Opinion Piece by Ty Mansfield: Managing "Tension" between Doctrines and Impact

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I think it is true.

12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Brigham Young claimed revelatory provenance for the ban.

CFR, please.

““The Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the priesthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Abel had received the priesthood, until the redemption of the earth,” Young intoned to the legislators. “If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called Negroes are the children of old Cain. ...Were the children of God to mingle their seed with the seed of Cain, it would not only bring the curse of being deprived of the power of the priesthood upon themselves but entail it upon their children after them, and they cannot get rid of it.”

Here Brigham Young declares the revealed doctrine invoking his prophetic mantle. 
 

As for the rest of your post, I find it most unconvincing. Find me something written in the 1950’s stating  that the priesthood ban had no revelatory backing or scriptural provenance. You won’t find anything. I have no doubt that if the church makes a change here that the apologists in decades to come will have no problem showing that the church’s discrimination against LGBTQ members had no scriptural or revelatory provenance. There are liberal members in the church today making these very arguments. 

[webbles]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think you would be hard-pressed to back that up with any apostolic quotes. The earliest stuff suggested Millenium at the earliest and based on the “Curse of Cain” explanation there are quotes about it being denied until the end or until Abel had a chance to have posterity and other things that didn’t suggest it would still be in the fallen world. If there is anything since I would like to hear it.

If you are saying members at the time believed it could happen at any time then yes, that is possible but it is hard to tie that belief as being based on revelation from prophets and apostles.

I would be glad to be proven wrong.

Fair has a 1969 letter to General Authorities, Stake Presidents, etc (https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements#1969, it was also printed in the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/1970/01/09/archives/statement-by-mormons-on-role-of-negro.html) that has:

Quote

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

The church's website looks like it has a fuller quote from President McKay (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2018/06/commemorating-the-1978-revelation/the-long-promised-day?lang=eng)

Quote

“Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood. In the meantime, those of that race who receive the testimony of the restored gospel may have their family ties protected and other blessings made secure, for in the justice and mercy of the Lord they will possess all the blessings to which they are entitled in the eternal plan of salvation and exaltation.”

That same page also has a quote from President Lee (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2018/06/commemorating-the-1978-revelation/the-long-promised-day?lang=eng)

Quote

“It’s only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we’re just waiting for that time.”

Fair also has a comment from President Kimball when he was first called as president that says: (https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Understanding_pre-1978_statements)

Quote

[I have given it] "a great deal of thought, a great deal of prayer. The day might come when they would be given the priesthood, but that day has not come yet. Should the day come it will be a matter of revelation. Before changing any important policy, it has to be through a revelation from the Lord.

So, that's three presidents who publicly stated that the priesthood ban would be rescinded at some point and didn't give any limitation (unless the quotes have been butchered, and if so, I'd love to know).  I think members at that time had a very good reason to believe the ban could be rescinded at any time.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Scott, you remember the Great Apostasy in 1978 when 20% of the members threatened to leave if OD2 was not removed. No? Neither do I.

I do remember my Stake President casually asking me how I felt about it( while in line at the grocery store of all places ). I told him I was happy about it and that I knew it would happen sometime. 

I did hear rumors that a few members in the US south were not too happy about it, but that was just a fleeting rumor. 

Yes, it was widely acclaimed. There was much rejoicing the day it was announced that is still vivid in my memory. 
 

Im not sure I get the point of your post, though. Can you clarify? 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Can you tell me why everyone thought the ban would be lift soon?  What did they base this timetable on?  And why did they dismiss the last part of what Brigham Young said about his revelation or whatever they are calling it now?  Certainly not all of the sons of Adam have first received the priesthood.

See my post from above on statements from presidents just before the ban on why most members would think it would be lifting soon (or at least before all of the sons of Adam first received their priesthood).  As for why members dismissed the last part of what Brigham Young said, it is probably because they didn't know about it and were listening to what the more recent presidents were saying.  Since the statement from Brigham Young was to the Utah territorial legislature and not done over the pulpit, how widely known was it?

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

Can you tell me why everyone thought the ban would be lift soon?  What did they base this timetable on?  And why did they dismiss the last part of what Brigham Young said about his revelation or whatever they are calling it now?  Certainly not all of the sons of Adam have first received the priesthood.

I didn’t say we “thought the ban would be lift[ed] soon.” I said we thought it could happen anytime. That’s not the same thing. Anytime could be within a span from the present moment to some point far into the future. 
 

