New Book on Ending Priesthood Ban (by Matthew Harris)

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Brigham Young was, in the end, a complex figure.  Overwhelmingly good and decent, but he had substantial flaws and errors as well.

And I wonder if he would have allowed Black couples to participate fully in the temple, only limiting the mixed race couples or if Blacks were completely banned and he was only really accommodating the white side of the family equation by allowing eunuch mulattoes entrance. 
 

Given how troubled he was by mixing races and that being the worst as it degraded both races, rather than raising up the Black race, my guess is at the time he saw Blacks as temple worthy, which is what I think D&C Central was trying to point out. 

[Calm]

Nvm

Edited August 15, 2024 by Calm

[Rain]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A fair point.  Nevertheless, activism, particularly of the publicly confrontational/coercive sort, is not a mechanism upon which Latter-day Saints ought to rely to affect change in the Church.  Generally speaking, the ends do not justify the means.

Thanks,

-Smac

In a perfect world with perfect leaders I agree with you. If imperfect leaders are not listening to God who is to say the activism isn't the method God uses to get them to listen? 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And I wonder if he would have allowed Black couples to participate fully in the temple, only limiting the mixed race couples or if Blacks were completely banned and he was only really accommodating the white side of the family equation by allowing eunuch mulattoes entrance. 

Given how troubled he was by mixing races and that being the worst as it degraded both races, rather than raising up the Black race, my guess is at the time he saw Blacks as temple worthy, which is what I think D&C Central was trying to point out. 

I think even BY experienced substantial cognitive dissonance over the priesthood ban.  That's not to say, tho, that CogDis is definitive of whether a doctrine is moral/divine.  I have never been able to fully reconcile a few aspects of the Gospel with my personal moral barometer, such as polygamy, animal sacrifice, and a few others.  But I sitll believe that these doctrines were/are revelatory.  

The priesthood ban, on the other hand...

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

In a perfect world with perfect leaders I agree with you. If imperfect leaders are not listening to God who is to say the activism isn't the method God uses to get them to listen? 

Dallin H. Oaks, Ahmad Corbitt and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are, IMO, able "to say th{at} activism isn't the method God uses to get them to listen."  

See also  D&C 107:22, 33 (quoted by Elder Corbitt): 

Quote

The Lord further declared the First Presidency should be “ upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church.”22 Naturally, this same sustaining faith applies to the Twelve apostles who "officiate in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Presidency of the Church, agreeable to the institution of heaven; to build up the church, and regulate all the affairs of the same in all nations…"23
...
22 Doctrine and Covenants 107:22
23 Doctrine and Covenants 107:33

He also addressed the point which you seem to be referencing:

Quote

In my experience, ATC rarely starts by saying, “Don’t have faith in Jesus Christ.” Rather, it diminishes faith in Christ and trust in God indirectly. Its pattern is to first undermine faith in Church leaders.
...
But this distrust is the very opposite of the faith the Lord requires of His covenant people in Himself, His prophets and apostles, and those they direct. He established His apostles as an extension of Himself. Jesus prayed, “that (His apostles) may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.”18 Elsewhere He revealed, “[H]e that receiveth my servants receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth my Father.”19  “Wherefore, meaning the church,” the Lord said, “thou shalt give unto all (the Prophet's) words and commandments … For his heed word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith."20 He said, “Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.”21 ATC’s criticism of the Lord’s prophets is actively working in the minds of some to decouple prophets from the prophetic line that runs from Joseph Smith to President Nelson. The Lord further declared the First Presidency should be “ upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church.”22 Naturally, this same sustaining faith applies to the Twelve apostles who "officiate in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Presidency of the Church, agreeable to the institution of heaven; to build up the church, and regulate all the affairs of the same in all nations…"23  The Lord calls upon His covenant children to sustain other general and local church leaders called under the direction of the First Presidency and the Twelve. Thus, any activism or advocacy that could weaken one’s own or another’s “confidence, faith or prayer” in or on behalf of church leaders or diminish one’s ability to “give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles”24 is obviously not of God. In my observation, such lack of faith inevitably leads to letting go of the Church entirely and losing the testimony of Jesus. Hence ATC often indirectly undermines faith in Jesus Christ. 

