Legrand Richards' "Truth" On The 1978 Priesthood Restoration

[Stone holm]

Technically, the saints could not be ready for a specific change without it meaning that the change would have been catastrophic with mass exoduses, members protesting, etc. They can be unprepared for a greater command without it meaning the end of the people/religion in general.

Though i disagree with a number of Stone holm's ideas/reasoning for this, I do believe the general body's desire and openness to change was a necessary component for the change to occur. And frankly, necessity for the work to move along (like in brazil where this was extremely problematic) would also be reasoning to get this changed (where prior the amount of members effected were marginal).

Though I do not know the full reasoning behind its timeline and change, I do think that the fact that the question was brought up before, had been a topic of public discussion/pressures on and in the church for at least a decade, and the policy did not change is indicative that the timing and direct revelation was important. Personally, that Mckay -who seriously desired a change and still ended up expanding privileges and capacities as much as possible within the ban - got a strong answer not to changing the policy is indicative of at least necessary timing, and leaves a strong possibility about the necessity of greater unity of this issue (at least among the 12, which was lacking).

Modern prophets and extra biblical scripture were apart of the reason that all the people joined in the first place and is not equivalent, polygamy was a call that even Joseph wasn't keen on and issues such as this did drive colossal wedges in the church body....as did the trek west. I can't remember where, but I'd heard that during the major moves of kirtland, missouri, nauvoo, and finally out west about half of the saints remained with the body. This was a big sifting period where new revelations were forming a unified body. So, fankly, they're not at all equivalent.

The WoW is the closest on the list of examples you pointed out....It was similar in a gradual change before it became a command (I know very little about the history of this change, so I'll refrain from saying any more about it). But I still see the ban as unique from this as well. And the reasoning and development of revelation is not a one-size-fits-all model. Some are brought about by needing to ask a specific question, some are brought about and enforced immediately, some are meant to sift the people, and some are a product of the preparations and changes of the church body.

Stone Holm

This is one of the things that I find negligible. The numbers of interracial marriages, especially white/black ones were still minute. People of that era (like obama or halle berry) were still a rarity. It's my generation and younger that these changes have become far more drastic. These days, it's harder to not know someone in your family or a friend who isn't mixed or transracially adopted (or both)...it's become that common. The mixed kids can certainly help soften the racial attitudes of relatives opposed to racial mixing, we are more of the bi-product of already altering attitudes and social circumstance. In my opinion, the greater changes in racial attitudes were a mix of changing laws and practices and greater amounts of interaction between races, especially where in places where they would work together in equal standing. It's these opportunities that would also lead to more mixed kids like myself.

With luv,

BD

I agree with this analysis. I would point out that polygamy twice caused groups to split off from the main body of the Church, once when it was being introduced, and once when it was withdrawn. I do not know what the impact would have been had the ban been lifted earlier, however having lived through the 60's I can assure you that there has been a major cultural shift and we cannot judge the consequences by today's cultural contexts. I can also testify that having a mixed race grandchild or niece has an amazing ability to soften hearts and change minds.

[canard78]

Isn't that essentially how Joseph Smith also received revelation? He had a question and went to pray for an answer (including the First Vision). How often did the Lord simply appear to him and tell him something? It doesn't seem that it happened that way often (and usually by an angelic messenger - eg Moroni's visits). His answers were given in a more dramatic fashion than most but were still basically in answer to questions he asked. It seems to me that that is the Lord's preferred method, if we can't think to ask the question, maybe we aren't ready for the answer.

There's a slight difference. The 'voice/visit' model often starts with a question or need. We can take the Joseph first vision and Nephi's third attempt at getting the plates as examples. They both set out, seeking an answer to their issue, but with no idea what the answer would be.

Even if you take the visits/voices out of the story, they're still questions without an answer.

Under the 78/Hinkley description of how a prophet gets revelation, they first get to a conclusion and seek confirmation. The answer is the limited by the ones the leaders are willing to consider and study out.

