Randy Bott and the Priesthood Ban

[scottie]

I wonder if Romney's candidacy is affecting this. Even if some were inclined to issue a full apology and implicitly or expressly condemn BY, and even if the tumult only lasts two months once they do so, maybe they are reluctant to have that two months be immediately prior to the November election (or the inauguration, just in case)

BY is going to be mentioned a lot in the next 6 months or so; the church might want to avoid having the standard lead include a sentence saying "BY, who the LDS church now admits was a racist, said . . ."

Thoughts on TSM saying something from the GC pulpit this April to help Romney out a little bit in the GE debates? Obama being black will be quite the elephant in the room.

[Northwestcoug]

It becomes easier to imagine when you figure that a unanimous vote of the Twelve is required for any major policy change.

Hate to break it to you, but SWK spent months getting everybody on board and then went to God for a confirmation. God didn't just change his mind in 1978.

IIRC, it took SWK at least a couple of years to get everyone on board. And even then, there were still a couple of holdhouts. I seem to remember that when the ban was rescinded, one apostle (known to be a holdout) was out of the country). But I need to confirm that.

I've thought about this requirement for unanimity. I can understand the concept that God works with infallible leaders, and even they have their agency. So it might take awhile for some apostles to agree to a major change in the church. But the end to the priesthood ban is touted as a revelation, not a unanimous decision to end a policy. Is our God really limited to the whims of 15 men when He wants to make a major change in His church? He certainly didn't wait to get 15 men on board when polygamy was ended.

I guess this is one of my biggest beefs about giving carte blanche to the brethren, when they call the end of the priesthood ban a revelation. It's pretty clear that unanimity is a fairly recent concept for the first presidency and 12 apostles. If we're going to call the 1890 manifesto a revelation, then we can have faith that God can speak His will to just the prophet, and not have to wait for holdouts to get His message through.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Huh. Wonder why it did that, showing up as a Flystripper quote.

As to you second paragraph. Really? This is shocking news. Perhaps I could read about it somewhere!?

Michael Quinn wrote extensively about that episode. I don't recall which book.

[Ma'ake]

The LDS church statement today is about as smooth as possible without a full apology/repudiation of past leaders, but with the issue coming back up it may hit the missionary effort a little bit, I would guess. "We don't know" doesn't mesh well with the certainty of the restoration missionaries press.

It remains to be seen if the statement will be enough to quell the issue, outside of Mormondom, especially from the context of a political campaign where most people aren't interested in the theology or theological apologetics, but more interested in what Mitt Romney believes, what makes him tick.

The Romney candidacy absolutely will bring more of these issues to the surface. Many TBM will ride through the turbulence without incident, even wondering what the big deal is. "We don't know. All will be revealed, in time".

The early polygamy issues and bride-age controversies could be a bit bumpier. Most Mormons don't understand and don't like the racial issues, but most of them aren't black, it's not really a personal issue.

A lot more people have teenage daughters.

[Northwestcoug]

Here is an excerpt from an interview with LeGrand Richards about the revelation (taken from mormonthink):

Elder Le Grand Richards, from an interview by Wesley Walters and Chris Vlachos on August 16, 1978, Church Office Building, Salt Lake City:

Walters: On this revelation, of the priesthood to the Negro, I've heard all kinds of stories: I've heard that Christ appeared to the apostles; I've heard that Joseph Smith appeared; and then I heard another story that Spencer Kimball had had a concern about this for some time, and simply shared it with the apostles, and they decided that this was the right time to move in that direction. Are any of those stories true, or are they all?

Richards: Well, the last one is pretty true, and I might tell you what provoked it in a way. Down in Brazil, there is so much Negro blood in the population there that it is hard to get leaders that don't have negro blood in them. We just built a temple down there. It's going to be dedicated in October. All those people with Negro blood in them have been raising money to build that temple. If we don't change, then they can't even use it. Well, Brother Kimball worried about it, and he prayed a lot about it. He asked each one of us of the twelve if we would pray--and we did--that the Lord would give him the inspiration to know what the will of the Lord was. Then he invited each one of us in his office--individually, because you know when you are in a group, you can't always express everything that's in your heart. You're part of the group, see--so he interviewed each one of us, personally to see how we felt about it, and he asked us to pray about it. Then he asked each one of us to hand in all the references we had, for, or against that proposal. See, he was thinking favorably toward giving the colored people the priesthood. Then we had a meeting where we meet every week in the temple, and we discussed it as a group circle. and then held another prayer circle after the close of that meeting, and he (President Kimball) lead in the prayer; praying that the Lord would give us the inspiration that we needed to do the thing that would be pleasing to Him and for the blessing of His children.

