Pres. Nelson to Speak at NAACP Convention

[rockpond]

Here is my transcription of what the reverend and NAACP historian, Dr. Amos Brown said.  I welcome any corrections:

"However, we should applaud President Johnson, Chairman Russell who responded to this brother and his faith community when they had the courage to say:  we have unfortunately been complicit in the evil of racism in this nation.  But, unlike certain persons in America, we are humble enough to say that we are sorry, we're going to change our ways.  And we're gonna do a new thing, we're gonna sing a new song, talk a new talk, walk a new walk. And, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under the leadership of President Russell Nelson are here tonight to say to the NAACP: We're going to join and lock arms with you as we fight racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, xenophobia, and all those phobias and isms that separate and divide the human family that we might be one nation under God indivsible with liberty and justice for all."

I suspect that some of those words are his (Dr. Brown's).  For example, I can't imagine President Nelson including that phrase "unlike certain persons in America, we are humble enough...".

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That's not correct.  I just listened again and you might want to do so as well.

Dr. Brown referred to President Johnson and Chairman Russell.  Those two men are current leaders of the NAACP.

Maybe so, but I still think it is over reaching to read into recent events an apology, implied or otherwise, on the part of the Church. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe so, but I still think it is over reaching to read into recent events an apology, implied or otherwise, on the part of the Church. 

I'm not reading into recent events.  I'm saying that Dr. Brown is claiming that an apology was made.  (See my transcript above)

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Here is my transcription of what the reverend and NAACP historian, Dr. Amos Brown said.  I welcome any corrections:

"However, we should applaud President Johnson, Chairman Russell who responded to this brother and his faith community when they had the courage to say:  we have unfortunately been complicit in the evil of racism in this nation.  But, unlike certain persons in America, we are humble enough to say that we are sorry, we're going to change our ways.  And we're gonna do a new thing, we're gonna sing a new song, talk a new talk, walk a new walk. And, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under the leadership of President Russell Nelson are here tonight to say to the NAACP: We're going to join and lock arms with you as we fight racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, xenophobia, and all those phobias and isms that separate and divide the human family that we might be one nation under God indivsible with liberty and justice for all."

I suspect that some of those words are his (Dr. Brown's).  For example, I can't imagine President Nelson including that phrase "unlike certain persons in America, we are humble enough...".

Even if there had been such an admission by President Nelson, that does not amount to a disavowal of the pre-1978 policy pertaining to the priesthood. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not reading into recent events.  I'm saying that Dr. Brown is claiming that an apology was made.  (See my transcript above)

He may be the one who is reading an apology into recent events. I didn’t necessarily say it is you who are doing that. 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Even if there had been such an admission by President Nelson, that does not amount to a disavowal of the pre-1978 policy pertaining to the priesthood. 

If President Nelson did, as Dr. Brown claims, admit that the church was "complicit in the evil of racism", that is significant regardless of the Church's current non-position on the temple/priesthood ban.

Edited July 22, 2019 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If President Nelson did, as Dr. Brown claims, admit that the church was "complicit in the evil of racism", that is significant regardless of the Church's current non-position on the temple/priesthood ban.

I don’t think it is correct to call it a “non-position”. The position, as I understand it, is that the origin of the ban is unclear but that it could not have been lifted without divine approbation through direct revelation, a thing that didn’t happen for quite a while, notwithstanding earnest and repeated petitions from the Lord’s spokesmen extending at least as far back as President McKay. This is far from a “non-position.” 

As for being “complicit in ... racism,” does this refer to the Church as an institution or to some of the members? If the latter, this is nothing new. At least one general conference talk (by President Hinckley) strictly admonished members against racism. (And no, it did not have reference to the priesthood ban, so don’t go there.)

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think it is correct to call it a “non-position”. The position, as I understand it, is that the origin of the ban is unclear but that it could not have been lifted without divine approbation through direct revelation, a thing that didn’t happen for quite a while, notwithstanding earnest and repeated petitions from the Lord’s spokesmen extending at least as far back as President McKay. This is far from a “non-position.”

