What Is The Damage That Gay Marriage Does To Children

[USU78]

Whatever, but I still see this as one potential source of damage that could happen to a kid with same sex parents.

 

Because you accept the knee-jerk, tendential bigotry that is acceptance of the the proposition that bullying of the homosexual or effeminate or other is somehow responsible for the later bad behavior of the person bullied.

 

Utter nonsense.

 

If that kid adopted by a homosexual couple behaves badly, it is not, ultimately, the "fault" of his misguided and narcissistic "parents," but rather his own.

 

That said, if we know, and we do, that the only type of homelife that fosters healthy behavior and good socialization for the child is the nuclear family, then the following obtains:

 

1.  We act in willful disregard of that knowledge when we act in contravention of its dictates and are morally responsible for what ensues; and

2.  We are committing an act of child abuse when we act in contravention of its dictates.

[USU78]

Whatever, but I still see this as one potential source of damage that could happen to a kid with same sex parents.

 

Rather a flip dismissal of personal responsibility, isn't it?

[stemelbow]

Then there is Bruce McConkie saying: "Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.*

 

*  McConkie, "New Revelation on Priesthood," Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 126-137; republication of original address of Bruce R. McConkie, "All Are Alike Unto God," address at CES Religious Educators Symposium, 18 August 1978.

 

You make a valid point, if and only if we believe in the theory of the infallibility of prophets.  As pointed out recently by President Dieter Uchtdorf, 

Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past.  We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church History, along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events, there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.  Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience.  When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn’t make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction.

Sometimes there’s a difference of opinion as to what the facts really mean.  A question that creates doubt in some, can, after careful investigation, build faith in others.

And to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes.  There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

I suppose the Church would only be perfect, if it were run by perfect beings.  God is perfect and his doctrine is pure.  But he works through us, his imperfect children.  And imperfect people make mistakes.*

 

*  Uchtdorf, October 5, 2013, LDS General Conference, Ensign, 43/11 (Nov 2013):22.

Agreed. That is my point, after all.

We ought not treat the leaders as infallible. That's silly. Thus, we oughtn't solely point to statements by leaders as justification for our position.

[JAHS]

Because you accept the knee-jerk, tendential bigotry that is acceptance of the the proposition that bullying of the homosexual or effeminate or other is somehow responsible for the later bad behavior of the person bullied.

 

Utter nonsense.

 

If that kid adopted by a homosexual couple behaves badly, it is not, ultimately, the "fault" of his misguided and narcissistic "parents," but rather his own.

 

That said, if we know, and we do, that the only type of homelife that fosters healthy behavior and good socialization for the child is the nuclear family, then the following obtains:

 

1.  We act in willful disregard of that knowledge when we act in contravention of its dictates and are morally responsible for what ensues; and

2.  We are committing an act of child abuse when we act in contravention of its dictates.

I don't get what you are talking about. I am not talking about the bad behavior of the same sex couple child I am talking about the bad behavior of the kids who might be teasing him because he has same-sex parents. 

 

"Rather a flip dismissal of personal responsibility, isn't it?"

 

Some young kids don't have much idea about personal responsibility, they just react improperly to something they see as odd or different. Not saying it's right but it happens.  I would of course not expect such behavior from adults..

[Robert F. Smith]

With all due respect, if he didn't give a specific source then why are you quoting him?  Without a study to look at and analyze, I have to assume that the data is not accurate.  I didn't look at your third source (I will try when I have more time), but the second one relies heavily on the study Duncan linked to which I looked at very carefully and I can find no correlation to gay marriage at all.  When it comes to studies that make sweeping generalizations about a population, I'm kind of a bulldog.  In my line of work, I spend a lot of time reading and analyzing population studies (which I hate but someone has to do it.)--some are good and some are horrendously awful and border on libel. 

All good points.  Thanks for keeping me honest.

[katherine the great]

All good points. Thanks for keeping me honest.

My pleasure.

[bcuzbcuz]

With all due respect, if he didn't give a specific source then why are you quoting him?  Without a study to look at and analyze, I have to assume that the data is not accurate.  I didn't look at your third source (I will try when I have more time), but the second one relies heavily on the study Duncan linked to which I looked at very carefully and I can find no correlation to gay marriage at all.  When it comes to studies that make sweeping generalizations about a population, I'm kind of a bulldog.  In my line of work, I spend a lot of time reading and analyzing population studies (which I hate but someone has to do it.)--some are good and some are horrendously awful and border on libel.

