Lester Bush's impact on 1978 revelation

[webbles]

In the "Women leaders ordered off the stand" discussion, a side topic started dealing with the 1978 revelation and how much impact Lester Bush (and other historians) had on that revelation.  I created this topic so we could discuss it in its own area and not sidetrack the other discussion.

@SeekingUnderstanding wrote two things that @BRMC demanded references:

15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Prophets of God stated with authority that the priesthood and temple ban went back to Joseph Smith. Until the historians (under threat of church disciple) showed the historical record clearly showed otherwise. In this case the data won over dogma and Black people are now allowed temple privileges. 

15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Great👍. Do you accept that church leaders genuinely thought the ban originated with Joesph? Do you accept that it was Lester Bush’s work that started to turn the tide - leading people to the correct knowledge that Brigham started the ban?? Do you accept Lester Bush’s story telling that he was discouraged from pursuing his work by the people in the top quorums of the church? Do you think that the idea that the ban did not originate with Joseph had any bearing on the apostles willingness to open themselves to the the spirit to allow the change (as they would say it - not me). Because I think every one of those is a statement of fact supported by the historical record. And that’s all I’ve said on this thread. So please point to which statement above you disagree with?

SeekingUnderstanding, for reference, linked to a blog https://proveallthingsholdfasttogood.wordpress.com/the-role-and-impact-of-lester-bushs-scholarship-on-blacks-and-priesthood/ which linked to another blog post and 3 articles.

I want to first say, thanks for that link.  I enjoyed reading the blog and the articles.  Took me a while to get through all of them so that's why I'm only creating this now.

In those two quotes from SeekingUnderstanding, I think these are the following statements that need references:

1. "Prophets of God stated with authority that the priesthood and temple ban went back to Joseph Smith"/"Do you accept that church leaders genuinely thought the ban originated with Joseph" - I think the 1969 First Presidency letter definitely shows this ( https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements#1969 ) so that has a reference.

Quote

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

2. "Until the historians (...) showed the historical record clearly showed otherwise"/"Do you accept that it was Lester Bush's work that started to turn the tide - leading people to the correct knowledge that Brigham started the ban" - I'm not sure this has been shown in the articles.  If we are talking about the 1978 revelation, Bush wrote in the 1999 article ( https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=mormonhistory ) on page 269-270:

Quote

However, while two or three copies of my sourcebook by then were in the Church archives, I have no information to suggest its use in any leadership analysis of Church teachings. Prior to the revelation, President Kimball apparently asked quorum members to provide individually their views on blacks and the priesthood, but it would surprise me if anyone actually went to basic sources. If references were used, they likely were something akin to the Bennion papers and perhaps some of the published books and articles on the subject. If my own work was discussed to any extent, such a discussion would more likely have occurred in 1973 than 1978. The subject will be an interesting question for another generation to address.

The original blog post linked to another article that discussed the impact but it I don't see any discussion of the impact between 1973 and 1978.  It references changes to church statements after 1973 but all of them are also after 1978, so they would be impacted by both Bush's article and the revelation.  The other blog post mentioned that President Kimball had a copy of the 1973 article that was extremely marked up but that appears to no longer be valid.  Gregory Prince, in 2010, tried to track it down and doubts it now ( https://bycommonconsent.com/2010/06/08/the-long-awaited-day/ ).  I'm not seeing anything that shows how much impact Bush's work had on the revelation.  Is there something I missed?

3. "under threat of church discipline"/"Do you accept Lester Bush’s story telling that he was discouraged from pursuing his work by the people in the top quorums of the church?" - In the 1999 article, the only threat of church discipline that Bush talks about was in 1983 (page 267).  Before he published the 1973 article, he had a few meetings with Elder Packer and he understood that Elder Packer wished that the article wasn't going to be published but since it was already in the process, he (Elder Packer) wouldn't get in the way (page 255).  Is there something I'm missing that shows Bush was threatened?  I understand that sometime after the publication, he was ostracized and went inactive (51:46 mark of https://www.youtube.com/live/-4x2WV8dXEA?si=y0MLSJ417M8Hlhrj&t=3106 which is a Juanita Brooks conference) but I don't see any threatening of it before the publication.  There was some threats to editors of the Dialogue and people who had been asked to comment on the 1973 article in the Dialogue.

 

[webbles]

@Calm has some references with regards to the impact:

 

[rpn]

Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis  were not part of our commonly known and/or taught church history before the 1970's (nor were Green Flake (a slave, on loan to Brigham Young from his southern born owners, perhaps as tithing, who built them a home in the valley and then returned to winter quarters to get them, and after his master died, the wife wrote BY asking to have him returned so she could sell him (the letter BY then wrote denying knowledge of where Bro Flake was surviving in church archives (though given that the mistress was in CA in which any former slave became free the moment they entered the territory seems strange), Oscar Crosby, and Hark Lay who were  there for the This is the Place statement.  Or Jane Manning James. 

But to the extent that the church leaders didn't know real church history and DID know that twice (1880's and early 19th century) groups were appointed by church leaders to  investigate the racial ban  (the first time those who had been present simply lied about what Joseph Smith did, and the second also prominently favored those with economic reasons not to want equality, and they relied on the earlier lies. 

I am one who thinks it is at least possible that Heavenly Father approved or didn't disapprove BY instituting the ban.  BY had received notice of two facts ---one that the son of the most prominent black member in the NE had married a white woman within days after his state removed its ban on interracial marriage, and the other that a black member left the Church in Winter Quarters and required white women to spend the night with him before becoming a member of his new church AND HAD converts,  within a space of about six weeks (remember this was 14 or so years before the civi war).   I think that BY believed that the church could not successfully fight the social battles of supporting polygamy and the battles of interracial marriage simultaneously (it only made universally legal in the US in 1967 under a Supreme CT decision Loving v. VA)    And BY decided that withholding priesthood from blacks was the only way to prevent interracial marriage.       I think when we know everything, we will learn that if the initial ban was okay with God,  the two investigations should  have resultedi in its being overturned if mortals hadn't lied and acted on prejudice.   And then it took until 1978 to get a quorum to HEAR HIM in eliminating the ban and the wrongful explanations that had grown up.

Edited November 28, 2023 by rpn

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

And then it took until 1978 to get a quorum to HEAR HIM in eliminating the ban and the wrongful explanations that had grown up.

Could this be an argument against unanimity in the quorums? If it blocks revelation from God?

[webbles]

10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Could this be an argument against unanimity in the quorums? If it blocks revelation from God?

I think unanimity can go both ways.  For instance, it wasn't until about the early 1900s that there was unanimity on the ban.  Before then, Joseph F. Smith kept saying that Elijah had been properly ordained to the priesthood.  That prevented unanimity in declaring the ban was from Joseph Smith.  When Joseph F. Smith switched his stance (reason unknown), all later prophets/apostles could refer back to that unanimous decision.  If Joseph F. Smith hadn't changed or if another apostle had taken Joseph F. Smith's side, the ban could have been lifted a long time ago.

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Could this be an argument against unanimity in the quorums? If it blocks revelation from God?

It could be. It could also be an argument for. The ban likely would have never been implemented (or at least been seriously delayed) if unanimity was an expectation for major changes at the beginning. At least Orson pratt (an apostle)  never agreed with the ban.

Revelation from God is not the only (or most important IMHO) point of the church. Preparing and becoming a Zion people is. Our def of Zion is a people of "one heart, one mind, and no poor among them." I personally see the need for unanimity as a step towards moving us as a whole towards that. 

 

With luv,

BD 

[rpn]

12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Could this be an argument against unanimity in the quorums? If it blocks revelation from God?

I don't think so.  The church as an institution is strengthen by the unanimity requirement.  It tends to stability, after all.   AND it allows God to hold his leaders accountable.   God can take anyone in death whenever it suits His purposes (which doesn't guarantee any difference even then).

[BlueDreams]

14 hours ago, rpn said:

Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis  were not part of our commonly known and/or taught church history before the 1970's (nor were Green Flake (a slave, on loan to Brigham Young from his southern born owners, perhaps as tithing, who built them a home in the valley and then returned to winter quarters to get them, and after his master died, the wife wrote BY asking to have him returned so she could sell him (the letter BY then wrote denying knowledge of where Bro Flake was surviving in church archives (though given that the mistress was in CA in which any former slave became free the moment they entered the territory seems strange), Oscar Crosby, and Hark Lay who were  there for the This is the Place statement.  Or Jane Manning James. 