Heavenly Father knew only an infinitesimal fraction of His mortal children would meet the Savior of the world in person. Therefore, most would learn of Jesus and His doctrine through the witness of others. Chief among these mortal witnesses are His prophets and apostles or “special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world.”25  Joseph Smith taught, “the fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets concerning Jesus Christ....”26 Yet focusing on their imperfections, ATC opposes their testimony by undermining their credibility in the eyes of its followers. Masquerading as a higher and nobler cause, ATC instigates distrust of these leaders. In these ways, it weakens faith in them and their messages and potentially inhibits their ability to “regulate all the affairs of the (Church) in all nations[.]” As you can see, Lucifer gets a very efficient twofor. By seemingly customizing this deceptive approach to the valiant, he cleverly diminishes their real power (faith) and robs them of their true mission (the gathering). He effectively turns the gatherers into scatterers. 

Let us also help our friends see that ATC is, therefore, a perfect strategy to lure them into not sustaining Church leaders. President Henry B. Eyring counseled the Church to ask ourselves, “Have I thought or spoken of human weakness in the people I have pledged to sustain?”27 He reminded us, “These are imperfect human beings, as are you. Keeping your promises (to sustain them) will take unshakable faith that the Lord called them.”28 But ATC focuses precisely on their human weakness rather than their strengths and mantles. In doing so, it subtly gives permission and justification for murmuring, backbiting and evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed, all deceptively cloaked as principled. Let us also be aware that ATC takes advantage of some of our newer or converting brothers and sisters who may not be used to this principle. Those who, contrary to President Nelson’s counsel, “rehearse their doubts with other doubters”29 will be especially vulnerable to not sustaining their leaders and to ATC. But with our help, Isaiah’s insightful prophecy will come to pass in their lives: “they that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.”30 

Because ATC rejects Church leaders and their counsel, usually openly, it must somehow preserve a sense of religious sincerity or authenticity to effectively influence others. Thus, it produces catchphrases such as: “I don’t follow the Brethren, I follow Jesus Christ” or even “I am holding the Brethren accountable to do what’s right.” But these dangerous claims are as counter to Jesus’s own teachings as they are confused. “He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me.”31 “If they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.”32 By contrast, discipleship of Jesus Christ builds and expresses “confidence, faith and prayer” on behalf of Church leaders. It fulfills Abinadi’s prophecy that “every nation, kindred, tongue, and people shall see eye to eye when the Lord shall bring again Zion….”33 Seeing eye to eye, especially with the Lord’s anointed, is vital to our salvation and necessary to fully and truly follow Jesus Christ. 

(Emphases added.)

Bro. Corbitt went on to clarify the scope of his comments:

Quote

Please do not misunderstand. I am not at all saying ATC’s causes are not important or good or often pursued in good faith. I tend to agree with many of ATC’s underlying causes as I’m sure you do. A light bulb must be changed to avoid darkness and restore light. My simple point is a hammer is not the right tool for that job.   All needed and appropriate changes in the Kingdom of God are God’s work to bring to pass.   And He has stated plainly, “Behold, … no one can assist in this work except he shall be humble and full of love, having faith, hope and charity, being temperate in all things, whatsoever shall be entrusted to his (or her) care.”34 This higher, holier approach is the very opposite of ATC’s manners, methods and attributes. Also, ATC often claims the need to occasionally turn over tables, cast out money changers and cleanse the inner vessel. It misses that these vigorous actions of Jesus’s, in fulfillment of prophecy, were not toward the Lord’s church or its leaders. Rather, they were directed at movements that opposed the Church of Jesus Christ and His apostles. It was actually those not of His faith whom He called to repentance who became misguided activists toward His church. And we know the rest of that tragic, if necessary, outcome. 

Then-Elder Oaks' 1987 talk, Criticism is similarly brimming with scriptural and prophetic counsel against what we are here calling "activism."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 14, 2024 by smac97

[rpn]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

An incorrigible bigot would likely not have looked for ways the targets of his prejudice could "have a place in the Temple."

