Challenging The First Presidency

[canard78]

Yet more evidence for the inspirational nature of the policy and no evidence against.

 

Let me know when you have some evidence that God inspired BY to introduce and mandate the priesthood ban. Everything you've said so far is speculation about the ban, after it was introduced.

[teddyaware]

Let me know when you have some evidence that God inspired BY to introduce and mandate the priesthood ban. Everything you've said so far is speculation about the ban, after it was introduced.

Yet the 1978 revelation to overturn the priesthood ban (and take note that all of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve members, who were in the temple that day, saidit was a most powerful, glorious and unmistakable divine revelation) stands as a

witness that God had to take direct action in order to overturn the ban. God could havegiven that revelation at any time over all the years the ban was in force. So the

question that needs to be answered some day is why did He wait till 1978 to overturn

the ban? There must be some reason for this, but at this point we just don't know what that answer is. Apparently, attempts in the past of trying to provide a logical

explanation for the ban were in error, but there is an actual answer out there waiting to be found.

Edited December 7, 2013 by teddyaware

[canard78]

Yet the 1978 revelation to overturn the priesthood ban (and take note that all of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve members, who were in the temple that day, saidit was a most powerful, glorious and unmistakable divine revelation) stands as a

witness that God had to take direct action in order to overturn the ban. God could havegiven that revelation at any time over all the years the ban was in force. So the

question that needs to be answered some day is why did He wait till 1978 to overturn

the ban? There must be some reason for this, but at this point we just don't know what that answer is. Apparently, attempts in the past of trying to provide a logical

explanation for the ban were in error, but there is an actual answer out there waiting to be found.

 

I can give you my opinion, based on available evidence, but you'll probably not agree. I don't think it really needed a revelation to overturn it because no revelation introduced it. The leadership could have ended ages earlier if needed. Reason for further delay include:

 

First:

It was never a "burning platform." The brethren of the past had the following attitude: 

“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.”

 

https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange#page/n4/mode/1up

 

There was no urgent need to change it and so there was no pressing desire to "question" it. This accounted for the first 100 years.

 

Second:

After initial movement towards a resolution under Pres. McKay and Elder Brown, the subsequent prophets didn't maintain the momentum. There was little progress under Pres Smith and Lee. 

 

Despite the now-official, public “we don’t know” position, most leaders still privately stood by the traditional twentieth-century explanation that a spirit’s premortal conduct justified priesthood restriction in mortality. Joseph Fielding Smith, who succeeded President McKay, was among those most consistently supporting the traditional views, as was Harold B. Lee, who became his First Counselor.

 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/47.2KimballSpencerb0a083df-b26b-430b-9ce2-3efec584dcd9.pdf

 

In 1972 Pres. Lee was not chasing the change. Instead he was waiting for it. In 1972 he said:

"For those who don’t believe in modern revelation there is no adequate explanation. Those who do understand revelation stand by and wait until the Lord speaks."

 

ibid

 

This echoes the sentiment of the 1947 FP letter: "It's always been this way, don't ask questions, it will be sorted when it's the Lord comes and tells us."

 

According to his son's article (linked in to from the LDS.org article), President Kimball, succeeding in 1973 had seen the division the topic caused in the 1960s and was committed to unanimity.

 

Third:

The article includes the information on the church needing an urgent solution from 1976 to the question of the Brazil temple being funded and built by mixed race members. This was perhaps finally the burning platform that provided the impetus to get a solution.

 

Fouth:

There were two apostles still in the 15 that are known to have racist positions: Delbert Stapley and Mark E. Petersen. Elder Stapely's 1964 letter makes for extremely uncomfortable reading. He even goes as far as warning that USA presidents and others who had tried to campaign for black rights had ended up dead. Anyone with that belief is an unlikely advocate for blacks to have more rights in the church - for fear of his life. He emphasizes that "it was the Lord's responsibility--not man's--to change His decision." He goes on to oppose the "public accomodations; the taking from the Whites their wishes to satisfy the Negroes." He continues that "the Negro" should not be entitled to "full social benefits nor inter-marriage rights with Whites, nor should Whites be forced to accept them into restricted White areas." He warns of "punishment for our acts" if people agitate for change for black people.

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

 

I find this letter both disturbing and very telling. When you add Mark E. Petersen's racist attitudes there were clearly two strong blockers to making the change. For example he said:

 

From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the negro seeks absorbtion with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feeling to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, " First we pity, then endure, then embrace."

