Legrand Richards' "Truth" On The 1978 Priesthood Restoration

[LordUther]

In regards to our GA's receiving angelic visitations, you might find this talk from general conference useful, you only need to watch the first few minutes...

http://youtu.be/MiBx1WUjgt4

While I believe that as a church we over romanticise our leaders and expect that every pronouncement that comes we have a tendency believe that divine manifestation has taken place, I do believe that they do it's just they don't talk about it like they used to.

Edited July 17, 2013 by LordUther

[canard78]

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. -snip-

Whether they've had an actual 'face-to-face' with deity I'm not sure. They seem very reluctant to talk about it if they have. I'm happy to recognise that when they testify of Christ they do so with sincerity and to good effect. In that role (whether they have seen him or not) they are reaching people.

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.

In 1954 Petersen gave a speech at BYU called 'Race Problems—As They Affect The Church.' You can google it for a text version (UTLM has it. BYU removed it from their archives).

Here's a PDF copy:

http://www.sainesburyproject.com/mormonstuff/Race%20Problems.pdf

And in 1964 Stapely wrote the following letter:

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

My question was whether either of them ever publicly or privately refuted these views appart from an acceptance of a priesthood ban reversal that had been made in their absence?

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.

After the death of Wilford Woodruff "President Snow went to the Salt Lake Temple and prayed. In answer to his prayer, he was visited by the Lord Himself. President Snow later testified that he “actually saw the Savior … in the Temple, and talked with Him face to face.” The Lord told him to proceed immediately with the reorganization of the First Presidency, not to wait as had been done when previous Presidents of the Church had died."

So The Lord will pay a personal visit and give instruction on how quickly to call the first presidency? But he took a back seat when it came to denying a whole race from priesthood and temple opportunities and left to reach a united conclusion on their own to then pray about? Like I've said, seems the prophetic revelation process has changed in the last 50-100 years.

When you say that '78 was the "right time" for it to happen, what do you base that on? Maybe that's because it was the earliest the prejudice of some of the leaders would let it happen, or even be willing to ask the question.

As I said in the OP, this seemed largely to be based on a process of the president asking lots of them "what do you think after reading all this?" I'm not sure how it could have happened any earlier if some were not even willing to ask the question.

As Stapely says in his letter: "The position of the church cannot change until The Lord changes if himself."

He also warns against agitating for change at pain of death (citing several examples of people who met an untimely end for campaigning for black rights). He calls on Romney to "recognize their status" and to continue to limit them from having "full social benefits" and ensure they "know their place."

Petersen in his address said:

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the Priesthood. Are we prejudiced against him? Unjustly, sometimes we are accused of having such a prejudice. But what does the mercy of God have for him? This negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa—if that negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection.

These are the voices of men with no interest in finding a resolution and restoring the priesthood. I say restore because of course black men once had it, under Joseph, but bigotry and racism took it away again for over 120 years.

[canard78]

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.

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.

[canard78]

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.

So you're saying when we have people who are more inclined to flights of fancy and creative writing we'll hear parables of visions and visitations. Otherwise is practical, structured, program's and processes. Fully tested, feedback sought, implemented via the newsroom.

[Storm Rider]

This seems a topic that illustrates the dog returning to his vomit. It matters not how often it is discussed, how many answers are provided, or response offered, up it comes again to eat all over again. The reality is that at one time there was a ban and now there is not and hasn't been for over 35 years. They were racist; they were not racist. They were lazy old men resistant to change; they were men seeking a unanimous decision to follow what the Spirit. Whatever you want to believe you will believe, but at some point it is healthier to just walk away from the vomit.

[Darren10]

I prefer marvelling at burning bushes to heartburn.

Word up. That's why I don't eat anything spicy.

[why me]

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.

I think that you are looking for holes in the lds church. So, I do think that you are looking for perfection. And this is why you were searching sites that you were searching...searching for holes in the lds church. If you put 12 people together, you may just get quite a few different stories but with all the same foundation: a change in policy was necessary and it came about through prayer.