I think that he likely wasnt that.   The time when the widow of the Southern man who gave his slave to be Brigham Young's driver across the  plains wrote BY in SLC (she having moved on to CA where her dh died), writing BY to request return of her slave is instructive.   His reply letter that survived though her letter didn't, says that he doesn't know where he might be (yea, like BY couldn't have found anyone he wanted at any time in the SL Valley) and therefore couldn't return him.    (BY might have replied, you know that is a silly request because once he enters CA he's a freeman even if you still consider him your slave, and even if your former slave were to fell some moral responsibility to or for a widow.)

[smac97]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

Quote

An incorrigible bigot would likely not have looked for ways the targets of his prejudice could "have a place in the Temple."

I think that he likely wasnt that.

I agree, but presentism tends toward facile caricatures of complex historical figures, who are unfortunately not around to defend themselves.  So we end up with narratives that cast people like Brigham Young in the worse possible light.  I have previously summed things up as follows:

Quote

We are living in an era in which virtual online retreads of the Cadaver Synod.  We deploy presentism to rise up and publicly proclaim our own supposed virtues and superiority by condemning long-dead historical figures.  We reduce the entirety of a historical person's life down to only his errors, mistakes and worst qualities.  So Moses becomes a murderer.  Noah becomes a drunkard.  Thomas Jefferson and George Washington become slaveowners.  Martin Luther King, Jr. becomes an adulterer and plagiarist.  Gandhi was a sexist and racist.  And that's all they were.  This is a serious mistake in reasoning, historiography, and discipleship.

This phenomenon is very unevenly applied.  Some historical figures are condemned for the flaws despite their various virtues and accomplishments (Thomas Jefferson and George Washington), while other historical figures are lauded for their various virtues and accomplishments despite their flaws (MLK and Gandhi).  Brigham Young will generally fall into the first category.  

1 hour ago, rpn said:

The time when the widow of the Southern man who gave his slave to be Brigham Young's driver across the  plains wrote BY in SLC (she having moved on to CA where her dh died), writing BY to request return of her slave is instructive.   His reply letter that survived though her letter didn't, says that he doesn't know where he might be (yea, like BY couldn't have found anyone he wanted at any time in the SL Valley) and therefore couldn't return him.    (BY might have replied, you know that is a silly request because once he enters CA he's a freeman even if you still consider him your slave, and even if your former slave were to fell some moral responsibility to or for a widow.)

Green Flake?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The priesthood ban, on the other hand...

The issue of lack of a record of a revelation is so big to me, even if we allow the possibility that for some reason it was a trivial matter to them so they weren’t that motivated to make the effort…it is contrary to other behavior, no stories about receiving a revelation, just a couple highly suspect vague claims, iirc.

Edited August 14, 2024 by Calm

[rpn]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The issue of lack of a record of a revelation is so big to me, even if we allow the possibility that for some reason it was a trivial matter to them so they weren’t that motivated to make the effort…it is contrary to other behavior, no stories about receiving a revelation, just a couple highly suspect vague claims, iirc.

What this book makes clear is that the quorum did feel they received revelation to lift the ban.   Not words (and Pres Kimball apparently had to squash others who wrote about it bigger terms that how it really happened)  but absolutely yes action.   President Nelson's further experiences about President Lee support that too.  

In my callings during my life time, I've never received revelation in the form of language to tell someone something was from God.  But I know for certain that I have nevertheless actually received revelation from God.   So I'm actually puzzled as to how members who likely would say they have received revelation think that a prophet can only receive revelation in that "should have words on a paper" way.

Edited August 15, 2024 by rpn

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, rpn said:

What this book makes clear is that the quorum did feel they received revelation to lift the ban. 

And I have no problem with such descriptions of revelation because I believe it varies by need.  Revelation of whatever form is generally reported/recorded as received as I understand it when it’s for the Church or even if not published because we are commanded to keep records.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

What this book makes clear is that the quorum did feel they received revelation to lift the ban.   Not words (and Pres Kimball apparently had to squash others who wrote about it bigger terms that how it really happened)  but absolutely yes action.   President Nelson's further experiences about President Lee support that too.  

In my callings during my life time, I've never received revelation in the form of language to tell someone something was from God.  But I know for certain that I have nevertheless actually received revelation from God.   So I'm actually puzzled as to how members who likely would say they have received revelation think that a prophet can only receive revelation in that "should have words on a paper" way.

