - the Twelve and the Presidency.

...

WALTERS: There wasn't a special document as a "revelation", that he had and wrote down?

RICHARDS: We discussed it in our meeting. What else should we say besides that announcement? And we decided that was sufficient; that no more needed to be said.

...

WALTERS: Well, I thank you for clarifying that for me, because you know, out in the streets out there, there must be at least five, ten different stories about the way this happened.

RICHARDS: Well, I've told you exactly what happened.

WALTERS: Right. Well, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

RICHARDS: If you quote me you will be telling the truth.

The description of the process sounds somewhat similar to the revelation a Bishopric might have to call a new auxiliary president. A prayer to ask for guidance, a discussion, a review of the information, a decision, a prayer to confirm the decision, an acknowledgement of unanimity and then the action taken.

[canard78]

To save you having to go off trawling through anti sites, here's the full transcript. Mods, if this breaches someone's copyright, let me know and I'll delete it.

The comments about "the Indian" brought a wry smile. Even in 1978 an Apostle still thought the Native Americans were decended from Laman and Lemuel and could have their skin colour changed to white if they were faithful.

Interview with Apostle LeGrand Richards

By Wesley P. Walters and Chris Vlachos

16th August 1978

Church Office Building

(Recorded on Cassette)

WALTERS: On this revelation, of the priesthood to the Negro, I've heard all kinds of stories: I've heard that Joseph Smith appeared; and then I heard another story that Spencer Kimball had, had a concern about this for some time, and simply shared it with the apostles, and they decided that this was the right time to move in that direction. Are any of those stories true, or are they all?

RICHARDS: Well, the last one is pretty true, and I might tell you what provoked it in a way. Down in Brazil, there is so much Negro blood in the population there that it's hard to get leaders that don't have Negro blood in them. We just built a temple down there. It's going to be dedicated in October. All those people with Negro blood in them have been raising the money to build that temple. If we don't change, then they can't even use it. Well, Brother Kimball worried about it, and he prayed a lot about it.

He asked each one of us of the Twelve if we would pray - and we did - that the Lord would give him the inspiration to know what the will of the Lord was. Then he invited each one of us in his office - individually, because you know when you are in a group, you can't always express everything that's in your heart. You're part of the group, you see - so he interviewed each one of us, personally, to see how we felt about it, and he asked us to pray about it. Then he asked each one of us to hand in all the references we had, for, or against that proposal. See, he was thinking favorably toward giving the colored people the priesthood.

Then we had a meeting where we meet every week in the temple, and we discussed it as a group together, and then we prayed about it in our prayer circle, and then we held another prayer circle after the close of that meeting, and he (President Kimball) lead in the prayer; praying that the Lord would give us the inspiration that we needed to do the thing that would be pleasing to Him and for the blessing of His children. And then the next Thursday - we meet every Thursday - the Presidency came with this little document written out to make the announcement - to see how we'd feel about it - and present it in written form. Well, some of the members of the Twelve suggested a few changes in the announcement, and then in our meeting there we all voted in favor of it - the Twelve and the Presidency. One member of the Twelve, Mark Petersen, was down in South America, but Brother Benson, our President, had arranged to know where he could be reached by phone, and right while we were in that meeting in the temple, Brother Kimball talked with Brother Petersen, and read him this article, and he (Petersen) approved of it.

WALTERS: What was the date? Would that have been the first of June, or something?

RICHARDS: That was the first Thursday, I think, in May. [June?] At least that's about when it was. And then after we all voted in favor of it, we called another meeting for the next morning, Friday morning, at seven o'clock, of all the other General Authorities - that includes the Seventies' Quorum and the Patriarch and the Presiding Bishopric, and it was presented to them, and there were a few of the brethren that were out presiding then in the missions, and so the Twelve were appointed to interview each one of them.

***

WALTERS: Now when President Kimball read this little announcement or paper, was that the same thing that was released to the press?

RICHARDS: Yes.

WALTERS: There wasn't a special document as a "revelation", that he had and wrote down?

RICHARDS: We discussed it in our meeting. What else should we say besides that announcement? And we decided that was sufficient; that no more needed to be said.

WALTERS: Was that the letter you sent out to the various wards?

RICHARDS: And to the Church; and to the newspapers, yes.

VLACHOS: Will that become a part of "scripture"?

RICHARDS: Yes, I've already thought in my own mind of suggesting we add it to the Pearl of Great Price, just like those last two revelations that we've just added.

