Official Declaration 2, New Introduction

[UtahDan]

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng

Now part of the D&C? I thought it had always been there but I am told this has just happened.

Was it not scripture before? Is there a process for something becoming part of the canon? Obviously it happens very rarely. I wonder at what point Official Declaration 1 was added. Do people agree that it didn't used to be there?

[UtahDan]

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng
Now part of the D&C. I thought it had always been there but I am told this has just happened.

Was it not scripture before? Is there a process for something becoming part of the canon? Obviously it happens very rarely. I wonder at what point Official Declaration 1 was added. Do people agree that it didn't used to be there?

Okay I get it now. What is new is the introduction:

http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/scriptures/approved-adjustments_eng.pdf


OD 2—Added the following introduction and historical background to Official Declaration 2, and placed it in italics to indicate that it is a study help:

The Book of Mormon teaches that "all are alike unto God," including "black and white, bond and free, male and female" (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

[Sullyute]

I like the change.

[Mormon Red Death]

Okay I get it now. What is new is the introduction:

http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/scriptures/approved-adjustments_eng.pdf

Here are some good thoughts (http://honestjohnh.tumblr.com/post/44303259981/the-problem-of-we-dont-know)on what this means. The author is not related to me but is to two others on this board.

[Switzerland]

Here is a side-by-side comparison of all of the changes to the D&C. Give it a minute to load; the PDF is 87 pages. OD2 is on page 86.

http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/scriptures/scripture-comparison_eng.pdf

[LA Ute]

Here are some good thoughts (http://honestjohnh.tumblr.com/post/44303259981/the-problem-of-we-dont-know)on what this means. The author is not related to me but is to two others on this board.

I can't tell who the author is. Is he/she anonymous?

[Mormon Red Death]

they linked it from facebook ("Here are my thoughts..."). I guess they would seem anonymous.

[tooblue]

Here are some good thoughts (http://honestjohnh.tumblr.com/post/44303259981/the-problem-of-we-dont-know)on what this means. The author is not related to me but is to two others on this board.

Good thoughts? Sounds more like scapegoating and deflection. Who or, what can we blame in our cultural past for our current insecurities and inadequacies.

[Sullyute]

Here are some good thoughts (http://honestjohnh.tumblr.com/post/44303259981/the-problem-of-we-dont-know)on what this means. The author is not related to me but is to two others on this board.

I do have some issues with the author's use of the word "cannonized". I don't think that most members believe the introductions and chapter headings to be "cannonized scripture". They are explanations, insights, history to the actual "cannonized scripture." I am no apologist but I think that it is fine for current Church leaders to say "we don't know why" past church leaders had certain practices and policies. This is however a two edged sword, yes it gives current church leaders an out on crazy stuff that Brigham, Willford, Joseph F., etc said, but then as current prophet, seers and revelators, why can't they simply ask the Lord for an explanantion?

My opinion is that past current leaders were simply wrong. But I don't fault the Church for saying "we don't know" however it makes me second guess when they say they "know" we only need one set of earings, we "know" every male needs to serve a mission, we "know" gay marriage will harm families, we "know" the BYU sports is a missionary tool, etc.

[DU Ute]

Good thoughts? Sounds more like scapegoating and deflection. Who or, what can we blame in our cultural past for our current insecurities and inadequacies.
Scapegoating and deflection for what? Being embarrassed by an overtly racist and hateful policy?

Why not just come out and say "Yeah, Brigham Young was kind of a racist and it clouded his ability to receive inspiration in some areas. Our leaders are human and they do this occasionally." I think some members have a definition of what is inspired that basically boils down to "anything our leaders do". It's a blindly dangerous view to have and is unfair to our leadership.

[Mormon Red Death]

Good thoughts? Sounds more like scapegoating and deflection. Who or, what can we blame in our cultural past for our current insecurities and inadequacies.

????

[Solon]

Here are some good thoughts (http://honestjohnh.tumblr.com/post/44303259981/the-problem-of-we-dont-know)on what this means. The author is not related to me but is to two others on this board.

