Edward Kimball Article on 1978 Revelation

[Suzie]

Margaret Young over Bycommonconsent wrote the third part of :

An Exception Being Made in His Case?Or, You Might Be A Racist If?Part 3 By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog

Good information for those (like me) interested in the topic. You can also check parts 1 and 2.

[Just_A_Guy]

Margaret Young over Bycommonconsent wrote the third part of :

An Exception Being Made in His Case?Or, You Might Be A Racist If?Part 3 By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog

Good information for those (like me) interested in the topic. You can also check parts 1 and 2.

Some good info; but I think Sister Young misrepresents the intent of at least some of those who deploy the Levite argument. The point isn't that we know of some divine plan to "give the priesthood out to ever-widening circles". The point is that, contra the 21st century social dogma, God has discriminated in the past. Thus, His having done so again in the recent past--or even doing so in the present or the future--cannot be ruled out, and He is under no obligation to explain His purposes to us. Once you get to that point, you either give Brigham Young and the other LDS leadership the benefit of the doubt due to their (presumed) role as the legitimate successors of Joseph Smith and equal in authority to him; or you don't.

None of the arguments Young cites from Scott Gordon address this core issue; and indeed some of them--and it pains me to say it, since they ultimately come from FAIR--are disingenuous and amount to little better than hair-splitting. To wit:

While the Levites held the priesthood, do we have any scriptures that claim the other tribes of Israel were “cursed” and couldn’t have the priesthood? If we don’t, the situations are not parallel.

But the Levite argument doesn't call for a "curse" to non-Levites; it just says that other people couldn't have the priesthood. And yes, the story of Ezra and the Temple of Zerubabbel shows that the Levite "policy" was proscriptive as well as prescriptive in nature.

While the lesser priesthood was given by linage, Joseph Smith specifically changed the JST bible to say that the Melchizedek priesthood was without father or mother, or in other words it had no lineage. So how do we exclude based on lineage?

The "without father or mother" verbiage was already in the Bible, but it referred to Melchizedek himself. Smith changed the phrase to refer to the order of priesthood that bore Melchizedek's name. That passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews has nothing to do with excluding a lineal component to the priesthood; it just shows that the power of the priesthood is eternal. This blatant stripping of scriptural and historical context is the kind of thing we usually see coming out of professional anti-Mormons, and I'm extremely disappointed to see FAIR stoop to that level.

The Levite explanation has the priesthood first going to the Levites, then to everyone else except blacks, then finally to the blacks. Imagine you are picking teams for a school sporting event.

Again, this misrepresents what most who make the Levite claim (well, me, anyways) are actually saying. And second, it boils down to an argument that God's thoughts and ways must mirror our thoughts and ways. Apparently, the Plan of Salvation was designed to teach God to act more like us, and not vice-versa.

So this puts us in the position of promoting a belief without any scriptural or prophetic basis. We are making it up. Making up doctrine is never a good idea.

Considering that the alternative Gordon and Young would have us embrace seems to be the re-invention of God Himself in our own image, and understanding that (while I can't speak for these two) the Mormon left generally intends to make this discussion a surrogate war over the legitimization of same-sex relationships in the Church--I'll take my chances, thank you.

Edited March 18, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Suzie]

The point is that, contra the 21st century social dogma, God has discriminated in the past. Thus, His having done so again in the recent past--or even doing so in the present or the future--cannot be ruled out, and He is under no obligation to explain His purposes to us

Even though I may agree with that assertion to a certain extent, I think Margaret Young, Darius Gray and a few others feel the way they do after much research and study. As we discussed in the other thread "Issues with Brigham Young", the timing of the ban is very interesting, the facts surrounding the ban are also very interesting as well as Young's reaction and position. Just like the idea of God placing the ban shouldn't be ruled out for some, personal bigotry and 19th century racism shouldn't be ruled out either.

We have Zebedee Coltrin's "memory loss", William McCary's polygamous marriages (in the same year of the alleged incident, Young announced that blacks are ineligible for certain temple ordinances), his assertion that it has nothing to do with the blood (but changing his position two years later) there is enough information to establish different scenarios and the idea of God placing this ban doesn't seem likely (IMO) specially when you are dealing with the mindset of the 19th century. Were Church leaders any different in their view about Blacks? Most of them were not.

