Activism toward the Church; talk by Ahmad S. Corbitt of YM General Presidency

[Bernard Gui]

Just now, ksfisher said:

That would seem to be where the phrase "in all patience and faith" comes into play.

That phrase is always ignored. The faithful African American members I knew at the time of the lifting were the epitome of that advice.

[MrShorty]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

Presentism - "uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts."
A person has to actually have lived in and experienced what happened in the past to rightfully be able to pass judgment on what people did back then.
People call it racism and maybe it was, but it reflects the conditions and attitudes of the people in the past and so therefore back then was not considered something that was as wrong as we think it is now.

I kind of agree that we should [edit] not [/edit] judge historical people for their understandings of morality, but, I feel like this warning against presentism represents a "slippery slope" of sorts on the road to moral relativism. We need to be careful not to judge the people of the past too harshly, but are we allowed to discuss whether slavery (for example) is ever moral?

For a long time up through the late 20th century, "the world" generally believed that homosexuality was "bad" (whether in terms of illness/pathology or in terms of morality), and the church agreed. Late in the 20th century, "the world's" sense of morality/pathology around the issue began to change and, now, in the early 21st century seem headed toward full moral acceptance. Is your caution against presentism also applicable to our judging of future people -- or even present people -- who are and will be simply going along with the morality of the majority?

In response to Obergefell, the Church's official response says that, "Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. " How far do we believe this? Do we really believe that there are moral laws that God cannot and will never violate? What do we make of things like slavery and genocide that seem to us to be so antithetical to any sense of absolute morality, but that scripture attributes to God? In our discussion here and many discussions around the genocides of the OT, I see many "pragmatic" reasons to justify why God might be violating seemingly eternal moral principles. Is God really so pragmatic that He violates eternal morality in the name of pragmatism?

I don't know if everyone who asks these kinds of questions is guilty of activism towards the church, but I might suggest that much of what we are calling ATC in this discussion might really be about people asking about and pushing against the "pat" answers to these kinds of questions. If God really violated absolute morality in the past in these ways, why are we so certain that we now fully understand absolute morality that we are unwilling to consider this that or the other?

Edited November 11, 2022 by MrShorty

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

I will disagree that it must be acknowledged that his comments, which were completely unrelated to the priesthood, are somehow a "foundation" for a priesthood ban.  Two separate issues.   He literally gave a black man the priesthood 2 months before making these remarks (which, again, had nothing to do with the priesthood).   If John Taylor's memory is to be trusted, Joseph refuted the idea of banning the priesthood to blacks.  

You mean, you believe the priesthood would have become an issue...  

I agree that the Saints were "long gone".  I think the Saints tucked away far in the mountains of the west would have largely been, and was, largely ignored during the chaos and culmination up to war.   Whether or not the tiny handful of blacks in Utah held the priesthood would not have been the catastrophe you are imagining - there simply is no evidence to suggest otherwise.  It is just one more creative idea to justify the ban.  The bigger issue would have been their position on slavery - something that BY insisted was divinely inspired.  Again, far more concerning heated than blacks and the priesthood to outsiders was the practice of polygamy. 

I simply can't accept that God would allow his church to fail for being the light on a hill, and for administering the blessing of the gospel to all saints who were worthy of receiving them.  I can't accept that God would persecute righteous black saints by removing blessings of the priesthood/temple in mortality in order to protect white saints from persecution.   

In the end, the war was fought, the confederacy and slavery lost, the blacks received the priesthood long before the second coming of Christ, and right eventually triumphed over wrong. as it always does and always will.  BY was on the wrong side of history in this specific regard, not God.  

Quote

The bigger issue would have been their position on slavery - something that BY insisted was divinely inspired.  Again, far more concerning heated than blacks and the priesthood to outsiders was the practice of polygamy. 

As did Joseph, his mentor.

No war was fought over polygamy. The anti-polygamists’ victory, however, has today been proven short-lived.

