Interesting perspective on Blacks and the priesthood.

[UtahDan]

We blessed my new daughter this weekend and my father-in-law has been on town staying with us. He is retired having sold a successful printing business and is now primarily a landlord of his commercial properties. In his spare time he works at the church history museum (has for at least 20 years) teaches institude, gives talks around different places and is well regarded for his knowledge of church history. He also knows more about WWII than anyone I know. He is also very staunchly traditional and conservative in his views of the church.

So as we were discussing what we each had been reading on Saturday he said he had finally gotten around to the new McKay bio and was really enjoying it. Particularly since he knew so many of the people mentioned....Dill, McMurrin, Bennion,etc.

As we were talking about the blacks in the priesthood issue I shared my view with him that I felt that it was a policy that had sprung from the racist views of leaders who were merely products of their time, and that when times changed that new instruction was finally ready to be recieved. He was sort of bemused that I thought I had come up with some thing unique.

His comment was to the effect of "when I was involved with institute in the 60's and 70's the prevailing view was that the only impediment to blacks recieving the priesthood was the fact that several of the brethren were still alive. We all assumed that once a few of them had passed away that the policy would change."

I was just sort of astonished that from his very conservative view point that this seemed like th most obvious thing in the world. Just interesting.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

We blessed my new daughter this weekend and my father-in-law has been on town staying with us. He is retired having sold a successful printing business and is now primarily a landlord of his commercial properties. In his spare time he works at the church history museum (has for at least 20 years) teaches institude, gives talks around different places and is well regarded for his knowledge of church history. He also knows more about WWII than anyone I know. He is also very staunchly traditional and conservative in his views of the church.

So as we were discussing what we each had been reading on Saturday he said he had finally gotten around to the new McKay bio and was really enjoying it. Particularly since he knew so many of the people mentioned....Dill, McMurrin, Bennion,etc.

As we were talking about the blacks in the priesthood issue I shared my view with him that I felt that it was a policy that had sprung from the racist views of leaders who were merely products of their time, and that when times changed that new instruction was finally ready to be recieved. He was sort of bemused that I thought I had come up with some thing unique.

His comment was to the effect of "when I was involved with institute in the 60's and 70's the prevailing view was that the only impediment to blacks recieving the priesthood was the fact that several of the brethren were still alive. We all assumed that once a few of them had passed away that the policy would change."

I was just sort of astonished that from his very conservative view point that this seemed like th most obvious thing in the world. Just interesting.

My father's cousin came from the "intellectual" side of the family (meaning they went to college). He's been a high school and university level history teacher in Utah and has done quite a bit of political and religious polling. He even worked for The Church for a time. He's also a die hard Democrat, as are all of his children. He absolutely loves Hillary. He absolutely hates BYU. I think he struggled with doubts for a large part of his life but had a religious epiphany that resolved that aspect of his relationship with The Church. Since that time he has been very devout.

He's always been a great conversationalist, interesting to talk to because of the breadth and depth of his knowledge. My wife innocently asked him one time how he could be a Democrat and a Mormon. That was a great discussion.

Anyway, like your FiL, he once expressed (post 1978) during one of our conversations his belief that racist church leadership had been behind the priesthood ban. I remember being shocked by this, unable to see how he could remain devout while acknowledging such a gross error on the part of the Brethren. Obviously my thinking and understanding have evolved since then.

Yes, very interesting.