And I don’t know that very many people were aware of the Brigham Young quote. I know I wasn’t. I think it conclusory on your part to say it’s what people were taught back then. Then, as now, Church lessons rarely focused on the priesthood restriction. 
 

I repeat that OD 2 shows that President Kimball, if he was aware of the quote at all, didn’t take that portion seriously. Else why would he spend “many hours in the upper room of the temple” imploring Heavenly Father on behalf of “these our brethren”?

Edited October 23, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, webbles said:

See my post from above on statements from presidents just before the ban on why most members would think it would be lifting soon (or at least before all of the sons of Adam first received their priesthood).  As for why members dismissed the last part of what Brigham Young said, it is probably because they didn't know about it and were listening to what the more recent presidents were saying.  Since the statement from Brigham Young was to the Utah territorial legislature and not done over the pulpit, how widely known was it?

I venture to say not widely known at all. I didn’t become aware of it until later years when critics of the Church began to cherry pick it. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 hours ago, webbles said:

Since the statement from Brigham Young was to the Utah territorial legislature and not done over the pulpit, how widely known was it?

Since it is the source of “the long promised day” prophesy, I’d say it was pretty well known (just selectively edited). 

[webbles]

29 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Since it is the source of “the long promised day” prophesy, I’d say it was pretty well known (just selectively edited). 

So you are saying that the members didn't know about the last part in President Young's statement because it was selectively edited out?  That's what I think as well.  That's why members could dismiss that part of the statement since they didn't know about as it was selectively edited out.

[california boy]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

See my post from above on statements from presidents just before the ban on why most members would think it would be lifting soon (or at least before all of the sons of Adam first received their priesthood).  As for why members dismissed the last part of what Brigham Young said, it is probably because they didn't know about it and were listening to what the more recent presidents were saying.  Since the statement from Brigham Young was to the Utah territorial legislature and not done over the pulpit, how widely known was it?

 

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn’t say we “thought the ban would be lift[ed] soon.” I said we thought it could happen anytime. That’s not the same thing. Anytime could be within a span from the present moment to some point far into the future. 
 

And I don’t know that very many people were aware of the Brigham Young quote. I know I wasn’t. I think it conclusory on your part to say it’s what people were taught back then. Then, as now, Church lessons rarely focused on the priesthood restriction. 
 

I repeat that OD 2 shows that President Kimball, if he was aware of the quote at all, didn’t take that portion seriously. Else why would he spend “many hours in the upper room of the temple” imploring Heavenly Father on behalf of “these our brethren”?

So what you both are saying is that everyone was aware that Brigham Young declared that negros could not hold the priesthood, but they actually don't really know what he said and how he said it?

 

I certainly knew what the promise Brigham Young made to those negros and when that promise would take place.  I guess I was not a lazy learner.

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised given the way the Church constantly told half truths and distorted its history.  It seems to be their modus operendi.  Something that has come back to bite them big time.

Edited October 23, 2021 by california boy

[SeekingUnderstanding]

23 minutes ago, webbles said:

So you are saying that the members didn't know about the last part in President Young's statement because it was selectively edited out?  That's what I think as well.  That's why members could dismiss that part of the statement since they didn't know about as it was selectively edited out.

Yes. I’m saying that once internal (via church members questions, questions about ordinations in Brazil and other areas where mixed races were common) and external pressure started to mount, church leaders began to seriously look at this issue. They used this quote out of context to push a narrative that the priesthood ban was temporary, and would end in the Lords time as foretold by Brigham Young. They left off (very intentionally in my opinion) the part where Brigham Young said exactly when the ban was foretold to end. 

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

So what you both are saying is that everyone was aware that Brigham Young declared that negros could not hold the priesthood, but they actually don't really know what he said and how he said it?

 

I certainly knew what the promise Brigham Young made to those negros and when that promise would take place.  I guess I was not a lazy learner.

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised given the way the Church constantly told half truths and distorted its history.  It seems to be their modus operendi.  Something that has come back to bite them big time.

I’m saying it appears you have bought into the cherry picking of a quote that likely wasn’t nearly as widely known pre-1978 as you have made it out to be and that you have made the conclusory assertion that it’s what Church members “were taught” back then. 
 

We’re you even alive prior to 1978? I was, and I was well into adulthood. I well remember conditions then, and they did not include the widespread assumption that the lifting of the priesthood restriction would not occur until “the end of time.”
 

You have steadfastly ignored the obvious indication that President Kimball himself did not assume that would be the case (Webbles has shown that other prophets before him, namely David O. McKay and Harold B. Lee, did not either); what makes you think everybody else did? 