By "non-position", I mean their unwillingness or lack of ability to state whether the ban was of divine origin or just a policy instituted by President Young.  The essay refers to it being implemented by President Young and then goes on to say that "given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent" Church leaders felt they needed a revelation to change it.  So they won't/can't speak to its origin but somehow just the length of time it was in place means that a revelation was needed to change it.  That's what I consider a non-position.

 

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As for being “complicit in ... racism,” does this refer to the Church as an institution or to some of the members? If the latter, this is nothing new. At least one general conference talk (by President Hinckley) strictly admonished members against racism. (And no, it did not have reference to the priesthood ban, so don’t go there.)

Dr. Brown's comment seems to refer to the church in general.  And your thought that he was talking about former US President Lyndon B Johnson tells me that you are really looking for him to be saying something that he wasn't.

[juliann]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

Something interesting that the NAACP Historian said (2:20 mark in the above video) about the Church when he introduced president Nelson:

"They had the courage to say we have unfortunately been complicit in that evil of racism in this nation but unlike certain persons in America we are humble enough to say that we are sorry, we're going to change our ways"

So has an apology been given by the church or is he just interpreting the positive actions of the church as an apology without actually saying it? 

 

Pres Hinckly said that to the head of the AME church at the time, as related by that leader. I don’t recall his name but he relates it on the Nobody Knows video. 

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think it is correct to call it a “non-position”. The position, as I understand it, is that the origin of the ban is unclear but that it could not have been lifted without divine approbation through direct revelation, a thing that didn’t happen for quite a while, notwithstanding earnest and repeated petitions from the Lord’s spokesmen extending at least as far back as President McKay. This is far from a “non-position.” 

I think Rockpond's comment works:

Quote

Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.¹⁶

from: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng 

This certainly doesn't say that the ban could not be lifted without divine approbation through direct revelation.  It says the leaders, during that time, believed that a revelation was needed to alter the policy.  It's left up in the air about whether it was needed or not.  

 

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As for being “complicit in ... racism,” does this refer to the Church as an institution or to some of the members? If the latter, this is nothing new. At least one general conference talk (by President Hinckley) strictly admonished members against racism. (And no, it did not have reference to the priesthood ban, so don’t go there.)

The church is the members; we're very aware of statements by past leaders making racist remarks too.  And without a doubt the priesthood restriction was based on race, making it racist.  

[Nacho2dope]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

It's all a matter of culture and what people interpret as what the spirit feels like. In my opinion those high spirited songs they sing with the clapping and dancing around does not necessarily invite the holy ghost into your heart and soul;
it is more of an emotional response that is interpreted as being the spirit. 

Very much agree with this!!

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, rockpond said:

By "non-position", I mean their unwillingness or lack of ability to state whether the ban was of divine origin or just a policy instituted by President Young.  The essay refers to it being implemented by President Young and then goes on to say that "given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent" Church leaders felt they needed a revelation to change it.  So they won't/can't speak to its origin but somehow just the length of time it was in place means that a revelation was needed to change it.  That's what I consider a non-position.

 

Dr. Brown's comment seems to refer to the church in general.  And your thought that he was talking about former US President Lyndon B Johnson tells me that you are really looking for him to be saying something that he wasn't.

Clearly your definition of “non-position” differs from mine.

And by the way, if Church leaders did not believe it was put in place by revelation, why would they have petitioned the Lord so long and earnestly for approval to lift it? 

My only exposure to Dr. Brown’s introductory remarks was hearing them one time as I watched the internet feed last night. I as much as acknowledged his comments were unclear to me.

Have you never misinterpreted a thing on first hearing/reading? 

