Pres. Nelson to Speak at NAACP Convention

[Scott Lloyd]

On 7/19/2019 at 1:00 PM, smac97 said:

He was a practicing surgeon at the time.  From Wikipedia: 

He's been a prominent leader in the Church for decades.  If he had a history of racism, I think we would have known about it by now.

Thanks,

-Smac

It’s a safe assumption his views have been in harmony with the position of the Church, both pre- and post-1978. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

17 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think those who 'disagreed with the ban' would be very few and far between, even now. As I've mentioned on this forum before, I have a current housemate from West Africa, and I had a different one in the past. Both of them are adult converts to the Church, and both of them are fine with past priesthood restrictions, almost to the point of being defensive.

That doesn't mean, of course, that people had to enjoy it in practice. In fact, I strongly suspect that not enjoying the restrictions -- including retroactively -- was and still is a part of our education as a people.

I think part of the problem was that because there were so few African Americans in the Mormon corridor most people just were able to not even think about it. It really wasn't until missionary work in Brazil started raising practical matters that GAs started thinking about it. The rise in the civil rights movement in the mid 60's onward made it more of an issue. It's hard not to be troubled by it when one starts to think about it, although I think most are fine letting God be in charge. The debate ends up being how much of it was racism by Brigham Young and others and how much was an actual divine policy. But of course how people think about that now, with all the historical data we now have, is quite different from the 70's and 80's when you had far, far fewer resources.

I do think however it's deeply problematic that the Church hasn't grown more in the African American community since the ban was lifted. I know in Louisiana when I was there most of our converts were African American. What happened? Why is the number of African American members still so small in the US church? I wouldn't at all be surprised to find that God was directing Pres. Nelson to try and fix that problem. This may be one thing he has been told to do in order to bring the gospel better to that community. I suspect the lack of growth of active members is primarily due to the failings of we the general members of the Church.

Edited July 19, 2019 by clarkgoble

[SettingDogStar]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In 1978 I was two years off my mission and enrolled at BYU as a journalism student. The general reaction among the membership of the Church was not nearly as blasé as you seem to think it was. To us, it was an event of epic proportions like the moon landing of 1969 or the JFK assassination of 1963. We remember precisely where we were and what we were doing when we heard the news. Moreover, there was a general euphoria that lasted for days and weeks afterward. 

If you’ve ever read Dallin H. Oaks’s account of his reaction when he heard the news, you can a flavor of how the vast majority of the membership felt. He was BYU president then. As I mentioned, I was a student on campus then, and I’m telling you his sentiment was typical. 

I mean I’m just reporting on how my family members reacted. I didn’t really know how the church as a whole did, and I never made any assumptions about them. Just surprised at my own family was all!

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think part of the problem was that because there were so few African Americans in the Mormon corridor most people just were able to not even think about it. It really wasn't until missionary work in Brazil started raising practical matters that GAs started thinking about it. The rise in the civil rights movement in the mid 60's onward made it more of an issue. It's hard not to be troubled by it when one starts to think about it, although I think most are fine letting God be in charge. The debate ends up being how much of it was racism by Brigham Young and others and how much was an actual divine policy. But of course how people think about that now, with all the historical data we now have, is quite different from the 70's and 80's when you had far, far fewer resources.

I do think however it's deeply problematic that the Church hasn't grown more in the African American community since the ban was lifted. I know in Louisiana when I was there most of our converts were African American. What happened? Why is the number of African American members still so small in the US church? I wouldn't at all be surprised to find that God was directing Pres. Nelson to try and fix that problem. This may be one thing he has been told to do in order to bring the gospel better to that community. I suspect the lack of growth of active members is primarily due to the failings of we the general members of the Church.

I think a resource that might have been overlooked with regards to the ban is the brother of Jared's experience. It was not an aspect or requirement of his dispensation to see the flesh and blood finger of the Lord as He would appear in the flesh (hence the Lord's surprise). His great faith generated a personal revelation that he was commanded not to share anytime soon, but to seal up for a future dispensation when the Lord's appearance (in terms of timing, locale and body) was already known. I'm thinking that the expansion of the conferral of priesthood among all the peoples across the planet was deigned to roll out at a particular point (1978) within the dispensation of the fulnes of times. The same "delay" from the 1830 time frame would have occurred irrespective of a ban due to so many other more significant factors (the ban was one barrier of many, and perhaps among the easiest to remove since all it took was a revelation). And so it was lifted along with all the other barriers in the due time of the Lord in 1978, but I'm suggesting the overarching initiative was timed for when an effective expansion could proceed across the globe.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

He was a practicing surgeon at the time.  From Wikipedia: 

He's been a prominent leader in the Church for decades.  If he had a history of racism, I think we would have known about it by now.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree.  I think whatever feelings he may have had for or against the racist temple/priesthood ban, he likely kept to himself. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think part of the problem was that because there were so few African Americans in the Mormon corridor most people just were able to not even think about it. It really wasn't until missionary work in Brazil started raising practical matters that GAs started thinking about it. The rise in the civil rights movement in the mid 60's onward made it more of an issue. It's hard not to be troubled by it when one starts to think about it, although I think most are fine letting God be in charge. The debate ends up being how much of it was racism by Brigham Young and others and how much was an actual divine policy. But of course how people think about that now, with all the historical data we now have, is quite different from the 70's and 80's when you had far, far fewer resources.

