Did Pres. McKay Try to Rescind Ban in the 1955?

[aussieguy55]

Dr Matt Harris  in a video on Gospel Tangents  claims Lowell Bennion was asked by President McKay  do research on the negro question.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56oINIiTw5s&t=722s

 

Years ago I had a letter exchange in 1972 with Dr Bennion and he spells out why he did not accept the negro priesthood ban  and offered scriptures to back his case.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2018 by aussieguy55
update

[Calm]

Did not accept what?

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

Dr Matt Harris  in a video on Gospel Tangents  claims Lowell Bennion was asked by President McKay  do research on the negro question.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56oINIiTw5s&t=722s

 

Years ago I had a letter exchange with Dr Bennion and he spelt out why he did not accept it and offered scriptures to back his case.

 

 

I think President McKay was serious about studying it out, was probably inclined to rescind it, but submitted his personal inclinations to obtaining the will of the Lord in unity with the Brethren (as I understand apostles and prophets are wont to do). The Presidents of the Church often seek expert insight into issues they are grappling with, but ultimately require divine confirmation.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think President McKay was serious about studying it out, was probably inclined to rescind it, but submitted his personal inclinations to obtaining the will of the Lord in unity with the Brethren (as I understand apostles and prophets are wont to do). The Presidents of the Church often seek expert insight into issues they are grappling with, but ultimately require divine confirmation.

I recently listened to this podcast on Mormonstories. 919-923: ROGER HENDRIX – STORIES FROM A CES DIRECTOR, MISSION PRESIDENT, AND TRUSTEE FOR DESERET TRUST COMPANY https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/roger-hendrix/

He shared a story about Pres. McKay trying to do this while Harold B. Lee was away, and when Lee came back it was nixed. He and Joseph F. Smith, I believe, put the kibosh on it. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, aussieguy55 said:

Dr Matt Harris  in a video on Gospel Tangents  claims Lowell Bennion was asked by President McKay  do research on the negro question.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56oINIiTw5s&t=722s

 

Years ago I had a letter exchange with Dr Bennion and he spelt out why he did not accept it and offered scriptures to back his case.

 

 

The Greg Prince biography on McKay is must reading on this subject matter.  

[rpn]

David O Mckay's biography says he researched it and had others do so (President McKay was the second prophet or third prophet who did so.    The first was Joseph F. Smith?

Both confirmed that men with black african heritage were ordained to the Priesthood by Joseph Smith or under his direction.   Both also were unable to find any revelation creating the ban.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, rpn said:

David O Mckay's biography says he researched it and had others do so (President McKay was the second prophet or third prophet who did so.    The first was Joseph F. Smith?

Both confirmed that men with black african heritage were ordained to the Priesthood by Joseph Smith or under his direction.   Both also were unable to find any revelation creating the ban.

And as the prophets sought the will of the Lord in the matter, they made no decision until an explicit revelation was received. They might have excused themselves to have proceeded with out it per D&C 58:27-28 ("Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward"), and this also may have well been the justification behind establishing the ban in the first place, but inasmuch as both sets of prophets were keeping the commandments that had been revealed, they would have been held guiltless (verses 29-30).

Edited May 23, 2018 by CV75

[rpn]

I think that when we eventually know everything about what happened, it will be that Brigham Young thought that the church could not withstand the the simultaneous societal response to both polygamy and interracial marriage, and that the latter was inevitable in a church where all races could marry in the temple  and have the same opportunities.  (You'll recall that Loving v. VA --- the Supreme Ct ruling that struck down laws preventing interracial marriage --- didn't happen until 1967)   He found out about black member setting up his own church in Council Bluffs which white women could only join after staying over night with him and the interracial marriage of the son of the most prominent black member in MA (Walker Lewis) after MA did away with its ban within weeks of each other.

