Challenging The First Presidency

[Analytics]

Mormon Stories recently published some scanned images letters from the 1947 to 1952 that are archived at Utah State University.  They provide a fascinating look at the disparate views regarding the priesthood ban among various faithful latter-day Saints.  The letters are between the following people:

 

• Heber Minks, President of the Atlanta Mission
• Lowry Nelson, an LDS Sociology professor at the University of Minnesota
• Joseph Anderson, Secretary to the First Presidency of the Church
• George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark Jr., and David O. McKay, the First Presidency

 

I highly encourage you to read the carefully written letters to understand the nuances of their respective positions on the issues they discuss.  The scanned images are located here:

 

http://mormonstories.org/other/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange.pdf

 

I’ll give an overview of the salient points of the letters below with some quotes, but first I want to establish the bounds of this thread, with the emphasis that race baiting will not be tolerated.

 

The focus of this thread are the following questions:

 

1. Most would agree that time has vindicated Nelson’s position and sensibilities on this issue.  However, was he right to promote his views that the Church was wrong on this issue, or did he have the moral obligation to be quiet about it and follow the Church’s leaders?
    
2. Most would agree that the opinions about race expressed in these letters by the First Presidency and by President Minks are simply wrong.  After reading these letters, does it change your view about the likelihood of the current leadership eventually being proven wrong on issues of same-sex marriage and women holding the priesthood?
    
3. If an investigator read these letters and came to the conclusion that this proves academic sociology is a better place to learn what is true and good than the Prophet, how would you respond? 

Briefly, the narrative is as follows (all written in the present tense, not to imply that the church still believes what they were talking about, but rather so that my summary is in the same tense as the letters I quote).

 

The First Presidency and President Minks visit Cuba to investigate the possibility of missionary work there.  They visit a few big cities and have a handle on the demographics there.  However, they are concerned about whether they should do missionary work in rural areas.  Their concern is whether there are groups of “pure white blood” that are “maintaining segregation from the Negros.”  To answer the question, they write to Dr. Nelson, who is an old college friend of President Minks and has spent quite a bit of time in the Cuba.

 

Dr. Nelson is appalled by this request and the implications it has regarding the Church’s official positions and concerns regarding race.  He answers their specific questions, and says that there is much less racism there than in the states, and says that it would be a “tragic disservice” for Mormons to go there and preach the “white supremacy” that exists in Mormonism. He says, “There are no pure races; on this anthropologists are in general agreement.  Of course, this does not mean that Negro blood exists throughout the white race or vice versa.  There is grave doubt, however, as to the purity of the Nordic, Mediterranean, or even the Negro.  Because our system of religious organization could serve the rural Cuban people as no other system could, I am sad to have to write you and say, for what my opinion is worth, that it would be better for the Cubans if we did not enter their island—unless we are willing to revise or racial theory.  To teach them the pernicious doctrine of segregation and inequalities among races where it does not exist, or to lend religious sanction to it where it has raised its ugly head would, it seems to me, be tragic.”

 

With remarkably modern sensibilities, Dr. Nelson then writes the first presidency to explain why he wrote such a scathing letter.  He says, “Perhaps I am out of order, so to speak, in expressing myself as I have.  I have done so out of strong conviction on the subject, and with the added impression that there is no irrevocable church doctrine on this subject.  I am not unaware of statements and impressions which have been passed down, but I had never been brought face to face with the possibility that the doctrine was finally crystallized.” 

 

The First Presidency responds in a letter signed by the entire first presidency.  Among other things with the same tone, they say, “From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

 

“Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs until now.  God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous.  Modern Israel has been similarly directed.

 

“We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, towards the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.”

 

Dr. Nelson replies in a long, well-thought out letter about how disappointed he is about his own Church’s doctrine on this matter, and talks quite a bit about this from a sociological perspective.  For a taste of this letter, he says, “I am deeply troubled.  Having decided through earnest study that one of the chief causes of war is the existence of ethnocentrism among the peoples of the world, that war is our major social evil which threatens to send all of us to destruction; and that we can ameliorate these feelings of ethnocentricism by promoting understanding of one people by others; I am now confronted with this doctrine of my own church which says in effect that white supremacy is part of God’s plan for His children; that the Negro has been assigned by Him to be a hewer of wood and drawer of water for his white-skinned brethren.”