According to your argument, it would appear both of the Prophets of the Restoration were on the wrong side. I’m loathe to support that. As Joseph said regarding this very subject, 

Quote

Having spoken frankly and freely, I leave all in the hands of God, who will direct all things for his glory and the accomplishment of his work.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-circa-9-april-1836/3

 

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

  

What I, and the gospel, offers is the Holy Ghost.  Personal revelation with prophets as one source of direction.  I always side with the Holy Ghost/personal revelation which confirms that the following statement by David O McKay is true:

 

Yes, only the prophets can receive revelation for the church, but that is not to say that we can always trust them.  We will not be judged by how perfectly we follow prophets (as they are human/fallible), but by how perfectly we follow the spirit.

You offer the Holy Ghost? How is that possible? 😉

 

Quote

So we should just trust our leaders when they say that blacks were cursed with the curse of Cain/Ham, that slavery is ordained of God, that Adam is our God, and that the blood atonement doctrine is divine...among many other false teachings given in the "name of God"?

Apparently BY trusted his.

Edited November 11, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In response to Obergefell, the Church's official response says that, "Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. " How far do we believe this?

We believe that homosexual behavior is a violation of the law of chastity.  If God chooses to reveal a new law in the future we will follow that.  Until that time we are bound by the word He has revealed now.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Yes, I’ve read the essay and it does not assert that President Kimball didn’t receive a revelation from God to end a legitimate priesthood ban in fulfillment of prophesy. The essay was carefully crafted in an attempt to placate and pacify critics of the Church and does not take precedence over nor supersede a revelation from God that is now canonized in the scriptures. 
 

Special Declaration 2:

“As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.”

Nothing beats going to the source.

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

We believe that homosexual behavior is a violation of the law of chastity.  If God chooses to reveal a new law in the future we will follow that.  Until that time we are bound by the word He has revealed now.

Yes, we are. That’s the point….and the answer to the OP. We are bound to the given until more is given.

Edited November 11, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

This sounds like a doctrine of confusion. 

Again, from Sister McConkie:

Concerning the living prophet, the Lord commands the people of His Church:

“Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

“For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

“For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.”³

To be in harmony with heaven’s divine purposes, we sustain the prophet and choose to live according to his words.

We also sustain President Monson’s counselors and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators. “They have the right, the power, and authority to declare the mind and will of [the Lord] … , subject to … the President of the Church.”⁴ They speak in the name of Christ. They prophesy in the name of Christ. They do all things in the name of Jesus Christ. In their words we hear the voice of the Lord and we feel the Savior’s love. “And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture … and the power of God unto salvation.”⁵ The Lord Himself has spoken: “Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.”⁶

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/10/live-according-to-the-words-of-the-prophets?lang=eng

 

I don't know why you think I disagree with anything Sister McConkie said.   

Here is what B.H. Roberts said about that.  Is his a doctrine of confusion too:

Quote

1921 B.H. Roberts: As to the printed discourses of even leading brethren…they do not constitute the court of ultimate appeal on doctrine. They may be very useful in the way of elucidation and are very generally good and sound in doctrine, but they are not the ultimate sources of the doctrines of the Church, and are not binding upon the Church. The rule in that respect is—What God has spoken, and what has been accepted by the Church as the word of God, by that, and that only, are we bound in doctrine. When in the revelations it is said concerning the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator that the Church shall “give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them—for his word ye shall receive as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith”—(Doc & Cov., Sec. 21)—it is understood, of course, that his has reference to the word of God received through revelation, and officially announced to the Church, and not to every chance word spoken.

"Heed" doesn't mean "trust every single word that comes out of their mouth", rather it means to pay careful attention to and take notice of their words.  Consider them seriously.  Meditate on them.  Pray about them...as all prophets have counseled.  

Yes, we should obey ALL of Gods words as the prophet receives them - but not as he doesn't receive them.  We SHOULDN'T trust EVERY word as if it is GOD's own.   THAT is false doctrine that is responsible for so much unnecessary disillusionment. 

Yes, we should receive the prophets words as if from God's mouth "as he receives them" and when they "speak when moved upon by the holy Ghost".   Only then shall their words be considered scripture.   How are we to know when they speak by the Holy Ghost or not - the only way I know if is by the power of the Holy Ghost.  Personal revelation.  Other than that, the scriptures are what are binding, as B.H. Roberts

Anything other than that is blind faith/trust in fallible humans who do not always speak by the power of the Holy Ghost.   

