Legrand Richards' "Truth" On The 1978 Priesthood Restoration

[USU78]

I'm not sure I follow your point. The fact that Utah shares the racist heritage of the south doesn't excuse Petersen and Stapely bigotry.

I think you're guilty, presently, of presentism, '78. Just because in present-day US what's called "racism" and its rejection are sacred cows does not mean that, in the Lord's economy, such things are sins any worse than any other sins. To believe so is to claim, because you hold with present trends, that you are necessarily superior morally to most of the people who have ever lived in the world.

Go to Glasgow. Go into a pub. Listen to the people complain about the people "across the water." The extent to which they despise the people "across the water" probably varies from person to person and pub to pub, but the despising is there nevertheless. It's unclear other than from context (which is rarely made clear) which water and which people are being spoken of. Is it the people in Edinburgh? Could be. Is it the people in the borders? Could easily be. Is it the government in London? Good chance. Is it the EU people in Europe? Is it the EU Government? Is it the Canadians? Is it the US? Is it the Aussies? It could be all at the same time and it wouldn't make a difference to the sinfulness of the notion. There is not, IMNSHO, any particular racial aspect to the sinfulness of the despising going on . . . and adding melanin count to the equation doesn't make it any better or any worse.

We in the West are particularly pharisaic in our "sin" taxonomies: "I thank Thee, O Lord, that Thou hast not made me a racist as the fellow over in Lynchburg, Virginia!"

And rejecting the prophetic calling of any person because of so endemic and petty a sin as xenophobia is self-defeating. Again, IMNSHO.

[USU78]

Drum roll, blare of trumpets....

Smart arse.

[canard78]

And then some wonder why people are guarded with sacred experiences ...

It's a fair point and if the brethren are ministered to by angels/the lord, that may well be why they don't speak of it.

150 years ago or so people were more willing to accept celestial visitors. Joseph's claim of a vision was not entirely unusual.

Perhaps the leaders keep it quiet because they want to save the church the ridicule. I believe that even Lorenzo Snow didn't mention his vision of the Lord publicity. I'd need to check but I think it was only known after his death from his personal writings (a letter to his daughter?).

One wonders whether the personal writings of his successors have similar stories.

[Stone holm]

This issue seams to be a bigger problem for you than for most of the black membership that I have talked to.

Do you think it might be a bigger problem for him than for most of the black non-membership that you have talked to?

[canard78]

This issue seams to be a bigger problem for you than for most of the black membership that I have talked to.

Have you actually sat down and asked the black membership how they feel about the ban? How many of the black members you've discussed this with have read Stapely/Petersen's opinions? How many have read Brigham Young's opinions? How many know of Elijah Abel's ordination, service as a Seventy but later blocking from attending the temple? How many realise that there is no revelation, or even reference to revelation to instigate the ban? How many know that it was, in a prophet's words, an "error?"

[Danzo]

Very little of the black non membership that I have talked to know or care about the issue.

On my mission, black people that were listening to the missionaries sincerely, usually didn't have an issue with it. (In my mission, all of the black people were from africa, not the USA so their perspectives might be a bit different)

[Danzo]

Have you actually sat down and asked the black membership how they feel about the ban? How many of the black members you've discussed this with have read Stapely/Petersen's opinions? How many have read Brigham Young's opinions? How many know of Elijah Abel's ordination, service as a Seventy but later blocking from attending the temple? How many realise that there is no revelation, or even reference to revelation to instigate the ban? How many know that it was, in a prophet's words, an "error?"

You mean how many are as smart as you?

Very few, it would seem.

Are you saying no conversation will be valid without first airing out all of your complaints?

[Danzo]

Have you actually sat down and asked the black membership how they feel about the ban? How many of the black members you've discussed this with have read Stapely/Petersen's opinions? How many have read Brigham Young's opinions? How many know of Elijah Abel's ordination, service as a Seventy but later blocking from attending the temple? How many realise that there is no revelation, or even reference to revelation to instigate the ban? How many know that it was, in a prophet's words, an "error?"

There are currently 22 stakes in Nigeria, all of the members there must not be as enlighten as you are about the issue. Non of them have gotten to the end of the D&C to read Official declaration 2.

Or maybe there is another possibility, they are converting to the gospel of Christ, not the church of Peterson, Stapley , Young or smith. Maybe they are not wedded to the idea that every sound that come out of a priesthood leader is sacred, every writing must 100% consistently agree with them. That the lord works through and for sinners like you and me.

[canard78]

You mean how many are as smart as you?

Very few, it would seem.

Are you saying no conversation will be valid without first airing out all of your complaints?