[Darren10]

I do believe that they do it's just they don't talk about it like they used to.

I agree. I don't think they have to talk about them and I strongly suspect they have no divine authority to talk about them; but I'm convinced they do have theopohanies...well, at least one in connection with their divine callings. I really lie Hales' how he learned through trials, study, prayer, and through the stories of others who have endured similar trials. Yes, I'm sure the lord's anointed have visitations of divine hosts or "hosts of heaven" / angels. Very interesting talk.

[canard78]

This seems a topic that illustrates the dog returning to his vomit. It matters not how often it is discussed, how many answers are provided, or response offered, up it comes again to eat all over again. The reality is that at one time there was a ban and now there is not and hasn't been for over 35 years. They were racist; they were not racist. They were lazy old men resistant to change; they were men seeking a unanimous decision to follow what the Spirit. Whatever you want to believe you will believe, but at some point it is healthier to just walk away from the vomit.

That does very little to resolve this or any other issue in church history or policy.

I'll give you one thing though. The whole history of the ban and the bigotry can be probably summed up in the simile that you went with: vomit.

[why me]

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?

Except their words were not considered racist back then. Also, the word racist is overdone. Back in my day, people had prejudiced views. The racist term were left to whites waving a nazi flag or a confederate flag. But of course, putting a racist label on everything that may be just prejudiced seems to be a good way to bring 'force' into an argument.

[Darren10]

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.

Except for it being impossible to "get perfect instruction from an imperfect source" what you outlined above is how I see the Lord's servants. I don't view the Lord's servants as being infallible therefore truth is not necessarily spoken whenever they say anything. We, like them, must study, pray, ponder, and witness. We, like them, are to subject ourselves to the Holy Spirit for enlightenment and direction.

No, I have not read Petersen and Stapely but I see you later posted transcripts on them so thank you for that.

[Darren10]

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.

I've no idea what you're talking about.

[Storm Rider]

That does very little to resolve this or any other issue in church history or policy.

I'll give you one thing though. The whole history of the ban and the bigotry can be probably summed up in the simile that you went with: vomit.

It appears that you missed the gist entirely of my post, which is not too surprising. Your position and attitude are not novel or unique. If you do a search of this site this has been discussed ad nauseum and yet the same old, tired, whining complaints continue to be offered. Individuals can either deal with it and move on or they can continue to spit up the same old whining. Does it make you happy to continue whining about the same thing? What is the purpose of the incessant complaining? You will find a much greater sense of peace if you finally face the issue and accept the answers as the Holy Spirit guides or do something else. There is no way to wrap this up for you or to answer your issues. You have gotten on a high horse and you are the only one that can talk to God and get an answer that will calm your soul and allow you to move on. The sooner you do the better for your own peace of mind. Your attitude is noted, again. It does not impress me and sure isn't making you any happier.

[why me]

That does very little to resolve this or any other issue in church history or policy.

I'll give you one thing though. The whole history of the ban and the bigotry can be probably summed up in the simile that you went with: vomit.

How is the church doing today?

My gosh, if we put all religions through your pair of glasses none would come up a garden of roses. I am afraid if we look for a negative we will find one. That is just life. Of course, I can understand why people wish to shore up disbeiief. Not saying that this is your case but I can understand the desire to find holes and overlook the positives. Lets hope that our leaders can have 22nd century minds. It would certainly help or lets hope that they can see far into the world's future and say the right words now so they can't be blamed for something that they said by people living a hundred years in the future.

[Darren10]

Whether they've had an actual 'face-to-face' with deity I'm not sure. They seem very reluctant to talk about it if they have. I'm happy to recognise that when they testify of Christ they do so with sincerity and to good effect. In that role (whether they have seen him or not) they are reaching people.

I firmly believe each modern-day apostle ad prophet has seen Jesus Christ, face-to-face. As I said previously, I don't think they need to write about it and I strongly suspect they have no divine authority to write it.