There's no way that Joseph would have got the answers they did because they'd have never thought to ask it. Joseph even says as much himself.

[BlueDreams]

I agree with this analysis. I would point out that polygamy twice caused groups to split off from the main body of the Church, once when it was being introduced, and once when it was withdrawn. I do not know what the impact would have been had the ban been lifted earlier, however having lived through the 60's I can assure you that there has been a major cultural shift and we cannot judge the consequences by today's cultural contexts. I can also testify that having a mixed race grandchild or niece has an amazing ability to soften hearts and change minds.

I don't assume there wasn't major cultural shifts. And being that mixed race grandchild, I'm well aware of the capacity to, at least, soften hearts. My disagreement was more on the size of impact. I find that mixed kids are often overly pronounced for their capacity to change society just by existing. We may be an increasing presence in the future, but we're certainly not the answer to racism.

With luv,

BD

[Traela]

If there hadn't been a ban, why would blacks have not been allowed to hold certain callings?

As for segregation, having certain members of the Church meet in a different congregation based on race is quite a bit different than a policy denying them priesthood and Temple blessings based on race.

I'm not saying it would have been official policy to deny blacks certain callings, but people being what they are, it probably would have happened. Especially once KKK types figured out that because of the way callings work, a black man could at any time be made bishop or stake president over a mostly white unit.

As for race-based congregations, I don't know. Maybe I am guilty of presentism, but it seems wrong to me. Not worse than the ban, but just as bad in a different way. At least with the ban, the white members came to realize that there was something very wrong with the way they had been thinking because they were actually interacting with blacks, while segregated wards could have led them to believe that all was well in Zion, when it really wasn't.

[omni]

David O. McKay asked about lifting the ban and was told "Not yet".

****

As with most things here it's going to come down to a matter of interpretation. You could very easily argue that Mckay didn't remove the ban because of the division in the quorum. First counselor Dyer and future President of the church Harold B Lee were very much for the ban, while McKay (it seems) and Hugh B Brown were against it.

http://dialoguejourn..._V35N01_157.pdf

[Tacenda]

I don't assume there wasn't major cultural shifts. And being that mixed race grandchild, I'm well aware of the capacity to, at least, soften hearts. My disagreement was more on the size of impact. I find that mixed kids are often overly pronounced for their capacity to change society just by existing. We may be an increasing presence in the future, but we're certainly not the answer to racism.

With luv,

BD

BD, my 20 yr. old is dating a mixed race (white/black) girl. She is of course, beautiful. She is from a non member family and sadly her parents are going through a divorce. So if my son marries her, I will then have Hispanic and black grandkids. I'm in heaven, bring in all the colors of the rainbow! ETA: I already have part Hispanic grandkids, because my daughter married a Mexican. Edited July 20, 2013 by Tacenda

[omni]

Though i disagree with a number of Stone holm's ideas/reasoning for this, I do believe the general body's desire and openness to change was a necessary component for the change to occur. And frankly, necessity for the work to move along (like in brazil where this was extremely problematic) would also be reasoning to get this changed (where prior the amount of members effected were marginal).

Though I do not know the full reasoning behind its timeline and change, I do think that the fact that the question was brought up before, had been a topic of public discussion/pressures on and in the church for at least a decade, and the policy did not change is indicative that the timing and direct revelation was important. Personally, that Mckay -who seriously desired a change and still ended up expanding privileges and capacities as much as possible within the ban - got a strong answer not to changing the policy is indicative of at least necessary timing, and leaves a strong possibility about the necessity of greater unity of this issue (at least among the 12, which was lacking).

Modern prophets and extra biblical scripture were apart of the reason that all the people joined in the first place and is not equivalent, polygamy was a call that even Joseph wasn't keen on and issues such as this did drive colossal wedges in the church body....as did the trek west. I can't remember where, but I'd heard that during the major moves of kirtland, missouri, nauvoo, and finally out west about half of the saints remained with the body. This was a big sifting period where new revelations were forming a unified body. So, fankly, they're not at all equivalent.

