Compare text

Find the difference between two text files

Real-time diff

Unified diff

Collapse lines

Highlight change

Syntax highlighting

Tools

Peterson Blacks Priesthood Ban

Created 2 years agoDiff never expires

18 removals

36 lines

22 additions

38 lines

I hope that I’ve made it clear enough that I found the pre-1978 priesthood ban baffling and, to say the least of it, awkward, and that I was absolutely delighted when it was rescinded. (I’ve had a few critics claim that I’m lying about this, just as I lie about almost everything else. There seems no point in insisting that I’m telling the truth; once they’ve decided that I’m an inveterate liar, they’re not likely to accept any claim that I make. Oh well.)

I found the pre-1978 priesthood ban baffling and, to say the least of it, awkward, and I was absolutely delighted when the news of the revelation rescinding it reached me in Switzerland. Now, Black men and boys could be ordained to the priesthood, Black men and women of the appropriate ages could enter the temples of the Church, and Black families could be sealed in those temples for time and all eternity. I still remember where I was when I heard the news, and I recall very clearly the glow that enveloped me for days thereafter. I was ecstatic.

That said, though, I tend to resist confident assertions that the priesthood policy was, simply, the product of racism, that it was an evil mistake, and that the Church should therefore apologize for it. I have no theory of its origin to offer, no theological justification to provide for it, no apologetic to make on its behalf. I simply point to the fact that at least some Church leaders had hoped to rescind it earlier but felt themselves prevented (by the Lord himself) from doing so.

That said, though, I tend to resist confident assertions that the priesthood policy was, simply, the product of racism — whether Brigham Young’s or more general — that it was an evil mistake, and that the Church should therefore apologize for it. Please note that I have no theory of its origin to offer, no theological justification to provide for it, no apologetic rationalization to set forth on its behalf. I simply point to the fact that at least some Church leaders had hoped to rescind it earlier but felt themselves prevented (by the Lord himself) from doing so.

Now, obviously, such an argument will carry little if any weight with those who believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by ordinary mortals (or, even, by less than ordinary mortals) who have no access to the mind of God. But for me, since I believe that there is a God and that he stands in a special, revealing relationship with the prophets and apostles at the helm of the Church, it does seem important.

Now, obviously, such an argument will carry little if any weight with those who believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by ordinary mortals (or, even, by less than ordinary mortals) who have no access to the mind of God. But for me, since I believe that there is a God and that he stands in a special revelatory relationship with the prophets and apostles who stand at the helm of the Church, it’s pivotal.

Here is a specific illustration of what I have in mind, drawn from Gregory A. Prince and Wm. Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005), 103-104, 183:

It seems that President Hugh B. Brown, the first First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of whom I was aware and a man for whom I felt and still feel considerable veneration, really hoped to see the priesthood exclusion policy overturned. Therefore, he attempted to persuade President David O. McKay to make that change.

It appears that President Hugh B. Brown, the first First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of whom I was very much aware and a man for whom I felt and still feel considerable veneration, really hoped to see the priesthood exclusion policy overturned. Therefore, he attempted to persuade President David O. McKay to make that change.

Reportedly, President McKay told some people that he had prayed about the matter and that the answer was “Not yet.” In fact, according to Richard Jackson, he said that he had prayed repeatedly about the question and that he was told by the Lord to not bring the subject up again, that the change would come, but not during his administration. He even seems to have felt himself somewhat rebuked:

Reportedly, President McKay told some people that he had prayed about the matter and that the answer was “Not yet.” In fact, according to Richard Jackson, President McKay said that he had prayed repeatedly about the question and that he was told by the Lord not to bring the subject up again. He was informed that the change would come, but not during his administration. The Prophet even seems to have felt himself somewhat rebuked:

“I’ve inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone.”

If accurately reported and true, these accounts strongly suggest that, for his own inscrutable reasons, the Lord himself permitted the ban to continue until June 1978. That would make the policy seem to be something more than merely the lamentable product of regrettable nineteenth-century racism.

If accurately reported and true, these accounts strongly suggest that, for his own inscrutable reasons, the Lord himself permitted the ban to continue until June 1978. And that would tend to suggest that the policy was something more than merely the lamentable product of regrettable (and undeniable) nineteenth-century racism.

The opening sentence of Gregory A. Prince, “David O. McKay and Blacks: Building the Foundation for the 1978 Revelation,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35/1 (June 2010): 145, which quotes a General Authority who served under President McKay, is significant here: “If there was ever a person, in terms of social justice in our society, for fairness, it would have been David O. McKay. Had it been up to him, alone, he would have given the Black the priesthood that quick!”

But President McKay — like President Spencer W. Kimball after him — plainly didn’t believe that a resolution of the matter was simply “up to him.” Both President McKay and President Kimball believed that race-restricted access to priesthood ordination was an issue that required revelation. And both — both — believed themselves to have received such revelation.

But President McKay — like President Spencer W. Kimball after him — plainly didn’t believe that a resolution of the matter was simply “up to him, alone.” Both President McKay and President Kimball believed that lifting the race-based restriction on access to priesthood ordination would need to be authorized by clear revelation. And both — both — believed themselves to have received revelation on the subject.

Saved diffs

Original text

Open file

I hope that I’ve made it clear enough that I found the pre-1978 priesthood ban baffling and, to say the least of it, awkward, and that I was absolutely delighted when it was rescinded.  (I’ve had a few critics claim that I’m lying about this, just as I lie about almost everything else.  There seems no point in insisting that I’m telling the truth; once they’ve decided that I’m an inveterate liar, they’re not likely to accept any claim that I make.  Oh well.)