 

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collection/UU_EAD/id/1918

 

When President Kimball lead the initiative in 1978 he spent several days getting each of the apostles to bring their own typed up opinions to him, followed by a long group discussion. They reached the unanimous conclusion that it could happen and then prayed for confirmation. Even before the prayer, President Kimball got every member of the group say they were in favour of the change. This was before any revelation was sought and received. They had studied it out in their mind and unanimously agreed that they were in favour of all men holding the priesthood, regardless of race.

 

Elder Packer said, a few weeks later, “One objection would have deterred him, would have made him put it off, so careful was he . . . that it had to be right.”

 

 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/47.2KimballSpencerb0a083df-b26b-430b-9ce2-3efec584dcd9.pdf

 

Two Apostles were absent for both the individual presentations and group discussions (see page 55 of the Kimball document linked above): Elders Stapley (in hospital) and Petersen (sent on assignment to South America). Only after the deliberations were completed, the discussions over and the prayer of confirmation given, answer received and the statement of change in policy written up were these two Elders consulted. It had already had the stamp of approval of the other 13 and these two were contacted to be told that the revelation had been received and would they sustain it? 

 

The significance President Kimball attributed to unanimity can be seen in how President Tanner presented the matter to the Church at the next general conference:

 

President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.He then proposed acceptance as “the word and will of the Lord.”

 

Two of the Twelve had not attended either meeting. Elder Mark E. Petersen was on assignment in South America, and Elder Delbert L. Stapley was seriously ill in the LDS Hospital. Later in the day of June 8, Spencer telephoned Elder Petersen in Quito, Ecuador, informed him what had happened, had Francis Gibbons read him the announcement about to be published, and received his approval. Elder Petersen later recalled, “I was delighted to know that a new revelation had come from the Lord. I felt the fact of the revelation’s coming was more striking than the decision itself. On the telephone I told President Kimball that I fully sustained both the revelation and him one hundred percent.” All three of the First Presidency visited Elder Stapley. He responded, “I’ll stay with the Brethren on this.” Thus, support from the Twelve was unanimous.

 

(Ibid)

 

It is possible that if the two absent apostles had been involved in the "study it out in your mind" they might not have reached unanimity before praying - enough to scupper the prayer ever even happening.

[DBMormon]

think about that next time you want to criticize someone in the present day that challenge the first presidency. Chances are, they will also be vindicated.

 

 

I certainly would not say this.  As one who willingly speaks up at things that do not make sense - I would say of all the issues people have complained about and wrote the !st Pres. on perhaps 1-3 of them have brought a future rescinding or change that admitted some wrong doing or overstatement.  More times then not it has not resulted in a change or a response.  Nor do I think the LDS Church is wrong about such things in most cases.

[DBMormon]

Nope.  The above are all evidences.  You've denied them without saying why they are deniable.  Your prerogative but unconvincing.

 

 

BCSpace - I think you are mistaken.  The Church stopped short of saying the ban was inspired.  Without having a record of BY stating his reason for implementing said ban, there is no way to throw him under the bus unless God clears up the WHY or an unknown document surfaces.  With that said, they have gone as far as they can without said evidence to state that we as an institution are sorry it happened and wish to put to bed all reasoning for it.  I would suspect if you could hook the top 15 to Lie detectors that none of them would claim the ban was from God and either would say it was a mistake or they don't know.  One example we have on record is Elder Holland  http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html .  Notice his waffling between the words Doctrine, Policy and Practice

 

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

 

 

And I find it weird that you claim to know it is divinely instituted and Elder Holland doesn't.    Especially when no such evidence exists other then decades later a leader trying to defend the practice

Edited December 7, 2013 by DBMormon

[BlueDreams]

Well, I know this is a little old now and my opinions have probably been mentioned by others somewhere in 8 pgs. 

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?

 

I don't think what he did was wrong. The 1st presidency did what they felt was right in correcting him about the current understandings of the Church, he thoroughly expressed his opinion while doing so. Nothing more. He didn't try to cause some sort of uprising due to it and was very respectful in his disagreement. I do believe he has an obligation to follow church leaders, to an extent. I would expect him to respect their office, share his opinions about what they asked just as frankly and honestly as he did, and trust in God's time. All things find their righting

 

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?