Edited October 23, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[webbles]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

So what you both are saying is that everyone was aware that Brigham Young declared that negros could not hold the priesthood, but they actually don't really know what he said and how he said it?

 

I certainly knew what the promise Brigham Young made to those negros and when that promise would take place.  I guess I was not a lazy learner.

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised given the way the Church constantly told half truths and distorted its history.  It seems to be their modus operendi.  Something that has come back to bite them big time.

The issue is on when the ban would be lifted.  I don't think many members knew what Brigham Young had said about the time limit for the ban.  In addition, by the 1970s, several of the presidents had talked about the ban being lifted without putting any limit.  So I don't see any problem with members believing that the ban could be lifted within their lifetime.

[webbles]

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Yes. I’m saying that once internal (via church members questions, questions about ordinations in Brazil and other areas where mixed races were common) and external pressure started to mount, church leaders began to seriously look at this issue. They used this quote out of context to push a narrative that the priesthood ban was temporary, and would end in the Lords time as foretold by Brigham Young. They left off (very intentionally in my opinion) the part where Brigham Young said exactly when the ban was foretold to end. 

Even with the full context of that quote, it shows that the ban was temporary.  Then you have other quotes from early prophets that also say that the ban was temporary.  I think everyone should be able to agree that the ban was always going to be lifted at some point.

[webbles]

I came across an article in the Daily Universe (BYU newspaper) on June 22, 1978.  A BYU class did a random telephone survey of 245 residents in Utah valley on their reaction to the lifting of the ban.  You can read it at https://archive.org/details/dailyuniverse31163asso/page/n3/mode/2up?view=theater.  It is in the bottom middle of page 4 with the title "Priesthood policy survey well received in county".

Some excerpts (I can't copy/paste so I might have some typos).  Any italicized text is my own additions.

Quote

A high percentage of Utah County residents are pleased with the recent announced LDS doctrine granting the priesthood to blacks, according to a random telephone survey conducted by a BYU class.

Quote

Some 45 percent of those who heard of the doctrine from personal sources [53 percent of all the respondents] expressed doubt that the news was true. This compares with only 25 percent of those who learned from media sources.  Sixty-two percent of the former group expressed shock, compared with 52 percent of the latter.

Quote

Those surveyed appeared surprised by the announcement, Haroldsen said.  Thirty-nine percent said they did not think "it would ever happen" -- that the priesthood would ever be given to blacks.

Another 40 percent expected it years in the future, after Christ's return, during the Millenium, or "not in my lifetime."

Quote

While an overwhelming majority of 85 percent was enthusiastic about the announcement, 15 percent of those surveyed were neutral, somewhat anxious, or very disturbed and displeased.  Among the four persons who said they were disturbed was one 92-year-old LDS member.

So, of the 245, 95-96 (245 * .39 is 95.55) of them didn't think the ban would ever be lifted, 98 thought it would be lifted at some point in the far future, and 51-52 either expected it or thought it might be in the near future.  39% is higher than I would have expected since I thought everyone knew the ban was temporary, but I guess there was a good number who thought it was permanent.

Edited October 23, 2021 by webbles

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Scott, you remember the Great Apostasy in 1978 when 20% of the members threatened to leave if OD2 was not removed. No? Neither do I.

I do remember my Stake President casually asking me how I felt about it( while in line at the grocery store of all places ). I told him I was happy about it and that I knew it would happen sometime. 

I did hear rumors that a few members in the US south were not too happy about it, but that was just a fleeting rumor. 

I have an older friend who was on a mission in the US south in 1978. He said there were some incensed people including his then companion. Also some members who stopped coming. Reported his companion went home and laid down in his bed hitting his fist repeatedly against the wall repeating: “I can’t believe they gave the (fill in the blank with obvious plural word here) the Priesthood” for several hours.

Edited October 23, 2021 by The Nehor

[california boy]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

Even with the full context of that quote, it shows that the ban was temporary.  Then you have other quotes from early prophets that also say that the ban was temporary.  I think everyone should be able to agree that the ban was always going to be lifted at some point.

I love how temporary means until the end of the Millennium.  Taking that point of view, isn't just about EVERYTHING temporary?