Good points!

[katherine the great]

Just to clarify I am not making a judgment either way on whether or not children are better off in traditional homes. (Although I guess I am old fashion enough to feel like kids are best off with the mother and father if the home is functional). I just don't like to see statistics misused to push someone's agenda on either side of an issue. And I don't like to see committed homosexual couples villainized.

[Scott Lloyd]

hm...So when that teaching prevailed among the saints, you did not view it as clear direction from the prophets and apostles?

Here's a clear direction from the First Presidency telling us that blacks are cursed by the seed of Cain, that they (black people) were among those in the pre-mortal world who took upon themselves a handicap in order to get to come here because of their poor conduct.

 

 

Well now, 1949 is rather longer ago than 50 years, isn't it?

 

Do you have a sense of what was going on 50 years ago? It was 1964. The Beatles landed in America and appeared on the Ed Sullivan show and at Shea Stadium. The civil rights movement was in full swing as was the Vietnam War.

 

And no, I don't see any clear direction in that statement. I see a casting around in history and conjecture for an explanation for what was not clearly understood, an explanation that had not yet been revealed. Perhaps it was unwise to put such in writing, especially since such thinking has more-or-less officially been repudiated today. But it is what it is.

 

And by 1964, it was not consistently taught or believed among the Latter-day Saints. The only consistency was the belief that the time had not yet come for a change.

 

Again, I have a clear memory of those times; I'm guessing you weren't born yet.

 

By contrast, the clear, consistent and unfailingly unanimous declaration by prophets and apostles over time has been that homosexual behavior is a grave sin, a violation of the law of chastity and something that does violence to the divine concept of the family unit. The direction has been so clear that it won't do to try to compare it to the confusion, uncertainty and changing opinion regarding the matter of blacks and the priesthood in a vain hope that God will one day change His mind and reveal that sexual sin is not sexual sin.

 

Perhaps we have been doing nothing but working with less knowledge and have thus made assumptions, which assumptions have led us to create revelation and doctrine on the matter when none such has come?

 

 

Or perhaps God and His servants have meant what they unequivocally said all along.

 

Not my intention, nor did I try to suggest as much.

 

Implying that people are deceived who follow the direction of prophets and apostles is as much as to deny that any who do so have a spiritual conviction, as do I, that such direction has come through revelation.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

Well, they are raised accepting sin as ok.  That's pretty harmful.

 

 

Sin as defined by the religous paradigm you think is true.....

 

Scott above claims prophets and apostles have so proclaimed such behavior as sin.  That is his opinion and world view as it is yours.

 

You and he may be right. But you may be wrong as well.

 

What right do you have to impose your world view on the rest of society?

Edited September 22, 2014 by Teancum

[USU78]

Sin as defined by the religous parqdigm you think is true.....

 

Do you deny the religious person the right to argue on public policy issues from his conscience?

[Teancum]

Do you deny the religious person the right to argue on public policy issues from his conscience?

 

 

Absolutly note!  Argue all you want.

 

Do you want to impose your religous views on all of society?

[california boy]

Well now, 1949 is rather longer ago than 50 years, isn't it?

 

Do you have a sense of what was going on 50 years ago? It was 1964. The Beatles landed in America and appeared on the Ed Sullivan show and at Shea Stadium. The civil rights movement was in full swing as was the Vietnam War.

 

And no, I don't see any clear direction in that statement. I see a casting around in history and conjecture for an explanation for what was not clearly understood, an explanation that had not yet been revealed. Perhaps it was unwise to put such in writing, especially since such thinking has more-or-less officially been repudiated today. But it is what it is.

 

And by 1964, it was not consistently taught or believed among the Latter-day Saints. The only consistency was the belief that the time had not yet come for a change.

 

Again, I have a clear memory of those times; I'm guessing you weren't born yet.

 

By contrast, the clear, consistent, unanimous declaration by prophets and apostles over time has been that homosexual behavior is a grave sin, a violation of the law of chastity and something that does violence to the divine concept of the family unit. The direction has been so clear that it won't do to try to compare it to the confusion, uncertainty and changing opinion regarding the matter of blacks and the priesthood in a vain hope that God will one day change His mind and reveal that sexual sin is not sexual sin.

