I didn't realize that JFS & BR McConkie hijacked the Church

[SeattleUte]

He actually wasn't an apostle at the time, although his father-in-law was. If you think the LDS Church's position on Civil Rights is enlightened you either don't know Church history or you have a different definition of the word.

McKay did everything short of publicly humiliate BRM, including having Deseret Books remove that crap from the shelves.

lol I thought you said BRM hijacked the Church.

[pellegrino]

That's true. The most vocal proponents of racial purity in 1945 were Germans wearing swastikas.

Lee acknowledges as much in the beginning of this little talk, but notes that the Germans have a false idea of master-race in comparison with gospel lineages and eligibility for priesthood.

It's a pretty uncomfortable juxtaposition, IMO.

tenuous at best.

[TexTechCoug]

On the topic of race while many of the leaders of the Church espoused racist personal views it is important to couch their opinions historically.

The Rise of Modern Mormonism does this quite well. Many of these leaders had had little or no extended exposure to black people and merely held the prevalent view of the time.

It is easy, in hindsight, to say that they shouldn't have thought that way, but we are talking about men who were born prior to Utah becoming a state or just around the turn of the century. For the most part we all were born in a relatively "enlightened" period following the passage of Civil Rights legislation.

It doesn't make having racist view OK, but there is certainly a difference between the prevailing views today and those of David O. McKay's time. He is approximately 100 years older than me, and you have to admit times have changed.

[pellegrino]

On the topic of race while many of the leaders of the Church espoused racist personal views it is important to couch their opinions historically.

The Rise of Modern Mormonism does this quite well. Many of these leaders had had little or no extended exposure to black people and merely held the prevalent view of the time.

It is easy, in hindsight, to say that they shouldn't have thought that way, but we are talking about men who were born prior to Utah becoming a state or just around the turn of the century. For the most part we all were born in a relatively "enlightened" period following the passage of Civil Rights legislation.

It doesn't make having racist view OK, but there is certainly a difference between the prevailing views today and those of David O. McKay's time. He is approximately 100 years older than me, and you have to admit times have changed.

I think you have a valid point and can help someone , but remember that the rationale for excluding blacks from the priesthood (fence sitters, curse of their fathers) is, to put it simply, at odds with the 2nd article of faith

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

I don't know how any historical context can explain that away. They completely missed the boat and taught false doctrine (or allowed it to be taught) in order to support the ban.

[BlueHair]

I think you have a valid point and can help someone , but remember that the rationale for excluding blacks from the priesthood (fence sitters, curse of their fathers) is, to put it simply, at odds with the 2nd article of faith



I don't know how any historical context can explain that away. They completely missed the boat and taught false doctrine (or allowed it to be taught) in order to support the ban.

I think the argument could be made that the priesthood was only meant for certain tribes. I'm pretty weak on the O.T., but I think only Levites were given the lesser (Aaronic) priesthood.

[ERCougar]

I just think it's so easy for us to look at a statement nearly 70 years after the fact and think "what on earth were you thinking!? How could you say that!" when it's very possible that we would have been nodding our heads in the congregation at the time the statement was given.

I know we like to look back and think that the church should have known better. In retrospect, it should have. But retrospect is retrospect; it assumes a viewpoint through a lens which just wasn't available at the time.

I am not condoning the statement in any way, and I disagree vehemently with its assertions. But I can understand how someone could say something like that in 1945 without feeling like it was a morally-reprehensible statement. After all, it would be another ten years before "separate but equal" was found unconstitutional (after 60 years of implementation).

I'm not judging him personally--I'm judging his position as a mouthpiece for the Lord. Not that it matters, but everyone didn't think like this, or he wouldn't feel the need to lecture the youth about the dangers of marrying interracially. I may indeed have been nodding along with him were I raised in late 19th century Utah with Brigham Young as my prophet--but I'm not claiming to speak for the Lord (to youth!). When you set the bar that high, expect to be judged by it.

Tex gets all worked up when we keep pointing to the issue of race as a reason to take prophets' counsel from above with a grain of salt. Would that the membership of the Church had done the same thing! We don't need another issue. I can't think of a more important moral issue to the 20th century than racism, and our "prophets" completely whiffed on it.

I know you're not Tex and you're not defending the position (which I've seen Tex indirectly do...). But I completely disagree with giving them ANY leeway on this. I couldn't care less if every person in the country hated black people (they didn't--there were plenty of far more enlightened religious leaders). When they speak from the moral authority that they claim, their job is to be right, even if it means being a lone voice in the wilderness. Otherwise, they're nice guys with good administrative skills and platitudes to share--not prophets.

[TexTechCoug]

At least Hugh B Brown was on board, of course it lead to his unceremonious release from the 1st Presidency.

David O McKay, reportedly, prayed on the subject over the course of his stewardship as prophet and said repeatedly that the time was not right. In spite of his own racist views he never allowed for any doctrine to be made on the subject and it was always considered a policy.