This is the reason for so much unnecessary disillusionment and falling away.  When people embrace the doctrinal fact supported by our own prophets that they are fallible and that we shouldn't just trust every word they say and follow blindly, but that we should pray and seek for personal revelation/confirmation when in doubt. 

Again, here is what I said - please point out specifically what is untrue.  Is it that we can't always trust them?  Are you honestly going to try and argue that everything they say can be perfectly trusted as if from God's own mouth?

Quote

only the prophets can receive revelation for the church, but that is not to say that we can always trust them.  We will no be judged by how perfectly we follow prophets (as they are human/fallible), but by how perfectly we follow the spirit.

There is much for you to chew on in the following link from the mouths of prophets that you claim we can always trust.  I assume that means you will not disagree with any of their words then.  Please read all of it:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Prophets_are_not_infallible#cite_note-3
 

And before someone accuses me, yet again, of "cancelling" Brigham Young for simply acknowledging that he was fallible, I will include the following words from Brigham Young whom I hold in great esteem and believe was a prophet of God and trust that most of what he said from what I have read of him. 

Quote

Can a Prophet or an Apostle be mistaken? Do not ask me any such question, for I will acknowledge that all the time, but I do not acknowledge that I designedly lead this people astray one hair’s breadth from the truth, and I do not knowingly do a wrong, though I may commit many wrongs, and so may you. But I overlook your weaknesses, and I know by experience that the Saints lift their hearts to God that I may be led right"

-Brigham Young

Believe it or not, it is possible for a Saint, yes a "SAINT", kfisher (how dare you question the sainthood in a different post of those who have been called of God, baptized and ordained members of Christs church, are temple worthy, but who simply disagree with you in certain matters!), to not accept/trust every word of every prophet who has ever lived and remain a Saint with a vibrant testimony of the restored gospel.   One can accept that prophets have made huge mistakes and still sustain them as a prophet.

Edited November 11, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

42 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

As did Joseph, his mentor.

No war was fought over polygamy. The anti-polygamists’ victory, however, has today been proven short-lived.

According to your argument, it would appear both of the Prophets of the Restoration were on the wrong side. I’m loathe to support that. As Joseph said regarding this very subject, 

No war was fought over the priesthood either.  You keep making this about slavery.  I'm not sure why. 

If Joseph believed that slavery in America was ordained of God, then yes, I hold that both prophets of the Restoration were mistaken in this particular regard.  One should be free to disagree with prophets who freely acknowledge their own fallibility, Bernard, without being accused of cancelling them (a word you keep using), by the way. 

Edited November 11, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You offer the Holy Ghost? How is that possible? 😉

I have said many times in my life by the authority of the priesthood and by laying on of hand "receive the Holy Ghost", so there is that.  But I was more offering the idea of the Holy Ghost as the ultimate source of trust as an alternative to the fallible human prophets.

26 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Apparently BY trusted his.

Which was probably his error. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

That would seem to be where the phrase "in all patience and faith" comes into play.

Are you suggesting that acknowledging mistakes is not being patient or faithful? 

 

[Bernard Gui]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have said many times in my life by the authority of the priesthood and by laying on of hand "receive the Holy Ghost", so there is that.  But I was more offering the idea of the Holy Ghost as the ultimate source of trust as an alternative to the fallible human prophets.

Which was probably his error. 

Whose? 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yet those blessings were promised to come, and they did come at the right time. 
 

Actually, those blessings were promised to only come long after the second coming of Christ.   They can't both be the right time.  It appears that at least one of them was not really speaking for God on this matter.  

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that acknowledging mistakes is not being patient or faithful? 

 

Yes, if it involves denigration and cancellation.

[pogi]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Whose? 

Well, if Joseph misspoke about slavery and Brigham blindly trusted him, then it was both their mistakes. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Well, if Joseph misspoke about slavery and Brigham blindly trusted him, then it was both their mistakes. 

Interesting. Same with polygamy?