We also have Joseph F. Smith defending Elijah Abel right to the priesthood (even after Brother Abel was dead). He defended Abel's priesthood for 29 years! But then totally reversed his position without really explaining how or why he reversed it. He just mentioned that Joseph Smith Jr. established that Abel's ordination was "null and void", the same statement he refuted for almost 30 years!

Do I agree with Margaret Young in a lot of her statements? Yes, I do. I am not totally convinced about several things she says but I definitely can say in my personal opinion based on my study of this topic that I do not believe God was involved in the placement of the ban.

[Just_A_Guy]

As we discussed in the other thread "Issues with Brigham Young", the timing of the ban is very interesting, the facts surrounding the ban are also very interesting as well as Young's reaction and position. . . . and the idea of God placing this ban doesn't seem likely (IMO) specially when you are dealing with the mindset of the 19th century.

Sure; but we don't throw out the Word of Wisdom just because the "facts surrounding" that policy involved Emma Smith complaining about cleaning tobacco juice off the floor. Emma's (and possibly Joseph's) personal prejudice against the use of tobacco doesn't automatically make the WoW suspect, does it?

Similarly, I haven't seen a massive movement of Church members denouncing the no-temple-work-for-Holocaust-victims policyas "man-made" or of less than divine origin, merely because it was promulgated under intense pressure from our Jewish friends. Nor do substantial factions within the Church seem to be particularly upset about our abandonment of polygamy even though OD-2, too, was adopted under immense external pressure that actually threatened the Church's very existence.

If the correlation between a Church policy and popular prejudice inherently removes the possibility of divine origin for that policy, then one could argue (as most critics of Mormonism in fact do) that OD-2 is just as suspect as the ban itself ever was.

. . . when you are dealing with the mindset of the 19th century. Were Church leaders any different in their view about Blacks? Most of them were not.

As you point out, at some point Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith seem to have been. Then they changed their minds. Did a new prejudice get planted into their minds later in life that hadn't been there before, leading both men to completely disregard the will of the Lord as they had previously understood it? Or did some kind of change in circumstance lead the Lord to instruct the leadership (through revelation/inspiration, however you choose to define the process) that a policy change was in order?

In this case, we do have Brigham Young specifically invoking his prophetic authority at one point and saying in the name of Jesus Christ that yes, this policy came from the Lord. We have at least two sources saying that David O. McKay specifically requested permission to lift the ban, and that that permission was denied. We have anonymous stories (via former Church Historian Leonard Arrington) that Harold B. Lee made a similar request, with the same results. Under the weight of that evidence, I have a real problem blithely saying that the Lord had no hand in the policy.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

I have not read this thread. I have however, read the article. Thank you for sharing it. Inexplicably fantastic! I have forwarded the link to the Black LDS facebook page and the AAOP group I am a part of.

[mikbone]

In this case, we do have Brigham Young specifically invoking his prophetic authority at one point and saying in the name of Jesus Christ that yes, this policy came from the Lord. We have at least two sources saying that David O. McKay specifically requested permission to lift the ban, and that that permission was denied. We have anonymous stories (via former Church Historian Leonard Arrington) that Harold B. Lee made a similar request, with the same results. Under the weight of that evidence, I have a real problem blithely saying that the Lord had no hand in the policy.

"Our speculations as to the reason(s) (for the priesthood ban) have been essentially worthless, and sometimes harmful," Daniel C. Peterson wrote. "God has not seen fit to explain why he commanded or at least permitted the denial of priesthood to blacks.

"We certainly don't know that God withheld the priesthood from blacks in order to protect them, or because they weren't 'ready' for it, or because it 'benefited' them to be denied access to the temple or opportunities to serve missions, and the like," he continued. "We just don't know. And if we ever learn the reason, that knowledge will come through the Lord's chosen prophets and apostles, not through BYU professors like me."

Peterson's position is in line with statements made by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve in a March 2006 interview with Helen Whitney of PBS. During the interview, Elder Holland referred to speculations — including those by early church leaders — about the reasons why blacks could not hold the LDS priesthood for a period of time as "folklore" that "must never be perpetuated."

"All I can say is, however well-intentioned the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong," Elder Holland said. "It would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, (as) with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time ... We simply don't know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place."

Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject: "The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine."

Deseret News, LDS Church condemns past racism 'inside and outside the church', Feb 29, 2012

Edited March 19, 2012 by mikbone

[dahlia]

Much of the info in the article was familiar to me. I think that any black person who wants to join the Church has to know this history ('cause goodness knows, you will be confronted with it) and would do well to read all s/he can about it.