Not bad, but the author really should point out that it wasn't just African Americans who were prohibited from priesthood.
In the 20th century church, the ban also applied to all people worldwide of (black) African descent - a huge number of people on earth.

[DU Ute]

????
Yeah, this is probably all the response that post deserved.

[Rocker Ute]

Mormons or not often think of the term prophet as synonymous with oracle, and it isn't.

I found it interesting in David O McKay's biography about blacks and the priesthood, that when he was confronted by someone about this 'doctrine' he was quick to clarify that it was never doctrine, but rather policy. However, he felt that policy would need to be overturned by revelation.

Further it goes on to describe the leanings of the Quorum of the 12, particularly relating to a growing number of Nigerians (about 4000) who wanted to be baptized, but couldn't. McKay wanted to open it up to them, most of the 12 were strongly opposed to it, except one who was for it, Spencer W Kimball. Interesting that years later he would be the one to lift the ban.

I tend to believe that if this really wasn't doctrine but policy (and the new explanation with the declaration would seem to support that) that maybe it was a lot like the children of Israel, where the old guard had to die out before they could enter the promised land. If nothing else it is a condemnation of the general LDS population's readiness for this, which we'll probably have to answer for.

This may be dismissed as a cop-out, but I think that if people realize that the LDS Church is run the way it is because church leaders aren't just puppets of God, but are humans with shortcomings and faults trying to understand what exactly it is God wants us to do, just like everybody else.

[tooblue]

What does "some" mean? All; most; many; a few? The thoughts I have on this subject are complex. I have served with a jamaican born bishop who is now serving in a Stake Presidency. I have served with other men in leadership positions who were born in the Caribbean or in Ghana; Guyana; Congo; Sri Lanka. I have a sister in-law who is black. Her daughters, my son's cousins, are black. They are close friends I regularly socialize with. My sons hang out with and date some of our friends daughters. They consider the boys and cousins to be some of their closest friends.

I realize my anecdotal experience is not necessarily quantifiable. But, I have had conversations in ernest about this subject with them. It happens at family gatherings. In church at PEC meetings. My friends see Mormon Red Deaths linked comments above as scapegoating or, a dodge ... Caucasian people struggling to deal with their own insecurities and inadequacies. Really, to them, they see the discussion as being all about white people and their guilt! It's counter-productive. To them society on the whole was and IS racist. None of them have expressed a need to hear a declaration of this fact. It's pointless. Mostly, they just want to move on. Because for them "some" (meaning most) of the people they regularly work and socialize with in the church have moved on.

[Sullyute]

Who's to say they haven't?

Maybe they have, but God has failed to answer them. I guess I took James 1:5 and Amos 3:7 too literally.

[Sullyute]

I realize my anecdotal experience is not necessarily quantifiable. But, I have had conversations in ernest about this subject with them. It happens at family gatherings. In church at PEC meetings. My friends see Mormon Red Deaths linked comments above as scapegoating or, a dodge ... Caucasian people struggling to deal with their own insecurities and inadequacies. Really, to them, they see the discussion as being all about white people and their guilt! It's counter-productive. To them society on the whole was and IS racist. None of them have expressed a need to hear a declaration of this fact. It's pointless. Mostly, they just want to move on. Because for them "some" (meaning most) of the people they regularly work and socialize with in the church have moved on.

TooBlue help me understand what you are saying here. Are saying that the church and members were simply racist? That we have moved on (or at least are trying) and we should not feel guilty about past sins but just move on?

[tooblue]

TooBlue help me understand what you are saying here. Are saying that the church and members were simply racist? That we have moved on (or at least are trying) and we should not feel guilty about past sins but just move on?

You are kind to try and engage with my ideas. Thank you. As my good friend would say: We do not have to be defined by our past. Those sins are not your sins. We are all potentially racist—due to genetics and any variety of factors. We are all prejudiced against people who do not look like or act like us. It is normal. An initial racist reaction happens—to all of us at different times in our life. But, it is more important what we do with the thoughts born of that reaction and more importantly what thoughts we choose to entertain next that matter the most.

