stemelbow Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) SOmetimes people are ahead of their time. Such seems to be the case of Lowry Nelson. In 1947 he received a letter from a former friend of his, Heber Meeks, who was a Mission President. Heber Meeks was reaching out because he was interested in missionary opportunities in Cuba. In addressing Dr. Lowry he says: I would appreciate your opinion as to the advisability of doing missionary work particularly in the rural sections of Cuba, knowing, of course, our concept of the Negro and his position as to the Priesthood. In light of that request he added his concerns regarding Negro blood found among the peoples of Cuba, implying, it seems, that if missionary work, he'd want to leave out anyone of African descent. In responding Nelson suggests, The attitude of the Church in regard to the Negro makes me very sad...I do not believe that God is a racist. and concludes: For us to go into a situation like that and preach a doctrine of "white supremacy" would, it seems to me, be a tragic disservice....To teach them the pernicious doctrine of segregation and inequalities among races where it does not exist, or to lend religious sanction to it where it has raised its ugly head would, it seems to me, be tragic. It seems to me we just fought a war over such ideas...I repeat, my frankness or bluntness, as you will, is born of a fervent desire to see the causes of war rooted out of the hearts of men. What limited study I have been able to give the subject leads me to the conclusion that ethnocentrism, and the smugness and intolerance which accompany it, is one of the first evils to be attacked if we are to achieve the goal of peace. This just after WWII ended. Just a great response all around, I'd say. After having responded, and obviously feeling trouble, Nelson, takes his concerns to the First Presidency, in letter. Seeking clarification as to whether the racist doctrine of the Church was "crystallized" he says, ...there is no doubt in my mind that our Church could perform a great service in Cuba, particularly in the rural areas, but it would be far better that we not go in at all, than to go in and promote racial distinction. The letter signed by the First Presidency that came in response is very disappointing to most people today, I'd think. It speaks of the "superior position" of whites. It condemns interracial marriage as being "most repugnant to most normal-minded people". As the First Presidency's point seems obvious mistaken from my perspective so it seemed from Lowry's perspective--back in 1947. In my mind, what a heroic position he held. Interest that today, most LDS, as it seems to me, would agree with Dr Nelson in every respect on this issue, and most would eschew the teachings of the First Presidency. it makes ya wonder, how many teachings of today will be revealed as completely wrong in years down the road? And how many members today are seen as ones who are influenced by "the reasonings of men" as Dr. Nelson was, and have been "led off rom the principles of the Gospel by worldly learning" by leaders but are actually in the right, while the leaders are wrong? This question arises out of the notion that is going around here, that average members have no right to point out error. Edited to add this link: http://mormonstories.org/other/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange.pdf Edited June 10, 2015 by stemelbow 4
ksfisher Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 So what is the solution? You seem to be implying that the "average member" knows the mind and will of God more than prophets and apostles do. If that is the case then God would seem to be adding to the whole problem by calling prophets and apostles in the first place.
HappyJackWagon Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 I love the example of Lowry Nelson. He was a scholar and a gentleman in his interactions with the First Presidency. I think history has proved him right. ** My 1000th post! Booyah! 4
stemelbow Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 So what is the solution? You seem to be implying that the "average member" knows the mind and will of God more than prophets and apostles do. If that is the case then God would seem to be adding to the whole problem by calling prophets and apostles in the first place. My intent is not to say average members know the mind and will of God more than prophets and apostles. it is to give an example of where an avg member can be right about something while prophets and apostles are wrong. the flip is also true and possible--prophets and apostles are right about something and avg members are not. In terms of where do we go? We go to discussion on topics. We go to prayer, and fasting. We seek resolution, essentially.