 

Or perhaps God and His servants have meant what they unequivocally said all along.

 

Implying that people are deceived who follow the direction of prophets and apostles is as much as to deny that any who do so have a spiritual conviction, as do I, that such direction has come through revelation.

 

I don't have any idea where you grew up, but certainly in Northern California, this doctrine that blacks were less valiant in the spirit world and therefore were cursed with the mark of Cain was commonly taught as the explanation of why blacks could not hold the priesthood.  What was also taught was a reiteration of Brigham Young's revelation on this matter where he clearly stated that blacks would not hold the priesthood until every other son of Adam received that opportunity. That part of Brigham Young's revelation started to change to "sometime in the near future" in the 70's.  That was always problematic for me as well since it was NOT what the doctrine that Brigham Young taught said.  And no one said where that change in doctrine originated from.  

 

Like many other "doctrines" that were taught in the past, quite a bit of revisionary selective memory has taken place.  When members do this, for me, it feels like a continuation of the church not being totally honest about it's history and teachings.  I personally find it offensive and dishonest when members pretend that certain things "really weren't doctrine" when at least I clearly remember them being taught as such.  It seems like the honest thing is to own up to what was official doctrine issued by the First Presidency.  I am not saying you are being untruthful, but certainly you CAN NOT make a blanket statement that the church as a whole did not teach this doctrine.  That is the dishonesty for me at least.

 

 

Since your memory seems to be a bit fuzzy on this issue, do you remember an official letter coming from the first presidency repudiating this doctrine that blacks were less valid in the spirit world?  Do you have anything official that supports your claim?  It would certainly go a long way to convince me and  others that this was not doctrine at some later date.  As far as I am aware, this doctrine did not change until the recent posting on Mormon.org disavowing the doctrine all together.

[JLHPROF]

Sin as defined by the religous paradigm you think is true.....

 

Scott above claims prophets and apostles have so proclaimed such behavior as sin.  That is his opinion and world view as it is yours.

 

You and he may be right. But you may be wrong as well.

 

What right do you have to impose your world view on the rest of society?

 

Because when it comes to society all we have to shape it against are the moral views of its citizens.  The "religious paradigm" as you put it shapes my moral views, therefore I work to forward my moral viewpoint.

Other people as you point out have moral viewpoints as well.  That is why we have different political parties, different sociological groups and different opinions.

 

But when society seeks to force me to change my moral views to match the most popular of the moment I have every right to fight back.  And since this board is a religious board, designed to discuss Mormon doctrine, I have every right to stand and say that I believe in my moral view and my Church's right to maintain it, regardless of what society thinks.

 

See, without the "relgious paradigm" right and wrong are only societal norms, and are basically meaningless.

[Teancum]

Because when it comes to society all we have to shape it against are the moral views of its citizens.  The "religious paradigm" as you put it shapes my moral views, therefore I work to forward my moral viewpoint.

Other people as you point out have moral viewpoints as well.  That is why we have different political parties, different sociological groups and different opinions.

 

But when society seeks to force me to change my moral views to match the most popular of the moment I have every right to fight back.  And since this board is a religious board, designed to discuss Mormon doctrine, I have every right to stand and say that I believe in my moral view and my Church's right to maintain it, regardless of what society thinks.

 

See, without the "relgious paradigm" right and wrong are only societal norms, and are basically meaningless.

 

 

Good thoughts!  Thanks for sharing.

[USU78]

Well now, 1949 is rather longer ago than 50 years, isn't it?

 

Do you have a sense of what was going on 50 years ago? It was 1964. The Beatles landed in America and appeared on the Ed Sullivan show and at Shea Stadium. The civil rights movement was in full swing as was the Vietnam War.

 

And no, I don't see any clear direction in that statement. I see a casting around in history and conjecture for an explanation for what was not clearly understood, an explanation that had not yet been revealed. Perhaps it was unwise to put such in writing, especially since such thinking has more-or-less officially been repudiated today. But it is what it is.

 

And by 1964, it was not consistently taught or believed among the Latter-day Saints. The only consistency was the belief that the time had not yet come for a change.