The Church is certainly good at revising its history to fit the narrative it wants.  We have seen that time and again haven't we. 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

I came across an article in the Daily Universe (BYU newspaper) on June 22, 1978.  A BYU class did a random telephone survey of 245 residents in Utah valley on their reaction to the lifting of the ban.  You can read it at https://archive.org/details/dailyuniverse31163asso/page/n3/mode/2up?view=theater.  It is in the bottom middle of page 4 with the title "Priesthood policy survey well received in county".

Some excerpts (I can't copy/paste so I might have some typos).  Any italicized text is my own additions.

So, of the 245, 95-96 (245 * .39 is 95.55) of them didn't think the ban would ever be lifted, 98 thought it would be lifted at some point in the far future, and 51-52 either expected it or thought it might be in the near future.  39% is higher than I would have expected since I thought everyone knew the ban was temporary, but I guess there was a good number who thought it was permanent.

From the article

Quote

 

Thirty-nine percent said they did not think "it would ever happen" -- that the priesthood would ever be given to blacks.

Another 40 percent expected it years in the future, after Christ's return, during the Millenium, or "not in my lifetime."

 

That is a total of 79% that didn't expect blacks to receive the priesthood until years in the future.  Kinda blows Scott's and your claim that it was an expected announcement completely out of the water doesn't it.

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

From the article

That is a total of 79% that didn't expect blacks to receive the priesthood until years in the future.  Kinda blows Scott's and your claim that it was an expected announcement completely out of the water doesn't it.

But Webbles said, " 98 thought it would be lifted at some point in the far future." That would be my experience...I take the far future as meaning about the same as women getting the priesthood when we say not in my lifetime. 

I did a lot of research on this stuff early on in FAIR.  Although critics love to go back to the earliest and most controversial prophets, like BY, that does not always represent modern thought. When we have pretty much rejected his removal of the priesthood I don't think it is particularly intellectually honest to continue to appeal to his reasoning as if that carries on as well. The only later prophet I could find who said blacks wouldn't eventually get the priesthood on earth was Joseph F. Smith. 

Using badly interpreted scripture to advocate for racism is old and tired, folks. Stop it. That in itself, when we now know better, is as racist as those who started it. 

[juliann]

27 minutes ago, california boy said:

I love how temporary means until the end of the Millennium.  Taking that point of view, isn't just about EVERYTHING temporary?

The Church is certainly good at revising its history to fit the narrative it wants.  We have seen that time and again haven't we. 

I think you are missing the point. It is not that there wasn't racism. It is that factually, the church did not say restrictions would be forever. Now that doesn't remove the deeply disturbing piece of that or the treatment of blacks....but it simply isn't truthful to claim that this was said to be eternal. Don't make more of it than it is. 

In the church's defense, at the time, this was more progressive than some other mainstream religions. Small comfort but another thing that should be acknowledged.

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, juliann said:

I think you are missing the point. It is not that there wasn't racism. It is that factually, the church did not say restrictions would be forever. Now that doesn't remove the deeply disturbing piece of that or the treatment of blacks....but it simply isn't truthful to claim that this was said to be eternal. Don't make more of it than it is. 

In the church's defense, at the time, this was more progressive than some other mainstream religions. Small comfort but another thing that should be acknowledged.

With all due respect, I think you are the one missing the point.  Scott and Webbly were claiming that almost everyone was not surprised by the ban being lifted in 1978.  The Daily Universe article completely disputes that.  79% were surprised by that announcement.  

I have never claimed that the ban would EVENTUALLY be lifted. The prophecy clearly states. "The Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the priesthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Abel had received the priesthood, until the redemption of the earth,”  That expectation was changed to 1978.

Could you elaborate how the Church was more progressive than other mainstream religions at the time?  In what way?

[webbles]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I love how temporary means until the end of the Millennium.  Taking that point of view, isn't just about EVERYTHING temporary?

The Church is certainly good at revising its history to fit the narrative it wants.  We have seen that time and again haven't we. 

But aren't we comparing the ban on the priesthood with the ban on same-sex marriage?  Isn't that why this entire discussion is happening?  The priesthood ban was initially declared that it would some day be removed.  Yes, the initial statement was sometime in the far future.  But it was to be removed.  Whereas for the ban on same-sex marriage, there isn't anything that says it is temporary.  There is nothing that says that the ban will be removed after Christ comes, after the millenium, after resurrection, etc.  So the ban on same-sex marriage isn't temporary.

That's why the two things are so different.  One was prophesied from the beginning that it would end.  Sure, we can argue over whether 1978 was too soon or not, but it was prophesied that it would end.  The other has no prophecy, no expectation, no teaching that says it would ever end.  In fact, we've had the opposite.  The ban on same-sex marriage has been double downed on.  Whereas the ban on the priesthood was slowly eased back.