The WoW is the closest on the list of examples you pointed out....It was similar in a gradual change before it became a command (I know very little about the history of this change, so I'll refrain from saying any more about it). But I still see the ban as unique from this as well. And the reasoning and development of revelation is not a one-size-fits-all model. Some are brought about by needing to ask a specific question, some are brought about and enforced immediately, some are meant to sift the people, and some are a product of the preparations and changes of the church body.

With luv,

BD

BD, you are only strengthening my point. God felt it was absolutely necessary to implement polygamy, a decision that was the leading factor in early divisions, a significant factor in persecution, and to this day is probably the most negative identifying feature of our faith to those outside of it? But he felt that allowing blacks to continue to hold the priesthood would cause a greater and irreparable harm? Do you have any evidence of a major schism or upheaval in the early church when JS ordained black men to the priesthood? I wonder if any one here has evidence of any other churches in the 1800's that no longer exist or were severely damaged because they allowed blacks into their leadership? I am not aware of any racial bans in leadership by the JWs, Christian Scientists, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals (all faiths started after Mormonism), yet all are here today, some growing at a more rapid rate than we are.

[BlueDreams]

BD, you are only strengthening my point. God felt it was absolutely necessary to implement polygamy, a decision that was the leading factor in early divisions, a significant factor in persecution, and to this day is probably the most negative identifying feature of our faith to those outside of it? But he felt that allowing blacks to continue to hold the priesthood would cause a greater and irreparable harm?

I specifically stated that the people being ready does not indicate that there would be irreparable harm if they had. Or even that there would be significant harm period. Just because I believe that there need to be a preparedness or that there are indications for a need in unity and/or necessity in the body of the saints does not mean that I think the church couldn't have handled continued black being ordained or and earlier revelation.

You are, as you put it earlier, creating a strawman. That is not my argument at all.

With luv,

BD

Edited July 20, 2013 by BlueDreams

[omni]

I specifically stated that the people being ready does not indicate that there would be irreparable harm if they had. Or even that there would be significant harm period. Just because I believe that there need to be a preparedness or that there are indications for a need in unity and/or necessity in the body of the saints does not mean that I think the church couldn't have handled continued black being ordained or and earlier revelation.

You are, as you put it earlier, creating a strawman. That is not my argument at all.

With luv,

BD

Fair enough, I misunderstood this statement:

Technically, the saints could not be ready for a specific change without it meaning that the change would have been catastrophic with mass exoduses, members protesting, etc. They can be unprepared for a greater command without it meaning the end of the people/religion in general.

Though i disagree with a number of Stone holm's ideas/reasoning for this, I do believe the general body's desire and openness to change was a necessary component for the change to occur. And frankly, necessity for the work to move along (like in brazil where this was extremely problematic) would also be reasoning to get this changed (where prior the amount of members effected were marginal).

I thought you were agreeing with the idea that allowing blacks to hold the priesthood would have done more harm than good to the church because of the racist attitudes of the time.

[USU78]

BD, you are only strengthening my point. God felt it was absolutely necessary to implement polygamy, a decision that was the leading factor in early divisions, a significant factor in persecution, and to this day is probably the most negative identifying feature of our faith to those outside of it? But he felt that allowing blacks to continue to hold the priesthood would cause a greater and irreparable harm? Do you have any evidence of a major schism or upheaval in the early church when JS ordained black men to the priesthood? I wonder if any one here has evidence of any other churches in the 1800's that no longer exist or were severely damaged because they allowed blacks into their leadership? I am not aware of any racial bans in leadership by the JWs, Christian Scientists, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals (all faiths started after Mormonism), yet all are here today, some growing at a more rapid rate than we are.