And then the next Thursday--we meet every Thursday--the presidency came with this little document written out to make the announcement--to see how we'd feel about it--and present it in written form. Well, some of the members of the Twelve suggested a few changes in the announcement, and then in our meeting there we all voted in favor of it--the Twelve and the first Presidency. One member of the Twelve, Mark Peterson, was down in South America, but Brother Benson, our president, had arranged to know where he could be reached by phone, and right while we were in that meeting in the temple, Brother Kimball talked with Brother Peterson, and read him the article, and he (Peterson) approved of it.
Walters: There wasn't a special document as a "revelation", that he had wrote down?

Richards: We discussed it in our meeting. What else should we say besides that announcement? And we decided that that was sufficient; that no more needed to be said.

(emphasis mine)

I had heard that SWK waited until Mark Petersen was out of the country before he officially presented the document to the 12, since he was long considered a holdout. But this interview sounds like it was less 'sneaky' that what I had believed. They called him and he gave his approval.

[Solon]

You progressive Mormons don't get it. Bott is real Mormonism. Nobody cares what you think.

This is truth. Progressive Mormons are the outliers. Bott is a Professor of Religion.

They can assuage their consciences as much as they like with sugarplum visions that their tithes and offerings and efforts are helping hungry kids in Africa, but eventually they have to confront the fact that they are sustaining and supporting this.

[TripletDaddy]

"We don't know how this whole thing started..."

A church that keeps meticulous records (except for Shoah Jews, apparently), requests that all members maintain a regular journal, and that has archived literally thousands of documents of their past just doesn't know how this one thing ever got started.

If true, sounds kind of inept to me. Reminds me of coming home and finding the playroom is a total mess. I ask the kids what happened and they all look at each other and then say, "We don't know."

I am also puzzled with the rationale that these leaders were racist, but so was everyone else so it puts things in context. Puts what in context? Aren't these guys supposed to be moral and spiritual leaders? What sort of repugnant behavior would you find "understandable" in the "context" of today's immoral climate? The prophet looks at porn but so do most other men, so it helps put it in context. wtf??

[Pheidippides]

"We don't know how this whole thing started..."

A church that keeps meticulous records (except for Shoah Jews, apparently), requests that all members maintain a regular journal, and that has archived literally thousands of documents of their past just doesn't know how this one thing ever got started.

If true, sounds kind of inept to me. Reminds me of coming home and finding the playroom is a total mess. I ask the kids what happened and they all look at each other and then say, "We don't know."

I am also puzzled with the rationale that these leaders were racist, but so was everyone else so it puts things in context. Puts what in context? Aren't these guys supposed to be moral and spiritual leaders? What sort of repugnant behavior would you find "understandable" in the "context" of today's immoral climate? The prophet looks at porn but so do most other men, so it helps put it in context. wtf??

Your last statement implies perfection and therefore infallibility, making your entire argument somewhat circular. But I'm with you up to that point. After that, I'm fully able to concede them as men with flaws, tainted by their own human existence, shaped by their time.

[smokymountainrain]

Could not agree more.

I think we are compounding the error by continuing to blame this all on God, even though we have disavowed all of the reasons previously used to justify the ban. Prior to 1978, we never said "we don't know". We had lots of very specific reasons.

The proper position of the church should be: "We don't know why God allowed us to do this for such a long period of time."

Rambam put the following in quotes and you agreed...I'm late to the game, but did either of you read the church's statement?

"We don't know why God didn't let Blacks have Temple blessings and rights of Priesthood"

I may need to read it again, but they didn't mention God or blame God in the statement and that seems to be the main part of it you both are taking issue with. Are you just looking for things to be pissed off about at this point? Even things that aren't there?