 

The First Presidency responds by saying, “We feel very sure that you understand well the doctrines of the Church.  They are either true or not true.  Our testimony is that they are true.  Under these circumstances we may not permit ourselves to be too much impressed by the reasonings of men however well-founded they may seem to be.  We should like to say this to you in all kindness and in all sincerity that you are too fine a man to permit yourself to be led off from the principles of the Gospel by worldly learning.  You have too much of a potentiality for doing good and we therefore prayerfully hope that you can reorient your thinking and bring it in line with the revealed word of God.” [emphasis mine]

 

[bluebell]

Thanks, that's really interesting.

I think he was right in explaining himself to the leadership. Did he remain in the church?

[omni]

Mormon Stories recently published some scanned images letters from the 1947 to 1952 that are archived at Utah State University. They provide a fascinating look at the disparate views regarding the priesthood ban among various faithful latter-day Saints. The letters are between the following people:

 

• Heber Minks, President of the Atlanta Mission
• Lowry Nelson, an LDS Sociology professor at the University of Minnesota
• Joseph Anderson, Secretary to the First Presidency of the Church
• George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark Jr., and David O. McKay, the First Presidency

I highly encourage you to read the carefully written letters to understand the nuances of their respective positions on the issues they discuss. The scanned images are located here:

http://mormonstories.org/other/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange.pdf

I’ll give an overview of the salient points of the letters below with some quotes, but first I want to establish the bounds of this thread, with the emphasis that race baiting will not be tolerated.

The focus of this thread are the following questions:

• Most would agree that time has vindicated Nelson’s position and sensibilities on this issue. However, was he right to promote his views that the Church was wrong on this issue, or did he have the moral obligation to be quiet about it and follow the Church’s leaders?
• Most would agree that the opinions about race expressed in these letters by the First Presidency and by President Minks are simply wrong. After reading these letters, does it change your view about the likelihood of the current leadership eventually being proven wrong on issues of same-sex marriage and women holding the priesthood?
• If an investigator read these letters and came to the conclusion that this proves academic sociology is a better place to learn what is true and good than the Prophet, how would you respond?

Briefly, the narrative is as follows (all written in the present tense, not to imply that the church still believes what they were talking about, but rather so that my summary is in the same tense as the letters I quote).

The First Presidency and President Minks visit Cuba to investigate the possibility of missionary work there. They visit a few big cities and have a handle on the demographics there. However, they are concerned about whether they should do missionary work in rural areas. Their concern is whether there are groups of “pure white blood” that are “maintaining segregation from the Negros.” To answer the question, they write to Dr. Nelson, who is an old college friend of President Minks and has spent quite a bit of time in the Cuba.

Dr. Nelson is appalled by this request and the implications it has regarding the Church’s official positions and concerns regarding race. He answers their specific questions, and says that there is much less racism there than in the states, and says that it would be a “tragic disservice” for Mormons to go there and preach the “white supremacy” that exists in Mormonism. He says, “There are no pure races; on this anthropologists are in general agreement. Of course, this does not mean that Negro blood exists throughout the white race or vice versa. There is grave doubt, however, as to the purity of the Nordic, Mediterranean, or even the Negro. Because our system of religious organization could serve the rural Cuban people as no other system could, I am sad to have to write you and say, for what my opinion is worth, that it would be better for the Cubans if we did not enter their island—unless we are willing to revise or racial theory. To teach them the pernicious doctrine of segregation and inequalities among races where it does not exist, or to lend religious sanction to it where it has raised its ugly head would, it seems to me, be tragic.”

With remarkably modern sensibilities, Dr. Nelson then writes the first presidency to explain why he wrote such a scathing letter. He says, “Perhaps I am out of order, so to speak, in expressing myself as I have. I have done so out of strong conviction on the subject, and with the added impression that there is no irrevocable church doctrine on this subject. I am not unaware of statements and impressions which have been passed down, but I had never been brought face to face with the possibility that the doctrine was finally crystallized.”

The First Presidency responds in a letter signed by the entire first presidency. Among other things with the same tone, they say, “From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

“Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs until now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous. Modern Israel has been similarly directed.

“We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, towards the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.”

Dr. Nelson replies in a long, well-thought out letter about how disappointed he is about his own Church’s doctrine on this matter, and talks quite a bit about this from a sociological perspective. For a taste of this letter, he says, “I am deeply troubled. Having decided through earnest study that one of the chief causes of war is the existence of ethnocentrism among the peoples of the world, that war is our major social evil which threatens to send all of us to destruction; and that we can ameliorate these feelings of ethnocentricism by promoting understanding of one people by others; I am now confronted with this doctrine of my own church which says in effect that white supremacy is part of God’s plan for His children; that the Negro has been assigned by Him to be a hewer of wood and drawer of water for his white-skinned brethren.”