I do think however it's deeply problematic that the Church hasn't grown more in the African American community since the ban was lifted. I know in Louisiana when I was there most of our converts were African American. What happened? Why is the number of African American members still so small in the US church? I wouldn't at all be surprised to find that God was directing Pres. Nelson to try and fix that problem. This may be one thing he has been told to do in order to bring the gospel better to that community. I suspect the lack of growth of active members is primarily due to the failings of we the general members of the Church.

I wonder whether the Church’s relationship with an American organization such as the NAACP really holds that much significance for the peoples  of Africa and elsewhere in the world. 

Edited July 20, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wonder whether the Church’s relationship with an American organization such as the NAACP really holds that much significance for the people’s of Africa and elsewhere in the world. 

I doubt it. It matters a lot for people in the west though.

[Calm]

22 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

Talking to some of my family who were adults during the 1978 priesthood lift many of them just thought it was cool but didn't think much else about it

Did they live in membership dense areas, such as Utah or Idaho?

I think having other members to talk about it not only at home, but work and school likely helped extend the moment.  Also having black friends now fully participating would make it much more personal and therefore imo intense.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think part of the problem was that because there were so few African Americans in the Mormon corridor most people just were able to not even think about it. It really wasn't until missionary work in Brazil started raising practical matters that GAs started thinking about it. The rise in the civil rights movement in the mid 60's onward made it more of an issue. It's hard not to be troubled by it when one starts to think about it, although I think most are fine letting God be in charge. The debate ends up being how much of it was racism by Brigham Young and others and how much was an actual divine policy. But of course how people think about that now, with all the historical data we now have, is quite different from the 70's and 80's when you had far, far fewer resources.

I do think however it's deeply problematic that the Church hasn't grown more in the African American community since the ban was lifted. I know in Louisiana when I was there most of our converts were African American. What happened? Why is the number of African American members still so small in the US church? I wouldn't at all be surprised to find that God was directing Pres. Nelson to try and fix that problem. This may be one thing he has been told to do in order to bring the gospel better to that community. I suspect the lack of growth of active members is primarily due to the failings of we the general members of the Church.

 

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wonder whether the Church’s relationship with an American organization such as the NAACP really holds that much significance for the people’s of Africa and elsewhere in the world. 

 

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I doubt it. It matters a lot for people in the west though.

Possibly. 

Could you elaborate on your point about “the failings of ... the general membership of the Church”? What specifically should we be doing that we have not been doing?

Edited July 20, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[SettingDogStar]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Did they live in membership dense areas, such as Utah or Idaho?

I think having other members to talk about it not only at home, but work and school likely helped extend the moment.  Also having black friends now fully participating would make it much more personal and therefore imo intense.

I actually don't know, I probably should have asked. It makes sense that where you were living would best reflect your reaction to the announcement. 

[strappinglad]

I was told that there were hard feelings among the members in the American South East . Anyone out there who can clarify ? PAPA ? Where I live there was quiet joy. We had little or no experience with any POC . We had and still have our own prejudice with Natives/First Nations and that racism is based on plenty of experience. 

FYI our lovely government just gave 400+ acres of land to the natives based on a proported  miss count of the number of those who qualified as natives. Interestingly , the Cardston Temple sits on some of that land. Going to be legal fights .

[SettingDogStar]

3 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I was told that there were hard feelings among the members in the American South East . Anyone out there who can clarify ? PAPA ? Where I live there was quiet joy. We had little or no experience with any POC . We had and still have our own prejudice with Natives/First Nations and that racism is based on plenty of experience. 

FYI our lovely government just gave 400+ acres of land to the natives based on a proported  miss count of the number of those who qualified as natives. Interestingly , the Cardston Temple sits on some of that land. Going to be legal fights .

What would they do if they won? Tear down the temple? 

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

I was told that there were hard feelings among the members in the American South East . Anyone out there who can clarify ? PAPA ? Where I live there was quiet joy. We had little or no experience with any POC . We had and still have our own prejudice with Natives/First Nations and that racism is based on plenty of experience. 

FYI our lovely government just gave 400+ acres of land to the natives based on a proported  miss count of the number of those who qualified as natives. Interestingly , the Cardston Temple sits on some of that land. Going to be legal fights .