Yes, the church and society as a whole were racist. Yes, racism is still prevalent in society and in the church. No, some (white and black) in the church haven't moved on. A declaration will not relieve the some of their guilt or, bitterness. Because, a declaration may only reinforce the notion that the discussion is always about them and how they are a victim of their cultural or, personal past. One cannot move on by standing still and only looking back.

To clarify, I am not suggesting history should not be examined, understood or, learned from. I am suggesting that the hand wringing on this particular issue is counter-productive. The good people and leaders I know who are not Caucasian don't have time for it and have moved on. I choose to go with them.

[Joe Public]

I found it interesting in David O McKay's biography about blacks and the priesthood, that when he was confronted by someone about this 'doctrine' he was quick to clarify that it was never doctrine, but rather policy.

That doesn't really square with stuff like this, though:

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." (Statement of The First Presidency on the Negro Question, July 17 1947, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, pp.46-7)

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time." (The First Presidency on the Negro Question, 17 Aug. 1949)

[Rocker Ute]

That doesn't really square with stuff like this, though:

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." (Statement of The First Presidency on the Negro Question, July 17 1947, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, pp.46-7)

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time." (The First Presidency on the Negro Question, 17 Aug. 1949)

I'll have to go back and look, because if my memory is correct it even addressed those declarations and how they came about. Not 100% sure though.

[Sullyute]

You are kind to try and engage with my ideas. Thank you. As my good friend would say: We do not have to be defined by our past. Those sins are not your sins. We are all potentially racist—due to genetics and any variety of factors. We are all prejudiced against people who do not look like or act like us. It is normal. An initial racist reaction happens—to all of us at different times in our life. But, it is more important what we do with the thoughts born of that reaction and more importantly what thoughts we choose to entertain next that matter the most.

Yes, the church and society as a whole were racist. Yes, racism is still prevalent in society and in the church. No, some (white and black) in the church haven't moved on. A declaration will not relieve the some of their guilt or, bitterness. Because, a declaration may only reinforce the notion that the discussion is always about them and how they are a victim of their cultural or, personal past. One cannot move on by standing still and only looking back.

To clarify, I am not suggesting history should not be examined, understood or, learned from. I am suggesting that the hand wringing on this particular issue is counter-productive. The good people and leaders I know who are not Caucasian don't have time for it and have moved on. I choose to go with them.

Thanks for sharing those insightful thoughts. I think there are definitely words of wisdom in what you said.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

[UtahDan]

Thanks for sharing those insightful thoughts. I think there are definitely words of wisdom in what you said.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

tb is always interesting.

[SavaUte]

I can't believe there is a Mormon alive that believes even just a little bit and thinks those are figurative

[SavaUte]

I'm not sure how to respond. I guess I'll just restate the rule - figurative until proven literal. I don't think I am all that different that the other people I go to church with. Maybe I'll take a poll for you.

The entire religion started from a literal answer to James 1:5.

I hate arguing religion, so I'm bowing out. Right or wrong....

[Ma'ake]

Mormons or not often think of the term prophet as synonymous with oracle, and it isn't.

I found it interesting in David O McKay's biography about blacks and the priesthood, that when he was confronted by someone about this 'doctrine' he was quick to clarify that it was never doctrine, but rather policy. However, he felt that policy would need to be overturned by revelation.

Further it goes on to describe the leanings of the Quorum of the 12, particularly relating to a growing number of Nigerians (about 4000) who wanted to be baptized, but couldn't. McKay wanted to open it up to them, most of the 12 were strongly opposed to it, except one who was for it, Spencer W Kimball. Interesting that years later he would be the one to lift the ban.

I tend to believe that if this really wasn't doctrine but policy (and the new explanation with the declaration would seem to support that) that maybe it was a lot like the children of Israel, where the old guard had to die out before they could enter the promised land. If nothing else it is a condemnation of the general LDS population's readiness for this, which we'll probably have to answer for.