I think I've seen you use this line of arguement before - that I assume the saints who disagree with me must be stupid (I think it was the 1835 angelic priesthod ordinations thread). I'm not sure where I've said that. Perhaps that's your own perspective on people you disagree with being projected onto me.

I'm not saying I'm smarter. I'm wondering whether they've studied the full history of how it happened and the apostles whose opinions may have delayed the restoration. I don't consider myself smarter than you. You've apparently read as much as me (did you read the Stapely/Petersen letter/talk?). You reach different conclusions to me. I disagree with them.

“I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent – if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression.”

Apostle Hugh B. Brown, “A Final Testimony,” from An Abundant Life, 1999

[Danzo]

I think I've seen you use this line of arguement before - that I assume the saints who disagree with me must be stupid (I think it was the 1835 angelic priesthod ordinations thread). I'm not sure where I've said that. Perhaps that's your own perspective on people you disagree with being projected onto me.

I'm not saying I'm smarter. I'm wondering whether they've studied the full history of how it happened and the apostles whose opinions may have delayed the restoration. I don't consider myself smarter than you. You've apparently read as much as me (did you read the Stapely/Petersen letter/talk?). You reach different conclusions to me. I disagree with them.

Sorry for sounding harsh, I just don't see the benefit of feeling sorry for those who don't feel sorry for themselves. I also don't see the value of combing through history to pick apart other's errors. I think people should be seen for who they were in total, not all of the bad thing they might have said at one point.

Stapely and Peterson's opinions were never adopted as official doctrine. They both supported the lifting of the ban in the end (whatever they may have thought earlier). It confirms that the lord doesn't download everything into a church leaders head. Differing people will have differing opinions and the lord will reveal his will when he (and we) are ready.

I remember listening to an audio tape of my great grandfather singing songs he learned as a child (he has been dead for many years) many of those songs had racial inferences that wouldn't be tolerated today. Maybe I should disown him, burn all of his pictures and strike him from family records. Or maybe he was just a product of his time.

The really cool thing, is that the church leadership, in spite of being from that period (most of them were very old men, born in the previous century), were able to receive such a revelation. The church (for the most part) rejoiced in it.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I believe that even Lorenzo Snow didn't mention his vision of the Lord publicity. I'd need to check but I think it was only known after his death from his personal writings (a letter to his daughter?).

It was written down by his granddaughter, Allie Young, with whom he shared the narrative in the temple one evening. Although he recorded other visitations and visions in his journals, this one he never committed to writing himself. Heber J. Grant later reported that Pres Snow had eventually shared the experience with the other apostles but even then not until much later.

One wonders whether the personal writings of his successors have similar stories.

When I consider what is in just the personal writings of my parents, I would find it surprising for this not to be case. I have no reason to believe that the experiences of the prophets are any less than my own.

[Stone holm]

Sorry for sounding harsh, I just don't see the benefit of feeling sorry for those who don't feel sorry for themselves. I also don't see the value of combing through history to pick apart other's errors. I think people should be seen for who they were in total, not all of the bad thing they might have said at one point.

Stapely and Peterson's opinions were never adopted as official doctrine. They both supported the lifting of the ban in the end (whatever they may have thought earlier). It confirms that the lord doesn't download everything into a church leaders head. Differing people will have differing opinions and the lord will reveal his will when he (and we) are ready.

I remember listening to an audio tape of my great grandfather singing songs he learned as a child (he has been dead for many years) many of those songs had racial inferences that wouldn't be tolerated today. Maybe I should disown him, burn all of his pictures and strike him from family records. Or maybe he was just a product of his time.

The really cool thing, is that the church leadership, in spite of being from that period (most of them were very old men, born in the previous century), were able to receive such a revelation. The church (for the most part) rejoiced in it.

Curious argument. If I were of African descent, I sincerely doubt that I would have given the missionaries the time of day. I remember as a Seventy home teaching a Sister with two black sons before the ban was lifted, it was a difficult assignment.

[canard78]

Sorry for sounding harsh, I just don't see the benefit of feeling sorry for those who don't feel sorry for themselves. I also don't see the value of combing through history to pick apart other's errors. I think people should be seen for who they were in total, not all of the bad thing they might have said at one point.

Stapely and Peterson's opinions were never adopted as official doctrine. They both supported the lifting of the ban in the end (whatever they may have thought earlier). It confirms that the lord doesn't download everything into a church leaders head. Differing people will have differing opinions and the lord will reveal his will when he (and we) are ready.

I remember listening to an audio tape of my great grandfather singing songs he learned as a child (he has been dead for many years) many of those songs had racial inferences that wouldn't be tolerated today. Maybe I should disown him, burn all of his pictures and strike him from family records. Or maybe he was just a product of his time.

