thatjimguy Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 (edited) Nowadays, we all know there are Mormons who fight against church leadership about numerous issues. Where there members who fought with as much boldness because of the Priesthood ban, back before the internet was really around or any current form of social media? If so, what was their result? Edited December 26, 2015 by thatjimguy
consiglieri Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 I believe that there were. And the result was excommunication. A member could be excommunicated in May of 1978 for believing the Church was wrong about the priesthood ban. And a member could be excommunicated in July of 1978 for believing the Church was wrong about lifting the priesthood ban. It is not about what you believe. It is about when you believe it. Go figure.
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 Yes. I don't like the rhetoric of characterizing such things as "fighting", but there was definitely disagreement that had (imho, anyway) a direct result on the policy change. President Kimball's son Edward wrote a good history.
consiglieri Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 Lester Bush wrote an article titled "Mormonism's Negro Doctrine" which was published in the spring 1973 edition of Dialogue. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V08N01_13.pdf It is believed the research Lester Bush did here may have contributed to President Kimball lifting the ban 5-years later, as a copy of this article was found among his papers which President Kimball had apparently read thoroughly and marked and annotated. Lester Bush, however, was made somewhat of a pariah in the LDS Church as a result of its publication. 2
sunstoned Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 From my understanding, there members who protested the priesthood restriction during the 1970's. Douglas Wallace and Byron Merchant are two who come to mind. Doug Wallace went so far as to ordain a black man to the priesthood. Of course he was not authorized by the church and I think he was excommunicated for doing so.
The Nehor Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: I believe that there were. And the result was excommunication. A member could be excommunicated in May of 1978 for believing the Church was wrong about the priesthood ban. And a member could be excommunicated in July of 1978 for believing the Church was wrong about lifting the priesthood ban. It is not about what you believe. It is about when you believe it. Go figure. Is this really that odd? Nephites were rebuked for trying to abandon the Law of Moses while Jesus was alive and repented and started to keep it again. Then when Jesus appeared he rescinded it. These kinds of changing rules are how it has always been. wat Edited December 26, 2015 by The Nehor 3
Sleeper Cell Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: I believe that there were. And the result was excommunication. A member could be excommunicated in May of 1978 for believing the Church was wrong about the priesthood ban. And a member could be excommunicated in July of 1978 for believing the Church was wrong about lifting the priesthood ban. It is not about what you believe. It is about when you believe it. Go figure. Yet the only example you cite is that of an individual who was not excommunicated for publishing an article critical of the doctrine. He was merely made “made somewhat of a pariah” -- something I have personally experienced more than once (no doubt with greater justification). Lester Bush wrote an article titled "Mormonism's Negro Doctrine" which was published in the spring 1973 edition of Dialogue. ... It is believed the research Lester Bush did here may have contributed to President Kimball lifting the ban 5-years later, as a copy of this article was found among his papers which President Kimball had apparently read thoroughly and marked and annotated. Lester Bush, however, was made somewhat of a pariah in the LDS Church as a result of its publication The only example I recall is that of an individual (I believe his last name was “Wallace”) who performed an unauthorized ordination (having failed to be excommunicated for publicly expressing his disbelief by voting “opposed” at general conference and telling the news media that the reason was his disbelief in this doctrine). Might I suggest that it is not about what you believe but how you express it? 3
consiglieri Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 Belief without expression is meaningless.