The First Presidency responds by saying, “We feel very sure that you understand well the doctrines of the Church. They are either true or not true. Our testimony is that they are true. Under these circumstances we may not permit ourselves to be too much impressed by the reasonings of men however well-founded they may seem to be. We should like to say this to you in all kindness and in all sincerity that you are too fine a man to permit yourself to be led off from the principles of the Gospel by worldly learning. You have too much of a potentiality for doing good and we therefore prayerfully hope that you can reorient your thinking and bring it in line with the revealed word of God.” [emphasis mine]

 

1. Brother Nelson was absolutely correct in what he did and if he were alive today I would tell him so and shake his hand.

2. Yes, I believe both will eventually happen, but not for some time and not till most if not all other major Christian denominations have done the same.

3. I would tell them that's something their own conscious needs to dictate for them.

On a side note, I took great pride in listening to a recent podcast of NPR's This American Life in which it detailed how George Romney (Mitt Romney's father) as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development stood up to President Nixon and ensured the Federal government took a proactive role in encouraging the desegregation of America and providing affordable housing to African-Americans. I only wish we had more of these examples to look up to.

Edited December 5, 2013 by omni

[juliann]

I am wondering if some of the reason for the lack of something resembling an apology has to do with the refusal to label the ban as racism.  I don't think there is any escaping that anymore but it will still be awhile before it really sinks in that we do have to use the same dictionary as everyone else unless we intend on creating a new language.

 

Now that gays can be legally and lawfully wedded, I can't see anyway to exclude those married couples in that social stigmatizing thing we do.  It makes absolutely no sense not to have them as participating members even if it is considered a sin. A married gay couple should not be put in the same category as a fornicator.  As for the purposes of the temple, I am having a hard time visualizing the church giving in to anything but male/female marriages because it is so tied to our core theology.  I think it would be much easier to give women the priesthood than to give gays sealings.  For that same reason, giving blacks the priesthood didn't require any serious doctrinal changes.
 

 

If an investigator read these letters and came to the conclusion that this proves academic sociology is a better place to learn what is true and good than the Prophet, how would you respond?

 

That sociology, like science, is only as good as the latest popular research which is driven by where the funding comes from.  Given Mormonism's well known tendency to move like molassess, she is less likely to get whiplash from a prophet 

[juliann]

 

 

1. Most would agree that time has vindicated Nelson’s position and sensibilities on this issue.  However, was he right to promote his views that the Church was wrong on this issue, or did he have the moral obligation to be quiet about it and follow the Church’s leaders?

Did he go to the media or protest publicly in any way?  If not, I would call this being quiet.  I don't consider an exchange of private letters to be much of a promotion.  He really nailed it, though.

[Duncan]

First off it's Heber Meeks not Minks, http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=sh&GRid=20041129 he appeared to be active until the end of his life. I don't know about Lowry Nelson. One thing too is this collection is what is known about, there could be hundreds of letters that did exist or do exist but in private hands or collections that have not seen the light of day. I really don't know a thing about American Politics or their political history so I can't speak to any of that Nixon stuff. I have no doubt there are a million and one campaigns that the First Presidency gets letters about in today's day and age. I assume it was the same in Pres. Smith's time as well.

 

I have never met Pres. Monson or any of the First Pres. but I am going to say they have heard of SSM but who knows maybe they don't think it's a big enough issue yet. SSM has existed in Canada for years now and neither Canada nor the Church in Canada has collapsed

 

if an investigator read these I would tell them that Sociology has come a long way since 1950 whatever. It's a time capsule of what was thought back then and who are we to determine if it was right for any of them to think that? We live in 2013 and not everyone has the same values, principles and we don't live back then

Edited December 5, 2013 by Duncan

[mfbukowski]

 

If an investigator read these letters and came to the conclusion that this proves academic sociology is a better place to learn what is true and good than the Prophet, how would you respond?

 

I would respond that our understanding of the truth changes in both disciplines on a continuing basis.

 

If you looked at what one would call "sociology" in 1900 how much would it differ from these letters?  Not much.

 

And I hope you have noticed that indeed the prophet and the 12 really did make some changes in 1978.  We call that an "open canon" whereas science calls it a "paradigm change".

 

Not much difference, really.

 

So in the end sociology and the prophet have ended up preaching much the same thing: racial equality.

Edited December 5, 2013 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

 

1. Most would agree that time has vindicated Nelson’s position and sensibilities on this issue.  However, was he right to promote his views that the Church was wrong on this issue, or did he have the moral obligation to be quiet about it and follow the Church’s leaders?