Edited to add: After going through the postings, I'm not sure if you (california boy) were doing the comparison.  It looks like it was nehor who found the comparison lacking.  So this is more at nehor and not at you.

Edited October 23, 2021 by webbles

[webbles]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

From the article

That is a total of 79% that didn't expect blacks to receive the priesthood until years in the future.  Kinda blows Scott's and your claim that it was an expected announcement completely out of the water doesn't it.

The 40% of people who thought it wouldn't end in their lifetime isn't the real problem for me.  It is the fact that 39% didn't think the ban would ever end.  But, yes, the majority of members in the survey didn't expect it to end within their lifetime.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

But aren't we comparing the ban on the priesthood with the ban on same-sex marriage?  Isn't that why this entire discussion is happening?  The priesthood ban was initially declared that it would some day be removed.  Yes, the initial statement was sometime in the far future.  But it was to be removed.  Whereas for the ban on same-sex marriage, there isn't anything that says it is temporary.  There is nothing that says that the ban will be removed after Christ comes, after the millenium, after resurrection, etc.  So the ban on same-sex marriage isn't temporary.

That's why the two things are so different.  One was prophesied from the beginning that it would end.  Sure, we can argue over whether 1978 was too soon or not, but it was prophesied that it would end.  The other has no prophecy, no expectation, no teaching that says it would ever end.  In fact, we've had the opposite.  The ban on same-sex marriage has been double downed on.  Whereas the ban on the priesthood was slowly eased back.

Edited to add: After going through the postings, I'm not sure if you (california boy) were doing the comparison.  It looks like it was nehor who found the comparison lacking.  So this is more at nehor and not at you.

I am not sure that the priesthood ban was initially said to be going away. ‘Until Abel gets posterity’ is a lot like saying ‘when pigs fly’. Also it is not really initially. At least we don’t know it is. We still haven’t pinned down a conclusive exact beginning to the Ban or the reasoning at the time or any terms in which it would end.

That being said I agree that is a difference but that was never my argument. I said they were alike because many members (openly or secretly) longed for the change. It was the ‘nuh-uh’ about that that I was arguing against. It was pointed out that there was joy in the streets in 1978 for most of the membership. I think there would be similar joy amongst the membership in a revelation about gay relationships clarifying them or allowing them somehow. If not now, within 15 to 30 years. I think that comparison is solid.

[juliann]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

With all due respect, I think you are the one missing the point.  Scott and Webbly were claiming that almost everyone was not surprised by the ban being lifted in 1978.  The Daily Universe article completely disputes that.  79% were surprised by that announcement.  

I have never claimed that the ban would EVENTUALLY be lifted. The prophecy clearly states. "The Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the priesthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Abel had received the priesthood, until the redemption of the earth,”  That expectation was changed to 1978.

Could you elaborate how the Church was more progressive than other mainstream religions at the time?  In what way?

And I'm going to say again, cherry picking quotes from BY when we don't allow for a revelation on the ban for itself isn't being intellectually honest. I said that the 79% was probably equivalent to people who say women won't get the priesthood in their lifetime. They aren't saying they will never, ever get it. Why am I having to repeat that? I lived through this horrible era when even I knew this couldn't go on...it was much easier in white Utah than when I moved to CA and had black friends for the first time. 

I can't elaborate much on the Church being more progressive because I don't have my database anymore and my library is in boxes. The book title I can never remember off the top of my head makes it pretty clear...Mormons were labeled as "black" in political cartoons and commentary before they went west. There was little allowance for blacks to be able to join anything at all, let alone join in salvation with whites. 

[juliann]

43 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not sure that the priesthood ban was initially said to be going away. ‘Until Abel gets posterity’ is a lot like saying ‘when pigs fly’. Also it is not really initially. At least we don’t know it is. We still haven’t pinned down a conclusive exact beginning to the Ban or the reasoning at the time or any terms in which it would end.

That being said I agree that is a difference but that was never my argument. I said they were alike because many members (openly or secretly) longed for the change. It was the ‘nuh-uh’ about that that I was arguing against. It was pointed out that there was joy in the streets in 1978 for most of the membership. I think there would be similar joy amongst the membership in a revelation about gay relationships clarifying them or allowing them somehow. If not now, within 15 to 30 years. I think that comparison is solid.

Nope. It is not the same. And I am not making a statement about gays and the church. I'm only saying it's not even close as a comparison.