This may be dismissed as a cop-out, but I think that if people realize that the LDS Church is run the way it is because church leaders aren't just puppets of God, but are humans with shortcomings and faults trying to understand what exactly it is God wants us to do, just like everybody else.

Evidently David O' McKay's opinion of whether it was policy or doctrine evolved, as he signed the 1949 First Presidency statement clarifying that it was not a policy, but a direct commandment from the Lord.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements

Definitely a tough issue for Mormons to wrestle with, as the stature of the upper leadership necessarily becomes far less "devine" as previous statements get watered down, and leaders appear error-prone.

Which has the twenty-somethings of today asking "if you were wrong about that back then, what are you wrong about today?"

[DU Ute]

Here are some good thoughts (http://honestjohnh.tumblr.com/post/44303259981/the-problem-of-we-dont-know)on what this means. The author is not related to me but is to two others on this board.

I think only one of us knows we're related to him.

[Rocker Ute]

Evidently David O' McKay's opinion of whether it was policy or doctrine evolved, as he signed the 1949 First Presidency statement clarifying that it was not a policy, but a direct commandment from the Lord.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements

Definitely a tough issue for Mormons to wrestle with, as the stature of the upper leadership necessarily becomes far less "devine" as previous statements get watered down, and leaders appear error-prone.

Which has the twenty-somethings of today asking "if you were wrong about that back then, what are you wrong about today?"

Perhaps. Hence my comment about the difference between an oracle and a prophet. It is an important distinction.

Coming to terms with the notion that people are human and capable of mistakes even after being anointed is pretty healthy. Helps you not get so mad at your bishop.

[Scratch]

I think only one of us knows we're related to him.

Huh?

[LA Ute]

Evidently David O' McKay's opinion of whether it was policy or doctrine evolved, as he signed the 1949 First Presidency statement clarifying that it was not a policy, but a direct commandment from the Lord.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements

Definitely a tough issue for Mormons to wrestle with, as the stature of the upper leadership necessarily becomes far less "devine" as previous statements get watered down, and leaders appear error-prone.

Which has the twenty-somethings of today asking "if you were wrong about that back then, what are you wrong about today?"

Fair points and fair question. It does remind me that the twenty-somethings of today were minus-6, at most, in 1978. I have my own inner issues with this part of LDS church history, but it is clear to me the issue is fading into the past. What that means about what, if anything, the church should do about it now is open to debate and interpretation. Anecdotally I can report that in the majority African-American ward I attend when I am in DC, and in my own ward, the AA members either don't care about the former ban or have resolved their concerns about it. To my surprise, when I've asked them about the issue, they don't even seem interested. AAs are the largest single group of new converts to the church in DC. FWIW. That doesn't make the issue go away for those still troubled by it, but it needs to be part of the conversation.

[Joe Public]

I'll have to go back and look, because if my memory is correct it even addressed those declarations and how they came about. Not 100% sure though.

I'd be interested to see how he addressed that. I haven't read the DOM bio yet; I'll have to check it out.

[DU Ute]

Huh?

I was right.

[Ma'ake]

Fair points and fair question. It does remind me that the twenty-somethings of today were minus-6, at most, in 1978. I have my own inner issues with this part of LDS church history, but it is clear to me the issue is fading into the past. What that means about what, if anything, the church should do about it now is open to debate and interpretation. Anecdotally I can report that in the majority African-American ward I attend when I am in DC, and in my own ward, the AA members either don't care about the former ban or have resolved their concerns about it. To my surprise, when I've asked them about the issue, they don't even seem interested. AAs are the largest single group of new converts to the church in DC. FWIW. That doesn't make the issue go away for those still troubled by it, but it needs to be part of the conversation.

I can confirm this general opinion, as well. Time heals. That's a good thing. A lot of blacks today will sort of shrug if you bring the topic up, because there was a lot of racism laced throughout society, in the past. What they believe in today is more important.