 

No, not at all. The issue of women holding the priesthood is my current deep interest and I'm still extremely unsatisfied by the arguments for it. I search the various words and agree that women's role must be greatly increased, expanded, and better understood as active and integrative....but I am still not convinced with that specific line of thought. Gender and race are not equivalent in the means that they need to be addressed, IMHO. 

SSM....definitely not. I still see it as defining a view of marriage that simply doesn't fit into the core structure/doctrines of LDS theology in the least....particularly the temple and what our view is God   

 

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 they're missing out. I've learned great and powerful truths that have healed me from people who I've also believed are wrong on a number of social points or other understandings. Though truth is absolute, our knowledge of it is continually in a state of growth. Not the prophets, nor myself, nor the academic scholar have all the puzzle pieces aligned. And being in a social science field, knowing the fluidity of social thought, research, how it's accrued and interpreted, etc....it's definitely not a place to find out what is true, per se. It is indeed a field chalk full of the reasoning of men as the 1st presidency mentioned in the letter. These reasoning can be correct, they can also be wrong and none of them have the moral authority or capacity to speak for God on earth as to what will be done for His people at any given moment.  

 

For example, I found Lowry nelson wrong about his perception and understanding of racism in Cuba. I can understand why he'd see the distinction...the U.S. Racism was far more pronounced and followed a dichotomy-view of race. Meanwhile Latino racism was often more nuanced and followed a gradient as opposed in the polar and static vision of race.

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited December 7, 2013 by BlueDreams

[california boy]

Here's yet another point to ponder.  From the statement in question:

 

 

So the Church obviously considers BY's prophecy to be inspired.

 

But now look from the same statement again:

 

 

So we have BY's prophecy that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members defined as inspirational.  And now we also have BY's priesthood restriction policy tied directly to the inspired prophecy.  Yet more evidence for the inspirational nature of the policy and no evidence against.

Why do those that use the prophecy of Brigham Young as a fulfillment, only use half of the prophecy.  The whole prophecy was that the blacks would receive the priesthood only AFTER all the other sons of Adam received the priesthood.  The second half of the prophecy has been swept under the carpet and those that want to use BY prophecy as proof that the blacks were promised the priesthood is FULFILLMENT of that prophecy.  It is not fulfillment of the prophecy at all.  If it were, the other half of the prophecy would have to have been fulfilled as well.  BY clearly states the conditions that have to take place before the blacks receive the priesthood.  How do you explain the second half away so easily?  

 

The answer to that question is simple, the entire prophecy does not fit what the church currently wants to teach.  So it uses the part of the prophecy that they want fulfilled and hope that people ignore the conditions that BY stated had to take place first.

 

 Wala, The prophecy has been fulfilled.  Please ignore the rest of the prophecy.  It was not that important.  

[canard78]

Why do those that use the prophecy of Brigham Young as a fulfillment, only use half of the prophecy. The whole prophecy was that the blacks would receive the priesthood only AFTER all the other sons of Adam received the priesthood. The second half of the prophecy has been swept under the carpet and those that want to use BY prophecy as proof that the blacks were promised the priesthood is FULFILLMENT of that prophecy. It is not fulfillment of the prophecy at all. If it were, the other half of the prophecy would have to have been fulfilled as well. BY clearly states the conditions that have to take place before the blacks receive the priesthood. How do you explain the second half away so easily?

The answer to that question is simple, the entire prophecy does not fit what the church currently wants to teach. So it uses the part of the prophecy that they want fulfilled and hope that people ignore the conditions that BY stated had to take place first.

Wala, The prophecy has been fulfilled. Please ignore the rest of the prophecy. It was not that important.

I agree. In actual fact the way the priesthood was restored makes it a non-fulfilment of his original statement. It was given back to black members earlier than he predicted. So I don't see how this is a fulfilment of prophesy either.

His statement about interracial marriage "always" being prohibited also turned out to be incorrect, despite the fact that the 1947 first presidency still taught that such a marriage is "repugnant."

[mfbukowski]

He is not right as the Church itself implies, even in the recent addition to the Topics section on lds.org, that the ban is inspired.  To wit:

 

1.  The Church has not disavowed the ban, only some of the explanations and beliefs extant at the time

2.  BY prophesied that blacks would one day have the same privileges.

3.  President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.

4. "Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and     temple blessings."

