Official church resources for those who have doubts?

[Just_A_Guy]

After the ban was lifted, Elder McConkie was approached and asked why it was in place for so long and now suddenly lifted. His answer was, "We were wrong. Let's move on." And, then he quietly walked away.

Source?

It is interesting that the ban was lifted after Mark E. Peterson passed away. He told the church that they would fall into apostasy and incur the wrath of God if they ever gave blacks the priesthood.

Source?

Peterson was not present when the revelation was received in June of 1978, but he was very much alive. He was on assignment in South America. He was informed of the revelation before it was publicly announced, and endorsed it.

Moreover, a week before the revelation was received, Peterson himself had forwarded to Spencer Kimball an article suggesting that the policy originated with Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith.

Speaking of that explanation, there may be some modifications coming once President Packard passes away.

Packer, not Packard.

Those of you who follow the stories will know that President Hinckley, and I believe others as well, have posed modifications that enraged President Packard and he opposed. I don't know. We'll see.

Specific examples, please?

[Urstadt]

Source?

Source?

Peterson was not present when the revelation was received in June of 1978, but he was very much alive. He was on assignment in South America. He was informed of the revelation before it was publicly announced, and endorsed it.

Moreover, a week before the revelation was received, Peterson himself had forwarded to Spencer Kimball an article suggesting that the policy originated with Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith.

Packer

Source for first two: YSA bishopric during a 5th Sunday when all three spoke in sacrament meeting. The first speaker, second counselor, covered the history of the priesthood before the restoration and the restoration of the priesthood. The second speaker, first counselor, talked about the history of the priesthood in the church since its restoration. The third speaker, bishop, reiterated highlights of both counselors' talks and then emphasized the importance of the priesthood today.

Thank you for the fact checks. :)

Thank you for the spelling corrections. :)

Source for third one: mission president.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Urstadt

[Just_A_Guy]

I'd be interested to hear the direct sources, if your bishopric has them--I've never heard anything like it in all my reading.

I've been listening to conference sermons by apostles since 1979 (my birth year) on my commute, and am halfway through 1983. I have developed a huge love for both Elders McConkie and Petersen. If the allegations you cite are true, so be it. But if not . . . Both men deserve better than to be slandered over the pulpit by imaginative bishopric members--even well-meaning ones.

And while President Packer has been openly referred to as something of a "grizzly bear", the idea of him becoming "enraged" about anything seems remarkably out of character and smacks of the Mormon liberals who habitually try to paint anyone who doesn't agree with themselves as completely and irrationally unhinged.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Urstadt]

I'd be interested to hear the direct sources, if your bishopric has them--I've never heard anything like it in all my reading.

I've been listening to conference sermons by apostles since 1979 (my birth year) on my commute, and am halfway through 1983. I have developed a huge love for both Elders McConkie and Petersen. If the allegations you cite are true, so be it. But if not . . . Both men deserve better than to be slandered over the pulpit by imaginative bishopric members--even well-meaning ones.

And while President Packer has been openly referred to as something of a "grizzly bear", the idea of him becoming "enraged" about anything seems remarkably out of character and smacks of the Mormon liberals who habitually try to paint anyone who doesn't agree with themselves as completely and irrationally unhinged.

I do completely agree about slandering the brotheren. They are such great men who love the Lord. McConkie's talk before he passed away has been one of the most moving ones I've ever listened to. My mission president never used the word "enraged." I got that from President Packer's experience with President Hinckley, when President Hinckley suggested modifying the garments and President Packer allegedly slammed his fist on the table in disagreement. I am going to edit my post to take out that word because I do completely agree with what you said about how that word is diametrically opposed to the love and peace of the bretheren. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

That talk was given in my YSA ward in 2011. I've been out of that ward for over 2 years now. I did do my own research the past couple of hours. I think the confusion is coming from a 1954 talk that Elder Peterson gave to BYU. In it, he didn't say anything objectionable (I just finished reading it). But, there is a comment about a generation missing out on the priesthood should members marry interracially. That comment rings a bell to me. I remember something about that. Like you, I wish I could go back and re-hear how it was said.