If black members couldn't hold the priesthood or go to the temples to be sealed, there would be disincentive to interracial partnering.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, rpn said:

I think that when we eventually know everything about what happened, it will be that Brigham Young thought that the church could not withstand the the simultaneous societal response to both polygamy and interracial marriage, and that the latter was inevitable in a church where all races could marry in the temple  and have the same opportunities.  (You'll recall that Loving v. VA --- the Supreme Ct ruling that struck down laws preventing interracial marriage --- didn't happen until 1967)   He found out about black member setting up his own church in Council Bluffs which white women could only join after staying over night with him and the interracial marriage of the son of the most prominent black member in MA (Walker Lewis) after MA did away with its ban within weeks of each other.

If black members couldn't hold the priesthood or go to the temples to be sealed, there would be disincentive to interracial partnering.

Perhaps this will turn out to be part of the reason. But it doesn't explain why it took until 1978 for petitions by prophets to be answered with a revelation rescinding the restriction. Entrenchment or inertia is not a very satisfying explanation, as prophets prayed repeatedly for guidance on the matter, President Kimball in particular.

 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

If black members couldn't hold the priesthood or go to the temples to be sealed, there would be disincentive to interracial partnering.

Just to be clear, you're suggesting that God wouldn't allow worthy black members of the Church to receive Temple blessings or hold the Priesthood mainly as a disincentive for white people to not want to marry them?

As I've said so many times before, the reason I don't believe the ban came from God is because God would have to be stupid to create the ban for any of the proposed reasons (and the implementation of the ban was unworkable to anyone with a basic understanding of genetics).  If I have to choose between believing that God was stupid and racist or Brigham Young was stupid and racist, I'm going to go with Brigham Young.

Edited May 23, 2018 by cinepro

[rpn]

I'm not suggesting that God had anything to do with this (though I'd be surprised if any prophet did not believe that He absolutely did):  I don't know whether it was nonlistening leaders, or inertia, or respect for tradition or any number of other reasons.

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps this will turn out to be part of the reason. But it doesn't explain why it took until 1978 for petitions by prophets to be answered with a revelation rescinding the restriction. Entrenchment or inertia is not a very satisfying explanation, as prophets prayed repeatedly for guidance on the matter, President Kimball in particular.

 

Just to be clear, you're holding out for an explanation that is "satisfying"?  Like, you're going to hear a theory and everything will click and you'll say "Now that makes sense!"

Because I think once the Church stopped supporting the curse-of-Cain or pre-mortal-wimpiness theories, we shifted from looking for theories that are "satisfying" to trying to find a theory that doesn't make God look like a racist fool or decades of LDS leadership to be (sometimes unknowingly, but usually overtly) racist.

Perhaps in the future, the apologetic messiah will come forth and reveal a new theory that encompasses all the data, but until then, I fear we are destined to be "unsatisfied."

[aussieguy55]

Out there in internet land I  remember some comment by either Spencer W Kimball's son or grandson said that Spencer W Kimball had a highlighted copy of  Lester Bush's a Dialogue article on the history of the negro/priesthood issue. Another comment circulated was that Kimball wanted the change as he felt his successor would not make the change. His successor was Ezra Taft Benson. What does this indicate about claims it was a revelation or something more practical like the Brazil problem?

Edited May 23, 2018 by aussieguy55
ADDITIONAL COMMENT

[CV75]

44 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

Out there in internet land I  remember some comment by either Spencer W Kimball's son or grandson said that Spencer W Kimball had a highlighted copy of  Lester Bush's a Dialogue article on the history of the negro/priesthood issue. Another comment circulated was that Kimball wanted the change as he felt his successor would not make the change. His successor was Ezra Taft Benson. What does this indicate about claims it was a revelation or something more practical like the Brazil problem?

It indicates there is a process of studying it out. As to revelation, it cannot be proven except by the fruits (OD-2 for example). As to practicality, often revelation resolves practical problems.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Just to be clear, you're holding out for an explanation that is "satisfying"?  Like, you're going to hear a theory and everything will click and you'll say "Now that makes sense!"