5.  The Church makes it clear that later prophets felt the need for a revelation to overturn the policy.

 

 

No. The ban itself was based on, according to the opinions/doctrines of the past, lineage.  Race was merely an identifying factor.  Hence to make a comparison of genetics (male/female) or possible genetics (homosexuality) with what was considered a matter of obedience is apples to oranges.

 

Plus the scriptural and doctrinal basis against SSM and women holding the priesthood is far more clear and certain.

 

 

See my answer to number one.  Such a conclusion I assume, assumes the Church was wrong to have the ban and the Church is saying no such thing.

For the record, 

 

We never know why the Lord does what he does, nor should we make conclusions on a whole set of beliefs because we think we understand what one statement means.

 

A one-liner about one subject should not be taken to imply unsaid volumes on similar subjects.

[mfbukowski]

The mormons that went against the first presidency during that time on this issue are heroes. it took guts to do, and they were right, and history has shown them to be right.

 

think about that next time you want to criticize someone in the present day that challenge the first presidency. Chances are, they will also be vindicated.

 

History is not gonig to look kindly at a  lot of the actions of LDS leadership in 1980-2010

Oh that's good to hear.

 

I guess we are now in the light of day in these last three years.  Welcome to the church.

[BCSpace]

BCSpace - I think you are mistaken.  The Church stopped short of saying the ban was inspired.

 

 

The Church continues to implied it was inspired by not disavowing the ban itself and equating it as I have demonstrated to other inspired revelations.

 

Without having a record of BY stating his reason for implementing said ban, there is no way to throw him under the bus unless God clears up the WHY or an unknown document surfaces.

 

 

I would certainly agree.  Just because it is not directly stated is no reason to think it was not inspired or read something into it that is not there just because you don't like it.

 

The second half of the prophecy has been swept under the carpet and those that want to use BY prophecy as proof that the blacks were promised the priesthood is FULFILLMENT of that prophecy.

 

 

The Church explicitly states that BY's statement that blacks would one day receive the priesthood IS the fulfillment of the prophecy.

 

"promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young"

 

Etc.

[mfbukowski]

None of that is evidence for the divinely inspired origin of the ban. They are all evidences of people reflecting on the ban once it was introduced. Show me the origin of the ban itself, not the reaction to it.

I don't think much is known about the origin of the ban- is there?  I honestly don't know- I largely discount the importance of trying to prove beliefs historically.

 

I think the ban was a "necessary evil", perhaps not unlike the story Eve eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but expedient for the church politically in the climate of the time.  I doubt that the church would have survived if its leadership included Black men.

 

I guess I just object to the idea that it is not possible that the ban was "inspired" even though to us today, through a "presentist" lens, it seems like a horrible alternative.

 

So I agree with what you are saying above- obviously the ban was rationalized afterwards and never had a morally justifiable basis.

 

But what I am claiming is that sometime political expedience can be "inspired".  The rationalizations actually now give us an opportunity to understand how weak and illogical the claims were.  In a sense those claims are so ridiculous that we can now easily cast them off without much brain damage and classify the whole thing as a "wrong policy, not doctrine", which is of course exactly what it was.

 

But does the end ever justify the means?

 

Why did God tell the Israelites to kill the men women and children of Canaan?  Wasn't that an immoral act which God saw had expedience?

 

Could this be like that?

 

I don't pretend to have an answer- I just like to ask questions. 

Edited December 7, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Let me know when you have some evidence that God inspired BY to introduce and mandate the priesthood ban. Everything you've said so far is speculation about the ban, after it was introduced.

Just wondering what would count as "evidence".

 

That of course is a tricky thing in this context, and goes to the core question of what constitutes "doctrine" and how we know that doctrine itself is inspired.  BC's usual answer is that if it is published by the church it is doctrine, yet of course we know of lots of things published by the church which are not doctrine.  And what does "published by the church" mean?  And where is that defined?

 

None of it is defined of course.  So to me, the whole discussion is problematic.  On the other hand what would constitute evidence that it was NOT inspired?

 

That's at least just as problematic. 

[mfbukowski]

... but there is an actual answer out there waiting to be found.

I see.

And where do you think it is? Maybe in Antarctica under the ice somewhere?

[David T]

I see.And where do you think it is? Maybe in Antarctica under the ice somewhere?

No, silly. That's where the 10 lost tribes are.

[BCSpace]

BC's usual answer is that if it is published by the church it is doctrine, yet of course we know of lots of things published by the church which are not doctrine. 

 

 

On the surface it's just plain common sense; that what an organization says is what it believes.  Consider the fact that there are no examples of things published by the Church that are not doctrine except where the Church, as I have noted before, has a disclaimer (Bible Dictionary), or where it was superseded by continuing revelation (some examples of that could be found on this issue).

 

None of it is defined of course.

 

I'd say it's quite well defined.  What is an official publication but that which is published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  Ever taken a Teacher prep course?:  Teaching, No Greater Call answers this as well.  The Church has also addressed this in several Ensign articles as well.  As we have been over this time and again previously, the proof is left to you.

[David T]

 

"promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young"

 

Etc.

Can you produce a quote from BY where he makes such a claim that, in context, does not refer to such an event occuring in the millennium or afterlife?

[BCSpace]

Can you produce a quote from BY where he makes such a claim that, in context, does not refer to such an event occuring in the millennium or afterlife?

 

I don't think it matters relative to the Church which has expressly stated OD2 is a fulfillment of BY's prophecy.

[David T]

I don't think it matters relative to the Church which has expressly stated OD2 is a fulfillment of BY's prophecy.

The latest statements present that such thoughts were pondered and considered as part of the process. Never is the word prophecy or inspired used in reference to BYs thoughts. The context of BYs statments were that when every other descendant of Adam on the earth received the proiesthood , then and only then would the blacks have a chance. Such a suggestion or promise was explicitly tied in and anchored with the explanation for the ban which was clearly disavowed.

Edited December 7, 2013 by David T

[canard78]

I don't think much is known about the origin of the ban- is there? I honestly don't know- I largely discount the importance of trying to prove beliefs historically.

I think the ban was a "necessary evil", perhaps not unlike the story Eve eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but expedient for the church politically in the climate of the time. I doubt that the church would have survived if its leadership included Black men.

I guess I just object to the idea that it is not possible that the ban was "inspired" even though to us today, through a "presentist" lens, it seems like a horrible alternative.

So I agree with what you are saying above- obviously the ban was rationalized afterwards and never had a morally justifiable basis.

But what I am claiming is that sometime political expedience can be "inspired". The rationalizations actually now give us an opportunity to understand how weak and illogical the claims were. In a sense those claims are so ridiculous that we can now easily cast them off without much brain damage and classify the whole thing as a "wrong policy, not doctrine", which is of course exactly what it was.

But does the end ever justify the means?

Why did God tell the Israelites to kill the men women and children of Canaan? Wasn't that an immoral act which God saw had expedience?

Could this be like that?

I don't pretend to have an answer- I just like to ask questions.

Yes, it could be exactly like that. I don't believe for a minute that God actually instructed the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites. I think that was a human decision which they poat-attributed to God. So yes, it's a good comparison.

[BCSpace]

I don't think it matters relative to the Church which has expressly stated OD2 is a fulfillment of BY's prophecy.

The latest statements present that such thoughts were pondered and considered as part of the process. Never is the word prophecy or inspired used in reference to BYs thoughts.

 

Yes, the Church applies prophecy to his words, not his thoughts.  Just being a little humorous there, but I know what you mean.  However, the answer is the same:

 

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings. In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation. “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,” the First Presidency announced on June 8. The First Presidency stated that they were “aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us” that “all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood.”20 The revelation rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination. It also extended the blessings of the temple to all worthy Latter-day Saints, men and women. The First Presidency statement regarding the revelation was canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 2.

 

http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

One just cannot get away from the fact that the Church considers BY's statement to be prophecy.  You might not accept it as the Church does, but I promise you it is so much easier when explaining this to the critics to acknowledge what the Church has said and show how it works rather than simply denying it.  You could also then add the caveat that you don't agree with the Church but even in that case you will have accurately represented the Church's view and prevented many future misunderstandings.

 

[David T]

BC, can you provide the quote - the words of BY - in its context that you believe is acknowledged by the Church as inspired prophecy?

[BCSpace]

BC, can you provide the quote - the words of BY - in its context that you believe is acknowledged by the Church as inspired prophecy?

 

What do you think the Church means by "pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young"?

[David T]

You claimed this refers to specific prophetic words. I ask you to present the words.

[BCSpace]

You claimed this refers to specific prophetic words. I ask you to present the words.

 

No, I have claimed the Church compares BY's institution of the policy with specific prophecy which is as close as one can get to declaring the policy itself as inspired. Are you claiming the Church is wrong about BY making those promises?