[TexTechCoug]

I think you have a valid point and can help someone , but remember that the rationale for excluding blacks from the priesthood (fence sitters, curse of their fathers) is, to put it simply, at odds with the 2nd article of faith



I don't know how any historical context can explain that away. They completely missed the boat and taught false doctrine (or allowed it to be taught) in order to support the ban.

The "doctrine" or rationale was never official and DOM opposed any doctrine to that effect, however, he certainly did not change the policy.

[creekster]

I think you have a valid point and can help someone , but remember that the rationale for excluding blacks from the priesthood (fence sitters, curse of their fathers) is, to put it simply, at odds with the 2nd article of faith



I don't know how any historical context can explain that away. They completely missed the boat and taught false doctrine (or allowed it to be taught) in order to support the ban.

I really don't want to get in the middle of this, but I fail to see this argument. The second AoF contradicts the notion of original sin, but does not address the notion of personal culpability. Again, to be clear, I am not defending this idea, but the thought that the members of some racial group were penalized here for those members' own choices/conduct in the pre-existence seems, putting aside its more odious import, entirely consistent with the 2d AoF.

[old_gregg]

I'm not judging him personally--I'm judging his position as a mouthpiece for the Lord. Not that it matters, but everyone didn't think like this, or he wouldn't feel the need to lecture the youth about the dangers of marrying interracially. I may indeed have been nodding along with him were I raised in late 19th century Utah with Brigham Young as my prophet--but I'm not claiming to speak for the Lord (to youth!). When you set the bar that high, expect to be judged by it.

Tex gets all worked up when we keep pointing to the issue of race as a reason to take prophets' counsel from above with a grain of salt. Would that the membership of the Church had done the same thing! We don't need another issue. I can't think of a more important moral issue to the 20th century than racism, and our "prophets" completely whiffed on it.

I know you're not Tex and you're not defending the position (which I've seen Tex indirectly do...). But I completely disagree with giving them ANY leeway on this. I couldn't care less if every person in the country hated black people (they didn't--there were plenty of far more enlightened religious leaders). When they speak from the moral authority that they claim, their job is to be right, even if it means being a lone voice in the wilderness. Otherwise, they're nice guys with good administrative skills and platitudes to share--not prophets.

the notion that prevailing sentiments of the time led to this policy (or, at least, made more difficult its rescindment) never made sense to me. either god sanctions institutional racism or prophets can be wrong, in which case members must be required to parse out for themselves truth from prophets' words. the slippery slope of this is evident, especially in the context of currently constituted concepts of pharisaical "worthiness."

how so many can simply "we don't understand god" these issues away will never cease to amaze me.

[old_gregg]

I really don't want to get in the middle of this, but I fail to see this argument. The second AoF contradicts the notion of original sin, but does not address the notion of personal culpability. Again, to be clear, I am not defending this idea, but the thought that the members of some racial group were penalized here for those members' own choices/conduct in the pre-existence seems, putting aside its more odious import, entirely consistent with the 2d AoF.

the "less valiant souls in pre-existence" argument is distinctly different from the mark of cain argument, which i think pell was referencing (and does, at least from where i sit, contradict the 2nd aof).

[creekster]

the "less valiant souls in pre-existence" argument is distinctly different from the mark of cain argument, which i think pell was referencing (and does, at least from where i sit, contradict the 2nd aof).

Hmmm. I am not up on my MoDoc, but isn't the justification of the mark of Cain the person's conduct in the pre-existence, as opposed to mere random lineage?

[PaloAltoCougar]

the "less valiant souls in pre-existence" argument is distinctly different from the mark of cain argument, which i think pell was referencing (and does, at least from where i sit, contradict the 2nd aof).

Even as a kid, I heard all the time but didn't understand the "less valiant" rationale. What was the dividing line? Among myriad souls, there had to be a very wide range of valor. I figured I just squeaked by, and the guy right behind me, whose valor was less than mine by one nanovaliance, fell just short. But he's probably playing for the Lakers while I'm stuck behind a desk.

[Solon]

Hmmm. I am not up on my MoDoc, but isn't the justification of the mark of Cain the person's conduct in the pre-existence, as opposed to mere random lineage?

This is how Lee explains it. Those who were less valiant in the pre-existence were still allowed to come to earth, still allowed to experience mortality in a mortal body, but were punished through birth into the cursed bloodline of Cain.

[wuapinmon]

I'm preparing Lesson 3 from the D&C Gospel Doctrine Manual, and there's this:

The darkness of the Apostasy lasted many centuries. However, God had foreseen this and planned for the restoration of the gospel in the latter days. Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve taught that preparation for restoring the gospel began centuries before the First Vision: “Beginning in the 14th century, the Lord began to prepare those social, educational, religious, economic, and governmental conditions under which he could more easily restore the gospel for the last time” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966], 717).