Because I think once the Church stopped supporting the curse-of-Cain or pre-mortal-wimpiness theories, we shifted from looking for theories that are "satisfying" to trying to find a theory that doesn't make God look like a racist fool or decades of LDS leadership to be (sometimes unknowingly, but usually overtly) racist.

Perhaps in the future, the apologetic messiah will come forth and reveal a new theory that encompasses all the data, but until then, I fear we are destined to be "unsatisfied."

I'm hardly an apologist, and to not know is not unsatisfying to me. In fact, it is oddly comforting and liberating (hence satisfying) to me.

I’ve heard various opinions that the “ban” was of man, of God, or of the devil, but I think we really don’t know. I have sense that each dispensation has a scope, and successive prophets have a scope within their dispensations, and as long as they are doing what they have been commanded, God does not hold them accountable for light they do not possess [In a positive way, the brother of Jared saw the finger of the Lord as an unexpected but welcome event; such an advanced level of light about the physical nature of Christ was not yet in the world, and it was not the brother of Jared’s dispensation to share it, and so he was commanded not to share it.]. A similar dynamic can be that, just as the added light of technological advancements coming into the world further the Gospel, so do societal advancements and advancements in any other field. It was early in the Restoration when the ban went into effect, and God intervened through President Kimball when it became expedient/practical to accelerate His work around the globe. Looking back it seems that earlier prophets prepared the way.

We can see that as the prophets sought the will of the Lord in the matter, they made no decision until an explicit revelation was received. I think they would have been excused to have proceeded without a revelation per D&C 58:27-28 ("Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward"), which also may well have served as rationale for establishing the ban in the first place(!), but inasmuch as both sets of prophets were keeping the commandments that had been revealed, they would have been held guiltless in going either way (verses 29-30). Which is why I think we should look to the future, and why the Race and Priesthood essay is written as it is.

Edited May 23, 2018 by CV75

[Duncan]

I'd be interested how this Dr. Matt Harris knew that Joseph Fielding Smith wouldn't support lifting the ban? is there a record of his thoughts from that time? he mentions others but what is the source for all that? is it guesswork? I mean when Pres. Hugh B. Brown, then of the First Presidency got a vote in the late 1960's then Elder Lee didn't go for it but i'd be interested to know what Joseph Fielding Smith's thoughts were in the 1950's and at least by the late 1960's he was in the First Presidency so he may not have voted on this issue if it was just given to the Twelve.

Here's a blog post from Pres. Lee's grandson about this issue, interesting!

[CMZ]

9 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

Out there in internet land I  remember some comment by either Spencer W Kimball's son or grandson said that Spencer W Kimball had a highlighted copy of  Lester Bush's a Dialogue article on the history of the negro/priesthood issue. Another comment circulated was that Kimball wanted the change as he felt his successor would not make the change. His successor was Ezra Taft Benson. What does this indicate about claims it was a revelation or something more practical like the Brazil problem?

One thing to keep in mind here is that Ezra Taft Benson did not oppose the change. There's also the statement to the effect that Presidents Kimball and Benson both felt like the 1978 revelation was the most powerful one that they had experienced.

[CMZ]

7 hours ago, Duncan said:

Here's a blog post from Pres. Lee's grandson about this issue, interesting!

Link?

[Duncan]

28 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Link?

I thought I put it in there! whoops!

http://thegoateskids.blogspot.ca/2011/02/blacks-and-priesthood.html

[SouthernMo]

If anyone is seriously interested in understanding some of this, reading the first few chapters of Quinn’s book: “Mormon Heirarchy: Extensions of Power” has some records and perspective on President/Elder Lee’s role in OD2.

[Alan]

As I understand it, the issue came up more than once. The First Pres. and the Twelve operate a strict policy of unanimity when considering such things. I understand that a unanimous decision was not possible prior to 1978.