I recently finished reading 'The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History,' by

Devery S. Anderson. Most of the book is excerpts from primary sources such as letters and memos. Despite knowing that things have changed in the church, it was very disheartening to read that white parents were encouraged not to adopt black children and that interracial people were denied entrance to the temple.

Revelation or not, you can't tell me that lifting the ban was not a response to the changing times. This is mentioned in the article, but I don't believe it goes far enough. I don't fault the authorities for seeing the writing on the wall and lifting the ban. I'm just hesitant to say that this was all due to revelation. The Church was becoming increasingly active in parts of the world with black or mixed populations. People are not going to convert in large numbers to a religion that denigrates their humanity. And you can say the Church is true all you want, but if you are denying me the priesthood because of lineage, color, or whatever, I'm going to say you're not as true as you think you are.

If the church wanted to grow, it had to be accepting of all it sought to convert. I am fine with that. I am not so fine with the idea that in 1978 it just dawned on HF that it was time to give blacks the priesthood and to let the authorities know about it. This was a worldly issue, and worldly men decided that they were going to continue discrimination against blacks, and they did, until it was no longer expedient to do so. Kinda like the US government.

I just started reading 'The Teachings Of Presidents Of The Church - Brigham Young.' There's actually a lot that Young said that I find quite compelling, but I am waiting to see if the Church has whitewashed : ) his beliefs on race, includes them, or don't mention them at all.

[Traveler]

...

Revelation or not, you can't tell me that lifting the ban was not a response to the changing times. This is mentioned in the article, but I don't believe it goes far enough. I don't fault the authorities for seeing the writing on the wall and lifting the ban. I'm just hesitant to say that this was all due to revelation. The Church was becoming increasingly active in parts of the world with black or mixed populations. People are not going to convert in large numbers to a religion that denigrates their humanity. And you can say the Church is true all you want, but if you are denying me the priesthood because of lineage, color, or whatever, I'm going to say you're not as true as you think you are.

...

I am going to tell you exactly what you said not to. I am going to tell you that the change did come from G-d and was not generated - even in part by men. In fact - I believe this idea (that the change is actually from G-d) is of up most importance and necessary for all "Mormons" (LDS). There are several reasons - and here is just a couple:

1. If is was not from G-d - then how important is the change really?

2. If the change came about because of "changing" times then if times should change again we should change to suit such whims? I do not think so.

I believe we cheapen the importance of the change by not believing G-d brought it about. I believe we can make excuses for not fully accepting it if we in any way think it was because "men" thinking it a good idea at the time.

The change in blessings not just for blacks for for all, not just good because I believe it to be good - it is good because it is a commandment from G-d himself.

I am personally grateful that G-d left no question in this manner that it was his will and by his command that there was a change that must be 100 % completely accepted by every individual that calls themselves LDS or "Mormon".

The Traveler

Edited March 19, 2012 by Traveler

[MarginOfError]

I am going to tell you exactly what you said not to. I am going to tell you that the change did come from G-d and was not generated - even in part by men. In fact - I believe this idea (that the change is actually from G-d) is of up most importance and necessary for all "Mormons" (LDS). There are several reasons - and here is just a couple:

1. If is was not from G-d - then how important is the change really?

2. If the change came about because of "changing" times then if times should change again we should change to suit such whims? I do not think so.

I believe we cheapen the importance of the change by not believing G-d brought it about. I believe we can make excuses for not fully accepting it if we in any way think it was because "men" thinking it a good idea at the time.

The change in blessings not just for blacks for for all, not just good because I believe it to be good - it is good because it is a commandment from G-d himself.

I am personally grateful that G-d left no question in this manner that it was his will and by his command that there was a change that must be 100 % completely accepted by every individual that calls themselves LDS or "Mormon".

The Traveler

I also believe the change was from God--and I believe he would have been elated if it had come about a few thousand years earlier.

[Just_A_Guy]

"Our speculations as to the reason(s) (for the priesthood ban) have been essentially worthless, and sometimes harmful," Daniel C. Peterson wrote. "God has not seen fit to explain why he commanded or at least permitted the denial of priesthood to blacks.