After the death of Wilford Woodruff "President Snow went to the Salt Lake Temple and prayed. In answer to his prayer, he was visited by the Lord Himself. President Snow later testified that he “actually saw the Savior … in the Temple, and talked with Him face to face.” The Lord told him to proceed immediately with the reorganization of the First Presidency, not to wait as had been done when previous Presidents of the Church had died."

So The Lord will pay a personal visit and give instruction on how quickly to call the first presidency? But he took a back seat when it came to denying a whole race from priesthood and temple opportunities and left to reach a united conclusion on their own to then pray about? Like I've said, seems the prophetic revelation process has changed in the last 50-100 years.

All revelation is done in the Lord's own due time. I do think man's choices affects the Lord's revelation but ultimately it is the Lord who decides what to reveal and when to reveal it. I don't think the process to receive revelation has changed at all.

When you say that '78 was the "right time" for it to happen, what do you base that on? Maybe that's because it was the earliest the prejudice of some of the leaders would let it happen, or even be willing to ask the question.

By 1978 not only were the vast majority of LDS members ready and even actively wanting for blacks to receive the priesthood but our (American) society changed very much by them in order for them to receive it. I think society's collective shift from "keeping blacks in their place" to treat them as fully equal was part of God's will. I think the holy Spirit was more open in society's hearts on this matter than it was during previous generations. This includes for blacks in the LDS Church. I think President Kimball was particularly sensitive to the priesthood issue and things played out according to the Lord's time. Sure, I think mans choices played a part in the Lord deciding but it was the Lord's time for the ban to be lifted.

These are the voices of men with no interest in finding a resolution and restoring the priesthood. I say restore because of course black men once had it, under Joseph, but bigotry and racism took it away again for over 120 years.

If true, than I think that was in part a reason the ban lasted so long. It was under increased sincere prayer and study under President Kimball's leadership that resulted in the Lord revealing the ban lift. I find all that as softening the lord's heart. And the reason you use "restore" is the same reason I have previously used it. Blacks did have the priesthood and yet somewhere down the line there was confusion of whether or not Joseph Smith rescinded the priesthood from blacks. I firmly do not think he did nor do I recall anything said or done by Joseph Smith to do that but there was, nonetheless, confusion if he did or not. The lord seemed to have stayed silent for a while during that confusion. I really do not know why but I cam convinced the Lord determined that the Church struggle with this issue for a while. Don't know exactly why but He did.

[canard78]

Except their words were not considered racist back then. Also, the word racist is overdone. Back in my day, people had prejudiced views. The racist term were left to whites waving a nazi flag or a confederate flag. But of course, putting a racist label on everything that may be just prejudiced seems to be a good way to bring 'force' into an argument.

In the 50s and 60s theirs are exactly the type of attitudes that were being fought against.

Racism: "the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others."

If those who heard Stapely/Petersen's views (that Negroes were inferior to whites) agreed with them, then they too were racist.

If people disagreed and felt that negroes should not be discriminated against/considered an inferior race then these people were not racist.

Anyone who considers themselves superior to a other person based solely on race is racist. It's a simple definition.

Stapley's that Blacks should be denied certain rights was, in 1963, racist. Why else would he write the letter if 'everyone' had the same opinion as him.

As he points out in the letter: he doesn't hate blacks (reassuring the reader that he "even has a few in his employ"), he just doesn't want them elevated to the same equality as whites.

He both considers his race to be superior AND wants the law to discriminate.

A simple dictionary definition at the time would have classed his views as racist.

[Stone holm]

In the 50s and 60s theirs are exactly the type of attitudes that were being fought against.

Racism: "the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others."

If those who heard Stapely/Petersen's views (that Negroes were inferior to whites) agreed with them, then they too were racist.

If people disagreed and felt that negroes should not be discriminated against/considered an inferior race then these people were not racist.

Anyone who considers themselves superior to a other person based solely on race is racist. It's a simple definition.

