Legrand Richards' "Truth" On The 1978 Priesthood Restoration

[Daniel Peterson]

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.

I understand your preferences and predispositions, but your spin on the accounts to which I referred isn't accurate.

[mfbukowski]

I personally felt and heard an audible wind pass through the room when I was confirmed a member, though no one else did, as I found out later. I will never forget that, and can confirm that it does in fact happen.

[canard78]

I personally felt and heard an audible wind pass through the room when I was confirmed a member, though no one else did, as I found out later. I will never forget that, and can confirm that it does in fact happen.

So many options for 'one liner' replies.

[jim_mason]

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.

What Daniel Peterson refers too can be read here.

[canard78]

I understand your preferences and predispositions, but your spin on the accounts to which I referred isn't accurate.

If there are any others that are available to read I'd like to.

I don't reject the principle of angels, visions and heavenly voices. But I find the best way to reconcile the issues that come out of religious history (not just Mormon history) is to conclude that most of the what the prophets and scriptures say is not a case of "god breathed/floating quill" and instead the well-meaning and well-intentioned impressions of fallible men.

I personally don't think the priesthood ban was ever God's will. I don't think it was instituted through revelation. There isn't any evidence of revelation for it.

But I accept that many of the 15 needed a spiritual witness to restore the priesthood to black members given it had become so engrained as a principle of scriptural doctrine for many of them and had potential implications for church stability.

A person may be called as a young men's president with no revelation. But that doesn't mean a bishop can't seek revelation to release him.

If some of the leaders spoke privately of a personal experience that removed all doubt of what they needed to do them it's not my place to say they didn't.

If there was also a difference between what was collectively experience (as described by Richards) and individually experienced (described mainly in private) then that's fine too. Our spiritual experiences are, by nature, experienced on the inside and are intangible, probably by design.

The criticism of a spiritual witness of "it's all in your mind" can be technically true. The experience is one that is usually an internal rather than visibly/audibly tangible and collective one. But just because something is "all in the mind" doesn't have to mean it's not divine when traced back to its original source.

[mfbukowski]

I don't reject the principle of angels, visions and heavenly voices. But I find the best way to reconcile the issues that come out of religious history (not just Mormon history) is to conclude that most of the what the prophets and scriptures say is not a case of "god breathed/floating quill" and instead the well-meaning and well-intentioned impressions of fallible men.

What were you expecting? Therein lies the problem.

[canard78]

What were you expecting? Therein lies the problem.

You're right. Wrong expectations. That's been one of my greatest learning curves in this process.

[Danzo]

If there was also a difference between what was collectively experience (as described by Richards) and individually experienced (described mainly in private) then that's fine too. Our spiritual experiences are, by nature, experienced on the inside and are intangible, probably by design.

What make you so sure that the experience described by Richards was the collective experience, instead of his individual one.

[mfbukowski]

You're right. Wrong expectations. That's been one of my greatest learning curves in this process.

All that any of us can know is what any of us can know, and we are all flawed humans. There is only one (so we believe) who was not a flawed human. All the prophets of all times, including those of Eastern religions were flawed humans. All of literature and science was produced by flawed humans, as was all of religion and all revelation.

One may believe that the source of that was God- and I do believe that- but nevertheless, the simple reality is that it all came out of a human mouth or a pen controlled by a flawed human.

[USU78]

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

You miss my point, apparently.

Utah Territory and its denizens were out of the shooting for the most part, other than continuing to deal with the Fort Douglas Artillery and Horse being a continuing threat to BY, et al. If Utah had been compelled to make a meaningful choice to be abolitionist because of a sizable black population, who knows what horrors might have ensued.

That's my point.

[USU78]

So many options for 'one liner' replies.

Seriously . . . a holy moment, and you make f@rt jokes.

[Stone holm]

You miss my point, apparently.

Utah Territory and its denizens were out of the shooting for the most part, other than continuing to deal with the Fort Douglas Artillery and Horse being a continuing threat to BY, et al. If Utah had been compelled to make a meaningful choice to be abolitionist because of a sizable black population, who knows what horrors might have ensued.

That's my point.

Oh, okay. Yes, I have given talks indicating that the Church was able to establish its roots in the Rocky Mountain West because of the reprieve we were granted by the bloodbath that took place out East. And fortunately, they were not able to get established in Jackson County because the Federal Troops burned Jackson County to the ground in order to get rid of the Rebel partisans who kept raiding them.

[Daniel Peterson]

What Daniel Peterson refers too can be read here.

Thanks!

[USU78]

Yes, I have given talks indicating that the Church was able to establish its roots in the Rocky Mountain West because of the reprieve we were granted by the bloodbath that took place out East. And fortunately, they were not able to get established in Jackson County because the Federal Troops burned Jackson County to the ground in order to get rid of the Rebel partisans who kept raiding them.

Good stuff. I had heard about Union reprisals against CSA operatives, especially in the border states and occupied portions of CSA states, but hadn't heard specifically about Jackson County. Thanks for that. Do you have a recommendation for a source on the reprisals? Preferably in print?

[jim_mason]

Thanks!

You are welcome, but more thanks to for directing me to that source. Arrington's telling is much better than thinking a bunch of old guys sitting around a table taking votes.

[canard78]

Seriously . . . a holy moment, and you make f@rt jokes.

What!!! (fake indignation face).

Sometimes the 7yo boy inside me gets more control. On that occasion I at least didn't say anything about them. You mentioned it

[canard78]

All that any of us can know is what any of us can know, and we are all flawed humans. There is only one (so we believe) who was not a flawed human. All the prophets of all times, including those of Eastern religions were flawed humans. All of literature and science was produced by flawed humans, as was all of religion and all revelation.

One may believe that the source of that was God- and I do believe that- but nevertheless, the simple reality is that it all came out of a human mouth or a pen controlled by a flawed human.

Indeed. Which is why I don't pay much attention to the phrase "the members aren't perfect but the church is" any more. It's not possible.

[canard78]

What Daniel Peterson refers too can be read here.

Thanks for the reference, it makes for some interesting reading. Certainly there seems to be a range of experiences and accounts.

I suppose Richards account has a little *empty* space that each apostle filled in:

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.

<Insert the "inspiration that each apostle needed to get a 'yes' confirmation">

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.

So given there are many different accounts of the "inspiration needed" it's a fair point to conclude that each apostle had whatever spiritual exprience necessary to get over any misgivings they might have had about reversing a century old practice. Especially one that some believed was the inspired doctrine of God in the first place.

Some already seemed to be very comfortable with the restoration, even before the prayer, so perhaps needed only a simple affirmation. I won't however make the assumption that the greater the spiritual witness, the more opposed the apostle was in the first place.

B.H. Roberts said (emphasis mine):

God raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend. … All the great teachers are servants of God; among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them.”

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/08/a-latter-day-saint-perspective-on-muhammad?lang=eng

That means of speaking may also vary among the apostles themselves.

[Calm]

What!!! (fake indignation face).

Sometimes the 7yo boy inside me gets more control. On that occasion I at least didn't say anything about them. You mentioned it

I am afraid my mind drifted in that direction after a minute too. I blame my grandchildren hanging around too much lately....even the 1 year old has gotten in on the antics due to an aunt (not my child!) teaching her that making certain sounds was the height of comedy.

I did give myself a mental slap up the side of the head though.