 

That said, though, I tend to resist confident assertions that the priesthood policy was, simply, the product of racism, that it was an evil mistake, and that the Church should therefore apologize for it.  I have no theory of its origin to offer, no theological justification to provide for it, no apologetic to make on its behalf.  I simply point to the fact that at least some Church leaders had hoped to rescind it earlier but felt themselves prevented (by the Lord himself) from doing so.

 

Now, obviously, such an argument will carry little if any weight with those who believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by ordinary mortals (or, even, by less than ordinary mortals) who have no access to the mind of God.  But for me, since I believe that there is a God and that he stands in a special, revealing relationship with the prophets and apostles at the helm of the Church, it does seem important.

 

Here is a specific illustration of what I have in mind, drawn from Gregory A. Prince and Wm. Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005), 103-104, 183:

 

It seems that President Hugh B. Brown, the first First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of whom I was aware and a man for whom I felt and still feel considerable veneration, really hoped to see the priesthood exclusion policy overturned.  Therefore, he attempted to persuade President David O. McKay to make that change.

 

Reportedly, President McKay told some people that he had prayed about the matter and that the answer was “Not yet.”  In fact, according to Richard Jackson, he said that he had prayed repeatedly about the question and that he was told by the Lord to not bring the subject up again, that the change would come, but not during his administration.  He even seems to have felt himself somewhat rebuked:

 

“I’ve inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night.  I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone.”



If accurately reported and true, these accounts strongly suggest that, for his own inscrutable reasons, the Lord himself permitted the ban to continue until June 1978.  That would make the policy seem to be something more than merely the lamentable product of regrettable nineteenth-century racism.

 
The opening sentence of Gregory A. Prince, “David O. McKay and Blacks: Building the Foundation for the 1978 Revelation,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35/1 (June 2010): 145, which quotes a General Authority who served under President McKay, is significant here:  “If there was ever a person, in terms of social justice in our society, for fairness, it would have been David O. McKay. Had it been up to him, alone, he would have given the Black the priesthood that quick!”

 

But President McKay — like President Spencer W. Kimball after him — plainly didn’t believe that a resolution of the matter was simply “up to him.”  Both President McKay and President Kimball believed that race-restricted access to priesthood ordination was an issue that required revelation.  And both — both — believed themselves to have received such revelation.

Changed text

Open file

I found the pre-1978 priesthood ban baffling and, to say the least of it, awkward, and I was absolutely delighted when the news of the revelation rescinding it reached me in Switzerland.  Now, Black men and boys could be ordained to the priesthood, Black men and women of the appropriate ages could enter the temples of the Church, and Black families could be sealed in those temples for time and all eternity.  I still remember where I was when I heard the news, and I recall very clearly the glow that enveloped me for days thereafter.  I was ecstatic.

 

That said, though, I tend to resist confident assertions that the priesthood policy was, simply, the product of racism — whether Brigham Young’s or more general — that it was an evil mistake, and that the Church should therefore apologize for it.  Please note that I have no theory of its origin to offer, no theological justification to provide for it, no apologetic rationalization to set forth on its behalf.  I simply point to the fact that at least some Church leaders had hoped to rescind it earlier but felt themselves prevented (by the Lord himself) from doing so.

 

Now, obviously, such an argument will carry little if any weight with those who believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by ordinary mortals (or, even, by less than ordinary mortals) who have no access to the mind of God.  But for me, since I believe that there is a God and that he stands in a special revelatory relationship with the prophets and apostles who stand at the helm of the Church, it’s pivotal.

 

Here is a specific illustration of what I have in mind, drawn from Gregory A. Prince and Wm. Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005), 103-104, 183:

 

It appears that President Hugh B. Brown, the first First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of whom I was very much aware and a man for whom I felt and still feel considerable veneration, really hoped to see the priesthood exclusion policy overturned.  Therefore, he attempted to persuade President David O. McKay to make that change.

 

Reportedly, President McKay told some people that he had prayed about the matter and that the answer was “Not yet.”  In fact, according to Richard Jackson, President McKay said that he had prayed repeatedly about the question and that he was told by the Lord not to bring the subject up again.  He was informed that the change would come, but not during his administration.  The Prophet even seems to have felt himself somewhat rebuked:

 

“I’ve inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night.  I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone.”



If accurately reported and true, these accounts strongly suggest that, for his own inscrutable reasons, the Lord himself permitted the ban to continue until June 1978.  And that would tend to suggest that the policy was something more than merely the lamentable product of regrettable (and undeniable) nineteenth-century racism.


The opening sentence of Gregory A. Prince, “David O. McKay and Blacks: Building the Foundation for the 1978 Revelation,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35/1 (June 2010): 145, which quotes a General Authority who served under President McKay, is significant here:  “If there was ever a person, in terms of social justice in our society, for fairness, it would have been David O. McKay. Had it been up to him, alone, he would have given the Black the priesthood that quick!”

 

But President McKay — like President Spencer W. Kimball after him — plainly didn’t believe that a resolution of the matter was simply “up to him, alone.”  Both President McKay and President Kimball believed that lifting the race-based restriction on access to priesthood ordination would need to be authorized by clear revelation.  And both — both — believed themselves to have received revelation on the subject.