But to the extent that the church leaders didn't know real church history and DID know that twice (1880's and early 19th century) groups were appointed by church leaders to  investigate the racial ban  (the first time those who had been present simply lied about what Joseph Smith did, and the second also prominently favored those with economic reasons not to want equality, and they relied on the earlier lies. 

I am one who thinks it is at least possible that Heavenly Father approved or didn't disapprove BY instituting the ban.  BY had received notice of two facts ---one that the son of the most prominent black member in the NE had married a white woman within days after his state removed its ban on interracial marriage, and the other that a black member left the Church in Winter Quarters and required white women to spend the night with him before becoming a member of his new church AND HAD converts,  within a space of about six weeks (remember this was 8 years before the civi war).   I think that BY believed that the church could not successfully fight the social battles of supporting polygamy and the battles of interracial marriage simultaneously.    And BY decided that withholding priesthood from blacks was the only way to prevent interracial marriage.       I think when we know everything, we will learn that if the initial ban was okay with God,  the two investigations should  have resultedi in its being overturned if mortals hadn't lied and acted on prejudice.   And then it took until 1978 to get a quorum to HEAR HIM in eliminating the ban and the wrongful explanations that had grown up.

Whenever I think about the relationship between God and the ban I think of how God teaches us individually and in our families first. I can't imagine God approving or "not disapproving" of the errors and problems we have. But we both knew it would happen that I would. They work with what they got, one willing piece at a time. And as long as we're striving for righteousness, we are good with Them IMHO.

I'll give a recent example that happened in our home. My husband and I had very different experiences growing up. He grew up with with parents who loved each other,were consistent, and in a culture where spanking was still a norm. I grew up with inconsistent parents, in a dysfunctional household, where spanking was used ineffectively and based on moods. I relied heavily on my education to give me a better model for parenting and knew that if I spanked it would likely be an extension of my anger and impatience and therefore unhealthy. My husband did not hold such a view. He used spanking from time to time. I wasn't a fan, tried to point this out and back it with reasons, and it didn't compute so we just remained in a stasis with two differing parenting styles that functioned ok, though I still wasn't comfortable with it. Then we had a very painful experience that made us look again at the things we were doing. I mentioned to him after what I call our holy week, that I didn't want our daughter spanked anymore. That I believe life will spank her plenty, it's just our job to help her learn from it. He readily agreed ..it finally computed. 

before this we were a very good couple and parents. I consider our relationship one of the biggest gifts I've ever received from God. We had profound experiences leading up to having our daughter and after having her that let us know she was supposed to be part of our home. she's had everything she's needed, a stable home, and abundant love from both of us. After we were a very good couple, good parents, but we had grown in both to make those labels more true. And there were things in our relationship that needed fixing that we hadn't fixed yet. There are still things that we learned in this experience that we know we need to do, that we're still not the best at doing, but we're working on it. We didn't go from bad to good. Just good to better...and hopefully better still as we continue. Better infers there will be things to improve on, change or let go of entirely as we continue. I don't see that as a problem or some sort of counter-indication of blessings we've received via our sealing or covenants. Rather its what to be expected if we're living up to them. Those changes help align us further with God. Our covenants are the promise that assures us of this relationship to God. Our willingness to make them indicated we were ready to begin such a relationship with God.

 

I think the problem with how we understand the ban is how we view the Church's relationship with change and growth. We have these simple narratives around the idea of restoration, growth, progression, etc...and the ban often pushes rudely against these. My views have shifted in a way that the ban and my love of the church do not feel like abrasive paradoces any more. I'm okay that we likely got this wrong. And I'm okay that we could have probably clued in early that we were holding onto a racist policy with false assumptions and sense of certainty around this issue. I'm okay that this won't be the last time we were wrong...and that whatever we received or don't will be filtered through our collective capacity to receive is. It's what I sign up for every time I take the sacrament and renew my covenants to God and each other. A messy process to become one. 