Sleeper Cell Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: Belief without expression is meaningless. So is a response to a straw man. I gave an example of someone who expressed his dissenting beliefs in a very public manner, yet was not excommunicated. You, yourself, gave another example of an individual who published an article expressing his dissenting beliefs without being excommunicated. If memory serves, the individual in my example was eventually excommunicated. for his subsequent behavior -- namely performing an unauthorized ordination. Hence, my suggestion that it is not about what you believe but how you express it. To return to the question raised in the OP, can you name one example of someone being excommunicated merely for expressing a dissenting belief on the priesthood ban? 4
Robert F. Smith Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 3 hours ago, thatjimguy said: Nowadays, we all know there are Mormons who fight against church leadership about numerous issues. Where there members who fought with as much boldness because of the Priesthood ban, back before the internet was really around or any current form of social media? If so, what was their result? Yes, Jim, and the most noteworthy opponent was Orson Pratt. Bro Brigham punished him for that and other disagreements on doctrine by sending him on long missions, and by taking away Orson's seniority on the Council of Twelve. The late Jerald Tanner got his start in anti-Mormonism in the late 50s by vociferously opposing the priesthood ban, and then branched out into more generic anti-Mormonism. Jerald reprinted racist statements by early Church leaders -- back in the 1960s I had a roommate who removed the covers from such a reprint, and used the copy to show a young Mormon woman that racism was doctrinal. Pres David O. McKay recognized that the ban was policy and not doctrine, but could not get all the apostles to go along with simply ending it without a revelation. McKay wanted to begin proselyting in Black Africa, but he was stymied.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 3 hours ago, consiglieri said: Lester Bush wrote an article titled "Mormonism's Negro Doctrine" which was published in the spring 1973 edition of Dialogue. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V08N01_13.pdf It is believed the research Lester Bush did here may have contributed to President Kimball lifting the ban 5-years later, as a copy of this article was found among his papers which President Kimball had apparently read thoroughly and marked and annotated. Lester Bush, however, was made somewhat of a pariah in the LDS Church as a result of its publication. Hugh Nibley and others also published articles on the African American quandary in that issue of Dialogue. Bush was not alone in his thinking, and was highly regarded by the intellectual Mormon elite (including some members of my own family). There is no doubt that a number of publications and influences brought the matter to a head in 1978 -- including the pending opening of a temple in Brazil, where racial mixing presented an immediate problem as to who could go to the temple (Apostle LeGrand Richards emphasized that issue as key, and Jan Shipps has likewise made it a historical fulcrum). 3
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 I'm the biggest Nibleyphile on the planet, but if you're referring to his article The Best Possible Test, I gotta say that's one of the few places where I was really disappointed in some of his views. He did his best, and makes some good points, but he also downplays Priesthood, includes the Curse of Cain stuff, claims the policy came by revelation(!!!), etc. Good old Nibs transcended his environment in so many ways, but this is one of the few places where I think it got him; his anti-semitic attitudes in early life (despite his own Jewish ancestry!) which he later came to deeply regret and grieve over seem comparable. He did much better in his later articles and life. 3
CA Steve Posted December 26, 2015 Posted December 26, 2015 How about Lowry Nelson? Lowry Nelson & the 1st Presidency 1947
The Nehor Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 4 hours ago, consiglieri said: Belief without expression is meaningless. I believe that wolves exist though they have had in essence no impact on my life as I have never lived near them. I do not think I have made a single decision in my life based on that belief. Does that make my belief meaningless?
Cold Steel Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 4 hours ago, consiglieri said: A member could be excommunicated in May of 1978 for believing the Church was wrong about the priesthood ban. Not true. You can believe as you wish; but you can't (and shouldn't) say the brethren are wrong and openly criticize them. That's why a person's excommunicated, and there's no stand a person can take in life that's worth being cut off for, in my view. Taking the position that one will somehow be mitigated or even rewarded in the day of judgment for opposing the servants of God and taking the right position on something just never happens. And whatever happens in the church, it never escapes the attention of the Almighty. There were things Hugh Nibley didn't agree with in the church (and the priesthood ban was one of them), but he never challenged the brethren or criticized them. 4 hours ago, consiglieri said: It is believed the research Lester Bush did here may have contributed to President Kimball lifting the ban 5-years later, as a copy of this article was found among his papers which President Kimball had apparently read thoroughly and marked and annotated. President Kimball read everything pertaining to the priesthood ban that he could get ahold of and he studied it carefully. He and other church leaders apparently felt it was something that couldn't be reversed without a bona fide revelation. Prince and Wright report in their book on President McKay, "Sometime between 1968 and his death in 1970 [McKay] confided his prayerful attempts to church architect, Richard Jackson, 'I’ve inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone.'" (Peter A. Prince and Richard Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, 104.) If true, this adds a revelatory aspect to the policy, but why? Why seek out the Lord to change something that's just a policy? And apparently the Lord didn't even want to discuss it. I can understand why President McKay didn't feel free to change it, though. 3 hours ago, sunstoned said: Doug Wallace went so far as to ordain a black man to the priesthood. Of course he was not authorized by the church and I think he was excommunicated for doing so. Yeah, I remember that. Of course the ordination didn't mean anything other than to make a statement because the president of the church is the one who holds the keys of priesthood authority. As any missionary can tell you, you can't just go out and baptize someone without having records and approvals, for out of these books will we be judged. In the same way, you can't just ordain a woman if you disagree with church policy. 1
Jude2 Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 When the announcement was made there was a group in one of the small towns in Utah that had a fit, I won't point fingers because I don't know them personally but my son has had contact with them. They started holding their own School of the Prophets and storing an arsenal. A number of them got exed.