stemelbow Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 I love the example of Lowry Nelson. He was a scholar and a gentleman in his interactions with the First Presidency. I think history has proved him right. ** My 1000th post! Booyah! My thousandth post didn't hit until 2015, I believe--8 years after I signed on. Of course since then I've done nothing but added a couple more thousand. Congrats. Your posts are worth it. Maybe 1000 of the best posts out there, if you ask me. 1
Duncan Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 I think the experience of Lorenzo Snow can help. Correct me if I am wrong but he came up with that couplet "God is as something something something" but he kept it to himself until such time, if ever, it was revealed to the presiding authority. 1
Buckeye Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 I have lots of respect for Dr. Lowry, but I'm not sure it's accurate to describe his as "average" for his time. Perhaps for us today, but the average member in 1947 probably thought much more like the first presidency than Dr. Lowry. I have wondered whether the good doctors' correspondence are what prompted the first presidency to formally declare that the ban and its justifications were doctrine.
thesometimesaint Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Been done.SEEMcConkie's earlier statements on the topic, like those of other church leaders, implied or overtly stated that the priesthood restriction would never be lifted. McConkie addressed this by stating that his earlier statements should not be relied upon and that those who asked about them needed to "forget" what he had said: "There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, 'You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?' All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past 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 "It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles."[5] 2
stemelbow Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) I think the experience of Lorenzo Snow can help. Correct me if I am wrong but he came up with that couplet "God is as something something something" but he kept it to himself until such time, if ever, it was revealed to the presiding authority. He kept it quiet? I thought he told JS' dad the couplet and the ideas went from Joseph's dad to Joseph himself which helped frame Joseph's theories in the Nauvoo period? Edited June 10, 2015 by stemelbow
Buckeye Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 I think the experience of Lorenzo Snow can help. Correct me if I am wrong but he came up with that couplet "God is as something something something" but he kept it to himself until such time, if ever, it was revealed to the presiding authority. There's considerable debate as to whether LDS doctrine actually embraces the Snow Couplet. Not so much the deification elements - that's generally accepted. But the notion that God was once as we are is doubted by some, including by President Hinckly in his 60 minute interview. So query whether President Snow should have kept his couplet private to this day.
stemelbow Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 I have lots of respect for Dr. Lowry, but I'm not sure it's accurate to describe his as "average" for his time. Perhaps for us today, but the average member in 1947 probably thought much more like the first presidency than Dr. Lowry. I have wondered whether the good doctors' correspondence are what prompted the first presidency to formally declare that the ban and its justifications were doctrine. By average I did not mean one who is like all the rest. By average I mean one who does not hold a position of authority for the Church.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Was Nelson ahead of his time, or was he inappropriately trying to rush things and counsel the Lord, as it were, before the Lord saw fit to make a change? Just askin'. 3
stemelbow Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 Was Nelson ahead of his time, or was he inappropriately trying to rush things and counsel the Lord, as it were, before the Lord saw fit to make a change? Just askin'. Interesting question. It's almost unanswerable. But since we seem to all side with Lowry now, its hard to imagine that the Lord sanctioned erroneous doctrine and practice. It could also be that the Lord never endorsed the racism from the start, but men tried to attribute it to Him.
Zakuska Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) Interesting question.It's almost unanswerable. But since we seem to all side with Lowry now, its hard to imagine that the Lord sanctioned erroneous doctrine and practice.It could also be that the Lord never endorsed the racism from the start, but men tried to attribute it to Him. It wouldn't be the first time the Lord went along with erroneous doctrine and practice. Several examples of this in the OT. The Lord let the practice be and later changed it. Edited June 10, 2015 by Zakuska
stemelbow Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 It wouldn't be the first time the Lord went along with erroneous doctrine and practice. Several examples of this in the OT. The Lord let the practice be and later changed it. Letting be does not mean he went along with it. Going along with it, implies endorsement. Letting it happen gets far more into freedom, giving us some principles and letting us figure it out--type of stuff.