Stapley's that Blacks should be denied certain rights was, in 1963, racist. Why else would he write the letter if 'everyone' had the same opinion as him.

As he points out in the letter: he doesn't hate blacks (reassuring the reader that he "even has a few in his employ"), he just doesn't want them elevated to the same equality as whites.

He both considers his race to be superior AND wants the law to discriminate.

A simple dictionary definition at the time would have classed his views as racist.

Ah but it sounds so harsh

[canard78]

Ah but it sounds so harsh

It's become a 'hot word' like 'lying.' People hear the word racist and they think "racial hatred." Calling someone a racist is considered an insult. But it's technically accurate for Stapely and Petersen.

[Stone holm]

It's become a 'hot word' like 'lying.' People hear the word racist and they think "racial hatred." Calling someone a racist is considered an insult. But it's technically accurate for Stapely and Petersen.

Well you know there is that slippery slope argument, first tolerance, then embracing....

[Hamba Tuhan]

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?

My mum's family joined the Church specifically as a consequence of being visited one night with a charge to expect two men from America to shortly arrive in their land with a message that they should give heed to. And nothing has changed from then til now.

And because he hath done this, my beloved brethren, have miracles ceased? Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither have angels ceased to minister unto the children of men.

And again I speak unto you who deny the revelations of God, and say that they are done away, that there are no revelations, nor prophecies, nor gifts, nor healing, nor speaking with tongues, and the interpretation of tongues; Behold I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ ...

Edited July 17, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[rodheadlee]

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?

YES!

[Stone holm]

YES!

Drum roll, blare of trumpets....

[Hamba Tuhan]

Drum roll, blare of trumpets....

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

[Questing Beast]

I agree. I don't think they have to talk about them and I strongly suspect they have no divine authority to talk about them; but I'm convinced they do have theopohanies...well, at least one in connection with their divine callings. I really lie Hales' how he learned through trials, study, prayer, and through the stories of others who have endured similar trials. Yes, I'm sure the lord's anointed have visitations of divine hosts or "hosts of heaven" / angels. Very interesting talk.

And what if you become convinced that most or even all of the "Brethren" have no such experiences? Will that alter your religious world view? If the answer to that one upsets your testimony then imho relying on the spiritual manifestations of others is a very slippery slope.

Long before 1978 I felt strongly that the Church's position on Negros was wrong. The instant I heard the news about the lifting of the ban I was almost ecstatic. Oddly, a fellow I home taught at the time, inactive but pleasant and welcoming, asserted that the Church had now fallen to the earth in his estimation: that the Negroes were never to have the priesthood in this life, and that it was taught by BY et al. the original leaders of the Church. I had never heard/read such things as he quoted, and at the time dismissed them as anti Mormon crap. But he was exactly right. He said that in his family this prohibition of the Negroes from full equality with others had always been clearly understood and taught. It was so foreign to my own upbringing that I was struck by the dichotomy of how LDS raise their children in the same religion. I was prepared for the lifting of the ban, and he was appalled by it.

I admired President Kimball greatly because of that revelation. So it was quite a shock to me a couple of years later, to be at work and have him tour the factory. The shock wasn't that he toured the factory, but that when I heard the visitors' voices behind me, I turned around in my chair and made long eye contact with a very short man, whose face bore all the signs of weariness and resignation, and not the slightest glimmer of humor as we looked at each other. I turned back to my work without a word, and soon the visitors passed on. He didn't drop in my estimation. But later I did reconsider just how weak and human they all must be. Later still, when I read an anecdote about Kimball's doubts of himself, because he had not received the anticipated "visitation" of the Lord, I decided that such is more legend than reality, and the reason why "they" don't talk about it is because most or all of them have nothing to share. They are just like us, only somebody has to lead....

Edited July 17, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Danzo]

That does very little to resolve this or any other issue in church history or policy.

I'll give you one thing though. The whole history of the ban and the bigotry can be probably summed up in the simile that you went with: vomit.

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