 

Again, I have a clear memory of those times; I'm guessing you weren't born yet.

 

By contrast, the clear, consistent and unfailingly unanimous declaration by prophets and apostles over time has been that homosexual behavior is a grave sin, a violation of the law of chastity and something that does violence to the divine concept of the family unit. The direction has been so clear that it won't do to try to compare it to the confusion, uncertainty and changing opinion regarding the matter of blacks and the priesthood in a vain hope that God will one day change His mind and reveal that sexual sin is not sexual sin.

 

Or perhaps God and His servants have meant what they unequivocally said all along.

 

Implying that people are deceived who follow the direction of prophets and apostles is as much as to deny that any who do so have a spiritual conviction, as do I, that such direction has come through revelation.

 

I was born 5 years later and my memories are equally clear and my experience quite the same.

 

Critics who keep hearing from people who were actually there at the time that their criticisms are inapplicable on the ground have some 'splainin' to do.

[Scott Lloyd]

Since your memory seems to be a bit fuzzy on this issue, ...

Why is it my memory that's fuzzy on this issue and not yours?

 

Exactly how old were you in 1964?

 

And I grew up somewhat closer to church headquarters -- roughly 15 miles away -- than you.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

Absolutly note!  Argue all you want.

 

Do you want to impose your religous views on all of society?

 

Yes.  Just as the irreligious socialist desires to impose his irreligious socialist views on all of society.

[Rock_N_Roll]

I don't have any idea where you grew up, but certainly in Northern California, this doctrine that blacks were less valiant in the spirit world and therefore were cursed with the mark of Cain was commonly taught as the explanation of why blacks could not hold the priesthood.  What was also taught was a reiteration of Brigham Young's revelation on this matter where he clearly stated that blacks would not hold the priesthood until every other son of Adam received that opportunity. That part of Brigham Young's revelation started to change to "sometime in the near future" in the 70's.  That was always problematic for me as well since it was NOT what the doctrine that Brigham Young taught said.  And no one said where that change in doctrine originated from.  

I grew up in the 60's and 70's, in Utah, and this is what was most commonly taught where I was, as well. 

[Jeanne]

This info in the doctrine with Cain/BY is exactly what was taught to me over and over again by two different generations.

I am baffled at how the essay and all this has changed so drastically.  My loving little white gramma is rolling her grave!

[Scott Lloyd]

My recollection of what was generally believed and taught 50 years ago is reflected in this First Presidency statement, given in 1969 (emphasis mine):

 

December 15, 1969

To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.

Dear Brethren:

In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.

First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by “wise men” whom God raised up for this “very purpose,” and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended “for the rights and protection” of all mankind.

In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is “not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.” These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church’s deep and historic concern with man’s free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.

It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.

However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.

This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to [p.223] join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.

A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.

We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our [p.224] chosen form of religion just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of Constitutional right.

We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.

We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in His wisdom and in His tender mercy.

Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the out-reachings of our divine souls.

Faithfully your brethren,

The First Presidency

By Hugh B. Brown

N. Eldon Tanner

Edited September 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

This info in the doctrine with Cain/BY is exactly what was taught to me over and over again by two different generations.

I am baffled at how the essay and all this has changed so drastically.  My loving little white gramma is rolling her grave!

 

I think you judge her poorly.

[USU78]

 

My recollection of what was generally believed and taught 50 years ago is reflected in this First Presidency statement, given in 1969 (emphasis mine):

 

December 15, 1969

To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.

Dear Brethren:

In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.

First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by “wise men” whom God raised up for this “very purpose,” and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended “for the rights and protection” of all mankind.

In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is “not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.” These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church’s deep and historic concern with man’s free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.

It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.

However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.

This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to [p.223] join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.

A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.

We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our [p.224] chosen form of religion just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of Constitutional right.

We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.

We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in His wisdom and in His tender mercy.

Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the out-reachings of our divine souls.

Faithfully your brethren,

The First Presidency

By Hugh B. Brown

N. Eldon Tanner

 

 

This was what I heard before I ever bothered to read Mormon Doctrine (just prior to my mission in 1973).

 

And it was what I heard being taught and believed prior to '69.

 

Those who brought up the old stuff were considered cranks.  It did come up, but to mucho eyerolling.