Sorry I can't be of as much help to you as you have been to me tonight. I'm glad we're getting the facts as straightened out as we can, though. :)

[Just_A_Guy]

I also don't believe David O. McKay's revelation to leave the ban in place is proof that the ban was enacted by God. It shows God did see it fit to leave it in place, one reason I could think of that God might leave a ban enacted by man in place is it's potential to cause a rift in the church at that time.

I agree that McKay's experience isn't proof positive that Young's act was inspired; but it does indicate that God may have agreed to the policy even if only for the good of the Church in the face of extant circumstances created by fallible humans.

IMHO, the Church was better off for staying independent of both the abolitionists and the southerners and thus avoiding both the troubles that afflicted settlers in "bleeding Kansas" and the bloodshed of the Civil War. It was better off for having William McCary's claims to the mantle of Joseph Smith pre-emptively shut down (the guy had made sixty converts among Mormons in less than a month; and this after pretenders like Rigdon, Strang, William Marks/William Smith, ad infinitum had already led away thousands). From a purely Machiavellian standpoint, it was better off for having focused its early missionary efforts among peoples that were literate and (relatively) economically stable.

And, as I've observed repeatedly, Mormonism still does have a priesthood ban in place, and has had it for about ten years now--only it's now directed against Jews. No one seems to mind that; and the only explanations I can think of for that are 1) the Jews in question happen to be dead and we don't really believe our own doctrine that they are still conscious and desperately waiting for their ordinance work to be done; 2) we are more racist against Jews than we are or were against blacks; or 3) we recognize that it's appropriate to make some people wait a few decades for their priesthood ordinances if the net result facilitates the overall progress of the Kingdom.

[Just_A_Guy]

But, there is a comment about a generation missing out on the priesthood should members marry interracially. That comment rings a bell to me. I remember something about that. Like you, I wish I could go back and re-hear how it was said.

Yeah, there's a Brigham Young quote along the same lines that the Fundies are very fond of using against orthodox Mormonism because they claim it's proof the Church went astray. Of course, you read the thing in context and it's merely a tautological warning that--under the old policy--if one married an African, one's children would be ineligible to hold the priesthood. Young's quote, at least, doesn't seek to bind the Church to the policy in perpetuity; and I'd be surprised to hear Petersen make an on-the-record statement to that effect.

[Urstadt]

Yeah, there's a Brigham Young quote along the same lines that the Fundies are very fond of using against orthodox Mormonism because they claim it's proof the Church went astray. Of course, you read the thing in context and it's merely a tautological warning that--under the old policy--if one married an African, one's children would be ineligible to hold the priesthood. Young's quote, at least, doesn't seek to bind the Church to the policy in perpetuity; and I'd be surprised to hear Petersen make an on-the-record statement to that effect.

I understood Elder Petersen's comment to be very much to the same effect as President Young's. He was not racially slurring or putting them down, but he was pointing out that per current policy (of the 1950's), children "with the blood of Cain" would be ineligible to hold the priesthood.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Urstadt

[Joyful]

The world (and the web) is filled with a lot of noise. Two talks from last week's general conference come to mind that might help address some of the concerns. I highly recommend watching the videos and listen to these Apostles speak.

 

The first one is a talk from President Uchtdorf:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/receiving-a-testimony-of-light-and-truth

 

Here are some quotes:

 

". . . if you want to recognize spiritual truth, you have to use the right instruments. You can’t come to an understanding of spiritual truth with instruments that are unable to detect it."

 

" . . . you must search the word of God. That means reading the scriptures and studying the words of the ancient as well as modern prophets regarding the restored gospel of Jesus Christ—not with an intent to doubt or criticize but with a sincere desire to discover truth."

 

 ". . . when you are trying to verify the truth of gospel principles, you must first live them. Put gospel doctrine and Church teachings to the test in your own life. Do it with real intent and enduring faith in God."