Edited November 11, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

From my read of the essay, it seems to be silent on the issue of whether or not revelation began the ban.  As in, the church doesn't seem to know if it was revelation of not because there is no record of where the ban came from, and doesn't really seem to answer that question with the essay but leaves it open.

Actually, the idea that the ban was revealed was a major theory forwarded by some Church leaders and members. And the essay claims that this explanation is not accepted by the Church today. Now, while I suppose that this doesn't rule it out, it does mean that there isn't any evidence of a revelation to begin the ban - and in the LDS Church, with its broad documentary history, this is meaningful.

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, if it involves denigration and cancellation.

Ok.  Why do I get the impression that you are pointing the finger at me? 

Edited November 11, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Interesting. Same with polygamy?

I don't know.  I hope not, but I haven't received any personal confirmation one way or the other.

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

What he had to deal with was black men marrying white women.

Please show anything Brigham said that shows concern about giving the Priesthood to blacks because of potential war/persecution of the Saints, etc. in Utah.  Official CFR  (I recognize it was a massive issue in the past back East for the Church and it is possible in my view that this history inflated any current difficulties in the view of BY and others about potential persecution of the Church and I am even open to the idea they repeated behaviour that occurred there trying to deflate the persecution, but I think documentation is needed to show this was actually part of the thought process on the ban if it is going to be claimed as the reason.)

I will provide the issue of marriage (added:  actually it was having children that was the issue, I tend to equate them and get sloppy) likely being a major, if not the major issue documentation later tonight.  The other issue that contributed imo was Southern converts who brought slaves with them to Utah and didn’t want to lose their “property”.   Doubt anyone wants to defend that as an appropriate reason for the ban, correct?

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Origin_of_the_priesthood_ban

I have Russell’s book which has all the documentation we had up until it was published, which pretty much convinced me to hold my current position.  Here is a 2014 talk he gave that includes a lot of his documentation, including the quote of Brigham praising a black elder prior to doing an about face on the subject of priesthood (I say about face because he explicitly says blood doesn’t matter.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2014/shouldering-the-cross

 

and

So as long as they had no children even a married black man and white woman could enter the temple and be sealed, but have children and death is deserved.  With strong beliefs and feelings like that, it does not surprise me Brigham moves for a ban that has the effect of preventing intermixing as well as removing any possibility of appearance that the Territory or the Church approves of such.

I believe I have repeatedly stated my position as an opinion (a strong one) that no one has to accept. It is based on my experiences and the thought I have given this issue over many decades. I don’t know how that qualifies as a CFRable other than what I have presented. I believe interracial marriage (which was not widely accepted at the time and in fact illegal in many places) would have divisive among converts had it become a practice in those times. Maybe even a violent issue. It was culturally opposed in my lifetime, and not only in the Church. I have witnessed that change.

Were any people killed or even threatened to be killed?
 

 

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I see this sort of defense as racism (which isn't the same as saying that you are racist). This sort of principle is inconsistent with the Gospel. We don't do what is right only when it is easy. There is something fascinating here (at least to me) in the idea that the creator of the universe is limited in His ability to protect His Church - and so must allow (and even promote) the continuance of racist practices and policies. This is the kind of thinking that led to the priesthood ban in the beginning.

Slavery had a long standing history in New Mexico beginning with the Spaniards. But, this was slavery of Native Americans, not blacks. By the 1840s, there were only a dozen documented black slaves in New Mexico (with laws that discouraged blacks from moving or being moved there). Let's not conflate a bunch of other issues here (after all, legalized slavery is even worse than the priesthood ban in my opinion). Your claims are all anecdotal. There isn't any real evidence that lifting the priesthood ban would have damaged the Church in 1969. And claiming that the Church shouldn't have done it because it created risks for the Church is an argument without any foundation. After all, the Church went right ahead with polygamy, which did in fact cause significant damage to the Church.