"We certainly don't know that God withheld the priesthood from blacks in order to protect them, or because they weren't 'ready' for it, or because it 'benefited' them to be denied access to the temple or opportunities to serve missions, and the like," he continued. "We just don't know. And if we ever learn the reason, that knowledge will come through the Lord's chosen prophets and apostles, not through BYU professors like me."

Peterson's position is in line with statements made by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve in a March 2006 interview with Helen Whitney of PBS. During the interview, Elder Holland referred to speculations — including those by early church leaders — about the reasons why blacks could not hold the LDS priesthood for a period of time as "folklore" that "must never be perpetuated."

"All I can say is, however well-intentioned the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong," Elder Holland said. "It would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, (as) with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time ... We simply don't know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place."

Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject: "The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine."

Deseret News, LDS Church condemns past racism 'inside and outside the church', Feb 29, 2012

Mikbone, I am well aware of Peterson's opinion and of Elder Holand's counsel and have made a conscious effort to abide by at least the latter during my participation in this thread. If I have failed in my attempt, please feel free to point it out and I will be happy to retract any undue speculation I have offered. So far as I am aware, the closest I have come to "speculating" is to point out a) that there is a very good chance that the policy was divinely approved, if not divinely instigated; and b) that there is scriptural/historical precedent for God's having discriminated.

Is it verbotten speculation merely to suggest that the Church leaders might actually have acted in accordance with that God who appointed them?

Edited March 19, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[annewandering]

Much of the info in the article was familiar to me. I think that any black person who wants to join the Church has to know this history ('cause goodness knows, you will be confronted with it) and would do well to read all s/he can about it.

I recently finished reading 'The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History,' by

Devery S. Anderson. Most of the book is excerpts from primary sources such as letters and memos. Despite knowing that things have changed in the church, it was very disheartening to read that white parents were encouraged not to adopt black children and that interracial people were denied entrance to the temple.

Revelation or not, you can't tell me that lifting the ban was not a response to the changing times. This is mentioned in the article, but I don't believe it goes far enough. I don't fault the authorities for seeing the writing on the wall and lifting the ban. I'm just hesitant to say that this was all due to revelation. The Church was becoming increasingly active in parts of the world with black or mixed populations. People are not going to convert in large numbers to a religion that denigrates their humanity. And you can say the Church is true all you want, but if you are denying me the priesthood because of lineage, color, or whatever, I'm going to say you're not as true as you think you are.

If the church wanted to grow, it had to be accepting of all it sought to convert. I am fine with that. I am not so fine with the idea that in 1978 it just dawned on HF that it was time to give blacks the priesthood and to let the authorities know about it. This was a worldly issue, and worldly men decided that they were going to continue discrimination against blacks, and they did, until it was no longer expedient to do so. Kinda like the US government.

I just started reading 'The Teachings Of Presidents Of The Church - Brigham Young.' There's actually a lot that Young said that I find quite compelling, but I am waiting to see if the Church has whitewashed : ) his beliefs on race, includes them, or don't mention them at all.

The article the OP cites refutes the idea that the prophets didnt care or just went along with the ban til it became so unpopular a stance. Many of the prophets had prayed for it to end or to know if it should continue. It was never changed by popular will unless it was possibly that people had gotten to the stage that it would be accepted, which is just speculation.

We have always been a church that believed in revelation but we often forget that part of the way doctrine becomes doctrine is that we ACCEPT it as doctrine. If we say we can not or will not live by that doctrine we are free to do that. Of course we have to accept the consequences as well.

[dahlia]

I also believe the change was from God--and I believe he would have been elated if it had come about a few thousand years earlier.

Thank you. I generally agree.

I guess I'm going to be a bad Mormon (philosophically) the rest of my life. I don't think everything comes from God - we do have agency and we are capable of a great deal of good and harm on our own.

I also don't think that all of the bad in life is attributable to Satan. I refuse to give over so much of my life and free will to the idea that 'the devil made me do it.'

[Tyler90AZ]

I agree that God is no respecter of persons, however, his Saints sometimes have been sometimes throughout history. Whites or Latinos could just have easily been barred from having the Priesthood, if it was expedient for building up the kingdom of God. Think about this, as sad as it, his Kingdom could possibly have ceased if there was no polygamy, not being able to do proxy work for holocaust victimes or blacks banned from the Priesthood. The important thing to remember that Gods work will never fail, there have been provisions put in place to combat hiccups that occur.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Tyler90AZ

[annewandering]

Thank you. I generally agree.