I don't think they are requiring "words on paper" that came from God.  They are talking about the lack of a record of a revelation to begin the ban.

[rpn]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

They are talking about the lack of a record of a revelation to begin the ban

Yes in today's world that seems strange.   But we aren't talking about a world of telephones or typewrites or computers or even one with any tradition of prophets doing things one way.   (BY didn't know about the interracial marriage that had occurred a couple years earlier,  until the McCrary incident ---in Winter Quarters meaning they weren't yet even in a place as a church where they could reasonably be expected to be keeping boxes in the basement of their homes as their first priority--- prompted him to investigate the black issues.   BY knew that Elijah Abel on his mission had been a bishop of a interracial ward, because when he came through the town on his way home from England, he told Elijah Abel he couldn't do that any more --- communications and how the gospel was lived and taught was not at all like it is now.)   And there is also apparently no record of members or leaders asking BY why or how when he announced the ban.

And BY may have simply thought that writing it down  would emphasis the issue when all he wanted to do was to discourage interracial marriage.

Edited August 15, 2024 by rpn

[california boy]

46 minutes ago, rpn said:

And BY may have simply thought that writing it down  would emphasis the issue when all he wanted to do was to discourage interracial marriage.

If all BY wanted to do is discourage interracial marriage, why didn't he just prohibit that instead of preventing an entire race of people from having access to the priesthood and temple blessings.  

I think you are trying to rewrite history the way you want it to be.

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, rpn said:

Yes in today's world that seems strange.   But we aren't talking about a world of telephones or typewrites or computers or even one with any tradition of prophets doing things one way.   (BY didn't know about the interracial marriage that had occurred a couple years earlier,  until the McCrary incident ---in Winter Quarters meaning they weren't yet even in a place as a church where they could reasonably be expected to be keeping boxes in the basement of their homes as their first priority--- prompted him to investigate the black issues.   BY knew that Elijah Abel on his mission had been a bishop of a interracial ward, because when he came through the town on his way home from England, he told Elijah Abel he couldn't do that any more --- communications and how the gospel was lived and taught was not at all like it is now.)   And there is also apparently no record of members or leaders asking BY why or how when he announced the ban.

And BY may have simply thought that writing it down  would emphasis the issue when all he wanted to do was to discourage interracial marriage.

In a church where records are important and where a book already existed full of written revelations, that's a weird thought though. 

But it's not even just that there are no written records of there having been a revelation on the topic.  We don't even have any hearsay about it.  We don't have primary or secondary sources.  As far as I know, no one ever mentioned ever hearing BY talk about receiving a revelation about it. 

Did BY ever refer to it as a revelation in passing to someone else?

Edited August 15, 2024 by bluebell

[smac97]

4 hours ago, rpn said:

Quote

They are talking about the lack of a record of a revelation to begin the ban

Yes in today's world that seems strange.  

I think the issue is more than about "today's world."  Keeping records is an integral part of the Restored Gospel, and an important one.  The Church has made this pretty clear:

“A Record Kept”: Constructing Collective Memory

Quote

From the earliest moments of the Church’s founding, Latter-day Saints have kept a record of their history. The principle behind this practice stems from a scriptural mandate: “There shall be a record kept among you” (D&C 21:1), intended for the “good of the church” and “the rising generations” (D&C 69:8). Maintaining a perspective on the past, while fixing an eye toward the future, is nothing new in religious history. Accounts of God’s intervention in the affairs of mankind have been promulgated by prophets and sages since the beginning of time. These records have provided a framework of meaning that continues to shape human conceptions of morality, identity and progress.