WALTERS: Will this affect your theological thinking about the Negro as being less valiant in the previous existence? How does this relate? Have you thought that through?

RICHARDS: Some time ago, the Brethren decided that we should never say that. We don't know just what the reason was. Paul said, "The Lord hath before appointed the bounds of the habitations of all men for to dwell upon the face of the earth," and so He determined that before we were born. He who knows why they were born with black skin or white and so on and so forth. We'll just have to wait and find out.

WALTERS: Is there still a tendency to feel that people are born with black skin because of some previous situation, or do we consider that black skin is no sign anymore of anything inferior in any sense of the word?

RICHARDS: Well, we don't want to get that as a doctrine. Think of it as you will. You know, Paul said "Now we see in part and we know in part; we see through a glass darkly. When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away, then we will see as we are seen, and know as we are known." Now the Church's attitude today is to prefer to leave it until we know. The Lord has never indicated that black skin came because of being less faithful. Now, the Indian; we know why he was changed, don't we? The Book of Mormon tells us that; and he has a dark skin, but he has a promise there that through faithfulness, that they all again become a white and delightsome people. So we haven't anything like that on the colored thing.

WALTERS: Now, with this new revelation - has it brought any new insights or new ways of looking at the Book of Abraham? Because I think traditionally it is thought of the curse of Cain, coming through Canaanites and on the black-skinned people, and therefore denying the priesthood?

RICHARDS: We considered that with all the "for's" and the "against's" and decided that with all of that, if they lived their lives, and did the work, that they were entitled to their blessings.

WALTERS: But you haven't come up with any new understanding of the Book of Abraham? I just wondered whether there would be a shift in that direction. Is the recent revelation in harmony with what the past prophets have taught, of when the Negro would receive the priesthood?

RICHARDS: Well, they have held out the thought that they would ultimately get the priesthood, but they never determined the time for it. And so when this situation that we face down there in Brazil - Brother Kimball worried a lot about it - how the people are so faithful and devoted. The president of the Relief Society of the stake is a colored woman down there in one of the stakes. If they do the work, why it seems like that the justice of the Lord would approve of giving them the blessing. Now it's all conditional upon the life that they live, isn't it?

WALTERS: Well, I thank you for clarifying that for me, because you know, out in the streets out there, there must be at least five, ten different stories about the way this happened.

RICHARDS: Well, I've told you exactly what happened.

WALTERS: Right. Well, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

RICHARDS: If you quote me you will be telling the truth.

WALTERS: Ok, well fine. You don't mind if we quote you then?

RICHARDS: No.

WALTERS: Ok, that's great!

[Stone holm]

In August 1978 Elder LeGrand Richards (of the quorum of the 12 at the time) gave an interview with Wesley Walters and Chris Vlachos.

I can only find a full (or even partial) transcript on 'anti' websites. I presume it is genuine? Has it been discussed or reviewed by anyone at BYU etc? It seems a little different to account given by Elder McConkie.

Here are a few quotes from the interview:

The description of the process sounds somewhat similar to the revelation a Bishopric might have to call a new auxiliary president. A prayer to ask for guidance, a discussion, a review of the information, a decision, a prayer to confirm the decision, an acknowledgement of unanimity and then the action taken.

I attended a Stake Priesthood Leadership meeting in conjunction with a Stake Conference shortly after the ban was lifted. Elder Boyd K. Packer was there and he was asked about the process of lifting the ban. He said that the Brethren had been worrying about and trying to figure out what was to be done about sorting out the Temple Recommends for the Sao Paulo Brazil Temple. He said the revelation was given in the course of trying to solve that problem. He did not mention anything about the actual process whereby the revelation was communicated.

[canard78]

I attended a Stake Priesthood Leadership meeting in conjunction with a Stake Conference shortly after the ban was lifted. Elder Boyd K. Packer was there and he was asked about the process of lifting the ban. He said that the Brethren had been worrying about and trying to figure out what was to be done about sorting out the Temple Recommends for the Sao Paulo Brazil Temple. He said the revelation was given in the course of trying to solve that problem. He did not mention anything about the actual process whereby the revelation was communicated.

Thanks - useful to have another perspective.

Through the ages of time, people sometimes see it as another revealed bestowal. A voice from the heavens.

I'm glad that pragmatism and a more accurate understanding of history finally convinced the leaders. Some of them had been sat waiting (not actively seeking) for God to give a solution to a problem of the church's own making. Or "error" as President Kimball called it in 1963.

It's little wonder that the error was maintained for so long when even in the 1960s apostles thought that Joseph had instigated it.

"The things of God cannot be understood by the spirit of men. It is impossible to always measure and weigh all spiritual things by man’s yardstick of scales. Admittedly, our direct and positive information is limited. I have wished the Lord had given us a little more clarity in the matter. But for me, it is enough. The prophets for 133 years of the church have maintained the position of the prophet of the Restoration that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood nor have the temple ordinances which are preparatory for exaltation. I believe in the living prophets as much or almost more than the dead ones. They are here to clarify and reaffirm. I have served with and under three of them. The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error, which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that he will do, I am sure. These smart members who would force the issue, and there are many of them, cheapen the issue and certainly bring into contempt the sacred principle of revelation and divine authority. (Spencer w. Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, June 1963., p. 448.)

Edited July 17, 2013 by canard78

[Stone holm]

Thanks - useful to have another perspective.

Through the ages of time, people sometimes see it as another revealed bestowal. A voice from the heavens.

I'm glad that pragmatism and a more accurate understanding of history finally convinced the leaders. Some of them had been sat waiting (not actively seeking) for God to give a solution to a problem of the church's own making. Or "error" as President Kimball called it in 1963.

It's little wonder that the error was maintained for so long when even in the 1960s apostles thought that Joseph had instigated it.

You may have misunderstood me. I believe it was inspired, but it was inspiration that came as a result of a specific and somewhat mundane problem.

[Bikeemikey]

You may have misunderstood me. I believe it was inspired, but it was inspiration that came as a result of a specific and somewhat mundane problem.

Couldn't agree more.

[Darren10]

Canard;

Just wondering if you or anyone else has read through blacklds.org's site regarding the priesthood ban and its lifting? You probably have read the account they cite since you mentioned McConkie's testimony on the matter. The site seems well sourced and the revelation to lift the ban was far more, well, dramatic, than what you've cited above.

Timeline of priesthood ban and its restoration: http://www.blacklds.org/history

Testimony of the 1978 revelation lifting the ban: http://www.blacklds.org/declare2

Before offering the prayer that brought the revelation, President Kimball asked each of the brethren to express their feelings and views on this important issue. For more than two hours they talked freely and openly. Elder David B. Haight, the newest member of the Twelve, observed: "As each responded, we witnessed an outpouring of the Spirit which bonded our souls together in perfect unity—a glorious experience. In that bond of unity we felt our total dependence upon heavenly direction if we were to more effectively accomplish the Lord’s charge to carry the message of hope and salvation to all the world.

"President Kimball then suggested that we have our prayer at the altar. Usually he asked one of us to lead in prayer; however, on this day he asked, ‘Would you mind if I be voice at the altar today?’ This was the Lord’s prophet asking us. Such humility! Such meekness! So typical of this special servant of all.

(snip)

In response to a prophet’s humble prayer of faith, united with those of twelve other prophets, seers, and revelators, the Lord poured out his Spirit—and his answer—in a most powerful way. Elder McConkie testified:

"It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. 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.

"…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."

Elder Gordon B. Hinckley described his impressions as follows: "There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren. . . .

"It was a quiet and sublime occasion. . . .

"…There was a Pentecostal spirit, for the Holy Ghost was there….

"…Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same….

"…There was perfect unity among us in our experience and in our understanding."

There's also Elder Haight saying the of the priesthood brethren that "no one spoke. Overcome with emotion, we simply shook hands and quietly went to our dressing rooms." There's also President Kimball and Elder Benson saying that the "spiritual magnitude and power" were nothing they had ever before experienced.

I don't see blacklds.org's version necessarily contradicting yours but if I "had to pick one version" it would NOT be the one you cited above.

[Darren10]

Thanks - useful to have another perspective.

Through the ages of time, people sometimes see it as another revealed bestowal. A voice from the heavens.

I'm glad that pragmatism and a more accurate understanding of history finally convinced the leaders. Some of them had been sat waiting (not actively seeking) for God to give a solution to a problem of the church's own making. Or "error" as President Kimball called it in 1963.

It's little wonder that the error was maintained for so long when even in the 1960s apostles thought that Joseph had instigated it.

I see the powerful manifestation of "the voice from heaven" as in part a result of pragmatic concerns f history and (then) current events and taking those concerns to the Lord. I can very much relate to that process.