Whether his remarks referred to “the Church in general” does not say that President Nelson apologized for the Church as an institution. I heard a number of references from both sides about there being friendship despite not agreeing on everything. This (divine approval for the priesthood ban) could be a thing on which there is some disagreement. 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think Rockpond's comment works:

from: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng 

This certainly doesn't say that the ban could not be lifted without divine approbation through direct revelation.  It says the leaders, during that time, believed that a revelation was needed to alter the policy.  It's left up in the air about whether it was needed or not.  

 

The church is the members; we're very aware of statements by past leaders making racist remarks too.  And without a doubt the priesthood restriction was based on race, making it racist.  

According to Prince’s biography of David O. McKay as quoted by Dan Peterson and cited here, President McKay was told by revelation that the ban would not be lifted during his presidency and that he should not bring the subject up with the Lord again. This tells me that the delay was in accordance with the mind of the Lord. 

Racist remarks by some individuals did not/do not carry the imprimatur of the Church. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And by the way, if Church leaders did not believe it was put in place by revelation, why would they have petitioned the Lord so long and earnestly for approval to lift it?

According to the essay, they felt a revelation was needed because the policy had been in place for so long.  The essay does not suggest that it was because they believed it was put in place by revelation.

 

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Have you never misinterpreted a thing on first hearing/reading?

Yes.  And yet you felt that your listening of it called for you to correct me and suggest that I hadn't listened to the context (ironic).  You stated:  "You might want to take another listen to that in context. I wondered about it too, but it seems to me the man may have been referring to President Lyndon B. Johnson and his “Great Society” programs and the civil rights legislation of the 1960s."

 

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whether his remarks referred to “the Church in general” does not say that President Nelson apologized for the Church as an institution. I heard a number of references from both sides about there being friendship despite not agreeing on everything. This (divine approval for the priesthood ban) could be a thing on which there is some disagreement. 

Apologizing for the institutional actions of the church in the past is the reasonable conclusion from Dr. Brown's statement.  Though I still stipulate that this is one man's interpretation of what President Nelson may have said.

[stemelbow]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

According to Prince’s biography of David O. McKay as quoted by Dan Peterson and cited here, President McKay was told by revelation that the ban would not be lifted during his presidency and that he should not bring the subject up with the Lord again. This tells me that the delay was in accordance with the mind of the Lord. 

Racist remarks by some individuals did not/do not carry the imprimatur of the Church. 

But the comment was about today's position, not McKay's position.  If you are saying that the Church today has the same position held by all prophets of the past, then we might have some major contradictions to figure out.  

[Stargazer]

On 7/19/2019 at 4:09 AM, Calm said:

In Calgary, we lived in an area that had a number of immigrants...mostly Chinese and Koreans, but also knew individuals from India, Pakistan, several countries in the Middle East, South America, and us of course, from the US.

In elementary school, the kids all mixed pretty seamlessly in terms of races.  Did split over who were being taught French immersion (French fries) and English (which most immigrants took, so my daughter's class was 1/3 immigrant; English speaking kids were English muffins).  Some fun teasing, but some nasty as the English kids were more an afterthought than the main focus of a French immersion school, so hard feelings and privilege created conflict at times.

When walking the halls of the junior high, still a lot of mixing as friendships continued, but in high school, races had split off again with a small minority still mixing it up.  And there was tension between groups.  Some kids were also by then often parroting racist remarks  of their parents, whether European or Asian heritage (not enough blacks or Spanish speaking in the school to group up).  It was depressing to me to see so many kids 'revert' to typical cultural standards as they grew up.  Made it clearer why racism persists.

When I was in the US Army in the 1980s I was stationed in Germany for three years. One of the guys in my small independent unit, my maintenance partner for a time, was a African-American, and his wife was a Jamaican, also black.  Their teenaged sons attended the local DOD high school and he was telling me how his sons were starting to take on an "us vs them" attitude in relation to their white peers, and he had had to intervene with them.  This was because their entire family was mixed race back in Jamaica, and they had cousins who were just as white as the kids they were getting a 'tude over, and it wasn't a good thing at all.  