    

2. Most would agree that the opinions about race expressed in these letters by the First Presidency and by President Minks are simply wrong.  After reading these letters, does it change your view about the likelihood of the current leadership eventually being proven wrong on issues of same-sex marriage and women holding the priesthood?

    

3. If an investigator read these letters and came to the conclusion that this proves academic sociology is a better place to learn what is true and good than the Prophet, how would you respond? 

 

1. Did he promote his views with an aim to discrediting the Church? It seems more like he just answered the questions.

 

2. No, and I believe women may one day hold the Priesthood. I know of no doctrine insisting that women never will hold the Priesthood. This would be a change and prove nothing wrong. Same-sex marriage could also change but I doubt this one will happen. Will it suddenly retroactively change whether it is a sin now? I don't think so.

 

3. Advise them to time-travel back to the 20s and 30s when a great many sociologists were advocating eugenics. We tend to be very smug about what seems to be winning now. If history is any indication the things that will most appall our descendents will be stuff we all agree on without even thinking about it and our present political and sociological differences will be retroactively seen as two wrongs arguing it out while the worst wrongs are ignored.

 

The prophet teaches the road to salvation. I am not so concerned as to whether prophets have been wrong about other things in the past so long as that road is and has always been clearly marked.

[canard78]

Thanks for opening this thread. I'd written a long post about this the other day and then lost it into the ether and had to get to work.

You've summarised it well. The first presidency say several things in their letter that are simply wrong and not based on any reasonable scriptural evidence. Their statements about inter-race marriage send a shudder down my spine and make me feel sick to my stomach.

In their first letter they say it's a doctrine "never questioned" by any church leader since the days of Joseph Smith. That is the simple summary of the problem. There were apostles right into the 1960s who considered it an "unquestionable" doctrine.

If you are never willing to ask a question you will never be able to get an answer. I try to find a balanced view but these letters are conclusive proof to me that sometimes, following a prophet unquestioningly really could lead me astray.

It also concerns me that there may be other issues that both I and other members and leaders make assumptions about based either on a lack of information or awareness of others.

[The Nehor]

In their first letter they say it's a doctrine "never questioned" by any church leader since the days of Joseph Smith. That is the simple summary of the problem. There were apostles right into the 1960s who considered it an "unquestionable" doctrine.

 

They were also wrong about the "never questioned" part. Joseph Smith ordained at least two black men. President Snow in 1900 said he was unsure where it came from. In the early part of last century a search was done through the archives to find out where it came from with no results. President McKay prayed about it and labeled it as policy and not doctrine but believed it needed revelation to overturn it. President Kimball did a lot of reading and questioning before presenting his question to the Lord.

[canard78]

I'm reminded of a quote from the recent inter-faith article in the Ensign:

 

"Elder Holland acknowledged the “risk associated with learning something new about someone else. New insights always affect old perspectives, and thus some rethinking, rearranging, and restructuring of our worldviews is inevitable."

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/12/becoming-better-saints-through-interfaith-involvement?lang=eng

This is not only a message for the lay-membership. This is also a message from and perhaps to the leadership. I still find the issue of the priesthood restrictions a massive issue. As I've investigated the topic it has led to a big shift in my perspective on how and when a prophet receives revelation. I'm reminded of a line from my mission president: "an element of inspiration is information." The word "ignorance" is a pretty aggressive word, but simply means a "lack of knowledge or information." Prejudice is another one that is a potentially "hot" word, but technically means: "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience."

Everything I read about the introduction and perpetuation of the priesthood bad suggests to me that it was a result of "ignorance" and "prejudice" in the very literal sense of the words. Everyone's emphasis and focus will naturally be influenced by their knowledge and information combined with the preconceived opinions. Unfortunately sometimes the information is lacking and the conceptions are not based on reason.

I know I am susceptible to this. I accept my leaders to be. But... but... but... we can of course say. I know. To me the priesthood ban remains a huge "but." It completely reshapes my awareness of the level to which any person can be influenced by "ignorance" and "prejudice" and leads to apply to appropriate cautions.

Two thoughts from Elder Uchtdorf, a man who grew up in an environment of being the victim of ignorance and prejudice:
 

"Latter-day Saints are not asked to blindly accept everything they hear. We are encouraged to think and discover truth for ourselves. We are expected to ponder, to search, to evaluate, and thereby to come to a personal knowledge of the truth.

The Apostle Paul said that in this world the light is dim and we see only part of the truth as though we are looking “through a glass, darkly...” 

The “truths” we cling to shape the quality of our societies as well as our individual characters. 