[Bikeemikey]

Canard;

Just wondering if you or anyone else has read through blacklds.org's site regarding the priesthood ban and its lifting? You probably have read the account they cite since you mentioned McConkie's testimony on the matter. The site seems well sourced and the revelation to lift the ban was far more, well, dramatic, than what you've cited above.

Timeline of priesthood ban and its restoration: http://www.blacklds.org/history

Testimony of the 1978 revelation lifting the ban: http://www.blacklds.org/declare2

There's also Elder Haight saying the of the priesthood brethren that "no one spoke. Overcome with emotion, we simply shook hands and quietly went to our dressing rooms." There's also President Kimball and Elder Benson saying that the "spiritual magnitude and power" were nothing they had ever before experienced.

I don't see blacklds.org's version necessarily contradicting yours but if I "had to pick one version" it would NOT be the one you cited above.

The final witness to the broader group seemed to be a highly spiritual confirmation of what appears to be years of agonizing and mundane work by kimball to earnestly and faithfully seek and pathway for change.

I find both the procedural pragmatism and the spiritual witness to the brethren regarding the change equally compelling from a religious perspective.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Stone holm]

it seemed to be highly spiritual confirmation of what appears to be years of agonizing and mundane work by kimball to earnestly and faithfully seek and pathway for change.

I find both the procedural pragmatism and the spiritual witness to the brethren equally compelling from a religious perspective.

I firmly believe that Pres. Kimball was specially prepared to lead the charge on this as a result of his work with the Native Americans and he attacked the bigotry being displayed by some of the Brethren in his writing while still an Apostle.

[Darren10]

The final witness to the broader group seemed to be a highly spiritual confirmation of what appears to be years of agonizing and mundane work by kimball to earnestly and faithfully seek and pathway for change.

I find both the procedural pragmatism and the spiritual witness to the brethren regarding the change equally compelling from a religious perspective.

Works for me.

Edited to add: I also see the power of the spirit in revealing the restoration of the priesthood to all worthy black males as both an affirmation that this was/is the will of God, leaving no doubt whatsoever upon the recipients of that revelation. furthermore, I see it as a result of years of outpouring from God's servants over many years which outpouring became much more intense under President Kimball. It seems to me that the time was right for the restoration of the priesthood for all worthy black males.

Edited July 17, 2013 by Darren10

[canard78]

You may have misunderstood me. I believe it was inspired, but it was inspiration that came as a result of a specific and somewhat mundane problem.

Inspired to end it or end it? Yes I think there was prayer and a spiritual witness received that they should go ahead with a decision they were willing to make. But if seems it was only able to happen when they were all actively seeking the resolution.

Until then, there was no 'burning platform' and it seems several apostles had been happy to not seek a solution bu passively wait until a "voice from heaven" imposed the change.

[cinepro]

In August 1978 Elder LeGrand Richards (of the quorum of the 12 at the time) gave an interview with Wesley Walters and Chris Vlachos.

I can only find a full (or even partial) transcript on 'anti' websites. I presume it is genuine? Has it been discussed or reviewed by anyone at BYU etc? It seems a little different to account given by Elder McConkie.

Here are a few quotes from the interview:

The description of the process sounds somewhat similar to the revelation a Bishopric might have to call a new auxiliary president. A prayer to ask for guidance, a discussion, a review of the information, a decision, a prayer to confirm the decision, an acknowledgement of unanimity and then the action taken.

A note about the McConkie version of events:

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.

[canard78]

Canard;

Just wondering if you or anyone else has read through blacklds.org's site regarding the priesthood ban and its lifting? You probably have read the account they cite since you mentioned McConkie's testimony on the matter. The site seems well sourced and the revelation to lift the ban was far more, well, dramatic, than what you've cited above.

Timeline of priesthood ban and its restoration: http://www.blacklds.org/history

Testimony of the 1978 revelation lifting the ban: http://www.blacklds.org/declare2

There's also Elder Haight saying the of the priesthood brethren that "no one spoke. Overcome with emotion, we simply shook hands and quietly went to our dressing rooms." There's also President Kimball and Elder Benson saying that the "spiritual magnitude and power" were nothing they had ever before experienced.

I don't see blacklds.org's version necessarily contradicting yours but if I "had to pick one version" it would NOT be the one you cited above.

Yes, I'm familiar with that website. It's an impressive body of work. I also agree that there are no major contradictions in it.