[Northwestcoug]

Looking at the Richards interview I posted above again. It certainly doesn't refute the argument that the ban was rescinded due mainly to external pressure:

Richards: Well, the last one is pretty true, and I might tell you what provoked it in a way. Down in Brazil, there is so much Negro blood in the population there that it is hard to get leaders that don't have negro blood in them. We just built a temple down there. It's going to be dedicated in October. All those people with Negro blood in them have been raising money to build that temple. If we don't change, then they can't even use it. Well, Brother Kimball worried about it, and he prayed a lot about it. He asked each one of us of the twelve if we would pray--and we did--that the Lord would give him the inspiration to know what the will of the Lord was. Then he invited each one of us in his office--individually, because you know when you are in a group, you can't always express everything that's in your heart. You're part of the group, see--so he interviewed each one of us, personally to see how we felt about it, and he asked us to pray about it. Then he asked each one of us to hand in all the references we had, for, or against that proposal. See, he was thinking favorably toward giving the colored people the priesthood. Then we had a meeting where we meet every week in the temple, and we discussed it as a group circle. and then held another prayer circle after the close of that meeting, and he (President Kimball) lead in the prayer; praying that the Lord would give us the inspiration that we needed to do the thing that would be pleasing to Him and for the blessing of His children.

[Pelado]

BYU and its law school should both be renamed. Brigham Young and J. Reuben Clark are both an embarrassment. The university should auction the name to a super rich donor who'd beef up the endowent as part of the univesity swearing off any LDS subsidy and removing GAs from the board. $2 billion for Marriott University. The law school should be named after its founding dean, Rex Lee.

These things would do wonders for BYU.

I'd have no problem with a law school named for Rex Lee.

[Jacob]

IIRC, it took SWK at least a couple of years to get everyone on board. And even then, there were still a couple of holdhouts. I seem to remember that when the ban was rescinded, one apostle (known to be a holdout) was out of the country). But I need to confirm that.

I've thought about this requirement for unanimity. I can understand the concept that God works with infallible leaders, and even they have their agency. So it might take awhile for some apostles to agree to a major change in the church. But the end to the priesthood ban is touted as a revelation, not a unanimous decision to end a policy. Is our God really limited to the whims of 15 men when He wants to make a major change in His church? He certainly didn't wait to get 15 men on board when polygamy was ended.

I guess this is one of my biggest beefs about giving carte blanche to the brethren, when they call the end of the priesthood ban a revelation. It's pretty clear that unanimity is a fairly recent concept for the first presidency and 12 apostles. If we're going to call the 1890 manifesto a revelation, then we can have faith that God can speak His will to just the prophet, and not have to wait for holdouts to get His message through.

You seem to be mixing up different historical periods. Especially D O McKay and S W Kimball. I haven't come across anything that discusses SWKs taking a couple of years to round up the votes he needed. I'm pretty sure everyone involved in that says it was a revelation. Any source I'm missing? You seem to refer to DOM and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, which discusses DOM.

I'm pretty sure the unanimity requirement goes back to Joseph Smith. At least that's what I've been reading in Quinn.

Michael Quinn wrote extensively about that episode. I don't recall which book.

I was being sarcastic. I am very familiar with the history of the priesthood ban.

[Jacob]

I'd have no problem with a law school named for Rex Lee.

I'm sure few would. At the same time, I've heard founders of the law school claim that naming it after JRC was instrumental in getting funding for the school and building.

[Pelado]

I'm sure few would. At the same time, I've heard founders of the law school claim that naming it after JRC was instrumental in getting funding for the school and building.

At first glance I thought you wrote, "I'm sure a few would." You had me wondering what glaring issue I was unaware of wrt Rex Lee.

[Northwestcoug]

You seem to be mixing up different historical periods. Especially D O McKay and S W Kimball. I haven't come across anything that discusses SWKs taking a couple of years to round up the votes he needed. I'm pretty sure everyone involved in that says it was a revelation. Any source I'm missing? You seem to refer to DOM and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, which discusses DOM.

I'm pretty sure the unanimity requirement goes back to Joseph Smith. At least that's what I've been reading in Quinn.

No, I'm aware of DOM working a long time with the 12. But I've also read that it took a couple of years for SWK to get unanimity. I'll have to look for a reference.

If the requirement for unanimity originated with Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff certainly let it slide in 1890. He didn't have everyone on board when he presented it to the general membership. I think that's pretty clear, given the problem with Cowley and Young Jr. years later.