And from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Record Keeping

Quote

The keeping of records is done in response to a direct commandment from the Lord and is considered a sacred trust and obligation. "The matter of record keeping is one of the most important duties devolving on the Church," said Elder Joseph Fielding Smith (p. 96). Indeed, the very day the LDS Church was organized, the Prophet Joseph Smith received a revelation: "Behold, there shall be a record kept among you" (D&C 21:1). This requirement apparently has been the same in every dispensation. The Pearl of Great Price states that a book of remembrance was first kept in the adamic language, and Adam's children were taught to read and write, "having a language that was pure and undefiled"; therefore, it was given unto many "to write by the spirit of inspiration" (Moses 6:5-6). Enoch, seventh in descent from Adam and the father of Methuselah, also kept a record and commented upon the divine prototype of it: "For a book of remembrance we have written among us, according to the pattern given by the finger of God" (Moses 6:46). Abraham continued the practice, affirming that "records of the fathers" had come into his hands and stating, "I shall endeavor to write some of these things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me" (Abr. 1:31). Such records are of three types: (1) accounts of God's dealings with his children (the scriptures, for example); (2) records of religious ordinances; and (3) histories of nations and peoples, including personal histories.

SCRIPTURES. Prophets have been commanded to write scripture. For example, Moses in his time received a great revelation concerning the creation of heaven and earth with the divine imperative, "Write the words which I speak" (Moses 2:1). Those words are largely preserved in Genesis in the Bible. During Jeremiah's difficult mission a king desecrated a scroll containing some of God's revelations and the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah saying, "Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll" (Jer. 36:27-32). Jeremiah and his scribe did so, and those words are in the book of Jeremiah.

Near the time of Jeremiah's vicissitudes, the Book of Mormon prophet Lehi took his family and fled from Jerusalem into the wilderness in 600 B.C. He was commanded by the Lord to send his sons back to Jerusalem to obtain certain plates of brass that had been kept by his forebears. The plates were engraved with the genealogy of Lehi's family, the five books of Moses, and writings of the prophets down to Jeremiah (1 Ne. 5:11-14). Laman and Nephi ₁, two of the sons of Lehi, tried to get Laban, the keeper of the plates, to give them the plates or to exchange them for certain other treasures, but Laban refused and sought to kill Lehi's sons. Eventually Laban himself was condemned of the Lord and slain (see Sword of Laban), for "it is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (1 Ne. 4:12-13). Thus the plates were procured and preserved, and they provided the cultural and spiritual foundation of the Nephite civilization in their Promised Land in the Western world (Mosiah 1:3-5; DS 2:198).

After his resurrection at Jerusalem, Jesus Christ appeared to the Nephites and personally emphasized the importance of record keeping. He provided them some of the revelations given to Malachi. The Lord then commanded Nephi ₃ (the record keeper at the time of Jesus' advent and a descendent of the first Nephi) to bring out the records kept by the Nephites. He examined them and reminded Nephi that Samuel, a Lamanite prophet, had testified that he (Christ) should arise from the dead and prophesied that at Christ's resurrection others would also arise and appear to many. Jesus then inquired, "How be it that ye have not written this thing…? And it came to pass that Jesus commanded that it should be written; therefore it was written according as he commanded" (3 Ne. 23:11, 13).

Keeping records has both doctrinal and practical implications.  Consider, for example, this statement attributed to Joseph Smith (quoted in a 1994 talk by Elder Faust) :

Quote

Today I speak of keys other than those of metal. The keys I speak of never rust. These are the keys of life and salvation in the kingdom of God. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “I will give you a key that will never rust, if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.”

"{I}f you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church..."

The absence in the Church's archives of a written record of a putative revelation of such import is, to me, significant.

Quote

BY didn't know about the interracial marriage that had occurred a couple years earlier,  until the McCrary incident ---in Winter Quarters meaning they weren't yet even in a place as a church where they could reasonably be expected to be keeping boxes in the basement of their homes as their first priority--- prompted him to investigate the black issues.

BY first pronounced the ban in 1852, years after Winter Quarters.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

But it's not even just that there are no written records of there having been a revelation on the topic.  We don't even have any hearsay about it.  We don't have primary or secondary sources.  As far as I know, no one ever mentioned ever hearing BY talk about receiving a revelation about it. 

This is what I was thinking referring to no records…not only no revelation, but nothing surrounding it.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

BY first pronounced the ban in 1852, years after Winter Quarters.

And in a nonChurch setting which creates a less religious/doctrinal/revelational sense to me attached to it.

[The Nehor]

On 8/13/2024 at 5:45 PM, smac97 said:

I will be curious to see his documentation about this "fear" of "Black sexuality."