Even though this was probably the biggest issue that made me decide to leave the church, back in the late 70s, through time it becomes less and less of an issue (especially) for younger African Americans. My own son doesn't have a problem with it, and he's African American, so why should I hold onto the issue? Mostly, I've let it go, though it does complicate and evolve how Mormons view their leaders, at least compared to the attitude I remember growing up with, where we sort of felt that the 2nd Coming was imminent, and we were pretty darn lucky to be in the presence of real prophets who communicated with Jesus regularly.

As a teenager I honestly had the impression that Spencer W. Kimball would go up into the Holy of Holies and have literal conversations with Jesus and/or God, in person, like Joseph Smith did. Why wouldn't they give him specific direction on a wide range of issues, especially as the 2nd Coming was getting closer and closer at hand?

Of course, over the course of my religious / spiritual evolution, I don't see things that way anymore, but I don't think the leaders of the church are fraudsters, either. I think they're doing the best they can with what they know and understand. Pretty much like a lot of other earnest religious people the world over. Which is a generally a good thing, as long as there aren't any Sword of Laban / Lafferty Brothers-type things going on.

[Switzerland]

Concerning why the church didn't embrace blacks sooner: consider all the persecution that the church faced in the 19th century. Imagine how much more intense it would have been had the racists joined alongside the bigots? Had things really evolved all that much in our society during the first half of the 20th century? I believe there was a time and a place for the revelation, and the church leaders were well aware of the desires of the different races.

As for how church leaders handled the delicate situation over the years, these are the words of Elder Holland:

We consume such precious emotional and spiritual capital clinging tenaciously to the memory of a discordant note we struck in a childhood piano recital, or something a spouse said or did 20 years ago that we are determined to hold over his or her head for another 20, or an incident in Church history that proved no more or less than that mortals will always struggle to measure up to the immortal hopes placed before them. Even if one of those grievances did not originate with you, it can end with you. And what a reward there will be for that contribution when the Lord of the vineyard looks you in the eye and accounts are settled at the end of our earthly day.

[Moliere]

I'll have to go back and look, because if my memory is correct it even addressed those declarations and how they came about. Not 100% sure though.

It was clearly considered doctrine up until DOM's journey across the globe, which was pretty much the first time the prophet referred to it as a policy. In fact, it was often referred to as the "Negro Doctrine". It's clever sometimes how the church can change history through some simple talking points ("It was never doctrine but only a policy") and ("we don't know where the ban originated but we needed revelation to lift it") and members buy into those talking points hook line and sinker.

[UtahDan]

It was clearly considered doctrine up until DOM's journey across the globe, which was pretty much the first time the prophet referred to it as a policy. In fact, it was often referred to as the "Negro Doctrine". It's clever sometimes how the church can change history through some simple talking points ("It was never doctrine but only a policy") and ("we don't know where the ban originated but we needed revelation to lift it") and members buy into those talking points hook line and sinker.

Moliere you big anti. I'm on to you.

[Moliere]

Concerning why the church didn't embrace blacks sooner: consider all the persecution that the church faced in the 19th century. Imagine how much more intense it would have been had the racists joined alongside the bigots? Had things really evolved all that much in our society during the first half of the 20th century? I believe there was a time and a place for the revelation, and the church leaders were well aware of the desires of the different races.

As for how church leaders handled the delicate situation over the years, these are the words of Elder Holland:

Do you define "bigots" as people that think polygamy is wrong?

I don't like your explanation. It doesn't square with Peter's vision in Acts. Nothing is unclean to the Lord.

Also, it wasn't just a PH ban, but also a temple ban. Anyone with African blood was not allowed to enter the temple. I guess "temple blessings" are really not all that important after all, at least not in this life.

[Moliere]

Moliere you big anti. I'm on to you.

Unless you are Syrian you are good at hiding.

[Rocker Ute]

It was clearly considered doctrine up until DOM's journey across the globe, which was pretty much the first time the prophet referred to it as a policy. In fact, it was often referred to as the "Negro Doctrine". It's clever sometimes how the church can change history through some simple talking points ("It was never doctrine but only a policy") and ("we don't know where the ban originated but we needed revelation to lift it") and members buy into those talking points hook line and sinker.