I think it is more accurate to say the government just gave back 400+ acres of land.  To say that Native Americas were treated poorly by the US government is an understatement. 

[sunstoned]

10 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I mean I’m just reporting on how my family members reacted. I didn’t really know how the church as a whole did, and I never made any assumptions about them. Just surprised at my own family was all!

My experience is similar to Scott's.  I got off my mission in 1976 and was attending BYU.  I remember were I was exactly when I heard the news.  It was huge, and people talked about it for days.  

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I think it is more accurate to say the government just gave back 400+ acres of land.  To say that Native Americas were treated poorly by the US government is an understatement. 

Check your geography.  Certainly, a case can be made that indigenous peoples have been poorly treated by modern governments in a lot of places, and a lot of people have argued that the U.S. is responsible for basically everything wrong in the world, but still ...

[rockpond]

I apologize if this has been posted already but Jana Riess asks the question of whether President Nelson will apologize for past racism in this article:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/07/19/jana-riess-will-latter/

While I would love it if he did, I don't think that will happen.  I think he will look at the present and the future of the church and its involvement with the NAACP.

What will be disappointing to me is if he tries to cherry pick certain historical teachings/actions while not commenting on the past racism.

[Kenngo1969]

This isn't popular to say, but, while it's easy to attribute the continuation of the priesthood restriction to simple racism, President McKay was fairly egalitarian in his outlook, enough so that, I think, he was bothered by the priesthood restriction and was willing to lift it, but felt restrained from doing so.

In a complex, messy world, especially one in which humans cannot fathom that the Lord would do something (or that He would do it in the way it is purported that He does it), "They were racist, but I/we are enlightened!" is good for presentist virtue signaling, but not for much else.

[smac97]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

I apologize if this has been posted already but Jana Riess asks the question of whether President Nelson will apologize for past racism in this article:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/07/19/jana-riess-will-latter/

While I would love it if he did, I don't think that will happen.  I think he will look at the present and the future of the church and its involvement with the NAACP.

What will be disappointing to me is if he tries to cherry pick certain historical teachings/actions while not commenting on the past racism.

I read her article and was not surprised.  Her assessment of the Church and its efforts are generally, perhaps even reliably, negative, even pessimistic.  No matter how much effort the Church puts into working with the NAACP, Riess will be characterizing its efforts primarily as a "missed opportunity" rather than a good fath effort to collaborate and overcome divisions of the past.  Ah, well.  Par for the course.  

I did appreciate Daniel Peterson's take on this issue (in reaction to Riess's article):

Quote

I don’t expect an apology, myself, and, if I were the one speaking, I wouldn’t offer one.  (What President Nelson might do, of course, I do not know.)

I expect that my disinclination to apologize will earn me considerable flak.  It’s not a politically correct stance to take, and some, no doubt, will say that it’s an immoral one.  I get that.

But permit me to explain.

I found the pre-1978 priesthood ban baffling and, to say the least of it, awkward, and I was absolutely delighted when the news of the revelation rescinding it reached me in Switzerland.  Now, black men and boys could be ordained to the priesthood, black men and women of the appropriate ages could enter the temples of the Church, and black families could be sealed in those temples for time and all eternity.  I still remember where I was when I heard the news, and I recall very clearly the glow that enveloped me for days thereafter.

That said, though, I tend to resist confident assertions that the priesthood policy was, simply, the product of racism — whether Brigham Young’s or more general — that it was an evil mistake, and that the Church should therefore apologize for it.  I have no theory of its origin to offer, no theological justification to provide for it, no apologetic to make on its behalf.  I simply point to the fact that at least some Church leaders had hoped to rescind it earlier but felt themselves prevented (by the Lord himself) from doing so.

I have reached somewhat similar conclusions (which are open to revision).  See, e.g., here:

Quote

For myself, I lead toward the Brigham-Young-implemented-a-"policy"-around-1852-which-then-through-the-decades-became-entrenched-and-its-specific-provenance-lost-but-it-was-probably-a-product-of-19th-century-perspectives-on-race theory of the Ban's origins.  But I cannot completely foreclose the possibility that it had revelatory origins, either.  There were restrictions/limitations on the priesthood in antiquity, after all.  We even have gender-based restrictions on the priesthood now that plainly have no particular relationship to innate worth or quality.  And yet . . . there it is.

Back to Dr. P:

Quote

Now, obviously, such an argument will carry little if any weight with those who believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by ordinary mortals (or, even, by less than ordinary mortals) who have no access to the mind of God.  But for me, since I believe that there is a God and that he stands in a special revelatory relationship with the prophets and apostles at the helm of the Church, it’s pivotal.