 

“The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God,” [Paul] wrote to the Corinthians, “for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

 

"I suggest that this personal testimony of the gospel and the Church is the most important thing you can earn in this life."

 

"By the same token, if we remove ourselves from the light of the gospel, our own light begins to dim—not in a day or a week but gradually over time—until we look back and can’t quite understand why we had ever believed the gospel was true."

 

"The Savior promised that if you seek, you will find."

 

 

The second one is from Elder Andersen:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/joseph-smith

 

Quote:

 

"Years ago I read a Time magazine article that reported the discovery of a letter, supposedly written by Martin Harris, that conflicted with Joseph Smith’s account of finding the Book of Mormon plates.

 

A few members left the Church because of the document.

 

Sadly, they left too quickly. Months later experts discovered (and the forger confessed) that the letter was a complete deception.You may understandably question what you hear on the news, but you need never doubt the testimony of God’s prophets."

[The Folk Prophet]

3) we recognize that it's appropriate to make some people wait a few decades for their priesthood ordinances if the net result facilitates the overall progress of the Kingdom.

 

I would go so far as the say that overall progress of the Kingdom is not requisite for it to be appropriate and perfectly acceptable. God's will and ways are His. We do not have to understand them. They do not need to make sense to us. He can do as He wills. Our place is to trust Him. Whether the choices seem to hurt or help per our perception--irrelevant. God's will is His.

 

The bottom line is that when all is said and done, those who exercise agency to choose to accept God will be given all that He has. Those who did not will not. The rest is all pretty meaningless. Some had the priesthood, some didn't. Some had riches, some didn't. Some had polygamy, some didn't. Some had freedom, some didn't. Some had health, some didn't. And so it goes. All meaningless in the end. Did we choose Christ or didn't we?

[omegaseamaster75]

I haven't made a project of reading all twenty-six volumes cover-to-cover as you imply you have; but I am familiar with the sermon you cite.

You may be interested to know that we can date the policy's origin to an eighteen-month-ish period between late 1846 (when Young expressed support for a black elder) and mid-1848. Maybe instead of pointing to sermons given fifteen years later, you should take a closer look to what was happening in Church history at that particular period.

And while Young's racism is pretty low-hanging fruit, I still would be interested in your thoughts as to why David McKay apparently did get a revelation to leave the ban in place at a time when he, of himself would have ended it and had the requisite position in the Church to make it happen.

I am not going to do a lot of research, but the church is governed by men, granted inspired men of God but men, do I think that David O Mckay wanted to over turn the ban yes probably, but if you look at the political climate of the times it was probably a bad move politically for the church to do so, so no removal.

 

You can defend Brigham Young all you want, for me he was a prophet of God but also a man. Men make mistakes and many times when you are in a position of power a mistake is made and a policy is enacted and it takes years or decades to correct that mistake. 

 

I see nothing wrong with admitting that our leaders are fallible, history supports this not everything that the prophet does is inspired of God. 

[estradling75]

Well lets make sure we are not talking past each other.

 

Saying the ban was put in place because Brigham Young was a racist... Is different then saying the Ban put in place because of the racism in Brigham Young's time.  Both are speculative, but one attacks the character of Brigham Young the other does not.

 

If you want to say the Ban was a mistake done by flawed humans then the burden of showing why God did not correct it belongs to you.  David O Mckay is an example of the Church being ready to correct it and being told to wait.  A case many find unlikely if it was a mistake in the first place.  The idea that we as society became more racist or more intolerant between Brigham Young and David O Mckay is going to be a very hard sell.

[Just_A_Guy]

You can defend Brigham Young all you want, for me he was a prophet of God but also a man. Men make mistakes and many times when you are in a position of power a mistake is made and a policy is enacted and it takes years or decades to correct that mistake.

I see nothing wrong with admitting that our leaders are fallible, history supports this not everything that the prophet does is inspired of God.

I agree in principle that LDS leaders are not personally infallible, but I think it's also important that we not automatically jump to the conclusion that a leader was wrong just because they said or did something that makes us uncomfortable--and especially when that leader guided the church into adopting a policy that was in place for over a century and the Lord specifically told a later prophet to leave the policy alone.