These kinds of justifications also translate into a kind of racism. All of these arguments claim that it is possible harm that could could come to everyone else (the white members of the Church) are the real reason why the Church continued its racist policies. But, interestingly enough - these kinds of justifications are ALL AFTER THE FACT. There wasn't anyone in Church leadership arguing that we couldn't lift the ban because it might create problems in the context of the Civil Rights movement. The arguments in 1969 were entirely about the question of whether or not the priesthood ban was created by revelation. At the same time, the leaders of the Church in the 1940s and 1950s weren't simply waiting for the right time, they were actually advocating against civil rights for blacks. Further, they were engaged in political activities to prevent blacks from moving to Utah. President Henry D. Moyle (First Presidency in 1959) actively requested that the U.S. Department of Defense not send troops to the army base in Tooele because of the number of black families this would bring to Utah. Two years later (1961), Moyle was vocal in meetings of the First Presidency about the unconstitutionality of Kennedy's Civil Rights (as recorded in President McKay's diaries). Then apostle Harold B. Lee criticized BYU for allowing for the admission of black students. His complaint to then President of BYU Wilkinson: "If a granddaughter of mine should ever go to the BYU and become engaged there, I would hold you responsible." Let's not forget that even in Utah, in the 1950s, racial segregation was embedded in society. Segregation was the norm. In 1962, Hugh B. Brown (now a member of the First Presidency) issued a formal statement in General Conference about civil rights.

Among other things, the Utah legislature removed the laws opposing mixed racial marriages the next spring - but this was the extent of its response. This statement, however, was used to create the perception of a limited the role of the Church in the (lack of) significant progress towards civil rights in Utah. It also raised President McKay's prominence. He was the first religious leader Johnson invited to the White House after the assassination of Kennedy. But, this view was not shared by all of the LDS leaders.  Ezra Taft Benson was quoted in the Desert News as having said: "The pending 'civil rights' legislation is, I am convinced, about 10 per cent civil rights and 90 per cent a further extension of socialistic federal controls. ... It is part of the pattern for the communist take-over of America." In contrast to President Brown's remarks, Benson's later comments (and those of other leaders of the Church) fueled a series of civil rights issues for the Church, including bomb threats and other threats of violence. This was occurring because of the Church's resistance to the civil rights movement, not because of it's willingness to embrace racial equality within (and without) the Church. This is partly why I find your arguments don't have a lot of merit. The Church was already embroiled in civil rights issues - primarily because the leadership was split. A good example of this was Benson's October 1967 conference talk. Benson had told President McKay that he wanted to speak in conference about how to bring peace instead of conflict in the area of civil rights. McKay agreed. I think that they had different visions of what that meant. In the October 1967 conference, among other things, Benson said the following:

Perhaps you can understand why I think that your sort of concerns are nonsensical. The Church wasn't dealing with the idea that there would be an existential threat to the Church if they gave blacks the priesthood. This never comes up. They were already receiving threats because they were not only not promoting the civil rights that they themselves claimed were important, but many of the Church leaders were actively opposing the process. Perhaps my favorite anecdote from this period also involves Ezra Taft Benson. His heavy political involvement caused the First Presidency to assign him as a mission president to the European Mission (assigning an apostle to such a position hadn't happened since the end of the 19th century). This reduced the spotlight on him.  When W. Averill Harriman (Under-secretary of State for European Affairs for the United States), wrote to Hugh B. Brown to ask how long Elder Benson was intending to stay in Europe (the State Dept. was worried Elder Benson would stir-up the Communists in Europe with his rhetoric) President Brown wrote back “If I had my way, he'll never come back!". (Brown statement to Harriman and Richard D. Poll, 25 Oct. 1963) In another related example, Elder Joseph Fielding Smith (then the president of the Quorum of the Twelve), wrote to Congressman Ralph R. Harding of Idaho the following (at the time Elder Benson was assigned to Europe): “I think it is time that Brother Benson forgot all about politics and settled down to his duties as a member of the Council of the Twelve. He is going to take a mission to Europe in the near future and by the time he returns I hope he will get all of the political notions out of his system. I am glad to report that it will be some time before we hear anything from Brother Benson, who is now on his way to Great Britain where I suppose he will be, at least for the next two years. When he returns I hope his blood will be purified." (Wilkinson diary, 14 Dec. 1963; Joseph Fielding Smith to Congressman Ralph Harding, 23 Dec 1963).