 

with luv,

BD 

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

I think that Bush had virtually no impact on the 1978 revelation. Part of the reason for this is that the first vote by the Quorum of the 12 to lift the priesthood ban occurred in 1969. It was not unanimous (there were three votes against). If anything, Bush probably delayed the revelation - because the leaders of the Church did not want to be seen to be attempting to appease these voices in their decision. A good starting source on the 1969 vote is in Prince's book: David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism.

The thing is, though, that all of these factors are part of a continuum of issues. Arguments in favor of lifting the ban come much earlier than this. If we want to talk about the influence of Lester Bush, then we should also talk about the influence of Lowry Nelson and others who also pushed the Church to lift the ban decades before Lester Bush is on the scene. And, if we want to discuss influence, one observation should be clear - 45 years after the lifting of the ban, much of what these members had to say against the ban has been incorporated into the official position of the LDS Church on the issue of race and priesthood.

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 11/27/2023 at 11:17 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Could this be an argument against unanimity in the quorums? If it blocks revelation from God?

So ... D&C 107 deals with this issue. The First Presidency is the authoritative top quorum of the LDS Church (vs 22). The Quorum of the Twelve has equal authority to the First Presidency (vs. 24), and the Quorum of the Seventy has an equal authority to both the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency (vs. 26) - but, when either of these quorums are acting with the authority to lead the Church, their decisions must be unanimous (vss. 27-29).

Normally, the Quorum of the Twelve does not make final decisions for the LDS Church. This shift generally only occurs when the First Presidency is dissolved (when the President of the Church dies), and they make decisions for the Church until a new President is called and a new First Presidency is formed. Normally, this occurs fairly quickly (about a week), but that is a normalcy that didn't start until the transition between Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow.

This particular context, and the first attempt to lift the ban by the Q12 occurred because of the complications created by the health challenges faced by President David O. McKay. By the end of his life, he was experiencing significant cognitive impairment. To help manage the duties of the First Presidency, additional counselors were called to the First Presidency. Between 1968 and President McKay's death in January of 1970, there were five counselors in the First Presidency - more than at any other time in the history of the LDS Church. It is in this context that the Q12 voted to lift the priesthood ban - acting in place of the First Presidency, and in this context, the lack of unanimity was the reason why the ban wasn't lifted in 1969. While we might find an argument against unanimity in the quorums in this example, I think that we shouldn't use this sort of exceptional situation as the basis for that sort of change. A better discussion would be to look at the reasons why President of the LDS Church is considered to be a lifetime calling - perhaps in some situations, it might be better for an apostle or a prophet to step down from active service and allow someone who is in better health to assume the mantle. I am not aware of any doctrinal or scriptural positions that would prohibit something like this. For the Quorum of the Seventy, we already have a long-standing emeritus status. As life expectancy goes up, I believe that we will continue to see age related difficulties increase among the top leadership. Perhaps we could take a lesson from Benedict XVI ...

[JustAnAustralian]

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Between 1968 and President McKay's death in January of 1970, there were five counselors in the First Presidency - more than at any other time in the history of the LDS Church.

I thought Brigham Young had a whole stack of them.

[Benjamin McGuire]

6 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I thought Brigham Young had a whole stack of them.

My mistake. You are right. From April of 1873 to May of 1874, Brigham Young had more (8). In May of 1874, five of these were changed to assistant counselors. President Young kept a third counselor until he passed. There were no more than two counselors after Young's presidency until David O. McKay's presidency. After McKay's presidency, only HInckley has ever been called as an extra (third) counselor to the First Presidency (in 1981,  and it was largely due to the incapacity of Elder Tanner who died in 1982, with Hinckley becoming the second counselor at that time).

[JustAnAustralian]

Given the aging Nelson and the age/fragility of the next few in line, do you think we'll be seeing additional counsellors again soon?

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Given the aging Nelson and the age/fragility of the next few in line, do you think we'll be seeing additional counsellors again soon?

In my guess? Probably not. It isn't age or fragility that matters that much - we have lots of tools to help with those issues. Dementia or Alzheimer's is a different issue altogether. Given President Nelson's age, if there is a sudden cognitive decline, I think that it will not be a protracted event, and that limits the amount of time in which the Church would need more help in dealing with the ongoing day-to-day work load of the First Presidency. We would be more likely to see an additional counselor if one of the existing two counselors were to become largely unable to complete their routine workload for health reasons.