I guess I'm going to be a bad Mormon (philosophically) the rest of my life. I don't think everything comes from God - we do have agency and we are capable of a great deal of good and harm on our own.

I also don't think that all of the bad in life is attributable to Satan. I refuse to give over so much of my life and free will to the idea that 'the devil made me do it.'

Why does that make you a bad mormon? Taking responsibility for sins, for instance, seems like the right thing to do instead of blaming satan for them. He will encourage you to do sin but it is your decision on whether to act on his encouragements. I also think we can think up our own evil just fine by ourselves. :)

[mikbone]

Mikbone, I am well aware of Peterson's opinion and of Elder Holand's counsel and have made a conscious effort to abide by at least the latter during my participation in this thread. If I have failed in my attempt, please feel free to point it out and I will be happy to retract any undue speculation I have offered. So far as I am aware, the closest I have come to "speculating" is to point out a) that there is a very good chance that the policy was divinely approved, if not divinely instigated; and b) that there is scriptural/historical precedent for God's having discriminated.

Is it verbotten speculation merely to suggest that the Church leaders might actually have acted in accordance with that God who appointed them?

Holland's counsel speaks for itself.

How can you personally claim that there was a 'very good chance that the policy was divinely approved'?

Were you there? Have you personally requested revelation and received a visit from our Savior in which He instructed to you that these events transpired and that there were indeed inspired from God? Or are you working on what you believe is common sense and faith and what you feel is correct based upon your intuition, and understand from reading 3rd person accounts etc.

There have been very few direct revelations given to man status post the Joseph Smith era. This is probably for a reason.

Section 135 - John Taylor of the council of the 12

Section 136 - Brigham Young

Official Declaration 1 - Wilford Woodruff

Section 138 - Joseph F. Smith

Official Declaration 2 - Spencer W. Kimball

What good can possibly come from your line of argument?

[Vort]

How can you personally claim that there was a 'very good chance that the policy was divinely approved'?

Well, maybe because God's authorized servants enforced the policy for well over a century. That's fairly solid evidence.

And if some faithless people are quick to condemn as "racist" previous prophets and other people -- individuals far more courageous and virtuous than the accusers themselves are likely ever to be in this life -- then why shouldn't others suggest that those great men of the past may indeed have been led by the Spirit? There is at least as much evidence in favor of that hypothesis as there is to the contrary.

But we have been asked not to speculate. Unsurprisingly, the people most likely to honor and obey that request are those who believe the prophets and honor them. Those who are quick to call names of previous generations naturally consider themselves exempt from such a request. It's not they who are being asked to shut up, it's everyone else.

What good can possibly come from your line of argument?

Are you serious? You want to know what good can possibly come from suggesting that past prophets may indeed have been led by the Spirit? The answer is self-evident.

Since the apologists for the past prophets seem to come out primarily when those prophets are being attacked and derided as "racist", I suggest the accusers shut their own mouths first. If they do, I bet you cease to hear almost anything from the defenders of the prophets, and the issue will eventually die, if not incessantly picked at like an infected scab by those with an agenda to pursue and an axe to grind.

[Traveler]

Thank you. I generally agree.

I guess I'm going to be a bad Mormon (philosophically) the rest of my life. I don't think everything comes from God - we do have agency and we are capable of a great deal of good and harm on our own.

I also don't think that all of the bad in life is attributable to Satan. I refuse to give over so much of my life and free will to the idea that 'the devil made me do it.'

I do not think anyone knows enough to make an intelligent decision about much of anything in this mortal life. It honestly appears to me that with very few exceptions people make decisions according to that seem to make sense at the time (which is in part what this thread is all about) - but I believe most people would not make the decisions they do if they could or say the things they say if they could see the full ramifications of it for the next 500 years.

I know my dicisions have changed a great deal already during my life time - most of what made sense when I was 12 is not important to me at all now. I hope that my stupidity during this life is not what I will be held to in the next life - I personally do not plan on holding others to account - I believe the sacrifice of Christ (actions of G-d) will free us all - especially the things I did (as well as what others did) - when I really did not know better.

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

Holland's counsel speaks for itself.

I agree. But I fail to see why you would have directed it to me personally, which is why I tried to get you to specifically let me know whether/how you felt I was violating it.

How can you personally claim that there was a 'very good chance that the policy was divinely approved'?

The same way that you or me or anyone else who lacks the keys to the leadership of the Lord's kingdom on this earth can claim that the policy was not divinely approved.

. . . Or are you working on what you believe is common sense and faith and what you feel is correct based upon your intuition, and understand from reading 3rd person accounts etc.

Yes; the same as (I assume) you or any other participant to this discussion.

Were you there? Have you personally requested revelation and received a visit from our Savior in which He instructed to you that these events transpired and that there were indeed inspired from God? . . . .

There have been very few direct revelations given to man status post the Joseph Smith era. This is probably for a reason.

Section 135 - John Taylor of the council of the 12

Section 136 - Brigham Young

Official Declaration 1 - Wilford Woodruff

Section 138 - Joseph F. Smith

Official Declaration 2 - Spencer W. Kimball

Are you implying that every. single. section. of the D&C is the transcript of a personal and physical visit between Jesus Christ and the recipient?

Because I don't think the historical record bears that out. Moreover, D&C 135, OD-1, and OD-2 aren't technically the text of "revelations" at all--the former arguably has nothing to do with revelation; and the latter two can more accurately be described as announcements that a revelation has been received. Moreover, we know that LDS prophets have believed they received "revelations"--with very specific text, in some cases--which for one reason or another were never added to the Church canon. (John Taylor's 1886 revelation comes to mind.)

And we could have a really, really interesting discussion about whether there is a difference--and, if so, what it is--between "revelation" and "inspiration". Most of the Twelve who were involved in the 1978 revelation described an intensely sacred experience. Some even called it "pentecostal", though others explicitly demurred at such a description. But none described anything like what--say--Joseph Smith recalled seeing in the First Vision.

What good can possibly come from your line of argument?

Only the good of reserving judgment generally, being candid about everything that we don't know (rather than using ignorance as an excuse to try to muzzle our opposition), giving decent men who can no longer defend themselves the benefit of the doubt, and providing a bulwark against those who would argue that a) the Prophet and the Twelve have led the Church astray in the past and therefore b) they are doing it again today over the issue of [fill in the Disaffected Mormon Underground's complaint du jour].

Edited March 19, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Traveler]

I just thought I would add one of my life's greatest regrets. When I was in high school I had a friend that had had polio and could only walk with crutches. I thought I was always nice but many years lager I learned through another friend that my friend that had polio hated her high school years and was never asked out to any dance or anything.

I thought myself cool in high school and I could have and would have asked her out and taken her to a dance and a bunch of things - had I any real social skills back then.

I spent much of my life doing rather stupid things and not realizing I may hurt anyone. I still lack a lot of social skills and likely have ticked someone off on this forum - that I have no idea. And since they have more advanced social skills they have not let me have it - yet.

But for those who have joined the church and now have full priesthood blessings - Please forgive me for not being more what I should have when I did not realize how important you are. And if you want to make me feel worse for not doing more when I could have and should have - I can only pleed guilty and ask for forgiveness - and accept whatever you think I deserve.

The Traveler

[mikbone]

Are you implying that every. single. section. of the D&C is the transcript of a personal and physical visit between Jesus Christ and the recipient?

Because I don't think the historical record bears that out. Moreover, D&C 135, OD-1, and OD-2 aren't technically the text of "revelations" at all--the former arguably has nothing to do with revelation; and the latter two can more accurately be described as announcements that a revelation has been received. Moreover, we know that LDS prophets have believed they received "revelations"--with very specific text, in some cases--which for one reason or another were never added to the Church canon. (John Taylor's 1886 revelation comes to mind.)

And we could have a really, really interesting discussion about whether there is a difference--and, if so, what it is--between "revelation" and "inspiration". Most of the Twelve who were involved in the 1978 revelation described an intensely sacred experience. Some even called it "pentecostal", though others explicitly demurred at such a description. But none described anything like what--say--Joseph Smith recalled seeing in the First Vision.

I like where you are going with this. And yes it would make a great discussion.

What I was implying is that OD-2 is technically LDS Doctrine. And that since the time of Joseph Smith there have been very limited new revelations that become Doctrine.

The priesthood ban was never LDS Doctrine. It was policy. I am unsure about how it was instagated. My current position is that that policy was uninspired. Or perhaps equally as inspired as Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory.

[Just_A_Guy]

What I was implying is that OD-2 is technically LDS Doctrine. And that since the time of Joseph Smith there have been very limited new revelations that become Doctrine.

