I was right.Originally Posted by Scratch
I was right.
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.
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.
When I told him of some of my colleagues' intellectual objections to gospel issues, he said, "Well, Brother Madsen, if only they had the Spirit they wouldn't talk this way. If only they had the Spirit."
-Truman G. Madsen, with Spencer W. Kimball
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.
“The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”
― Carl Sagan
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.
Unless you are Syrian you are good at hiding.
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.
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?
Last edited by tooblue; 03-01-2013 at 04:06 PM.
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, 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.
When I told him of some of my colleagues' intellectual objections to gospel issues, he said, "Well, Brother Madsen, if only they had the Spirit they wouldn't talk this way. If only they had the Spirit."
-Truman G. Madsen, with Spencer W. Kimball
I wish I knew what this meant. Im betting it's clever.:
“The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”
― Carl Sagan
You give me too much creditI wish I knew what this meant. Im betting it's clever.
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.
There are probably plenty of areas where they can err. Thankfully, I am confident that none of those areas pertain to my eternal standing.
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:
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...""...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."
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.
Last edited by Rocker Ute; 03-01-2013 at 07:39 PM.
Don't get out, you're just getting warmed up.
“The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”
― Carl Sagan
Agreed. I'm a simple-minded agnostic who finds inspiration in that chapter (I liked the whole bio).
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.
“The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”
― Carl Sagan
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.
For further information on this, please read The Hunting of the Snark, an Agony in Eight Fits, by Lewis Carroll.
Also:
Illustrative excerpt: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.
You're welcome.“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."
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
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.
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.
I'm hoping this has not already been posted: a short but interesting guest post by a BYU religion professor:
http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/te...declaration-2/
The comments are also interesting.
I found this bit from Pres. Kimball fascinating and reassuring, in a way:
(Emphasis added.) That he made such a statement in 1963 is fascinating all by itself.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).
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
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.
When I told him of some of my colleagues' intellectual objections to gospel issues, he said, "Well, Brother Madsen, if only they had the Spirit they wouldn't talk this way. If only they had the Spirit."
-Truman G. Madsen, with Spencer W. Kimball
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote