Challenging The First Presidency

[bluebell]

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).

 

 

 

And their final reply when he again questioned their conclusions:

 

 

(Emphasis added in both)

 

Yes, it seems obvious that they believed very strongly that their position was one of revelation.

[bluebell]

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

 

I'm sure they must have known that JS ordained black men to the priesthood.  I wonder how they mentally handled that?

 

As to whether or not Nelson made things worse-perhaps.  Like you said, we'll never know.  I'm not convinced yet that the ban wasn't God's will, but I don't believe at all that the reasonings used to justify it was of God.  I don't believe Nelson was in the wrong, not at all.  But I really do believe that God has ultimate control over His church.

 

Generally speaking, it's possible to be completely right on an issue, but still in the wrong because of the way that we proceed in accomplishing a goal in regards to it.  If we aren't' careful, we can actually make things worse than if we'd never gotten involved in the first place.

 

I actually see that some in the ordain women movement.  Not all involved, of course, but some have really fallen off of the 'makes any sense, has any integrity' wagon, and it is hurting the movement.

Edited December 5, 2013 by bluebell

[CV75]

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?

That is an interseting point, the difference between an "unquestioning part of the gospel" and a "revelation" from the point of view of the First Presidency. Apparently there wasn't much of a distinction for them, at least in how they responded to Nelson when he advised them on a doctrinal issue when they sought his expertise on a sociological issue.

 

It is also interesting to consider what makes people question bona fide revelation (or not question it) and what makes them not question the bona fide gospel (or question it), and how we can even hear the gospel without revelation of some kind.

 

And then it is also inteersting to consider how policy might carry the weight of doctrine under certain circumstances ("...lest the roots thereof should be too strong for the graft..." and "...overcome the good branch..." come to mind).

 

Related to this, I think the Lord's design is for us to rely on those with the keys to reveal the gospel to us in whatever form it takes for our day and age, and then to rely on the Holy Ghost to confirm it to us. And when seeking confirmation, it is about what is done by virtue of the keys, not about what we want the keys to do in its place. That is purview of those holding the keys and are most experienced in and closest to receiving revelation on how to use them, so that the rest of us to get confirmation once revealed.

[The Nehor]

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.

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.

I know but Portugal has always had really weird ideas.

[Buckeye]

I'm sure they must have known that JS ordained black men to the priesthood.  I wonder how they mentally handled that?

 

As to whether or not Nelson made things worse-perhaps.  Like you said, we'll never know.  I'm not convinced yet that the ban wasn't God's will, but I don't believe at all that the reasonings used to justify it was of God.  I don't believe Nelson was in the wrong, not at all.  But I really do believe that God has ultimate control over His church.

 

Generally speaking, it's possible to be completely right on an issue, but still in the wrong because of the way that we proceed in accomplishing a goal in regards to it.  If we aren't' careful, we can actually make things worse than if we'd never gotten involved in the first place.

 

I actually see that some in the ordain women movement.  Not all involved, of course, but some have really fallen off of the 'makes any sense, has any integrity' wagon, and it is hurting the movement.

 

I'm constantly surprised to learn how much leaders do not know - myself especially.  In the Greg Prince biography of David O McKay it says that McKay did not learn of the racial priesthood ban until he was an apostle.  Edward Kimball's article regarding his father's work in presiding over the 1978 revelation similarly indicates his ignorance of many historical facts that we take for granted in the internet age - facts Kimball only learned through Lester Bush's Dialogue article in 1973.  So I wouldn't be quick to assume that President Smith or his counselors in 1947-49 had any knowledge of Elijah Able or other ordained black men. 

 

As to the racial ban being God's will, are you suggesting that God is racist or that he is patient with his leaders or something else?  It's one thing to say that circumstances did not allow God to extend the priesthood to blacks until 1978 (just like he gave a lower law to Israel at Sinai).  It's quite another to say that God himself did not want blacks to have the priesthood until 1978.  That would make him a respecter of persons, IMO. 

 

As to how to proceed, I like this counsel for both leaders and members:  "Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy."

[bluebell]

I'm constantly surprised to learn how much leaders do not know - myself especially.  In the Greg Prince biography of David O McKay it says that McKay did not learn of the racial priesthood ban until he was an apostle.]

It's hard to believe that McKay, in all the leadership positions he must have held before being called as an apostle (bishop, stake president?), did not notice that no black person was ever in the temple or that there were no black men in any of the priesthood quorums he attended.  I wonder why he thought that was so?

 

Edward Kimball's article regarding his father's work in presiding over the 1978 revelation similarly indicates his ignorance of many historical facts that we take for granted in the internet age - facts Kimball only learned through Lester Bush's Dialogue article in 1973.  So I wouldn't be quick to assume that President Smith or his counselors in 1947-49 had any knowledge of Elijah Able or other ordained black men. 

 

 

That could be.

 

As to the racial ban being God's will, are you suggesting that God is racist or that he is patient with his leaders or something else?  It's one thing to say that circumstances did not allow God to extend the priesthood to blacks until 1978 (just like he gave a lower law to Israel at Sinai).  It's quite another to say that God himself did not want blacks to have the priesthood until 1978.  That would make him a respecter of persons, IMO. 

 

I don't believe that God is a racist.  I do believe that He had ultimate power to end the priesthood ban at any time, if it had been His will to do so.  For whatever reason, He allowed it to continue.

 

As to how to proceed, I like this counsel for both leaders and members:  "Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy."

 

 

The best part of that counsel is where it says "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost."  Too many people assume that if they are mad, or if they really believe they are right, then that justifies 'sharpness'.  It doesn't.

[Buckeye]

As to whether or not Nelson made things worse-perhaps.  Like you said, we'll never know.  I'm not convinced yet that the ban wasn't God's will, but I don't believe at all that the reasonings used to justify it was of God.  I don't believe Nelson was in the wrong, not at all.  But I really do believe that God has ultimate control over His church.

 

A few follow-up questions.  Is it fair to say you believe President George Albert Smith was in error in the reasonings he gave for the ban?  He may have believed those reasonings in good faith, but those reasonings were not really God's thoughts?  If this is correct, how does it affect your other belief that "God has ultimate control over His church"?  I see you carving out a space where the ban could be God's will but the reasons for the ban were not.  Why is that dichotomy necessary?  If God can maintain "ultimate control" over the church even though the Prophet teaches incorrect reasonings, why could God not also maintain "ultimate control" over the church if the ban itself was not his will?  In either case, the Prophet is erroneously teaching that something comes from God when it does not.

 

I hope you know I'm not trying to pick on you.  The facts are what they are.  We all struggle with them in own ways. 

[Buckeye]

It's hard to believe that McKay, in all the leadership positions he must have held before being called as an apostle (bishop, stake president?), did not notice that no black person was ever in the temple or that there were no black men in any of the priesthood quorums he attended.  I wonder why he thought that was so?

 

You'll have to read the book.  President McKay grew up in rural Utah.  He didn't know any black members of the church until he started to go on international assignments for the 12.  Only then did he learn of the ban. 

[bluebell]

You'll have to read the book.  President McKay grew up in rural Utah.  He didn't know any black members of the church until he started to go on international assignments for the 12.  Only then did he learn of the ban. 

 

That makes sense.

[Duncan]

That makes sense.

 

 

FYI, Pres. Mckay wasn't ever a Bishop or Stake President or any of that stuff-interestingly enough during his Presidency he called a few others who also didn't have any prior leadership callings i.e Hartman Rector Jr., Paul H. Dunn, Marion D. Hanks, A. Theodore Tuttle and Boyd K. Packer (on the High Council)-Also Bruce McConkie and S. Dilworth Young were called a few years before Pres. McKay took office and they hadn't been in any leadership callings either. All of those brethren were mission presidents after they were called to be a GA- Granted there were others called who did have prior experience, Howard W. Hunter, George Q. Morris etc.

 

I know that Pres. Packer wrote the book about the Temple because he found that some brethren didn't know much about it. Also I know too that a fairly recent emeritus Seventy had to give scripture classes to newly called seventies because they didn't know too much, so just a lot of catch up! Now that I have nerded you out!!! hahahaha!

[bluebell]

A few follow-up questions.  Is it fair to say you believe President George Albert Smith was in error in the reasonings he gave for the ban?  He may have believed those reasonings in good faith, but those reasonings were not really God's thoughts?  If this is correct, how does it affect your other belief that "God has ultimate control over His church"?  I see you carving out a space where the ban could be God's will but the reasons for the ban were not.  Why is that dichotomy necessary?  If God can maintain "ultimate control" over the church even though the Prophet teaches incorrect reasonings, why could God not also maintain "ultimate control" over the church if the ban itself was not his will?  In either case, the Prophet is erroneously teaching that something comes from God when it does not.

 

I hope you know I'm not trying to pick on you.  The facts are what they are.  We all struggle with them in own ways. 

 

It's alright, i don't feel picked on.  

 

My thoughts are, no one forces anything on God, or on His church, and that when God allows something to occur, that means it is His will that it be allowed to occur.  Ultimate control, to me, means that the buck stops with Him.  

 

I don't know that it's possible to believe that Christ truly is the head of this church, while also contending that those under Him sometimes force the church to do things against His will.  If that were true, He wouldn't be the head, would he?