All too often these “truths” are based on incomplete and inaccurate evidence, and at times they serve very selfish motives. 

Part of the reason for poor judgment comes from the tendency of mankind to blur the line between belief and truth. We too often confuse belief with truth, thinking that because something makes sense or is convenient, it must be true. 

Conversely, we sometimes don’t believe truth or reject it — because it would require us to change or admit that we were wrong. Often, truth is rejected because it doesn’t appear to be consistent with previous experiences.

When the opinions or “truths” of others contradict our own, instead of considering the possibility that there could be information that might be helpful and augment or complement what we know, we often jump to conclusions or make assumptions that the other person is misinformed, mentally challenged, or even intentionally trying to deceive."

 

http://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2013/01/what-is-truth?lang=eng

In the above statement he does not make the leaders exempt from the challenge of seeing through a glass darkly.

[canard78]

They were also wrong about the "never questioned" part. Joseph Smith ordained at least two black men. President Snow in 1900 said he was unsure where it came from. In the early part of last century a search was done through the archives to find out where it came from with no results. President McKay prayed about it and labeled it as policy and not doctrine but believed it needed revelation to overturn it. President Kimball did a lot of reading and questioning before presenting his question to the Lord.

 

I'm reassured that an Apostle said this:

"...while all members should respect, support, and heed the teachings of the authorities of the church, no one should accept a statement and base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile; then one’s logical deductions may be confirmed by the spirit of revelation to his or her spirit, because real conversion must come from within."

President Hugh B. Brown, An Abundant Life:The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown.

I recognise that some people will say that unless you get the answer that the leader is right, you've got the wrong answer. Having been a leader I can't support that argument. I made plenty of decisions that, in hindsight, were probably the wrong ones. I hope people in the branch had patience with me for my limitations. I try to extend the same courtesy to our own more senior leaders.

Hugh Nibley said: 

 

"There's no office in the Church that qualifies the holder to give the official interpretation of the Church. We're to read the scriptures for ourselves, as guided by the Spirit. Joseph Smith himself often disagreed with various of his brethren on different points, yet he never cracked down on them, saying they'd better change this or that, or else. He disagreed with Parley P. Pratt on a number of things, and also with Brigham Young on various things." 

 

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1123&index=11

There's also a great little story in the Nauvoo Relief Society Minute Book. Joseph Smith and John Taylor both originally wanted the RS to be called the Benevolent Society. There were several sisters who made the case against the prophet's and Elder Taylor's wishes. The final argument was made by Emma Smith, who said:

 

"...we are going to do something extraordinary— when a boat is stuck on the rapids with a multitude of Mormons on board we shall consider that a loud call for relief— we expect extraordinary occasions and pressing calls.

Elder Taylor arose and said "I shall have to concede the point— your arguments are so potent I cannot stand before them— I shall have to give way."

President. J(oseph). S(mith). said "I also shall have to concede the point, all I shall have to give to the poor, I shall give to this Society.

 

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/nauvoo-relief-society-minute-book?p=9

 

When the leaders speak the thinking is not done. The debate is not over.

[canard78]

By the way (and given the majority of participants will be waking up to this thread), I'm no moderator and apologies if this sounds like I'm being a board nanny...

 

But... it would be great if, for once, this could be a thread that doesn't descend into the usual "why gay marriage/women priesthood (insert other)... can never happen (oh yes it can! oh no it can't! He's behind you!!)."

 

That's not really the point in my opinion. The biggest point of this moment in history is this:

 

“From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.”

 

 

Is it OK that a prophet/leader/member "never questions" something they assume to be right?

Is it OK to encourage a prophet/leader/member to ask the question?

If they decline to ask the question, is OK to keep asking?

What do we do when leaders refuse to listen and "never question?"

[canard78]

I would respond that our understanding of the truth changes in both disciplines on a continuing basis.

 

If you looked at what one would call "sociology" in 1900 how much would it differ from these letters?  Not much.

 

And I hope you have noticed that indeed the prophet and the 12 really did make some changes in 1978.  We call that an "open canon" whereas science calls it a "paradigm change".

 

Not much difference, really.

 

So in the end sociology and the prophet have ended up preaching much the same thing: racial equality.

 

Racial equality? Which prophet? Yes in 1978. But many of the ones before that didn't. We can't pretend that all their earlier views upheld a position of racial equality.

 

E.g.:

 

"I cannot, in my own feelings, accept the idea of public accommodations; the taking from the Whites their wishes to satisfy the Negros."

 

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

 

Or in the 1947 exchange:

 

“Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous” They continue to warn of worldly influences which are tying to break down this prohibition stating, “We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.”

 

https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange#page/n5/mode/1up

 

How are either of those statements a position of racial equality? We've finally dragged ourselves to that position. But embarrassingly late in the day.

[Storm Rider]

On one hand I would have said that questioning the FP was increased with time, but there are enough examples of questioning being done during BY's time period and before to really make that point with any firm foundation of reality.

 

Nuance (doctrine or policy) has increased. I would argue with any other person about the priesthood issue being a policy or a doctrine of the Church.

 

I suspect that the FP was questioned repeatedly by stalwart members of the Church throughout its history.  The questioning was done privately and respectfully.  I think many of the Brethren has racist tendencies i.e. they were human and reflected the prevailing thoughts of the times. I also think there were others that were more open to a neutral review of events that resulted in honest questions. 

 

I think it is possible that the FP and much of the upper leadership fall easily into a protective bubble where they are faced with the overwhelming needs of the Church. They seldom are really provided the opportunity to focus on other issues. They are surrounded by like-minded people that do not question in their earnest desire follow where the prophet leads.  Another one of our policies, who becomes the prophet and when, does not encourage the likelihood of consistent review and renewal of Church direction and action in new policies. For the most part this ensures a safe, consistent guidance, but it also ensures that the Church will seldom lead in social areas. 

 

Although there will always be speculation about what the future will hold. For me I find that it is better to take things one day at a time. When I grumble I have noticed that no one really listens; the healthier approach is just do what makes me happy. If we are honest, doing what makes us truly happy will always lead in paths of righteousness. Thanks be to our Father that we are not placed in a position such as the FP, Qof12, etc. All we need do is concern ourselves with ourselves, our families, our neighbors and friends, and our community. The rest weighs on the shoulders of others and they bear that burden among themselves.

 

As an aside, Thanksgiving was great. Got to return home to see my wife and family for a few weeks and have now returned to my assignment in Sri Lanka. Beautiful country, beautiful people, wonderful life. 

[Buckeye]

Did he go to the media or protest publicly in any way?  If not, I would call this being quiet.  I don't consider an exchange of private letters to be much of a promotion.  He really nailed it, though.

 

Nelson went public in 1952.  See Lowry Nelson, “Mormons and the Negro,” The Nation 174 (24 May 1952), found at https://archive.org/details/NelsonMormonismAndTheNegro.  You can judge for yourself whether it was a protest, but he certainly was not quiet.  While I have no personal knowledge, I have read that Nelson's 1952 article in the The Nation was the first time national attention began to be paid to the issue.

[CV75]

Mormon Stories recently published some scanned images letters from the 1947 to 1952 that are archived at Utah State University.  They provide a fascinating look at the disparate views regarding the priesthood ban among various faithful latter-day Saints...

Whether Nelson was right or wrong in his position is irrelevant to the justness of promoting his views. I would not construe his letters as “promoting” of his views since he was honestly answering the questions he was asked among a fairly close circle of communication. That said, the First Presidency was not seeking input about the priesthood but about how to work within the constraints of the time. Had he begun to campaign and draw people away from the true faith on the basis of this point, I would view that kind of promotion as unjust.

The views expressed by the First Presidency are wrong in the social context of our day, but not for the social context of the time. They may have used faulty apologetics in support of the revelations about who should hold the priesthood, but the bottom line is that they put the revelations above all other considerations in deciding on the best way (and time) to promulgate the Gospel in Cuba. It also seems they were giving Nelson some latitude in how he characterized the doctrine by acknowledging that he understood it despite his expressing negative opinion about it while helping them decide how to approach missionary work in Cuba.

With regards to the same-sex union and priesthood office issues you mentioned, I think the First Presidency asking sociological experts (or experts in any other science, art or technology) about how to best minister the doctrines, covenants, ordinances and blessings of the Church to homosexual members and LDS women in today’s environment is very different than an invitation to opine on the doctrine. The first is a very valid part of the process of those with the keys to make decisions to study things out, but if they wanted opinion on the doctrine, they would probably as the theologians.

My response to the investigator that concludes that this story proves that academic sociology is a better place to learn what is true and good than the Prophet would probably be a discussion about what “true and good” means in various contexts and from various perspectives.

Edited December 5, 2013 by CV75

[Buckeye]

Thanks, that's really interesting.

I think he was right in explaining himself to the leadership. Did he remain in the church?

 

According to this Dialogue article, Nelson remained in the church and also remained a critic of the church.  http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V26N03_101.pdf

[cdowis]

I think it is inappropriate for a member to teach a moral philosophy to the Prophet.  It is certainly suitable to have an opposing opinion, but not to "teach" the prophet.