I think this points up an important concept: we are all genetic cousins as well as spiritual brothers and sisters, and we must not let external cues separate us.  

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it’s accurate as reported that he was told by the Lord through revelation the time was not yet for lifting the ban, then the matter of whether he had the full support of the quorum is irrelevant. 

I am not so sure. The church seems to rely upon the principle of consensus much of the time. If the Lord is as reliant upon consensus as He seems to be, then I can actually see that He was not ready to spring lifting of the ban at that time because He knew consensus was then very problematic. In other words, He seems not to be a dictator when it comes to church governance.

And then on the other hand we come to plural marriage which was sprung upon the Church with no consideration of consensus. It was Just Do It.

So I guess I have to rely upon the fact of the 1978 revelation, and leave the whys and wherefores to the Lord. I'm sure we'll all know all about it eventually. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I am not so sure. The church seems to rely upon the principle of consensus much of the time. If the Lord is as reliant upon consensus as He seems to be, then I can actually see that He was not ready to spring lifting of the ban at that time because He knew consensus was then very problematic. In other words, He seems not to be a dictator when it comes to church governance.

Well said, this is inline with my thinking on the matter.

 

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And then on the other hand we come to plural marriage which was sprung upon the Church with no consideration of consensus. It was Just Do It.

For me, this isn't a contradiction because I don't believe that the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to institute the practice of plural marriage.

 

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

For me, this isn't a contradiction because I don't believe that the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to institute the practice of plural marriage.

 

We will have to agree to disagree on that one. 😊

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Well said, this is inline with my thinking on the matter.

 

Why do you say it’s “in line with [your] thinking” when you have said the contrary on ‘this very thread? 

Edited July 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why do you say it’s “in line with [your] thinking” when you have said the contrary on ‘‘tis very thread? 

You’ll have to cite what you are thinking that I’ve said contrary to that.  I don’t believe I have. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 7/21/2019 at 6:52 PM, rockpond said:

According to our prophet, revelation and unanimity among the 15 may be one and the same.

From President Nelson, Oct 2014:

"The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous. Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached!"

 

22 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That reminds me of Brigham Young's commentary on D&C 38:27. In essence, we don't become His by first unifying. Instead, we are first made His through the common experience of revelation, and that makes us one.

 

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

So then, doesn’t this argue against the go-along-to-get-along approach to participation in Church councils? I ask, because I recall a discussion on this board in which some people insisted that it’s not realistic to expect unanimity in arriving at decisions in councils. President Ballard has taught otherwise. 

 

21 hours ago, rockpond said:

I’m not familiar with that argument but I don’t think those comments speak to it. 

 

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hamba said we are unified through the common experience of revelation, suggesting that if a council is in tune with the Spirit, all members will eventually arrive at the same conclusion. How does this not speak to the notion that it is unrealistic to expect unanimity? 

 

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

Ah, I see.  Like I said, I’m not familiar with the argument that it is unrealistic to expect unanimity in our councils. 

 

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I had previously understood that in most instances, unanimity is highly preferred, but not necessarily required.  I wonder if I have been in error on this point.  See, e.g., here:

Here:

Here:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

Okay. 

Good quotes... they all seem to agree with my comments.  Thanks. 

This is a string of comments indicating rockpond agrees that revelation brings unanimity. Now, he says the idea that Lord “relies on consensus much of the time” is “in line with [his] thinking.” 

Rockpond, consensus is not unanimity. It is compromise emerging from differing views.you can say that’s “in line” with your thinking, but if you do, don’t tell us you believe unanimity emerges from revelation. 

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, juliann said:

I don't think that response was typical. It was momentous. I remember where I was when I heard it. People cried. 