Perhaps we're looking in the wrong place. Having no particular population of black folks in Utah Territory during the antebellum, civil war and reconstruction years, Utah got pretty much left alone by the turbulence that nearly caused the foundering of this here country. Perhaps the "not yet" was because the L-rd was busy healing hearts elsewhere, and that was a higher priority than a couple more generations of non-priesthood holders and limited missionarying. Perhaps keeping the US from wiping out the Saints, while, at the same time, working to eradicate black slavery outside Pan-Islamia (and holding back the tide inside Pan-Islamia) was about all that could be done, given the raw materials He had to work with.

You don't have to infer nefarious motives to Church members and leadership.

[USU78]

I am not aware of any racial bans in leadership by the JWs, Christian Scientists, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals (all faiths started after Mormonism), yet all are here today, some growing at a more rapid rate than we are.

A quibble: those folks continue to be pretty segregated.

[Stone holm]

Perhaps we're looking in the wrong place. Having no particular population of black folks in Utah Territory during the antebellum, civil war and reconstruction years, Utah got pretty much left alone by the turbulence that nearly caused the foundering of this here country. Perhaps the "not yet" was because the L-rd was busy healing hearts elsewhere, and that was a higher priority than a couple more generations of non-priesthood holders and limited missionarying. Perhaps keeping the US from wiping out the Saints, while, at the same time, working to eradicate black slavery outside Pan-Islamia (and holding back the tide inside Pan-Islamia) was about all that could be done, given the raw materials He had to work with.

You don't have to infer nefarious motives to Church members and leadership.

Odd, don't remember many in Indiana back in the day either...but if you look for the State that had a certain nefarious group erupt in the early 20th Century you will find it in Indiana

[BlueDreams]

I thought you were agreeing with the idea that allowing blacks to hold the priesthood would have done more harm than good to the church because of the racist attitudes of the time.

No, I was stating that I agreeing with the idea about the readiness of the saints and a specific time for the ban to be lifted. Nothing more

With luv,

BD

[Stone holm]

I don't assume there wasn't major cultural shifts. And being that mixed race grandchild, I'm well aware of the capacity to, at least, soften hearts. My disagreement was more on the size of impact. I find that mixed kids are often overly pronounced for their capacity to change society just by existing. We may be an increasing presence in the future, but we're certainly not the answer to racism.

With luv,

BD

I think you underestimate your impact. I have watched hardened racists hearts soften when presented with a mixed race grandchild. This is especially true amongst the former blue collar class in America.

[BlueDreams]

I think you underestimate your impact. I have watched hardened racists hearts soften when presented with a mixed race grandchild. This is especially true amongst the former blue collar class in America.

You're describing my extended family to a tee. But no, I'm not. From what I've heard and seen in pieces, my family has held racist ideas. They were white, rural, conservative, mormon folk from the sticks of idaho/oregon. They weren't exactly jumping for joy when they found out my mom was preggers with the "first" grandchild (that's negotiable) who was definitely the first grandchild out of wedlock and to boot, from a black guy. I was going to be adopted out (it fell through). But I was cute as a button and they love me. Blood is blood. Since then my mom, my aunt, and a cousin both married hispanic and my youngest Aunt (she's not much older than me) has dated a number of poly/black guys. But a number still have racist beliefs. My other aunt warned me about poly guys when my best friend at the time took interest in me. And my grandmother had reservations about my aunt dating a black guy. Certain ones still believe some sketch ideas while still loving me. So yes, my existence immediately softened hearts, my family is very proud of me and loves me and I love them, but many false and racist ideas still remain and are hard to budge from. I am not a magic bullet and my family/society still vary about basic things about races, how one conceives and looks at race, and how they see me racially as well.

With luv,

BD

[Stone holm]

You're describing my extended family to a tee. But no, I'm not. From what I've heard and seen in pieces, my family has held racist ideas. They were white, rural, conservative, mormon folk from the sticks of idaho/oregon. They weren't exactly jumping for joy when they found out my mom was preggers with the "first" grandchild (that's negotiable) who was definitely the first grandchild out of wedlock and to boot, from a black guy. I was going to be adopted out (it fell through). But I was cute as a button and they love me. Blood is blood. Since then my mom, my aunt, and a cousin both married hispanic and my youngest Aunt (she's not much older than me) has dated a number of poly/black guys. But a number still have racist beliefs. My other aunt warned me about poly guys when my best friend at the time took interest in me. And my grandmother had reservations about my aunt dating a black guy. Certain ones still believe some sketch ideas while still loving me. So yes, my existence immediately softened hearts, my family is very proud of me and loves me and I love them, but many false and racist ideas still remain and are hard to budge from. I am not a magic bullet and my family/society still vary about basic things about races, how one conceives and looks at race, and how they see me racially as well.

With luv,

BD

Oh, I agree. But the inter-racial marriage with African Americans only really got started in the 60's and it took another generation to start a real groundswell, each generation will have a higher percentage and more and more will have bi-racial grandchildren and nieces and nephews which will have a greater and greater impact. I can remember the turmoil in my cousins extended family back in the 60's when one of the young women decided to marry a young black man, then others on that side of the family adopted black children -- the racists on that side of the family are pretty much all gone now. They are all pretty much gone on my side of the family as well, and I have a bi-racial step grandchild who is adored. And we have a bi-racial President. That would have been inconceivable back in the 1960's. Certain areas like the old Confederacy and perhaps Utah, are going to take a little longer -- although I think Utah/Idaho will come around faster than the old Confederacy. I am concerned, however, that I am hearing from young local Mormons who go home to visit out west that the racial animosity against hispanics now may be higher than it was against the African-Americans which is sad.

[rameumptom]

I served my mission from 1978 - 1980. During my mission (Bolivia), we had Elder McConkie and Elder Haight come down. Elder McConkie noted that the revelation was "stronger than that of the presence of the Son." Elder Haight said the revelation that was received the the First Presidency and 11 of the 12 (Mark Peterson, I believe, was not present) was astounding and beyond words. He would mention the revelation often in General Conference in the years following. He also mentioned it in his talk at the Birmingham Alabama temple dedication, where I was in the choir.

So, I think Elder Richards was giving a version that was acceptable to give to the media. However, more private discussions offered a more spiritual event.

[Daniel Peterson]

One of the current Twelve who was present on that occasion has spoken, privately, of a wind passing through the room in which the apostles were meeting, even though there are no windows in the room.

Leonard Arrington's Adventures of a Church Historian tells of his meeting with two of the Twelve on the very day of the event. They were weeping, and spoke (as I recall; no time right now to look up the reference) of angels.

LeGrand Richards himself spoke, elsewhere, of seeing Wilford Woodruff smiling upon them as they met.

And so on and so forth.

[rpn]

It is also possible that Elder McKonkie NEEDED a stronger revelation than did Elder Richards.

[Stone holm]

It is also possible that Elder McKonkie NEEDED a stronger revelation than did Elder Richards.

Oh I do believe you may have nailed that one on the head, its McConkie btw.

[canard78]

I served my mission from 1978 - 1980. During my mission (Bolivia), we had Elder McConkie and Elder Haight come down. Elder McConkie noted that the revelation was "stronger than that of the presence of the Son." Elder Haight said the revelation that was received the the First Presidency and 11 of the 12 (Mark Peterson, I believe, was not present) was astounding and beyond words. He would mention the revelation often in General Conference in the years following. He also mentioned it in his talk at the Birmingham Alabama temple dedication, where I was in the choir.

So, I think Elder Richards was giving a version that was acceptable to give to the media. However, more private discussions offered a more spiritual event.

I'm sure there are many 'off-the-record" faith promoting versions. I can only really consider the "on-the-record" ones.