I can't see Elder Richard's account anywhere on that website. Is that because it's not reliable?

My initial query was to understand why this source was little used in the LDS scholar treatment of the events.

My second point (and perhaps not well made in the OP) was to illustrate that the way our leaders received direction then is different to the traditional view of prophet revelation. Actually even McConkie mentions this in his talk.

Benjamin, Nephi were taught by angels

Paul, Joseph Smith, Bro of Jared and Lorenzo Snow were visited and taught by The Lord.

Many others had visions to be taught doctrine.

With this as the latest significant revelation, has the age of heavenly pushed messages ended? The outcome described obviously was very emotional and spiritual for them. It was probably a huge relief. But the process is very similar to that of a local leader. Discuss it, study it out, make a decision, seek confirmation.

That would suggest that the ability of the church to receive revelation is defined by what the brethren are even willing to consider and discuss in the first place.

And I think it's significant that the two Apostles with racist attitudes in print (Petersen and Stapely) were absent. It meant that they did not have the opportunity to contribute to the two hour exchange of views that preceded the prayer. One wonders how they had influenced previous conversations and discussions on the topic.

I'm glad they were both still alive to endorse the change. Being called and informed that the prophet, presidency and other 10 were already unanimous on the matter meant they could hardly oppose it even if they wanted to.

Out of interest, does the blacklds website have any information on whether Petersen and Stapely ever retracted and renounced the views expressed in the 1950s/60s or did they simply stay quiet and endorse the change?

[canard78]

A note about the McConkie version of events:

Thanks. That was my intention in highlighting Richards version of events. Far less sensational than McConkie. No insinuation of hearing a "voice from heaven."

I find little evidence that today's leaders have "voice from heaven/floating quill" moments.

Maybe the ancients never did either and simply created fables to illustrate the experience. Or had fables created later by their descendants to make it seem more dramatic.

Maybe Moses sat on the mountain with a slab and chisel and, having etched out 10 statements on how to love God and love each other, offered a prayer to say "are you ok with these God?" Maybe there was no voice and no finger carving in stone.

When he got down and people started complaining about them to which he said "you should have seen the original set. They were really easy. But the whole golden cow thing meant I thought we needed something more specific."

[canard78]

I firmly believe that Pres. Kimball was specially prepared to lead the charge on this as a result of his work with the Native Americans and he attacked the bigotry being displayed by some of the Brethren in his writing while still an Apostle.

The "bigotry of the brethren" is one reason why I no longer feel the need to see them as the the mouthpiece of God.

Men with wise advice? Sure, sometimes.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Thanks. That was my intention in highlighting Richards version of events. Far less sensational than McConkie. No insinuation of hearing a "voice from heaven."

I find little evidence that today's leaders have "voice from heaven/floating quill" moments.

I've experienced both approaches to revelation in my personal life, always to equal effect. Why should it be any different for the prophets?

Edited July 17, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Danzo]

The "bigotry of the brethren" is one reason why I no longer feel the need to see them as the the mouthpiece of God.

Men with wise advice? Sure, sometimes.

You sure seem to place a high value on perfection of character as a prerequisite for being a mouthpiece of God.

Unfortunately, with standards that high, you might find your church a lonely one.

In your opinion is bigotry the only sin that disqualifies? Is it the sin next to murder? or are there other sins that disqualify people from receiving revelation.

[canard78]

I've experienced both approaches to revelation in my personal life, always to equal effect. Why should it be any different for the prophets?

You're saying you've heard the actual, audible voice of God/been visited by an angel? In the same manner of Nephi/Joseph Smith?

[Stone holm]

You're saying you've heard the actual, audible voice of God/been visited by an angel? In the same manner of Nephi/Joseph Smith?

You don't like the business memo format? These men are nearly all from the professions, we don't normally call Shakespearian actors or playwrights to the Quorum of the Twelve, a burning bush or visitation during Conference would be a nice touch though.