Sister Gui and I had the same experience. We know exactly what we were doing when we heard it and we cried, partly because of our knowledge of the struggle some very close faithful mixed-marriage friends were having, and partly because we were prepared and awaiting it. Many of our friends reported the same feelings. Although there probably are some who were,  I don’t know anyone personally who was upset by the announcement.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[rockpond]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is a string of comments indicating rockpond agrees that revelation brings unanimity. Now, he says the idea that Lord “relies on consensus much of the time” is “in line with [his] thinking.” 

I do think it is possible that revelation can bring unanimity.  I also think it’s possible that lack of unanimity can prevent the flow of revelation.

I was highlighting President Nelson’s teaching that unanimity among the 15 is how they know that revelation us been received.  So, per President Nelson, the Lord does rely on consensus (thus the quote I provided).

In April of 2018, President Nelson reinforced that idea with this statement:  “In our meetings, the majority never rules! We listen prayerfully to one another and talk with each other until we are united. Then when we have reached complete accord, the unifying influence of the Holy Ghost is spine-tingling! We experience what the Prophet Joseph Smith knew when he taught, “ By union of feeling we obtain power with God.”  No member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve would ever leave decisions for the Lord’s Church to his own best judgment!”

 

Quote

Rockpond, consensus is not unanimity. It is compromise emerging from differing views.you can say that’s “in line” with your thinking, but if you do, don’t tell us you believe unanimity emerges from revelation. 

Merriam-Webster gives “unanimity” as one of the definitions of consensus.  It also lists unanimity and consensus as synonyms. 

So, whether you use unanimity, consensus, complete accord, or union of feeling... it seems that all 15 of our prophets and apostles need to either be there or get there in order to acknowledge that a revelation has been received.  But I don’t think that precludes the possibility of revelation touching each of their hearts and bringing them into that state of agreement.

Edited July 23, 2019 by rockpond

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I do think it is possible that revelation can bring unanimity.  I also think it’s possible that lack of unanimity can prevent the flow of revelation.

I was highlighting President Nelson’s teaching that unanimity among the 15 is how they know that revelation us been received.  So, per President Nelson, the Lord does rely on consensus (thus the quote I provided).

In April of 2018, President Nelson reinforced that idea with this statement:  “In our meetings, the majority never rules! We listen prayerfully to one another and talk with each other until we are united. Then when we have reached complete accord, the unifying influence of the Holy Ghost is spine-tingling! We experience what the Prophet Joseph Smith knew when he taught, “ By union of feeling we obtain power with God.”  No member of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve would ever leave decisions for the Lord’s Church to his own best judgment!”

 

Merriam-Webster gives “unanimity” as one of the definitions of consensus.  It also lists unanimity and consensus as synonyms. 

So, whether you use unanimity, consensus, complete accord, or union of feeling... it seems that all 15 of our prophets and apostles need to either be there or get there in order to acknowledge that a revelation has been received.  But I don’t think that precludes the possibility of revelation touching each of their hearts and bringing them into that state of agreement.

Here is what Wikipedia has on consensus. I’m highlighting portions for emphasis. 

QUOTE: “Consensus is the community resolution when opposing parties <set aside their differences> and agree on a statement that is agreeable to all, <even if only barely.>

“Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Discussion should aim towards building a consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions. <Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time.> Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that <even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue.>” CLOSE QUOTE

This may be good enough for politicians, government bodies, corporate boards, committees and the like, but it does not strike me as what the Lord wants for councils that are meeting in His name and seeking to bring about His will. 

Rather, I believe He expects each member of the council to seek the spiritual gift of revelation to the end that they, each and every one, unite themselves with the mind and will of God, thereby uniting with one another.  It does not mean setting aside one’s personal opinions for the sake of moving forward with business (the very essence of consensus). It means having the humility, the spiritual malleability, to allow the Spirit to influence one’s mind and heart, to change it, if need be, to conform to the will of God. This may at times take a lot of time, labor, patience and prayer. But I believe it to be the Lord’s desire. 

Edited July 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd