Official Declaration 2, New Introduction

[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.

[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....

[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]

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.

[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, 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]

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.

[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.

[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, by Lewis Carroll.

Also:

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.

[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.

[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.