I agree with you on that, though I should probably qualify that by saying that my definition of "doctrine" probably isn't particularly helpful for this discussion. My general approach is that "policy" changes; "doctrine" doesn't.

The priesthood ban was never LDS Doctrine. It was policy.

Agreed.

I am unsure about how it was instagated. My current position is that that policy was uninspired. Or perhaps equally as inspired as Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory.

The only thing I would add, is that just a policy is revoked or otherwise deemed to be inappropriate now does not mean that the policy was never appropriate or inspired. Within those parameters, of course, Mormons will have to draw their own conclusions.

[skippy740]

A meeting with Elder Bednar:

From Me to You: Paul's Search for Happiness!: A Very Special Meeting

A Very Special Meeting

Yesterday I had the privileged of having a meeting with Elder Bednar. Elder Bednar is a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

About a month or so ago our Stake President, Paul Hintze, had sent out an email asking members of the stake to pray about the upcoming conference. A stake is a relatively large geographical area in the church. The stake that I am associated with has approximately 5000 members. He had also informed us that Elder Bednar, who would be attending our Stake Conference, would most likely be responding to questions.

I remember attending a stake conference when the visiting authority did something similar and a member of the audience asked a question that would have been better addressed by his Bishop in private. Not wanting follow that example I sent the following question to our Stake Presidency and my Bishop:

We were informed that during Elder Bednar's visit there will be opportunity for questions. I actually have a serious question. However I am not of a mind to embarrass my local leadership by not allowing you to address my concern 1st.

Just recently due to increased coverage in the media the church put out the following official statement:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

I actually find the statements to be rather puzzling.

"It is not know precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church...."

"The origins of the priesthood availability are not entirely clear..."

However we know exactly how, why and when. It is very well documented. I actually researched the matter shortly after I joined the church. The racial policies were clearly implemented by Brigham Young during a very turbulent time in church history. His teachings on the matter are very clear and based on today's standards would be considered extremely racist. They were certainly based on the notion of Black inferiority

Obviously no one either believes or teaches this today. However remnants of past teachings remain. As early as last year I had a member of the Rockwood 1st ward try to explain to me how my skin color was a curse. To which I had to reprove this brother with firmness. Several years ago my son Daniel came home after attending seminary and was taught that his skin was a curse. I rapidly corrected this false teaching.

The statements sound more political than restored truth..

My question would be: Why hasn't the church come out with a clear unambiguous statement repudiating the past statements and just move forward?

I remember years ago when missionaries taught me the gospel. There was alcohol and coffee poured down the drain. I was asked to repent of my sins and not look back. Why does the church want to cleave to these past racist statements? I say just repent and sin no more. I am not suggesting that the church repent however I wonder why it does not seem to want to follow the same example that changed all of our lives for good.

I would never want to hold to my past, incorrect statements by saying I don't know why I did it or when I began. I would just want to say, they were wrong and we do not believe or practice this anymore.

I'm not expecting a response just sharing with you my intentions.

Thanks,

Paul

p.s. if you would prefer me not to ask this question I will refrain. I have no desire to impact the spirit of the meeting or cause the church to be viewed in an improper light. I have every confidence in my local leadership...I would not be offended by any advice or counsel you would provide.

The response to my question was that it would be better for me to address this issue in private vs. during the public meeting.

I am pleased to report that with the help of President Bunderson and President Hintze (of our Stake Presidency) I was able to have that private meeting.

I was able to ask my question, I also recounted the following story:

A year after I was baptized in 1989, I began to share the gospel with interested or curious friends. I never believed in forcing my religion on anyone so I would invite people over to meet with the missionaries after they asked me about the church and expressed interest. One of my friends was from Nigeria and was excited to meet with the Elders. We had a great discussion up to the point when he was handed a Book of Mormon. He then became alarmed. He said, "Is this the MORMON CHURCH!!" I said yes...because I told him so upfront. He then declared with unbelievable seriousness....that I had just joined the "most racist church" on the face of the earth. I was shocked because the people I had met had to have been the nicest people ever. I tried to convince him that he had the wrong church. He insisted. He told me about several racist teaching including black skin being a curse from God. I told him that he was out of his mind....but in a nice way. I turned to the missionaries and they had no comment. Which equally shocked me because I was expecting them to deny the claim as well.