 

Put it this way, as a parent, is there any scenario where you could validly shirk the responsibility for a choice that your child made that was really bad which you knew he was making and did nothing to stop it?  As parents, the buck stops with us, right?  We are responsible for what we allow our children to do, or what we allow to go on in our homes.  There is no legitimate excuse that would allow us to transfer that fault onto our minor children.  

 

If our children are drinking alcohol in our homes and we know it and the police show up, they will rightly hold us responsible because we are in charge-we are the head of our homes.  It doesn't matter how much we didn't want our kids to choose to drink alcohol, if we let them, then we are the ones who will have to answer for that. Justice demands that we be held responsible for what we allowed to happen.

 

That's how i view the church and God's role in it.  I think He lets a lot of mistakes and even sins occur-bad choices made by leaders and members alike-because they serve a purpose and are part of a much much larger picture.  It's not His will that they occur, but His will allows them to, if that makes sense.  And though i don't believe that He's responsible for those sins or mistakes, i think He very much takes responsibility for allowing them because He is the head of the church.  

 

I'm not going to speak in absolutes because i don't want to pretend i know more than i do or am more wise than i am.  (There are few so dumb as those idiots who don't know what they don't know.    )  With that caveat, i'll say that the priesthood ban may not have been God's will, but allowing it to occur and continue as long as it did, could certainly have been.

Edited December 5, 2013 by bluebell

[Johnnie Cake]

If the First Presidency, circa 1947, knew the reasons and the doctrines of the church when they stated  "it has been the doctrine of this church, never questioned by any of the church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitles to the full blessings of the Gospel"  How is it that the First Presidency of the church, circa 2013, has forgotten these reasons?

 

[The Nehor]

If the First Presidency, circa 1947, knew the reasons and the doctrines of the church when they stated  "it has been the doctrine of this church, never questioned by any of the church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitles to the full blessings of the Gospel"  How is it that the First Presidency of the church, circa 2013, has forgotten these reasons?

I guess reading the thread would take too much effort then?

[CV75]

If the First Presidency, circa 1947, knew the reasons and the doctrines of the church when they stated  "it has been the doctrine of this church, never questioned by any of the church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitles to the full blessings of the Gospel"  How is it that the First Presidency of the church, circa 2013, has forgotten these reasons?

There is a big difference between not knowing the reasons for the origin of the practice (inlcuding a lack of records offering clear insight into the origins of the practice) and accepting it as never-questioned doctrine. It is reasonable that any First Presidency prior to 1978 could have held both views simultaneously. Now that we have OD2, there is no reason to accept it as current doctrine.

[jkwilliams]

This goes back to what I was trying to get at in discussing what happens when your conscience conflicts with your priesthood leaders. Nelson "went public" with this disagreement in a 1952 article in "The Nation," which to me speaks to his character. Perhaps the church does eventually get to the right place, but what do we do in the meantime? Do we accept what we believe to be wrong? Do we put it on the shelf? Or do we speak up?

[The Nehor]

This goes back to what I was trying to get at in discussing what happens when your conscience conflicts with your priesthood leaders. Nelson "went public" with this disagreement in a 1952 article in "The Nation," which to me speaks to his character. Perhaps the church does eventually get to the right place, but what do we do in the meantime? Do we accept what we believe to be wrong? Do we put it on the shelf? Or do we speak up?

I would do what the Holy Ghost tells you to do.

[thesometimesaint]

If the First Presidency, circa 1947, knew the reasons and the doctrines of the church when they stated  "it has been the doctrine of this church, never questioned by any of the church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitles to the full blessings of the Gospel"  How is it that the First Presidency of the church, circa 2013, has forgotten these reasons?

 

Except that JS ordained Negroes to the Priesthood, and there never has been an exclusion to Church membership.

[jkwilliams]

I would do what the Holy Ghost tells you to do.

 

That's what I would do, as well, but sometimes that doesn't sit well with leaders.

[jkwilliams]

BTW, I wrote out some thoughts I had on Lowry Nelson, if anyone is interested.

 

http://runtu.wordpress.com/2013/12/04/whom-he-listeth-to-obey-spiritual-confirmation-and-authority/

[Buckeye]

FYI, Pres. Mckay wasn't ever a Bishop or Stake President or any of that stuff-interestingly enough during his Presidency he called a few others who also didn't have any prior leadership callings i.e Hartman Rector Jr., Paul H. Dunn, Marion D. Hanks, A. Theodore Tuttle and Boyd K. Packer (on the High Council)-Also Bruce McConkie and S. Dilworth Young were called a few years before Pres. McKay took office and they hadn't been in any leadership callings either. All of those brethren were mission presidents after they were called to be a GA- Granted there were others called who did have prior experience, Howard W. Hunter, George Q. Morris etc.