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't have any idea where you grew up, but certainly in Northern California, this doctrine that blacks were less valiant in the spirit world and therefore were cursed with the mark of Cain was commonly taught as the explanation of why blacks could not hold the priesthood.  What was also taught was a reiteration of Brigham Young's revelation on this matter where he clearly stated that blacks would not hold the priesthood until every other son of Adam received that opportunity. That part of Brigham Young's revelation started to change to "sometime in the near future" in the 70's.  That was always problematic for me as well since it was NOT what the doctrine that Brigham Young taught said.  And no one said where that change in doctrine originated from.

Brigham's "revelation," and "change in doctrine," huh, California.

 

I had a roommate back in the early 60s who bought a copy of a Modern Microfilm (Jerald & Sandra Tanner) expose on Brigham's "revelations" on Black people and the priesthood.  He was an ardent racist, and he wanted to convince a girlfriend that his position was in line with "official" LDS doctrine.   So he ripped out the part telling who published it, and gave the rest to her.  I don't know how she reacted, but I always knew that it was racism plain and simple and that it was not official doctrine.  How did I know that?

 

I think that the light of Christ I was born with, and the gift of the Holy Ghost I rec'd at baptism helped me see through the racist folklore.  Plus, no one in my extended family had even a smidgin of racism.  Indeed, my Smith ancestors had been Abolitionists who worked the Underground Railroad, and who fought in the Union Army during the Civil War.  Near as I could tell, Joseph Smith was the opposite of a racist, and he and some of his colleagues ordained Black people to the priesthood.  The doctrine was clear to me, even if not to every Mormon -- for obvious socio-cultural reasons.  A great many Mormons discussed the matter intensively through the 60s and 70s, and the late Chase Peterson was not the only Mormon of high standing to suggest to Pres. Spencer Kimball that a change was needed (Pres. Kimball wrote a very nice reply to Peterson, and shortly thereafter the change came).

 

Like many other "doctrines" that were taught in the past, quite a bit of revisionary selective memory has taken place.  When members do this, for me, it feels like a continuation of the church not being totally honest about it's history and teachings. I personally find it offensive and dishonest when members pretend that certain things "really weren't doctrine" when at least I clearly remember them being taught as such.  It seems like the honest thing is to own up to what was official doctrine issued by the First Presidency.  I am not saying you are being untruthful, but certainly you CAN NOT make a blanket statement that the church as a whole did not teach this doctrine.  That is the dishonesty for me at least.

 

 

Since your memory seems to be a bit fuzzy on this issue, do you remember an official letter coming from the first presidency repudiating this doctrine that blacks were less valid in the spirit world?  Do you have anything official that supports your claim?  It would certainly go a long way to convince me and  others that this was not doctrine at some later date.  As far as I am aware, this doctrine did not change until the recent posting on Mormon.org disavowing the doctrine all together.

I thought it very "offensive and dishonest" of the many Mormons who shared in and believed in the old racist folklore.  Sure they believed it to be doctrinal, and they could point to support from an unofficial book by a great LDS canon lawyer -- which had to be disavowed several times by higher ups.  Yet nowhere in LDS history was there a formal revelation denying priesthood to Black people, and the Mormon people never gave common consent to such a notion (it is not in the D&C or elsewhere in Scripture).

 

Pres. George Albert Smith clearly had strong beliefs on this matter.  Yet his first counselor, David O. McKay, searched carefully and could find no doctrinal support for the policy.  That's right, President McKay knew it was a policy, and it vexed him.  Yet the Lord did not speak to him on the matter.  Perhaps the membership was not yet ready.  1978 came so slowly, but was so welcome!!  That was a revelation.  That is official doctrine.

[california boy]

Why is it my memory that's fuzzy on this issue and not yours?

 

Exactly how old were you in 1964?

 

And I grew up somewhat closer to church headquarters -- roughly 15 miles away -- than you.

 

I was 14 in 1964

 

And you still did not produce any statement by the first presidency changing the doctrine that was established by Brigham Young and confirmed in the first presidency letter of 1949 concerning "the Negro" being cursed decendants of Cain because of the lack of valor in the pre-existence.  So one has to wonder why those in your area took it upon themselves to stop teaching this doctrine.  Do you have any ideas why?