It seems extraordinarily cavalier to simply say "I am not going to do a lot of research, but the Church is governed by men" and leave it there; particularly in light of Woodruff's and Uchtdorf's assurances that the Church will never wander off of its divine course. Estradling speaks astutely re burdens of proof, and to my mind hits upon the fundamental difference between orthodox and "heterodox" Mormons--the former believe the prophets are usually right until they are proven to be wrong; the latter believe prophets are wrong until they are proven right.

Edited October 13, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

This is God's church and God runs it in spite of the fallibility of men. It doesn't matter how imperfect or perfect men are. It is entirely mistaken, in my opinion, to argue from as stand point that men are leading the church. They are not. God is.

 

Regardless of fallibility, racism, ignorance, weaknesses, etc., etc., this is God's church and it will move forward in the manner that He intends it to.

 

To imply that a serious mistake was made in the policies of the church that was entirely against God's will is a ridiculous idea to me. Is God in charge or not? Is He running things or not?

 

Whatever the political or ethical motivations behind the ban, I have no doubt whatsoever that God intended things to be just as they were.

[omegaseamaster75]

Well lets make sure we are not talking past each other.

 

Saying the ban was put in place because Brigham Young was a racist... Is different then saying the Ban put in place because of the racism in Brigham Young's time.  Both are speculative, but one attacks the character of Brigham Young the other does not.

 

If you want to say the Ban was a mistake done by flawed humans then the burden of showing why God did not correct it belongs to you.  David O Mckay is an example of the Church being ready to correct it and being told to wait.  A case many find unlikely if it was a mistake in the first place.  The idea that we as society became more racist or more intolerant between Brigham Young and David O Mckay is going to be a very hard sell.

do you really think that Brigham Young was not a racist?

 

hmmm...

[omegaseamaster75]

This is God's church and God runs it in spite of the fallibility of men. It doesn't matter how imperfect or perfect men are. It is entirely mistaken, in my opinion, to argue from as stand point that men are leading the church. They are not. God is.

 

Regardless of fallibility, racism, ignorance, weaknesses, etc., etc., this is God's church and it will move forward in the manner that He intends it to.

 

To imply that a serious mistake was made in the policies of the church that was entirely against God's will is a ridiculous idea to me. Is God in charge or not? Is He running things or not?

 

Whatever the political or ethical motivations behind the ban, I have no doubt whatsoever that God intended things to be just as they were.

Does God let us as mortal men make mistakes and allow us to correct them later? Yes

 

Do mortal men lead the church? Yes

 

Was the church led astray from its divine purpose as a result of the ban? No

 

So if the church was not led astray as a result of the ban, is it not possible that God let Brigham Young make a mistake? Or is it not possible that Brigham did not heed the counsel of God? I'm sure that has never happened to a prophet before. Some mistakes are hard to undo and once they become policy are even harder to rectify. 

[estradling75]

do you really think that Brigham Young was not a racist?

 

hmmm...

 

I think Brigham Young's personal opinions irrelevant to the question of was Ban fulfilling God's will or running counter to it

[omegaseamaster75]

I think Brigham Young's personal opinions irrelevant to the question of was Ban fulfilling God's will or running counter to it

I say the ban neither fulfilled God's will nor ran counter to it. I think he either :

 

A: Remained silent on the subject 

 

or 

 

B: Gave Brigham Young direction which was ignored

 

Even the Prophet has free will.

 

Would it shock you if I said that Brigham Young was also an alcoholic?

[Urstadt]

This is God's church and God runs it in spite of the fallibility of men. It doesn't matter how imperfect or perfect men are. It is entirely mistaken, in my opinion, to argue from as stand point that men are leading the church. They are not. God is.