Ummmm….in general? If you really really want to dig into white fears of their caricatures of black sexuality they are abundant. One of the fears of abolishing slavery was that it would lead to widespread sexual predation on white women. This wasn’t just hysteria used to scare people (though it was used that way too). The fear was genuine though unsubstantiated. The rape of black women by white men was the much more common reality.

Even after slavery ended especially in the segregated south the big fear for many black men was to be thought of as pursuing white women. Being suspected of this often ended in violence or murder.

The quotes people share here about Mormon fear of interracial relations are often coded ways of expressing this fear.

On 8/13/2024 at 5:45 PM, smac97 said:

I wonder what these "actual examples" were, and whether they were folklore more than anything else.

Skin whitening techniques were common in the United States in the 1800s. They were derided as artificial and ‘fradulent’ if found out but the market was big. Some black people who came close to ‘passing’ in particular would use these products. Others would use them just because dark skin was widely believed to be a sign of being unclean. Even white people would use them as whiteness of skin was typically lauded as beauty. Women who used them and were found out were derided as fake and the men who used them were accused of being effeminate.

It is the standard line. There is an accepted standard of beauty women particularly must aspire to but using cosmetics to achieve it is derided. Basically win the genetic lottery or be excluded. This approach has been a standard in European history back at least as far as we have written records. The descriptions of Helen of Troy’s beauty was the gold standard for millenia.

Skin whitening is still used. It is particularly common in some parts of Asia.

So that folklore is probably about darker skinned people trying to fit in (they are clearly interacting with white people if they are being reported as changing) and the fools in Church leadership took it as virtue and not as an artificial change.

On 8/13/2024 at 5:45 PM, smac97 said:

Wow.  This diminishes my assessment of Elder Brown.  I can't help but contrast his approach with this one:

In the end, it was persuasion and prayer and revelation, not activism and coercion, that affected change in the Church.

I even wonder if Elder Brown's coercive efforts created resistance to his position.  "A man convinced against his will..." and all that.

“Choose the Right” would make for a very different hymn if you included the proviso that it doesn’t apply when dealing with hardened racists.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The quotes people share here about Mormon fear of interracial relations are often coded ways of expressing this fear.

It is quite interesting given the portrayal of Mormons as nonwhite early on, including hypersexuality iirc, which is often attributed to minorities.

https://www.upr.org/programs/2016-09-06/paul-reeve-and-religion-of-a-different-color-on-tuesdays-access-utah

Edited August 16, 2024 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 8/13/2024 at 6:45 PM, smac97 said:

In the end, it was persuasion and prayer and revelation, not activism and coercion, that affected change in the Church.

 

Sure. You keep telling yourself that.  😏

On 8/13/2024 at 6:45 PM, smac97 said:

I even wonder if Elder Brown's coercive efforts created resistance to his position.  "A man convinced against his will..." and all that.

Who knows. The Harris book I am sure will be interesting to read. I have been listening to a series of interviews Dehlin is doing with him.  THere are lengthy and detailed.  Much of the info is not new to me, but some is. And Harris's treatment I think is condemning to the LDS leadership when it comes to the priesthood ban.  We clearly see that LDS top leadership has nothing special going on as far as some sort of revelation goes.  They behaved and worked through the issue like any man led organization with powerful apostles jockeying for position and undermining each other to get what they wanted or did not want.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Yeah, I don't get shocked by Brigham's 'mule' comments.  People forget how utterly endemic and common such views were.  

Evidence: I grew up in 1970's Salt Lake City.  My childhood was surrounded with about half LDS and half non-LDS.  Mom and her family were sons-of-the-pioneers LDS stock.  Dad was a drinking swearing areligious WW2 vet.  I grew up in casinos on Saturday and church on Sunday.  The schoolyard was similarly about 50/50.

It seemed like everyone I knew, mom's family, dad's drinking buddies, kids at school, everyone held similar attitudes towards blacks and mixing races and intermarriage.   The LDS folks seemed to have notions more affirming of black people's value as children of God, some of my dad's drinking buddies were still sore at how the Civil war ended, and hearkened back to the good old days when the KKK helped the culture not descend into the dank pits we had to deal with now.  But us kids would overhear numerous biological arguments about genetic incompatibility from both camps.  I think the words were 'defective mulattos' and a handful of spicier and more horrible phrases I think best to not utter. 