I called the meeting to an end and told my friend that I would get to the bottom of this. I first visited a dear friend that I trusted and asked him. He was the person who baptized me. He was a man of great confidence and conviction. As I asked him this question I could see a great deal of discomfort in his face. I couldn't believe it. He never answered my question but referred me to my Bishop. I was unbelievably disappointed, not in him but just in the fact that he couldn't answer.

I visited with my Bishop. Then he recounted some of the most racist teachings that I had heard in my life. I remember standing up while he was talking and walking out with the intentions of never coming back ever again. I recounted this story to my wife and she did not believe what she had heard and assumed that I must have been mistaken. I stopped going to church however my wife continued. We also attended a family home evening with a wonderful family that introduced us to the church. Honestly I could not even dream that these wonderful people who had open their homes and lives to us were secretly racist. The mother in the family suggested that I speak with my Stake President. I trusted her and did so. The stake president basically repeated the same racist teaching claimed by the Bishop. In my mind I had two witnesses and was done completely with the Mormon Church.

Weeks after I was still left with the lingering feeling that the Book of Mormon was true and that something was not right about what I was told. I began my own research and prayer. I found out for myself that the racist teachings were not true, they never were true. There had even been talks issued well before 1989 that stated that those teachings should no longer be taught.

Fast forward to 2012. After being in the Church for over 20 years I still have examples of people who still hold to these old false racist teachings. This is not an issue for me personally because I know they are not true however it gets to be a burden to constantly have to address this with members who should know better.

I know that there are millions of people of all nationalities that find out about these teachings and reject the church summarily before seeing any of the good.

Now for my question. Is the church aware of this issue and how significant it is to denounce the past teachings?

Elder Bednar then gave me a very simple and direct response.."Yes. Of course we do."

The discussion went on for a while, however once that statement was made, I felt a complete feeling of peace. The spirit spoke to me. I heard in my own heart that this matter was now concluded for me. For over twenty years I have had conversations, blog posts, emails, meetings about this topic. I felt like a tremendous weight was lifted off of my shoulders. With that one sentence I felt as if the responsibility of answering this question shifted from me and placed on the able shoulders of the church. If the church wants to address this issue or never address this issue it it their prerogative. I feel that I have expressed myself, completely, directly and with the spirit to those in authority.

If anyone wants to know about the past teachings. Ask your Bishop, Ask your Stake President, write the General Authorities. I felt like Abinidi who delivered his message and felt completely satisfied. I shared with Elder Bedar that am confident that the church will handle this and all issues appropriately and I am moving on to more important matters.

For the rest of my life when the question comes about past racist issue I can clearly state, that, "I know, but it is no longer my concern. If you need to discuss this in detail, see your Bishop." Anyone continuing to teach anything of a racist nature in any setting in the church should see their Bishop.

I certainly am not in awe of any man or woman on this earth. However I was impressed that Elder Bednar was a man of God and on His errand. I was equally as impressed with our own Stake President and his inspiration during this meeting and during the conference. I always feel fortunate and humbled to be in association with men who follow God without pretense, without hypocrisy, without airs and without fanfare. They have a sincere love of God, his son Jesus Christ and all of Heavenly Fathers children. I would feel that same way even if they were too busy to spend that precious time with me.

I better push publish before this turns into a book.

Posted by Paul Sleet at 1:12 PM

Edited March 19, 2012 by skippy740
forgot the original link

[mikbone]

Are you serious? You want to know what good can possibly come from suggesting that past prophets may indeed have been led by the Spirit? The answer is self-evident.

Since the apologists for the past prophets seem to come out primarily when those prophets are being attacked and derided as "racist", I suggest the accusers shut their own mouths first. If they do, I bet you cease to hear almost anything from the defenders of the prophets, and the issue will eventually die, if not incessantly picked at like an infected scab by those with an agenda to pursue and an axe to grind.

Ok lets have a civil discussion about past prophets being led by the spirit on any other controversial topic (perhaps Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory).

This specific topic for obvious reasons, should not be discussed in the manner you suggest.

Edited March 20, 2012 by mikbone

[skippy740]

Please note that this blog's entry was one individual's experience and there was no prophetic statements made by the referenced GA.

[Tyler90AZ]

Ok lets have a civil discussion about past prophets being led by the spirit any other controversial topic (perhaps Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory).

This specific topic for obvious reasons, should not be discussed in the manner you suggest.

If you believe in exaltation, then the Adam-God theory is naturally true.