There were 10 apostles. Petersen and Stapley were both absent when the "study it out in your mind" discussion happened. If you've read any of their awful perspectives on black people you'll appreciate why their absence is probably not insignificant. They both endorsed the ban being lifted, but only once the 13 present had already made the decision to do so. They were contacted to be told what was being done and asked to sustain it. Given the first presidency and 10 of thrh 12 were asking them, they could (thankfully) hardly say no if they'd wanted to.

Edited July 25, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

One of the current Twelve who was present on that occasion has spoken, privately, of a wind passing through the room in which the apostles were meeting, even though there are no windows in the room.

Leonard Arrington's Adventures of a Church Historian tells of his meeting with two of the Twelve on the very day of the event. They were weeping, and spoke (as I recall; no time right now to look up the reference) of angels.

LeGrand Richards himself spoke, elsewhere, of seeing Wilford Woodruff smiling upon them as they met.

And so on and so forth.

Welcome back to the board after the summer break. Hope you had a good one and some time with family.

As I've said in my previous post. There seem to be lots of "in private" miraculous stories. The point of Richard's interview in the OP is he's going on the record playing down the supernatural folklore that is still being perpetuated today. "That is the truth," he says. We're a church built on the backs of angels and divine visitations. If it had been such, we've no reason to hide it.

And Woodruff, Young and the rest probably were somewhere smiling down from the heavens, glad that someone had finally undone the "error" that their bias and scriptural misunderstanding had introduced and perpetuated. I'd think angels celebrated for the same reasons.

The phrase "I can see Grandfather smiling upon us right now as we continue his tradition of an annual family gathering" doesn't have to mean he's visibly standing in the room looking at them.

[Stone holm]

I'm sure there are many 'off-the-record" faith promoting versions. I can only really consider the "on-the-record" ones.

There were 10 apostles. Petersen and Stapley were both absent when the "study it out in your mind" discussion happened. If you've read any of their awful perspectives on black people you'll appreciate why their absence is probably not insignificant. They both endorsed the ban being lifted, but only once the 13 present had already made the decision to do so. They were contacted to be told what was being done and asked to sustain it. Given the first presidency and 10 of thrh 12 were asking them, they could (thankfully) hardly say no if they'd wanted to.

You can have a dozen or more people in the same room and have vastly different experiences. One may just feel "ho hum, business as usual", another might "the Spirit was so strong you could cut it with a knife", and still another might say "did you see that angel or spirit standing next to brother so and so".

[ChristKnight]

I'm sure there are many 'off-the-record" faith promoting versions. I can only really consider the "on-the-record" ones.

There were 10 apostles. Petersen and Stapley were both absent when the "study it out in your mind" discussion happened. If you've read any of their awful perspectives on black people you'll appreciate why their absence is probably not insignificant. They both endorsed the ban being lifted, but only once the 13 present had already made the decision to do so. They were contacted to be told what was being done and asked to sustain it. Given the first presidency and 10 of thrh 12 were asking them, they could (thankfully) hardly say no if they'd wanted to.

Where can I read more about who was present or absent, the opinions of Peterson and Stapley, etc?

[canard78]

Where can I read more about who was present or absent, the opinions of Peterson and Stapley, etc?

Blacklds.org has some good resources on the day of the restoration and who was present.

On Thursday, l June 1978, the general authorities held their regular monthly fast and testimony meeting. The members of the Seventy and the Presiding Bishopric were then excused, and President Kimball, his two counselors, and ten of the apostles remained (Elder Mark E. Peterson was in South America, and Elder Delbert L. Stapley was in the hospital).

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.

http://www.blacklds.org/declare2#thoughts

This is Stapely's letter to George Romney where he advises against actively seeking a solution to black equality (at pain of death).

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

Petersen's speech at BYU is here which includes the statement that black people will only get to go to the celestial kingdom as servants.

http://www.mormonismi.net/mep1954/mep1954.txt

You can make your own conclusions.