3DOP Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 Cold Steel Taking the position that one will somehow be mitigated or even rewarded in the day of judgment for opposing the servants of God and taking the right position on something just never happens. 3DOP "But when Cephas (Peter the Apostle, the Rock) was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal. 2:11) It seems like St. Paul was advocating the "right position" over the servant of God. I don't deny the authority of Peter, nor of the opposition to his error. There doesn't seem to be any Scriptural censure of Paul for "taking the right position" against the Rock. Please help me. CFR? Where has anyone even condemned Paul historically for publicly opposing the leader of the Church when he behaved inconsistently with the doctrine of the Church? This is an important question not just for Mormons. For now at least, I hold that we who believe the New Testament can acknowledge and even reverence the office that leads the Church which we believe was founded by Christ and His Apostles, while if necessary, denying novel teachings or inconsistent behaviours of the office holder. In my case, this is the bishop of Rome. God willing, as much as I have disagreed with the apparent beliefs of Pope Francis I, I have reason to hope that this next summer I may enjoy the great privilege of being in attendance at a Papal Mass in Rome presided over by a successor of St. Peter. He may proclaim his beliefs whether they are orthodox or not. Mine will stay with myself (when I am at his Mass! I reserve the right to express myself here. Heh). I really hope it may happen. God bless Pope Francis I. 3DOP 2
3DOP Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 (edited) For the record, to keep my last post in the context of the thread, if I were LDS, I would firmly hold that the Church waited for revelation and it came in 1978. I couldn't at any point in my almost 60 years want to be a part of a continuation of "saints" who held to a popular bigotry against people of a particular skin color. It seems that according to many LDS today, the first hundred and fifty years of Restored Gospel was characterised by racial prejudice! Twenty-five years ago, I saw Mormonism as a viable option for the one true church. Sorry, but If I thought the priesthood ban was because of racial prejudice, hatred, as many modern LDS seem to think, I would be anything else than LDS. Edited December 28, 2015 by 3DOP chronology not right. Twenty-five years...not fifteen
Tacenda Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 (edited) 3 hours ago, 3DOP said: For the record, to keep my last post in the context of the thread, if I were LDS, I would firmly hold that the Church waited for revelation and it came in 1978. I couldn't at any point in my almost 60 years want to be a part of a continuation of "saints" who held to a popular bigotry against people of a particular skin color. It seems that according to many LDS today, the first hundred and fifty years of Restored Gospel was characterised by racial prejudice! Twenty-five years ago, I saw Mormonism as a viable option for the one true church. Sorry, but If I thought the priesthood ban was because of racial prejudice, hatred, as many modern LDS seem to think, I would be anything else than LDS. (bold mine) What else could it be? Edited December 28, 2015 by Tacenda
Storm Rider Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 On 12/26/2015 at 2:24 PM, consiglieri said: Belief without expression is meaningless. Trite and unhelpful - you can do better than that. You can express yourself in a vast number of ways and it is that expression that is important. You can scream bloody murder at the door of someone's home only to have the door shut and you ignored. Scream at another person's home and you will quickly be shot. Knock and politely ask a question and you may very easily a kind response. The method of expression remains an important function in any civil discussion.