Zakuska Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Letting be does not mean he went along with it. Going along with it, implies endorsement. Letting it happen gets far more into freedom, giving us some principles and letting us figure it out--type of stuff.Pretty narrow definition of "endorsement" some times he goes along with it or even endorses it because Israel needs to learn a lesson the hard way. Because its the only way Israel will learn.
stemelbow Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 Pretty narrow definition of "endorsement" some times he goes along with it or even endorses it because Israel needs to learn a lesson the hard way. Because its the only way Israel will learn. That seems to be an assumption, though. Maybe He never has gone along with it at all, but would rather Israel not be doing what they are doing. Priesthood ban brings up an interesting example of that, as Scott's question uncovers. Did He go along with it? Or Did He find it offensive, wished it never was, but as a principle, taught principles and let the chips fall where they may?
Scott Lloyd Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) Interesting question.It's almost unanswerable. But since we seem to all side with Lowry now, its hard to imagine that the Lord sanctioned erroneous doctrine and practice.It could also be that the Lord never endorsed the racism from the start, but men tried to attribute it to Him.What makes you think we all side with him? I am as happy as anyone for the 1978 revelation. That doesn't mean I think he was ahead of his time. Nor does it mean I believe the Brethren were wrong to leave the restriction in place during the time that they did or that they were behaving contrary to the will of God. I believe there is still much about this matter we don't know and may not know for a long time. It won't do to make assumptions. That's what led folks into error in the past. Edited June 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
stemelbow Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 What makes you think we all side with him? I am as happy as anyone for the 1978 revelation. That doesn't mean I think he was ahead of his time. Nor does it mean I believe the Brethren were wrong to leave the restriction in place during the time that they did. it's interesting that the First Presidency in explaining what they perceived as Nelson's error appealed to Gospel knowledge and "fundamentals of God's dealings with Israel" as a basis in justifying white supremacy. I think even you would side with Brother Nelson on this and find yourself poised against the First Presidency, no? You might feel justified in thinking the race ban was God's plan, but to think God also supported racism is to disagree with today's Church when it claims that racism is not God's ways and never was. Or what's your take? 1
HappyJackWagon Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 I find it incredibly disheartening to hear people continue to justify the ban and racist teachings as God's will. Frankly, it disgusts me. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 I find it incredibly disheartening to hear people continue to justify the ban and racist teachings as God's will. Frankly, it disgusts me.It disgusts me to see wrongdoing unfairly imputed to the anointed servants of God. 2
stemelbow Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 It disgusts me to see wrongdoing unfairly imputed to the anointed servants of God. Well doing so unfairly would probably disturb anyone. But in this case, the wrongdoing--preaching racist doctrine--was what the First Presidency did. It's too bad. But it happened. We might just need to realize they aren't perfect and not pretend that any wrongdoing of the past never happened. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) it's interesting that the First Presidency in explaining what they perceived as Nelson's error appealed to Gospel knowledge and "fundamentals of God's dealings with Israel" as a basis in justifying white supremacy. I think even you would side with Brother Nelson on this and find yourself poised against the First Presidency, no?You might feel justified in thinking the race ban was God's plan, but to think God also supported racism is to disagree with today's Church when it claims that racism is not God's ways and never was. Or what's your take?To my knowledge, the Church has never declared that racism on the part of Church leaders was the reason for the restriction; absent such a declaration, I don't feel bound to accept your assumption. Edited June 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 2
bcuzbcuz Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 What makes you think we all side with him? I am as happy as anyone for the 1978 revelation. That doesn't mean I think he was ahead of his time. Nor does it mean I believe the Brethren were wrong to leave the restriction in place during the time that they did or that they were behaving contrary to the will of God. I believe there is still much about this matter we don't know and may not know for a long time. It won't do to make assumptions. That's what led folks into error in the past.So you want it both ways. The brethren were right in 1947 and they were right in 1978. Different brethren, different realities=both right? I don´t see it. The brethren in 1947 were wrong. Deal with it. 2
stemelbow Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 To my knowledge, the Church has never declared that racism on the part of Church leaders was the reason for the restriction; absent such a declaration, I don't feel bound to accept your assumption. Ok. I'd probably have to conclude that you have a screwy idea of what is racism, so I'll just leave it be.
Recommended Posts