[CMZ]

10 hours ago, Duncan said:

I thought I put it in there! whoops!

http://thegoateskids.blogspot.ca/2011/02/blacks-and-priesthood.html

Thanks. Reading it now. Good article. Sad that will some will just harangue the Church over it forever. Another cogent point is how our current prophet received his own revelation a while back that even if there had been a different president of the Church in 1978 (say Harold B. Lee) that the same revelation would have come to that different prophet.

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Thanks. Reading it now. Good article. Sad that will some will just harangue the Church over it forever. Another cogent point is how our current prophet received his own revelation a while back that even if there had been a different president of the Church in 1978 (say Harold B. Lee) that the same revelation would have come to that different prophet.

I read the article, and one thing kept coming into my mind. Both the revelation to stop living polygamy and allowing blacks to have the PH, had a cause/causes to bring them about. One, that Utah needed to be allowed statehood, and two, the Brazilions could use the temple, and a myriad of other reasons.  

"There were many factors that led up to the publication of this declaration^{[improper synthesis?]}: trouble from the NAACP because of priesthood inequality,^[34] the announcement of the first LDS temple in Brazil,^[35] and other pressures from members and leaders of the church.^[36]:94–95 After the publication of Lester Bush's seminal article in Dialogue, "Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview", BYU vice-president Robert K. Thomas feared that the church would lose its tax exemption status. The article described the church's racially discriminatory practices in detail. The article inspired internal discussion among church leaders, weakening the idea that the priesthood ban was doctrinal."^[12]:95

[CMZ]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I read the article, and one thing kept coming into my mind. Both the revelation to stop living polygamy and allowing blacks to have the PH, had a cause/causes to bring them about. One, that Utah needed to be allowed statehood, and two, the Brazilions could use the temple, and a myriad of other reasons.  

"There were many factors that led up to the publication of this declaration^{[improper synthesis?]}: trouble from the NAACP because of priesthood inequality,^[34] the announcement of the first LDS temple in Brazil,^[35] and other pressures from members and leaders of the church.^[36]:94–95 After the publication of Lester Bush's seminal article in Dialogue, "Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview", BYU vice-president Robert K. Thomas feared that the church would lose its tax exemption status. The article described the church's racially discriminatory practices in detail. The article inspired internal discussion among church leaders, weakening the idea that the priesthood ban was doctrinal."^[12]:95

True that these things didn't occur in a vacuum, but there were presidents of the Church who wanted to immediately lift the ban but felt like the Lord was saying that the time hadn't come. So, while the beginning of the ban is ambiguous it's hard to think there was absolutely nothing to it. If it was a wholly man-made thing and President McKay wanted to lift he just would have, but he prayed about it and felt the time hadn't come.

[Storm Rider]

21 hours ago, cinepro said:

Just to be clear, you're holding out for an explanation that is "satisfying"?  Like, you're going to hear a theory and everything will click and you'll say "Now that makes sense!"

Because I think once the Church stopped supporting the curse-of-Cain or pre-mortal-wimpiness theories, we shifted from looking for theories that are "satisfying" to trying to find a theory that doesn't make God look like a racist fool or decades of LDS leadership to be (sometimes unknowingly, but usually overtly) racist.

Perhaps in the future, the apologetic messiah will come forth and reveal a new theory that encompasses all the data, but until then, I fear we are destined to be "unsatisfied."

You often posit this claptrap logic as if it is evidence for your position.

Could you please explain this God you talk of and how, out of the entire world, his covenant people were this little, tiny group in a backwater of the world known as Jews?  How could this noble God that is not a racist, ever loving, and all-knowing choose one group to be his people? Are you saying God just did not care about anyone else?

Or maybe the truth of the matter is that your vaunted arm of flesh does not know what God wants or doesn't want.  How about your thoughts, as wonderful as you think them, don't really amount to a hill of beans when it comes to God's thoughts and ways?  

At the end of the day, I have zero faith in the arm of flesh and I put my faith in God.  I know that is shocking to most humans on the earth who have no faith.  Lastly, my faith tells me that regardless of how bad things have been on this earth He will make it right in the eternities for each and every one of his children that turn to him and try the best they can to follow after him.