[theplains]

On 11/28/2023 at 12:20 PM, BlueDreams said:

I think the problem with how we understand the ban is how we view the Church's relationship with change and growth.

The lack of understanding comes from a lack of knowledge of past teachings of the church. 
It's found in chapters 15 and 16 of The Way to Perfection.  The priesthood ban was taught 
to be a revelation from God to Joseph Smith.

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

The priesthood ban was taught to be a revelation from God to Joseph Smith.

And yet, the Church today teaches that this was not the case - that the Priesthood ban was instituted in 1852 by Brigham Young, and that the Church today disavows the explanations given in the past for the priesthood ban. So, when we disavow the teachings of the past as being wrong, it isn't unreasonable that this might create misunderstandings ...

[CV75]

On 12/1/2023 at 8:57 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

So ... D&C 107 deals with this issue. The First Presidency is the authoritative top quorum of the LDS Church (vs 22). The Quorum of the Twelve has equal authority to the First Presidency (vs. 24), and the Quorum of the Seventy has an equal authority to both the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency (vs. 26) - but, when either of these quorums are acting with the authority to lead the Church, their decisions must be unanimous (vss. 27-29).

Normally, the Quorum of the Twelve does not make final decisions for the LDS Church. This shift generally only occurs when the First Presidency is dissolved (when the President of the Church dies), and they make decisions for the Church until a new President is called and a new First Presidency is formed. Normally, this occurs fairly quickly (about a week), but that is a normalcy that didn't start until the transition between Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow.

This particular context, and the first attempt to lift the ban by the Q12 occurred because of the complications created by the health challenges faced by President David O. McKay. By the end of his life, he was experiencing significant cognitive impairment. To help manage the duties of the First Presidency, additional counselors were called to the First Presidency. Between 1968 and President McKay's death in January of 1970, there were five counselors in the First Presidency - more than at any other time in the history of the LDS Church. It is in this context that the Q12 voted to lift the priesthood ban - acting in place of the First Presidency, and in this context, the lack of unanimity was the reason why the ban wasn't lifted in 1969. While we might find an argument against unanimity in the quorums in this example, I think that we shouldn't use this sort of exceptional situation as the basis for that sort of change. A better discussion would be to look at the reasons why President of the LDS Church is considered to be a lifetime calling - perhaps in some situations, it might be better for an apostle or a prophet to step down from active service and allow someone who is in better health to assume the mantle. I am not aware of any doctrinal or scriptural positions that would prohibit something like this. For the Quorum of the Seventy, we already have a long-standing emeritus status. As life expectancy goes up, I believe that we will continue to see age related difficulties increase among the top leadership. Perhaps we could take a lesson from Benedict XVI ...

No doctrinal prohibition that I can think of (King Mosiah "resigned" both ecclesiastical and government duties, in a way). It seems to me that the lifetime aspect of the calling has to do with following Joseph Smith's release through death and recognizing the consecration represented by that.

Pope Bendict's decision was important "for the life of the Church." Our Church considers herself to live (D&C 1) because of the keys, which are not lost through fallibility, poor management, illness, or even death of the President since they are also held among the top quorums. How these might be lost and need to be restored is anyone's guess, though we have some ideas from history.

[theplains]

On 12/5/2023 at 12:14 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

And yet, the Church today teaches that this was not the case - that the Priesthood ban was instituted in 1852 by Brigham Young, and that the Church today disavows the explanations given in the past for the priesthood ban. So, when we disavow the teachings of the past as being wrong, it isn't unreasonable that this might create misunderstandings ...

My original reply seems to have vanished into the ether so I try again.

Yes. But the LDS leader(s) led those, who believed in these false teachings astray. Fortunately
we have scanning technologies that can digitize the older books as the hard copies become
more scarce as time goes by.

In 1852, according to the church's Gospel topic essay, President Brigham Young publicly 
announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, 
though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the 
gift of the Holy Ghost".

According to Doctrine and Covenants 42:11, this barred them from going forth to preach the
gospel or building up the church unless they were ordained by someone with authority. It
would not be until 1978 when they could officially do so.

Prior to 1978, it would seem they were not even officially allowed to preach the gospel to
their neighbors unless officially authorized by some other member.