[Buckeye]

1. Most would agree that time has vindicated Nelson’s position and sensibilities on this issue.  However, was he right to promote his views that the Church was wrong on this issue, or did he have the moral obligation to be quiet about it and follow the Church’s leaders?

    

2. Most would agree that the opinions about race expressed in these letters by the First Presidency and by President Minks are simply wrong.  After reading these letters, does it change your view about the likelihood of the current leadership eventually being proven wrong on issues of same-sex marriage and women holding the priesthood?

    

3. If an investigator read these letters and came to the conclusion that this proves academic sociology is a better place to learn what is true and good than the Prophet, how would you respond? 

 

1. I agree that time has vindicated Nelson's views.  I am proud to call him a fellow mormon.  Silence in the face of a wrong is itself a wrong.  Yes, there are better and worse ways to raise an issue, but when someone sees something that is wrong they should speak up.  Sunlight is a great disinfectant both outside and inside the church.
2. The idea that races should not inter-marry and that certain races bear cursings from the pre-existence are wrong.  Yes, these ideas were commonly-held at the time of the FP's letters, but that fact should only affect our judgment of those who espoused the views; it has no bearing on whether the views are themself right or wrong.  I am greatful that my parents and grandparents did not pass these false teaching on to me, even though they received them from family and church leaders they loved and trusted.  I hope I am as successful in holding onto my bonds with family and church leaders even as I choose not to pass along any false teachings they give to me.
   1. Regarding female ordination, the church is following the same trajectory as with blacks and priesthood.  For the racial ban, first there was no discussion; it just was.  Then, when people questioned, members came up with folklore (curse of cain, etc.).  Then, when those rationales proved untenable, the church officially moved to "we don't know."  And eventually, when the membership and leaders desired something better, the 1978 revelation came.  This trajectory is nicely outlined by Armand Mauss here:  http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=452.  Applying the same trajectory to women's ordination, we have passed the phase of silent acceptance.  Most church members are currently phasing out of the folklore phase (men need something unique in order to serve, motherhood=priesthood, etc.).  The church leadership is ahead of many members; the official position is and will remain "we don't know."  Eventually, when the members and leaders desire something more than we have, another revelation will come.
   2. Regarding SSM, because church leaders have been wrong on doctrinal matters before (specifically in the post, the priesthood ban), it is quite possible that they can be wrong on other doctrinal matters.  A doctrinal change to accept SSM would be difficult, but we've gone through more trying changes that this (e.g., polygamy).  I am not asserting the church is wrong on this point of doctrine, but again, it is a possibility.  Time will help us decide as our nation and others allows for same-sex families to function in the same way as heterosexual families and we gain knowledge as to whether those families produce good fruit.  If the fruit is good, we will change to embrace it.  We always have.  The real challenge at the moment is how to create a space in which members, particularly youth, can participate in the parts of the church that resonate with them as true, but be freed to neglect the parts that they find to be false.  Most of the rising generation believes that same-sex families are a good.  If we make SSM a wedge issue, it could be a disaster.
3. Seek learning by reason and by faith.  Church leaders can be wrong.  But quite often they are right.  If your goal is to find truth, then it is equally perilous to ignore church leaders because of past mistakes as it is to follow them when the spirit dictates otherwise. 

[thesometimesaint]

1. Did he promote his views with an aim to discrediting the Church? It seems more like he just answered the questions.

 

2. No, and I believe women may one day hold the Priesthood. I know of no doctrine insisting that women never will hold the Priesthood. This would be a change and prove nothing wrong. Same-sex marriage could also change but I doubt this one will happen. Will it suddenly retroactively change whether it is a sin now? I don't think so.

 

3. Advise them to time-travel back to the 20s and 30s when a great many sociologists were advocating eugenics. We tend to be very smug about what seems to be winning now. If history is any indication the things that will most appall our descendents will be stuff we all agree on without even thinking about it and our present political and sociological differences will be retroactively seen as two wrongs arguing it out while the worst wrongs are ignored.

 

The prophet teaches the road to salvation. I am not so concerned as to whether prophets have been wrong about other things in the past so long as that road is and has always been clearly marked.

 

Yes sociology taught eugenics in 20's and 30's, but it was far different than what was practiced in a certain European country of that time period.