I don't think McKay ever publicly went out and told people it was policy not doctrine for us to buy it 'hook line and sinker.' This was one private conversation documented in his biography.

But why would it be disturbing for McKays views to change on the subject after his world tour? Could that not be part of a 'revelatory' process, or is it only valid when it occurs in a black box like a magic trick?

I think we've all watched too much Minority Report. Pun may or may not have been intended.

[tooblue]

It was clearly considered doctrine up until DOM's journey across the globe, which was pretty much the first time the prophet referred to it as a policy. In fact, it was often referred to as the "Negro Doctrine". It's clever sometimes how the church can change history through some simple talking points ("It was never doctrine but only a policy") and ("we don't know where the ban originated but we needed revelation to lift it") and members buy into those talking points hook line and sinker.

Those "members." They are so dumb. If only everyone could be as enlightened as ... ! Is it possible that when one's entire paradigm is turned upside down, he would turn to God for revelation? Especially, if it wasn't just a personal situation he was conflicted or confounded by? What if it was also a powerful cultural situation. A culture over which he held considerable influence. Not to mention a culture that was more than just regional—it was influenced by an entire national culture with a long and complex history behind it that, in large part, informed all persons attitudes at all levels of society. Certainly, that would require some kind of revelation to better understand and address wouldn't it?

[Switzerland]

Do you define "bigots" as people that think polygamy is wrong?

I don't like your explanation. It doesn't square with Peter's vision in Acts. Nothing is unclean to the Lord.

Also, it wasn't just a PH ban, but also a temple ban. Anyone with African blood was not allowed to enter the temple. I guess "temple blessings" are really not all that important after all, at least not in this life.
Thank you for the reply. You were correct in pointing out that the 19th century church received persecution from more than bigots alone. I reassert that adding racists to the mix of all others who vocally and forcefully attempted to exterminate the church may have been more than they were able to overcome. There was a time and a place for the restoration. Prior to 1830, prior to the Bill of Rights, prior to so many other facets and elements, the church likely would not have survived for long.

Concerning Peter's remarkable experience regarding equality in the eyes of God, President Kimball spoke of this at length in 1954 (http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=708), twenty-four years prior to the priesthood revelation. His discourse shows that he was well aware of the promises made to the Lamanites and his testimony that the day would come when all would be equal in the gospel.

[UtahDan]

Unless you are Syrian you are good at hiding.

I wish I knew what this meant. Im betting it's clever. ;):

[Moliere]

I wish I knew what this meant. Im betting it's clever. ;):

You give me too much credit

[Scratch]

This may not be a very popular sentiment, but I don't think God is terribly concerned with social justice on Earth. To me it kind of falls under the bad things happening to good people. Now don't mistake this for saying that it's OK for us to not be interested in social justice; quite to the contrary, I think we will be held accountable for it (in a just and fair way that takes a lot of considerations into account). This may seem odd to some (that is, the idea that God isn't too concerned about it but expects us to be), but it fits in pretty well to my limited religious understanding.

[Moliere]

This may not be a very popular sentiment, but I don't think God is terribly concerned with social justice on Earth. To me it kind of falls under the bad things happening to good people. Now don't mistake this for saying that it's OK for us to not be interested in social justice; quite to the contrary, I think we will be held accountable for it (in a just and fair way that takes a lot of considerations into account). This may seem odd to some (that is, the idea that God isn't too concerned about it but expects us to be), but it fits in pretty well to my limited religious understanding.

I don't disagree, but its this train of thought that made me put less and less weight on the words of the brethren. They can just as easily lead us astray as they can keep us on the path, although they do the latter for the most part.

[Scratch]

I don't disagree, but its this train of thought that made me put less and less weight on the words of the brethren. They can just as easily lead us astray as they can keep us on the path, although they do the latter for the most part.

There are probably plenty of areas where they can err. Thankfully, I am confident that none of those areas pertain to my eternal standing.