 

I know that Pres. Packer wrote the book about the Temple because he found that some brethren didn't know much about it. Also I know too that a fairly recent emeritus Seventy had to give scripture classes to newly called seventies because they didn't know too much, so just a lot of catch up! Now that I have nerded you out!!! hahahaha!

 

This is taking us farther afield, but the McKay bio talks about how McKay was really an unknown when he was called to the Q12.  He came in with two other new apostles right after the disaffection and removal of other apostles who would not give up polygamy.  McKay was chosen, at least in part, because his family was faithful but had never practised polygamy. 

[Buckeye]

Except that JS ordained Negroes to the Priesthood, and there never has been an exclusion to Church membership.

 

Blacks could be members, but without the priesthood they could not receive temple ordinances or be sealed.  It is beyond doubt that, during the ban, they were denied "the full blessings of the Gospel." 

[The Nehor]

That's what I would do, as well, but sometimes that doesn't sit well with leaders.

That sounds like their problem. I do have some sympathy with them condemning people for "following the Holy Ghost" as the term can be a really bad code phrase that means "following my conscience/societal norms" or "liking the attention my adversarial views cause and the martyr complex it breeds" or even "stuff I thought up while spending 20 minutes contemplating the Divine".

I support leaders in condemning things that go against them just as I support people following the promptings of the Holy Ghost in defiance of leaders even though I imagine roughly 100% of the latter are deceived or dishonest about the source of their promptings. On the off chance that I am prompted to defy my Church Leaders i promise not to act all hurt and surprised that they disagree with me.

[Buckeye]

It's alright, i don't feel picked on.  

 

My thoughts are, no one forces anything on God, or on His church, and that when God allows something to occur, that means it is His will that it be allowed to occur.  Ultimate control, to me, means that the buck stops with Him.  

 

I don't know that it's possible to believe that Christ truly is the head of this church, while also contending that those under Him sometimes force the church to do things against His will.  If that were true, He wouldn't be the head, would he?

 

Put it this way, as a parent, is there any scenario where you could validly shirk the responsibility for a choice that your child made that was really bad which you knew he was making and did nothing to stop it?  As parents, the buck stops with us, right?  We are responsible for what we allow our children to do, or what we allow to go on in our homes.  There is no legitimate excuse that would allow us to transfer that fault onto our minor children.  

 

If our children are drinking alcohol in our homes and we know it and the police show up, they will rightly hold us responsible because we are in charge-we are the head of our homes.  It doesn't matter how much we didn't want our kids to choose to drink alcohol, if we let them, then we are the ones who will have to answer for that. Justice demands that we be held responsible for what we allowed to happen.

 

That's how i view the church and God's role in it.  I think He lets a lot of mistakes and even sins occur-bad choices made by leaders and members alike-because they serve a purpose and are part of a much much larger picture.  It's not His will that they occur, but His will allows them to, if that makes sense.  And though i don't believe that He's responsible for those sins or mistakes, i think He very much takes responsibility for allowing them because He is the head of the church.  

 

I'm not going to speak in absolutes because i don't want to pretend i know more than i do or am more wise than i am.  (There are few so dumb as those idiots who don't know what they don't know.    )  With that caveat, i'll say that the priesthood ban may not have been God's will, but allowing it to occur and continue as long as it did, could certainly have been.

 

Very helpful.  Thanks BB.  I'm in agreement.  Another analogy would be a bishop that molests a child under his stewardship.  Unfortunately, that happens sometimes.  Certainly no one would argue that is God's will.  But as you say, he does allow it to happen. 

 

As to the ban (again), it is a historical fact.  So anyone who believes in God and believes God had power to stop the ban from happenning necessarily believes that God "allowed" the ban to happen. 

[mfbukowski]

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.:

 

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

 

Or in the 1947 exchange:

 

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.

My point was that if you take the "science" of earlier times you will find that it is as racist as these statements by church leaders.  Yes the church tends to lag behind the "philosophies of men" because we think we should avoid them for some reason, but catching up is inevitable.  We are all programmed by our times- even the church now uses computers.    The medium is the message, after all.

 

My only point was that what is seen as true changes over time- both in science AND religion.  These earlier statements by church leaders would never be spoken today, just as much as what was seen as science about the "inferiority of the Negro" is not accepted today either.

 

So my point about this alleged discrepancy is that it is a product of the times in which both the church leaders, and the sociologists of their times, lived.

 

So as I see it, this whole thread is saying "times change".   Duh.

 

The church has changed its position- so what's the gripe?  If you had been born in 1700 you would probably be racist too.

 

Have you even heard of the 1950's TV show called Amos n' Andy?   Totally racist by today's standards- but acceptable enough to be on the air then.  Times change. 

Edited December 5, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind.  Came in the middle of a conversation and misunderstood the context.

Edited December 5, 2013 by mfbukowski