[Darren10]

Canard #14&16;

As apostles of the Lord the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 stand as "special witnesses" that Jesus is Lord, the Christ, and the Son of God. My view is that their special witnesses are based upon the same principle of the original 12 Apostles who tarried with Christ Himself and thus had special experiences not directly privy to any others (though I think anyone can progress in their personal testimonies to the same spiritual point of knowing Jesus is the Christ). Today I think modern-day prophets and apostles "know" Jesus is the Christ just as much as any other true prophet and apostle, including the original 12 Apostles. I cannot see how this is possible without the heavens opening and allowing the chosen servant to see things not seen on a normal basis. As William Hamblin has recently been publishing, they enter into the "Sôd of YHWH". That is, they, the chosen mortal servants of YHWH (Jehovah or Jesus Christ) stand witnessing angels praise "God and the Lamb" and divine revelation is imparted upon these servants. I think every apostle and prophet of our modern times have experienced this, despite it not being published. Consistent to this, as Professor Hamblin points out, YHWH instructs the servants what revelations to publish once they enter His "sôd". So, despite your seeming misgivings, despite their imperfections, the priesthood brethren are indeed mouthpieces of the Lord. They know much more about Him than you or I, including Petersen and Stapely, have biases and bigotry. Only Jesus went through mortality perfectly and unadulterated. All of us, including apostels and prophets, are on a continual journey to become more like the Savior.

As for the blacklds site, I do not know if they say anything about Petersen and Stapely. Frankly, I'll need to know more specifics about them to even get a grip as to what you're talking about. The priesthood ban on blacks is a very complicated part of LDS history. I cannot even make sense of the First Presidency statement regarding the priesthood ban and I cannot think of any other First presidency statement which does not resonantly abundantly clear to me.

I do agree that the priesthood leaders took a lot of time and care to resolve the concerns over the priesthood ban. I think that's the patter for most if not all of Gods revelations. I think that God also reveals things in their due time which is determined by God, not man. I do not really know why it took so long for the priesthood ban to be lifted, I fully accept that bigotry played a part in it, but I am absolutely sure that 1978 was the "right time" for it to have happened. I think President Kimball sensed this spiritually, that the time was coming for the ban to be lifted and thus reinvigorated and reinforced efforts on part of the Church leadership to learn, study, and inquire of the Lord His will. I also think that President Kimball's personal sensitivity on the matter is one reason the lord called him to be his mortal servant when 1978 came around.

[Darren10]

These men are nearly all from the professions, we don't normally call Shakespearian actors or playwrights to the Quorum of the Twelve, a burning bush or visitation during Conference would be a nice touch though.

I prefer to simply listen to them speak. The burning bush occurs in my soul when I do.

[Stone holm]

I prefer to simply listen to them speak. The burning bush occurs in my soul when I do.

I prefer marvelling at burning bushes to heartburn.

[canard78]

You sure seem to place a high value on perfection of character as a prerequisite for being a mouthpiece of God.

Unfortunately, with standards that high, you might find your church a lonely one.

In your opinion is bigotry the only sin that disqualifies? Is it the sin next to murder? or are there other sins that disqualify people from receiving revelation.

I didn't ask for perfection. Can you show where I did? Studying black priesthood and leadership racism issues is what has lead me to the conclusion of the need to change paradigms. That new paradigm includes not simply seeing the 15 as speaking for God in the way I once thought they did. That doesn't mean I reject them all entirely.

Have you ever actually read Petersen and Stapely's racist views?

Inspired or uninspired?

On which side of the 'Moroni 7:12' test does their bigotry fall?

That doesn't mean they are evil. But they have either expressed views or publicly taught things that are. Things that they didn't simply express as an opinion but the mind and will of God.

So therefore I'm cautious. I used to take the approach of: "The prophet/apostles said it, so it must be right." As you've correctly pointed out, they're not perfect. You can't get perfect instruction from an imperfect source.

[Stone holm]

I didn't ask for perfection. Can you show where I did? Studying black priesthood and leadership racism issues is what has lead me to the conclusion of the need to change paradigms. That new paradigm includes not simply seeing the 15 as speaking for God in the way I once thought they did. That doesn't mean I reject them all entirely.

Have you ever actually read Petersen and Stapely's racist views?

Inspired or uninspired?

On which side of the 'Moroni 7:12' test does their bigotry fall?

That doesn't mean they are evil. But they have either expressed views or publicly taught things that are. Things that they didn't simply express as an opinion but the mind and will of God.

So therefore I'm cautious. I used to take the approach of: "The prophet/apostles said it, so it must be right." As you've correctly pointed out, they're not perfect. You can't get perfect instruction from an imperfect source.

Well perfection sometimes depends on your perspective for a white person down in the former Confederacy states, they might have been right on the money. Now the question is how close is that culture to the predominate culture in the former State of Deseret? Given current polls, I would say pretty close.