[Rocker Ute]

Alright, I mentioned I would go back and look at the chapter in the DOM Biography, and I did such. It does address specific letters from the First Presidency regarding the doctrine, of which DOM signed. I should also mention that this book does not attempt to absolve DOM of these policies or doctrines, and in fact notes it was a missed opportunity for him. However, to even attempt to summarize all that happens and is documented would be impossible. Buy the book and read the chapter, it is fascinating. However, here is the quote I first referenced:


"...McMurrin candidly discussed his beliefs with McKay, including his rejection of "the common Mormon doctrine that the Negroes are under a divine curse." McKay's response caught him off guard: "He said, 'There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this Church that the Negroes are under a divine curse.' He [McKay] insisted that there is no doctrine in the Church of any kind pertaining to the Negro. 'We believe,' he said, 'that we have scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the Negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed. And that's all there is to it.'" (emphasis theirs)

"McMurrin elected not to publicize McKay's response, and McKay did not share his feelings with even his closest associates in the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, a fact that created a crisis in the closing months of McKay's life. Nonetheless, his statement to McMurrin indicated that he was approaching the subject of the priesthood ban in a manner different than any of the predecessors since Brigham Young."

He then created a second initiative that was a direct challenge to the policy with a special committee in 1954 to study the issue that concluded that "...there was no sound scriptural basis for the policy but that the church membership was not prepared for its reversal..."

The whole chapter is fascinating. One on side you have a man who is known for a life of seemingly undeviating compassion towards everyone by every account, on another you have a man who is opposed to the civil rights movement and is seemingly easily influenced by people who convinced him it was a tool of the communist party, and on another side is a man who seemingly wants blacks to have the priesthood, including taking some extraordinary step in South Africa and elsewhere to give people the benefit of the doubt (one account of which my father personally witnessed).

Like I said, go read the book, if not the chapter. It gives some pretty unique insight into how these men work, how they interact, how they often let their life experiences and prejudices steer them. More fascinating to me personally is how often when revelations would come that many of these men would willingly accept it, despite previously and sometimes very publicly vehemently oppose it.

Now me, being one of those simple-minded true believers, find some inspirational things in that chapter that other may not. However, these stories underscore to me that there is fallacy in believing that any man is somehow perfect - which seems to be indicated as a belief from their youth of many disaffected Mormons - and stripped of their agency or to make decisions on their own. It would seem that they still struggle at times to hear clearly what they should on certain items, and they likely will be held accountable for that. McKay even said, "When problems like this come to me I say to myself, 'Sometime I shall meet my Father-in-Heaven and what will he say?' And I said to him modestly, 'He'll forgive you if you err on the side of mercy..."

Let's not forget that Jonah ran from what he needed to do and then was angry when he was forced to do what he was supposed to, and he didn't get to see people destroyed.

Alright, I'm out on this discussion I think.

[UtahDan]

Don't get out, you're just getting warmed up.

[Pheidippides]

Don't get out, you're just getting warmed up.

Agreed. I'm a simple-minded agnostic who finds inspiration in that chapter (I liked the whole bio).

[Snowman]

God sure changes his mind a lot. Especially for a dude who has lived forever and already knows everything.

[Rocker Ute]

God sure changes his mind a lot. Especially for a dude who has lived forever and already knows everything.

And this just became the SLtrib.com comment section of every article ever written there.

[UtahDan]

God sure changes his mind a lot. Especially for a dude who has lived forever and already knows everything.


And this just became the SLtrib.com comment section of every article ever written there.

Yeah I don't like that much either. Unless we want this forum to be an echo chamber for atheists (which is what I am) I think we have to talk about the church without the snark.

[Solon]

Yeah I don't like that much either. Unless we want this forum to be an echo chamber for atheists (which is what I am) I think we have to talk about the church without the snark.

I thought about this change a lot yesterday, and haven't really decided what i think.