[bluebell]

Whether Nelson was right or wrong in his position is irrelevant to the justness of promoting his views. I would not construe his letters as “promoting” of his views since he was honestly answering the questions he was asked among a fairly close circle of communication. That said, the First Presidency was not seeking input about the priesthood but about how to work within the constraints of the time. Had he begun to campaign and draw people away from the true faith on the basis of this point, I would view that kind of promotion as unjust.

The views expressed by the First Presidency are wrong in the social context of our day, but not for the social context of the time. They may have used faulty apologetics in support of the revelations about who should hold the priesthood, but the bottom line is that they put the revelations above all other considerations in deciding on the best way (and time) to promulgate the Gospel in Cuba. It also seems they were giving Nelson some latitude in how he characterized the doctrine by acknowledging that he understood it despite his expressing negative opinion about it while helping them decide how to approach missionary work in Cuba.

With regards to the same-sex union and priesthood office issues you mentioned, I think the First Presidency asking sociological experts (or experts in any other science, art or technology) about how to best minister the doctrines, covenants, ordinances and blessings of the Church to homosexual members and LDS women in today’s environment is very different than an invitation to opine on the doctrine. The first is a very valid part of the process of those with the keys to make decisions to study things out, but if they wanted opinion on the doctrine, they would probably as the theologians.

My response to the investigator that concludes that this story proves that academic sociology is a better place to learn what is true and good than the Prophet would probably be a discussion about what “true and good” means in various contexts and from various perspectives.

 

I think the issue of 'revelation' is one of the things in question.  The first presidency stated it was an unquestioning part of the gospel, but I don't believe they claimed that it was through revelation, did they?

[bluebell]

1. Did he promote his views with an aim to discrediting the Church? It seems more like he just answered the questions.

 

2. No, and I believe women may one day hold the Priesthood. I know of no doctrine insisting that women never will hold the Priesthood. This would be a change and prove nothing wrong. Same-sex marriage could also change but I doubt this one will happen. Will it suddenly retroactively change whether it is a sin now? I don't think so.

 

3. Advise them to time-travel back to the 20s and 30s when a great many sociologists were advocating eugenics. We tend to be very smug about what seems to be winning now. If history is any indication the things that will most appall our descendents will be stuff we all agree on without even thinking about it and our present political and sociological differences will be retroactively seen as two wrongs arguing it out while the worst wrongs are ignored.

 

The prophet teaches the road to salvation. I am not so concerned as to whether prophets have been wrong about other things in the past so long as that road is and has always been clearly marked.

 

Good point about what sociology and science has taught over the years.

 

I've read papers in the 1800s by respected scientists 'proving' that black people where inferior to whites.  No discipline is completely trustworthy. 

[Buckeye]

I think the issue of 'revelation' is one of the things in question.  The first presidency stated it was an unquestioning part of the gospel, but I don't believe they claimed that it was through revelation, did they?

 

I have posted below (with emphasis) the FP Statement on the priesthood ban that issued in August, 1949.  I can't find a way to characterize their statement "direct commandment from the Lord" as anything other than a belief that the ban was a result of revelation.  Now, that doesn't necessarily mean these brethren were claiming a revelation themselves.  Most likely, they believed (erroneously, in my view) that a prior first presidency had received such a revelation.  It was an error of fact, not an error of God's communication to them. 

 

For me, a very interesting question is posed by the timing of the FP statement in relation to their communications with Lowry Nelson.  Could it be that Nelson's letters drove the FP to issue their statement in order to set forth the doctrine clearly?  Ironically, perhaps Nelson's straight-foward statements as to the wrongness of these teachings led the first presidency to retrench.  Is it possible that without these experience it would have been easier for the church to change the doctine earlier than 1978?  We'll never know.

 

**********************************

 

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

 

The First Presidency

[canard78]

I think the issue of 'revelation' is one of the things in question.  The first presidency stated it was an unquestioning part of the gospel, but I don't believe they claimed that it was through revelation, did they?

 

From the letters from the First presidency to Nelson. This one justifying why black members were denied the priesthood (implying it was due to an issue of preexistance).

 

 “Your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the preexistence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we my be born, have a relationship in the life heretofore.”

 

 

 

And their final reply when he again questioned their conclusions:

 

“We feel very sure that you understand well the doctrines of the Church. They are either true or not true. Our testimony is that they are true. Under these circumstances we may not permit ourselves to be too much impressed by the reasonings of men however well-founded they may seem to be. We should like to say this to you in all kindness and in all sincerity that you are too fine a man to permit yourself to be led off from the principles of the Gospel by worldly learning. You have too much of a potentiality for doing good and we therefore prayerfully hope that you can reorient your thinking and bring it in line with the revealed word of God.“

 

 

(Emphasis added in both)