Here is a specific illustration of what I have in mind, drawn from Gregory A. Prince and Wm. Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005), 103-104, 183:

It appears that President Hugh B. Brown, the first First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of whom I was aware and a man for whom I felt and still feel considerable veneration, really hoped to see the priesthood exclusion policy overturned.  Therefore, he attempted to persuade President David O. McKay to make that change.

Reportedly, President McKay told some people that he had prayed about the matter and that the answer was “Not yet.”  In fact, according to Richard Jackson, President McKay said that he had prayed repeatedly about the question and that he was told by the Lord to not bring the subject up again, that the change would come, but not during his administration.  The Prophet even seems to have felt himself somewhat rebuked:

Quote

“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.”

If accurately reported and true, these accounts strongly suggest that, for his own inscrutable reasons, the Lord himself permitted the ban to continue until June 1978.

I think this is correct.

Quote

And that would tend to suggest that the policy was something more than merely the lamentable product of regrettable (and undeniable) nineteenth-century racism.

I think part of the "more" may be institutional neglect and inertia.  The ban just did not garner much attention in amongst church leaders for a very long time.  

The rest of Dr. P's article is worth a read.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Very cool Op-Ed that was published yesterday in The Detroit News (co-authored by Karen Boykin-Towns, the vice chair of the NAACP Board of Directors, and Sharon Eubank, the First Counselor in the Relief Society General Presidency). 

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I read her article and was not surprised.  Her assessment of the Church and its efforts are generally, perhaps even reliably, negative, even pessimistic.  No matter how much effort the Church puts into working with the NAACP, Riess will be characterizing its efforts primarily as a "missed opportunity" rather than a good fath effort to collaborate and overcome divisions of the past.  Ah, well.  Par for the course.  

I did appreciate Daniel Peterson's take on this issue (in reaction to Riess's article):

I have reached somewhat similar conclusions (which are open to revision).  See, e.g., here:

Back to Dr. P:

I think this is correct.

I think part of the "more" may be institutional neglect and inertia.  The ban just did not garner much attention in amongst church leaders for a very long time.  

The rest of Dr. P's article is worth a read.

Thanks,

-Smac

In very simple terms I think it comes down to whether one believes the temple and priesthood ban was a mistake or whether it came from God.  If the former, than an apology is called for. If the latter, we obviously can’t apologize for something God did. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

This isn't popular to say, but, while it's easy to attribute the continuation of the priesthood restriction to simple racism, President McKay was fairly egalitarian in his outlook, enough so that, I think, he was bothered by the priesthood restriction and was willing to lift it, but felt restrained from doing so.

President McKay lacked the support of the full Quorum of the Twelve. Otherwise I think he would have ended it. 

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

In a complex, messy world, especially one in which humans cannot fathom that the Lord would do something (or that He would do it in the way it is purported that He does it), "They were racist, but I/we are enlightened!" is good for presentist virtue signaling, but not for much else.

I don’t consider them evil nor do I consider an acknowledgement of the different environments (then and now) to be virtue signaling. 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

In very simple terms I think it comes down to whether one believes the temple and priesthood ban was a mistake or whether it came from God.  

I don't think so.  I can accommodate the Ban in my perspective on the Restored Gospel as either "a mistake" or as something that "came from God."  While I presently lean toward the former, I do not preclude the possiblity of the latter.  And at present, I don't think we can definitively place the ban in one category or the other.

Quote

If the former, than an apology is called for. If the latter, we obviously can’t apologize for something God did. 

And if we don't know which explanation is correct, then . . .?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 21, 2019 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

President McKay lacked the support of the full Quorum of the Twelve. Otherwise I think he would have ended it. 

I don’t consider them evil nor do I consider an acknowledgement of the different environments (then and now) to be virtue signaling. 

I don't think I used the word "evil."  If I did, and if you'd like to point it out to me, I'll be happy to rephrase.  And you doubt that President McKay was told, essentially, "Not yet, and don't ask again"?  Why?

Edited July 21, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  I can accommodate the Ban in my perspective on the Restored Gospel as either "a mistake" or as something that "came from God."  While I presently lean toward the former, I do not preclude the possiblity of the latter.

That's understandable.

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And at present, I don't think we can definitively place the ban in one category or the other.

To me, it's clear.

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And if we don't know which explanation is correct, then . . .?

Thanks,

-Smac

If President Nelson feels the answer is unknown, than he can't really offer a sincere apology... and shouldn't.  (IMO)  I also then feel that it is incumbent on him to keep his remarks forward looking -- where our relationship with the NAACP is very positive.

 

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, rockpond said:

I apologize if this has been posted already but Jana Riess asks the question of whether President Nelson will apologize for past racism in this article:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/07/19/jana-riess-will-latter/

While I would love it if he did, I don't think that will happen.  I think he will look at the present and the future of the church and its involvement with the NAACP.

What will be disappointing to me is if he tries to cherry pick certain historical teachings/actions while not commenting on the past racism.

Agree to my bold!