stemelbow Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 I did, but that was before I was born. We all did back in those days and it seemed like we saw it as a human invention, brought on by human misunderstandings and weaknesses. We covenanted to not support it when we came down here, but by then it was all supposedly behind us. So my outspokenness on the topic was preaching the choir mostly. In the MTC I objected stridently with the ban and all the teachers, and the President of our little branch were frustrated with me, telling me it was God's decision. I objected and really almost went home at that point thinking I couldn't tell people it was God's ways. Then one of the teachers wisely, I'd say, told me I don't have to support that the ban was inspired. And I haven't. 1
Buckeye Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 (edited) From my studies, a list of well-known and influential members who publicly opposed the ban pre-1978 has to begin with these names: Lester Bush, Nelson Lowry, Eugene England, and Sterling McMurrin. Bush has been discussed above. His seminal 1973 Dialogue article can be found here: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/2012/mormonisms-negro-doctrine-an-historical-overview/ Bush also provided some important remarks in a recent UU conference (see: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865638644/Positive-developments-for-LDS-blacks-weighed-against-troubled-history-by-Lester-Bush-at-McMurrin.html?pg=all) I cite to the DN article as it shows how far the church has come on this issue. In '73 Bush was a pariah for his article (and per Gregory Prince, eventually was pressured out of the church by a stake president who'd been instructed by Mark E. Peterson). Today Bush is rightly seen as great scholar and hero on this issue. But regrettably, he's never rejoined the fold. England's opposition can bee seen in his 1973 Dialogue article "The Mormon Cross" in which he argues that the ban is a policy that results from the member's prejudice and that it should be changed as quickly as possible. http://eugeneengland.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/1973_e_001.pdf That's pretty strong opposition in my book. See also this 1998 Sunstone 20th anniversary article he wrote recounting the events leading up to 1978: http://eugeneengland.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/1998_e_op_001.pdf If you have a copy of Mauss' All Abraham's Children, look at page 233 where he lists Nelson Lowry and Sterling McMurrin as publicly opposing the policy. Mauss also cites to the 1967-68 Dialogue editions as containing articles/editorials from member who were publicly critical. And he references Michigan Governor George Romney as being critical of the policy privately, while also publicly disobeying instructions from Elder Peterson to stop assisting the civil rights movement. And of course Hugh B. Brown, an apostle and first presidency member, was privately very critical of the policy and counseled that it could be changed even without a revelation. You can find many sources of Brown's opposition in Gregory Prince's bio of President McKay. The bio may also have other information on public opposition from members (I can't recall any specifics off the top of my head). I know it discusses some public opposition from non-members, such as marches at BYU and football boycotts. Edited December 28, 2015 by Buckeye 1
3DOP Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 16 hours ago, Tacenda said: (bold mine) What else could it be? You had quoted me Tacenda, where I mentioned that many practicing Mormons today seem to think the policy was racial bigotry, or hatred. You are asking what besides hatred, could be the reason for the priesthood ban. Fifteen years ago almost all of the practicing Mormons online defended the priesthood ban as having been revealed by God both as to its implementation and the cessation of it. Same with polygamy. Now polygamy is being seen as a mistake at best or just plain sexual abuse by some identifying themselves as LDS! As an outsider, it seemed to me to be politically expedient in 1978 for the priesthood ban to be lifted. But if I believed in the Restored Gospel, if I accepted the Book of Abraham (!), I could sure as heck have faith that God waited until 1978 to show the prophets that it was time to allow black men to be priests. If I were LDS, I could admit that I do not know why now, but that in heaven we will see the wisdom of God, and not hatred, as being the reason for the policy. If I were LDS, I could also suggest a comparison with how divorce and remarriage was permitted under Moses, but when Christ came, the Mosaic practice, which was permitted because of the hardness of men's hearts, was changed. (See Mt.19:8 to observe how church law can be more or less perfect according to God's discretion). So I could admit as an LDS that there were "hard hearts" among God's people, but the policy itself had to have been at the least an imperfect law allowed by God until 1978. In my opinion LDS must defend the prophets and Apostles who first revealed and upheld the policy, because God gave it to them and never told the LDS otherwise until 1978. To disbelieve that seems to me to be like me, a non-Mormon with no faith in the prophets and Apostles of the Restoration. Because LDS have ongoing revelation with a full quorum of Apostles, LDS laws are always necessarily up to date. Rory 2
Bobbieaware Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 18 hours ago, Tacenda said: (bold mine) What else could it be? What do you think sounds more harsh, unkind and politically incorrect? A temporary withholding of the priesthood to men of a particular race who will eventually have no priesthood office or blessing withheld, or the everlasting denial of the fullness of the priesthood to the majority of the human family who will be sequestered forever in post-resurrection kingdoms of glory that are lower in brilliance of light than the glory of the celestial kingdom?
consiglieri Posted December 28, 2015 Posted December 28, 2015 5 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: What do you think sounds more harsh, unkind and politically incorrect? A temporary withholding of the priesthood to men of a particular race who will eventually have no priesthood office or blessing withheld, or the everlasting denial of the fullness of the priesthood to the majority of the human family who will be sequestered forever in post-resurrection kingdoms of glory that are lower in brilliance of light than the glory of the celestial kingdom? Cutting off people's heads sounds harsher still, but it doesn't make the priesthood ban okay.
Recommended Posts