I think that there is a certain amount of rewriting the past that has been going on with this issue here. It is a reverse-sort of presentism. The reality that I see is that the Church was involved with the Civil Rights movement precisely because its racist policies and the justification for those policies created by the Church's leadership over previous decades created a situation where the Church was already heavily impacted - long before (and to some extent apart from) the question of lifting the priesthood ban. To argue that the Church faced an existential crisis if it had moved forward with lifting the priesthood ban is, in my opinion, utter nonsense. It doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny. It is simply a revisionist view of the past meant to protect the Church and its leaders from any notion that perhaps there was real racial animus and racism within the Church at all levels.

Finally, it is easy enough to argue that we believe that everyone has an equal opportunity in the eternities, but in doing so, we forget that historically, this was not considered to be true. We shouldn't forget the special sealing given to Jane Manning James, which included the promise that she would be "attached as a Servitor for eternity" to Joseph Smith. This is not equal opportunity. And it is in part the issues over race which led to some of the discussions about progression between kingdoms in the afterlife (a way to allow blacks to enter the Celestial Kingdom under the older understandings). Here again, by pushing a current view of Celestial glory (one that really only reached its current state following that 1978 decision) we completely ignore some of the real issues of the past - pretending that they never existed. We are whitewashing the past in such explanations.

This is, intended or not, a very racist defense of the Church. By completely re-contextualizing the problem, by making it about anything but the real concerns and segregationist views within the Church, we are dismissive about the impact that these policies had on blacks, while emphasizing the (questionable) suffering that would be experienced by everyone else should the change have happened earlier.

Thank you. None of this mitigates against my position, anecdotal or not, but I appreciate the time you have spent preparing it. Especially for providing more anecdotal evidence for your own. In fact, I view this as more support. We simply were not ready, as you have effectively shown. The change came when all things were prepared. My generation was deliberately prepared and ready. I acknowledge all that had happened, but I maintain it was for a reason. You have no obligation to accept this, but I firmly reject the continuing charge of whitewashing, rewriting, and racism. You have done some rewriting yourself.

Quote

The resistance to this change wasn't so much from the membership as it was from the leadership, and as I noted, all it took for the change to occur was for three already very old men to die.

“Three alreadyvery old men…” Hmmm.

You have provided no evidence that the members of the Church were ready to lift the ban in 1959, but that the leaders were not. I believe that neither the members nor the leaders were prepared before the revelation was given. It was at precisely the right time. All things came together for it to happen in an orderly manner. Of course there may have been some disgruntled die-hards, but as far as I can tell if they didn’t like it they kept it to themselves or in some cases came around sooner or later. I believe if President McKay had received that revelation in 1959, even those three very old men would have said the same thing Elder McConkie said in 1978.

Was anyone harmed by God and prophets denying Priesthood and temple blessings to all who lived during the times they were withheld?  No, of course not those things have only been available to all mankind since 1820. Joseph defended the concept slavery, not just black slavery on scriptural bases, but he condemned abuse of any human. Provisions for all this were made in his Plan. 

As Joseph said,

Quote

“Having spoken frankly and freely, I leave all in the hands of God, who will direct all things for his glory and the accomplishment of his work.”

All things, IMO, include mistakes, if there are such. 

Edited November 11, 2022 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know.  I hope not, but I haven't received any personal confirmation one way or the other.

Thanks. I believe both had a purpose and that both were ended when the purpose was accomplished. 

[Bernard Gui]

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ok.  Why do I get the impression that you are pointing the finger at me? 

I am absolutely not pointing at you. Sorry if I gave that impression. To use this issue to tar and feather Brigham Young (and by extension Joseph Smith)as some have done is what I object to. 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that acknowledging mistakes is not being patient or faithful? 

 

Leaders acknowledging their mistakes is fine.  They do.  But the finger pointing, fault finding, if A was wrong then B might be also kind of thinking that many seem to engage in is not.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

That would seem to be where the phrase "in all patience and faith" comes into play.

Of course, but that doesn't really answer my question on why some members push back so hard (sometimes even to the point of questioning their testimony or implying they don't deserve the title of saint) against any other member discussing the fallibility of prophets and apostles.