The really cool thing, is that the church leadership, in spite of being from that period (most of them were very old men, born in the previous century), were able to receive such a revelation. The church (for the most part) rejoiced in it.

Perhaps I've not been clear with my intentions and objectives.

My aim here is not to bismirch the names of Stapely, Petersen and Young. My aim is to understand the process of the restoration to black members, the origins of the ban and the potential reasons for the delay.

In doing so it gives me the opportunity to shift my paradigm of what a prophet and apostle is and what I should do with what he says. I grew up with one paradigm... I can no longer work with that. I'm shifting to a new one.

The new one is best summed up by:

"The saints believe in divine revelation today. At the head of this church stands a man who is a Prophet, Seer and Revelator sustained in that position by the vote of the whole body of its members. When the Lord wishes to speak to His church, as a body, He does so through that individual, His servant. President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect and venerate him; but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when "Thus saith the Lord" comes from him, the Saints investigate it; they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill. When he brings forth light they want to comprehend it. Light, truth, intelligence, wisdom, progress growth all the time - that is "Mormonism" - to grow in grace and the knowledge of the truth. When the Lord desires to speak to the whole Church He does so through its head, not through half a dozen different channels; because in such an event there would be confusion. The Latter-day Saints are not blindly led by leaders or blindly directed by priests; but every man can receive the divine testimony in his own heart and be a priest in his own house."

Elder Charles W. Penrose, The Doctrine of Revelation, speaking in the Tabernacle, February 7, 1892

Reported in the Millenial Star Vol. 54, pg 191, No. 12 (March 21, 1892)

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/MStar/id/31405

[canard78]

It was written down by his granddaughter, Allie Young, with whom he shared the narrative in the temple one evening. Although he recorded other visitations and visions in his journals, this one he never committed to writing himself. Heber J. Grant later reported that Pres Snow had eventually shared the experience with the other apostles but even then not until much later.

When I consider what is in just the personal writings of my parents, I would find it surprising for this not to be case. I have no reason to believe that the experiences of the prophets are any less than my own.

Do you think the personal writing/correspondence of his successors will be reveal the same? Are they available? How long should one wait before discussing these things?

We're fine teaching the world that Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow had visits from the Lord. We share that Joseph F. Smith had a vision of Christ ministering in the spirit world (something he incidently shared publicly within a day of having it).

What of Presidents Grant through Hinkley? How long does a prophet have to be gone before we feel comfortable discussing their interactions with Deity? I'm not being flippant.

[Danzo]

Perhaps I've not been clear with my intentions and objectives.

My aim here is not to bismirch the names of Stapely, Petersen and Young. My aim is to understand the process of the restoration to black members, the origins of the ban and the potential reasons for the delay.

In doing so it gives me the opportunity to shift my paradigm of what a prophet and apostle is and what I should do with what he says. I grew up with one paradigm... I can no longer work with that. I'm shifting to a new one.

The new one is best summed up by:

Elder Charles W. Penrose, The Doctrine of Revelation, speaking in the Tabernacle, February 7, 1892

Reported in the Millenial Star Vol. 54, pg 191, No. 12 (March 21, 1892)

http://contentdm.lib.../MStar/id/31405

I think your new paradigm is very close to mine.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Do you think the personal writing/correspondence of his successors will be reveal the same?

To quote myself: 'I have no reason to believe that the experiences of the prophets are any less than my own'.

Are they available?

Not that I'm aware of.

How long should one wait before discussing these things?

Are you suggesting there should be a fixed term when it comes to sharing sacred things instead of considering the specific audience/context and the promptings of the Holy Spirit?

How long does a prophet have to be gone before we feel comfortable discussing their interactions with Deity?

I could be wrong, but I don't think the issue is our comfort.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm not saying I'm smarter. I'm wondering whether they've studied the full history of how it happened and the apostles whose opinions may have delayed the restoration.

For what it's worth, I know two members of my stake who joined the Church in Africa, one in Ghana and one in Sierra Leone. The latter, a former housemate of mine, also served his mission in Nigeria. Both of them have told me that the predominant method used by other churches in Africa to try to prevent conversion to 'Mormonism' is to share information about the Church's presumed 'hatred' of black people and its past racist teachings.

When I asked my former housemate how he felt about all of the above, his response was that he was endlessly grateful for the restoration of truth and authority and didn't feel it was his place to counsel the Lord on the timing of how His plan should unfold.

[canard78]

To quote myself: 'I have no reason to believe that the experiences of the prophets are any less than my own'.

Not that I'm aware of.

Are you suggesting there should be a fixed term when it comes to sharing sacred things instead of considering the specific audience/context and the promptings of the Holy Spirit?

LOL, no of course not. I just wondered why we had got as far as Lorenzo Snow/Joseph F. Smith... but don't have stories emerging from the personal writings of other (now passed) prophets and apostles.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the issue is our comfort.

President Hinkley described the revelation process. Some might say he was intentionally keeping it simple to 'not cast pearls before swine'. But this seems consistent with the way the black priesthood issue was resolved and seems very similar to the description LeGrand Richards gives of the black priesthood restoration.

Q: And this belief in contemporary revelation and prophecy? As the prophet, tell us how that works. How do you receive divine revelation? What does it feel like?

A: Let me say first that we have a great body of revelation, the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith. We don’t need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to the revelation we’ve already received. Now, if a problem should arise on which we don’t have an answer, we pray about it, we may fast about it, and it comes. Quietly. Usually no voice of any kind, but just a perception in the mind. I liken it to Elijah’s experience. When he sought the Lord, there was a great wind, and the Lord was not in the wind. And there was an earthquake, and the Lord was not in the earthquake. And a fire, and the Lord was not in the fire. But in a still, small voice. Now that’s the way it works.”

Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, 13 April 1997

[Hamba Tuhan]

I just wondered why we had got as far as Lorenzo Snow/Joseph F. Smith... but don't have stories emerging from the personal writings of other (now passed) prophets and apostles.

Well, we got as far as Lorenzo Snow only because of a granddaughter who felt impressed to share an unrecorded experience. (Both Heber J. Grant and Anthon H. Lund were present when Pres Snow finally shared this experience with the Twelve, but they never felt the need to speak of it until after Allie did.) And we got as far as Joseph F. Smith, it would seem, because he was instructed to share a specific addition to the corpus of doctrine.

President Hinkley described the revelation process:

Now, if a problem should arise on which we don’t have an answer, we pray about it, we may fast about it, and it comes. Quietly. Usually no voice of any kind, but just a perception in the mind.

This sounds familiar to me. Do you find the description somehow inaccurate or inadequate?

Edited July 18, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Vance]

When I asked my former housemate how he felt about all of the above, his response was that he was endlessly grateful for the restoration of truth and authority and didn't feel it was his place to counsel the Lord on the timing of how His plan should unfold.

There seems to be a lot of people who want to serve God, but only in an advisory capacity.

[canard78]

Well, we got as far as Lorenzo Snow only because of a granddaughter who felt impressed to share an unrecorded experience. (Both Heber J. Grant and Anthon H. Lund were present when Pres Snow finally shared this experience with the Twelve, but they never felt the need to speak of it until after Allie did.) And we got as far as Joseph F. Smith, it would seem, because he was instructed to share a specific addition to the corpus of doctrine.

This sounds familiar to me. Do you find the description somehow inaccurate or inadequate?

Not inadequate. I find it similar to the way we are all invited to seek inspiration.

But it does mean that the inspiration the leaders receive is defined by the questions they are willing to consider.

If they'd not been willing to ask the question on black priesthood (as Stapley appears not to from his letter) then we might be waiting still today.

I wonder what other things we do or don't do because of questions that simply haven't occurred to them yet.

[sunstoned]

Ah but it sounds so harsh

Read Stapley's letter. It is shocking.

[Stone holm]

Read Stapley's letter. It is shocking.

Oh nothing much shocks me anymore. Here have some more pablum to go with your milk. Mustn't start on meat you know.

[canard78]

Oh nothing much shocks me anymore. Here have some more pablum to go with your milk. Mustn't start on meat you know.

Have you read his letter? Would any adjective other than 'racist' be more appropriate?

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

[Danzo]

Have you read his letter? Would any adjective other than 'racist' be more appropriate?

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

Of course he was a racist. Many from his era were. some were even worse. I served my mission in Italy, where the racism far exceeded anything I have encountered here. Should I have just given up on them? Were they lost?

Are his sins greater than yours or mine? Why do you stand in such harsh judgment of him?

What is your list of sins that would disqualify one from serving in the church? Do you expect only resurrected celestial beings to lead the church or is the position open to mortals?

He said in the letter that he didn't speak for the church in his letter and that it was his private opinion. Is anyone allowed to have an opinion on a controversial subject? He also states in the letter that Romney has the right to his opinion. He also supported the priesthood revelation when it came.

For you Is Racism the one unpardonable sin?

Often times people will tell me that the don't attend church because someone at church was being a jerk to them. I tell them that the atonement was also for jerks and who are we to exclude someone who sins differently than we do.