I think it's commendable that the LDS church put in the little explanation about the priesthood ban, and even went so far as to acknowledge that Joseph Smith had ordained black men. The Book of Mormon scripture, however, seemed to me like a little bit of a red herring. Are they going to include Jacob 2.27 in the preface to OD#1?

On the other hand, if people are looking for an apology or for a nostra culpa, I don't think the scriptures is the place for it. After all, those words are meant for the believers.

[LA Ute]

Yeah I don't like that much either. Unless we want this forum to be an echo chamber for atheists (which is what I am) I think we have to talk about the church without the snark.

For further information on this, please read The Hunting of the Snark, an Agony in Eight Fits (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/c/carroll/lewis/snark/), by Lewis Carroll.

Also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunting_of_the_Snark):


The snark is a fictional animal species created by Lewis Carroll in his nonsense poem The Hunting of the Snark. His descriptions of the creature were, in his own words, unimaginable, and he wanted that to remain so.

Illustrative excerpt:


“Just the place for a Snark!” the Bellman cried,

 As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
 By a finger entwined in his hair.

Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:

 That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
 What I tell you three times is true."





You're welcome. :D

[Clark Addison]

I thought about this change a lot yesterday, and haven't really decided what i think.

I think it's commendable that the LDS church put in the little explanation about the priesthood ban, and even went so far as to acknowledge that Joseph Smith had ordained black men. The Book of Mormon scripture, however, seemed to me like a little bit of a red herring. Are they going to include Jacob 2.27 in the preface to OD#1?

On the other hand, if people are looking for an apology or for a nostra culpa, I don't think the scriptures is the place for it. After all, those words are meant for the believers.

That would be hilarious if they would do almost the exact same intro to OD1 with that scripture. Of course, it will probably happen about the same time as the OD2 intro is edited to indicate that the ban was due to BY's racism.

[Dawminator]

As a kid, I suppose I assumed that the President of the Church was for all intents and purposes infallible. Not long ago I was forced to consider that paradigm a bit more. From Joseph Smith to Thomas S. Monson, the leaders of the LDS Church have been flawed and fallible human beings, just like all of us. The transition from infallible prophets to inperfect, but inspired men, was surprisingly easy. Brigham Young and David O. McKay were both flawed, either judged by the standards of our era or their own. For me, that in no way means that God did not or could not use them to lead and receive divine revelation.

Now having said all of that, do I still have questions? Absolutely. I don't know why things went down with blacks in church history. Wouldn't surprise me if racism was a part of the equation. Not sure why the change didn't come earlier or why the leaders didn't get the answer earlier. But it did come, and for now that's enough for me.

[LA Ute]

I'm hoping this has not already been posted: a short but interesting guest post by a BYU religion professor:

http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/teaching-official-declaration-2/

The comments are also interesting.

I found this bit from Pres. Kimball fascinating and reassuring, in a way:


Finally, we discuss the process through which Spencer W. Kimball received an answer—searching, seeking, praying, fasting, hoping, waiting. He wanted to be sure he was following the Lord’s will, not his own. He explained, “Admittedly our direct and positive information is limited. I have wished the Lord had given us a little more clarity on the matter.” Kimball did not know whether to characterize the decision as a “doctrine or policy,” but acknowledged that it “has not varied in my memory.” He continued, quite powerfully, “I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that he will do, I am sure” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 448-49 (1963).

(Emphasis added.) That he made such a statement in 1963 is fascinating all by itself.

[Switzerland]

God sure changes his mind a lot. Especially for a dude who has lived forever and already knows everything.
Is He changing His mind, or does He know the best time and place to make adjustments?

Similarly, regarding the church's minor alterations and additions to the scriptures last week, I was asked why Joseph Smith didn't get them right in 1829 if he was supposedly God's mouthpiece and all? A rephrasing of the question would be, "why didn't Joseph Smith translate the plates in 1829 using 2013 language?" The answer is: for the same reason Thomas S. Monson won't speak at general conference next week using 2197 language; nor will he be creating the 100th Quorum of the Seventy or organizing the 500th stake in India.