1970's SLC suburb of Holladay UT.  Elementary school playgrounds and middle school lunch rooms.  American Legion posts, Elks lodge, Moose lodge.  The local AFL/CIO Union shop.  Mom and her sisters throwing a tupperware or quilting party.  Boy scout sleepovers overhearing comments from the grownups talking to each other.

Yeah, I'm glad the humans outgrew that nonsense.  But just in case anyone is thinking this backward history-dustbin bullcrap was somehow unique to the LDS, that person would be well served to read more.

[Stargazer]

On 8/15/2024 at 1:58 AM, rpn said:

What this book makes clear is that the quorum did feel they received revelation to lift the ban.   Not words (and Pres Kimball apparently had to squash others who wrote about it bigger terms that how it really happened)  but absolutely yes action.   President Nelson's further experiences about President Lee support that too.  

In my callings during my life time, I've never received revelation in the form of language to tell someone something was from God.  But I know for certain that I have nevertheless actually received revelation from God.   So I'm actually puzzled as to how members who likely would say they have received revelation think that a prophet can only receive revelation in that "should have words on a paper" way.

Cleon Skousen talked about a meeting where several brethren were discussing a series of radio programs that he was to produce. After a certain point in the discussion, he said suddenly everyone went quiet and he himself felt a strong "burning in the bosom," after which Elder Harold B Lee, who was presiding, said "We have our answer. Go ahead, Br. Skousen." And the meeting concluded. The program was successful. Br. Gordon Hinckley, who present as recorder, called it "waiting on the Lord."

[Rain]

6 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yeah, I don't get shocked by Brigham's 'mule' comments.  People forget how utterly endemic and common such views were.  

Evidence: I grew up in 1970's Salt Lake City.  My childhood was surrounded with about half LDS and half non-LDS.  Mom and her family were sons-of-the-pioneers LDS stock.  Dad was a drinking swearing areligious WW2 vet.  I grew up in casinos on Saturday and church on Sunday.  The schoolyard was similarly about 50/50.

It seemed like everyone I knew, mom's family, dad's drinking buddies, kids at school, everyone held similar attitudes towards blacks and mixing races and intermarriage.   The LDS folks seemed to have notions more affirming of black people's value as children of God, some of my dad's drinking buddies were still sore at how the Civil war ended, and hearkened back to the good old days when the KKK helped the culture not descend into the dank pits we had to deal with now.  But us kids would overhear numerous biological arguments about genetic incompatibility from both camps.  I think the words were 'defective mulattos' and a handful of spicier and more horrible phrases I think best to not utter. 

1970's SLC suburb of Holladay UT.  Elementary school playgrounds and middle school lunch rooms.  American Legion posts, Elks lodge, Moose lodge.  The local AFL/CIO Union shop.  Mom and her sisters throwing a tupperware or quilting party.  Boy scout sleepovers overhearing comments from the grownups talking to each other.

Yeah, I'm glad the humans outgrew that nonsense.  But just in case anyone is thinking this backward history-dustbin bullcrap was somehow unique to the LDS, that person would be well served to read more.

I don't think anyone thinks it is unique to the church. What bothers some people more is the claim that it came not only from God  (yes, leaders in other churches also claimed this), but also through his only prophet(s). 

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

What bothers some people more is the claim that it came not only from God  (yes, leaders in other churches also claimed this), but also through his only prophet(s). 

What claim?   Was it sourced in this thread and I missed it?

[Calm]

Came across an interesting tidbit just now I thought some might be interested in.

Quote

In Joseph III’s memoirs, he tells of several little black boys brought upriver on riverboats and abandoned in Nauvoo, who were taken into Emma and Joseph’s family and cared for as members of the family and continued after the martyrdom. One of these boys remained with Emma until he was 18 and took a job on a riverboat as a cook where he learned this skill from Emma. This boy’s story is recorded in Emma Belle Smith Kennedy’s journal. 

https://www.calledtoshare.com/2020/09/01/10-things-you-most-likely-didnt-know-about-emma-smith/

Emma was quite the foster mother over her lifetime, taking in herself or finding families to care for orphans or abandoned children. 

Edited August 17, 2024 by Calm