I have heard this a lot and know many other members believe it, too. But, I have also heard bishops and stake presidents says that many members will be very suprised to learn one day just how much Heavenly Father sat back and let us run the show. I haven't passed judgment on the issue myself yet. I just know how dearly I loved those men who told me that and how much I trusted and respected them.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Urstadt

[estradling75]

I say the ban neither fulfilled God's will nor ran counter to it. I think he either :

 

A: Remained silent on the subject 

 

or 

 

B: Gave Brigham Young direction which was ignored

 

Even the Prophet has free will.

 

Would it shock you if I said that Brigham Young was also an alcoholic?

 

 

So then what did he do to David O Mckay??  The prophet and leader of the Church asked to remove it and God said no...  And for Kimball he said yes...  That is strong evidence (such as it is) for God not remaining silent, and if Brigham ignored God, God had a perfect opportunity to be listened to.

 

Basically  President McKay's account poses serious issues with your claims

[omegaseamaster75]

I have heard this a lot and know many other members believe it, too. But, I have also heard bishops and stake presidents says that many members will be very suprised to learn one day just how much Heavenly Father sat back and let us run the show. I haven't passed judgment on the issue myself yet. I just know how dearly I loved those men who told me that and how much I trusted and respected them.

I am a believer, and I do have a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel, but I also believe that God lets us choose our path, we have the building blocks, the foundation, the tools necessary to find our way back to him. Those that think that God is involved in our everyday decision making process may be disillusioned to find out that he is not. 

 

If you think that he truly is then ask yourself this: why is there disease? why do people turn from the truth when they hear it? why is there famine, death, murder etc, etc.... the list can go on and on. He "God" lets us work 99% of things out for ourselves

[Urstadt]

Would it shock you if I said that Brigham Young was also an alcoholic?

I haven't heard that but I would not at all be surprised because the WoW did not become a temple recommend requirement until President Grant.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Urstadt

[omegaseamaster75]

So then what did he do to David O Mckay??  The prophet and leader of the Church asked to remove it and God said no...  And for Kimball he said yes...  That is strong evidence (such as it is) for God not remaining silent, and if Brigham ignored God, God had a perfect opportunity to be listened to.

 

Basically  President McKay's account poses serious issues with your claims

Does God change? was it once a good idea and then a bad one?

 

I believe in President McKay's account, I also think that the political climate of the time did not allow for it to take place

[Urstadt]

I am a believer, and I do have a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel, but I also believe that God lets us choose our path, we have the building blocks, the foundation, the tools necessary to find our way back to him. Those that think that God is involved in our everyday decision making process may be disillusioned to find out that he is not.

If you think that he truly is then ask yourself this: why is there disease? why do people turn from the truth when they hear it? why is there famine, death, murder etc, etc.... the list can go on and on. He "God" lets us work 99% of things out for ourselves

I really agree with this. But, take a softer approach to it.

[Maureen]

...Would it shock you if I said that Brigham Young was also an alcoholic?

 

Do you have a source for this?

 

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

I say the ban neither fulfilled God's will nor ran counter to it.

Then it wasn't wrong?

I haven't heard that but I would not at all be surprised because the WoW did not become a temple recommend requirement until President Grant.

It was an on-again, off-again thing. One of the grounds for David Whitmer's excommunication in 1838 was failure to keep the Word of Wisdom; and it was also hit pretty hard in the Mormon Reformation of the 1850s.

Does God change? was it once a good idea and then a bad one?

God's instructions change according to circumstance, yes--see, e.g., the a Word of Wisdom, polygamy, and the Mosaic Law.

If you think that he truly is then ask yourself this: why is there disease? why do people turn from the truth when they hear it? why is there famine, death, murder etc, etc.... the list can go on and on. He "God" lets us work 99% of things out for ourselves

Well, it sure isn't because Brigham Young or some other apostle/conservative/other liberal boogeyman du jour is out there creating diseases, implementing policies that cause famine, encouraging murder, and so on . . .

Preventing a person who wants Gospel blessings from receiving them when God also wants that person to receive them, is kind of a big deal for an institution whose divine commission and raison d' etre is to preach the freaking Gospel.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Just_A_Guy