Blacks and the Priesthood redux, ala David O. Mckay

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

1. It is apparent that some/many of the brethren in this period held racist views--REAL racist views, not the fake racism I am frequently accused of. From the "curse of Cain" to the "curse of Canaan" to "pre-existantly less valiant" to "pre-existantly rejected the priesthood" to all the other speculative views on the "why" of the ban, all these reflect the fundamental concept of racism: that race alone makes someone inferior or superior to someone else. There is no question in my mind that these views were a product of the environment of the day, and that they influenced their approach to church policy. (65, 73, 75)

And yet it didn't influence church doctrine?

Originally Posted by Tex

2. It is apparent that multiple prophets, including Grant, McKay, Lee, Smith, and of course Kimball, all felt that whatever the ban's origin, its recision requred divine intervention (74, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83, 85, 89, 90, 101). It is, in fact, mentioned so many times throughout the chapter that one wonders how anyone could ever argue otherwise. This includes multiple accounts of McKay in particular, pleading and petitioning the Lord for further light on the topic. (80, 103, 104) Assuming the events in the book are true as related, there can be no remaining question that the Lord was complicit in denying the priesthood to blacks before June 1, 1978.

And yet, towards the end of DOM's life, there was a substantial debate among the quorum as to whether the ban was policy or doctrine. And whether a revelation was necessary to overturn it. Why would that be?

Originally Posted by Tex

4. It is apparent that one reason for church instransigence on civil rights and blacks/priesthood is McKay's unwillingness to have the church be used for political posturing. On multiple occasions detailed in the book, he resisted chances to clarify or declare policy in an interest of keeping the church as neutral as could be hoped for (62, 67, 68). He was particularly resistant to being pushed on the issue, both from without (69, 71, 88) and from within (95, 96, 97, 99, 100).

One of DOM's biggest weaknesses, IMO, was trying too hard to be "neutral". Often at great expense.

Originally Posted by Tex

We also see a wonderfully plain example of a modern Uzzah trying to steady the ark, in the person of Sterling McMurrin. While obviously earnest in his beliefs and (justly) anxious to see a policy he disagreed with rescinded, he overstepped the bounds of authority and propriety. In particular, his stoking of the fires late in McKay's life created nothing but further turmoil (97). It is a good example of what not to do when you disagree with church leadership.

How do you know that folks like Sterling McMurrin didn't hasten the day that the change was made? Then again, not surprising at all that you would take this stance. Fortunately, DOM stood by him in the end.

Originally Posted by Tex

Another example, slightly less applicable but instructive nonetheless, is that of the Nigerian mission president-to-be LaMar Williams and his persistent (the First Presidency used the word "over-enthusiastic") advocacy for establishing the church there. Williams was understandably reluctant about cancelling or postponing church efforts in Nigeria, the wisdom of which however was borne out by the circumstances of the Biafran War (92-94). Another good example of learning to follow the prophet.

This one really has me scratching my head. How could you possibly know that the war was proof that the decision was correct? Is it due to potential danger to the white missionaries who would have been there? What about the thousands or tens of thousands of Africans that would have joined the church? Would you also argue that missionary activities in Europe prior to WW2 were in error?

Originally Posted by Tex

5. This last point is included specifically for Cougarguard. It is apparent that the President Lee's purported quote has been badly misrepresented. The exact statement from the book is as follows:...

I think you are cherry-picking a little here. You don't like that quote? Fine, there are plenty others with clear documentation.

Originally Posted by Tex

Those are my thoughts on the much-ballyhooed DOM chapter on the blacks. Despite my criticisms, I found it to be very enlightening, and with some reservations have enjoyed the other chapters I've read. I'll post thoughts on some of the other chapters some other time.

Glad you liked it. I look forward to your other comments.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Not pertinent. Ad hominem.

What does "I would argue this point" mean? You would argue against it? Really? I hope you mean you would make the point I just made.

Have you read the book yet?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

When I read this, I was so gratified, thinking, "We have enlightened Tex. We are witnessing movement here." Alas, I was soon to be disappointed.

Your disappointment is my bellwether, SU.

Originally Posted by creekster

I fail to see how you can conclude that the Lord was complicit in denying the priesthood. Perhaps complicit in allowing the ban to continue, but what evidence of the former do you have?

By complicit, I meant complicit in allowing it to continue. Sorry for the confusion.

[MikeWaters]

Like I said before, if denying priesthood and temple blessings to entire generations and races due to my prejudices was the worst thing I ever did in my life, then I would count myself very blessed.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

By complicit, I meant complicit in allowing it to continue. Sorry for the confusion.

So you don't believe the Lord was complicit in denying the priesthood?

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by Tex

I finally got around to purchasing the DOM book, and I've read most it. There were some very interesting chapters, and I have some criticisms of the authors for another date. But the chapter most referenced here (and most curious to me) is the 4th chapter: Blacks, Civil Rights, and the Priesthood. I found the narrative interesting, sometimes riveting, and apparently well-researched, so much so that I re-read the chapter three times to make sure I caught all the nuances.

From that reading, and the extensive (and often unkind) discussions I've participated in here on the topic, here are my observations from this portion of the book. Note: if you are in that group who typically trades barbs with me, I invite you to quit reading now. Little of what I say below is going to make you very happy, so save yourself the trouble. You know who you are.

Page numbers for these observations are in parenthesis.

1. It is apparent that some/many of the brethren in this period held racist views--REAL racist views, not the fake racism I am frequently accused of. From the "curse of Cain" to the "curse of Canaan" to "pre-existantly less valiant" to "pre-existantly rejected the priesthood" to all the other speculative views on the "why" of the ban, all these reflect the fundamental concept of racism: that race alone makes someone inferior or superior to someone else. There is no question in my mind that these views were a product of the environment of the day, and that they influenced their approach to church policy. (65, 73, 75)

2. It is apparent that multiple prophets, including Grant, McKay, Lee, Smith, and of course Kimball, all felt that whatever the ban's origin, its recision requred divine intervention (74, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83, 85, 89, 90, 101). It is, in fact, mentioned so many times throughout the chapter that one wonders how anyone could ever argue otherwise. This includes multiple accounts of McKay in particular, pleading and petitioning the Lord for further light on the topic. (80, 103, 104) Assuming the events in the book are true as related, there can be no remaining question that the Lord was complicit in denying the priesthood to blacks before June 1, 1978.

3. It is disturbing to me that with the exception of the previous point, the authors have provided almost no other reference to any of the brethren seeking the will of the Lord in this matter. We do not read of Brown, Lee, Smith, Benson, Moyle, Tanner, etc. praying for guidance from the Lord, hypothesizing as to his purposes, wondering what would be best for the Church and its future, or any other altrustic thoughts. Instead, the brethren are portrayed as petty, agenda-driven, and overbearing. References to any desire to see the will of the Lord done are noticeably (and I believe incorrectly) absent. I have found this to be a deliberate pattern throughout the book, maybe in an effort to court non-member readers?

A wonderful example of this is Ezra Taft Benson. Every single time he is mentioned in the chapter, he is portrayed as a nutty anti-Communist firebrand (64, 70, 71, 72, 92), a shallow and one-dimensional picture. After finishing the chapter, one would expect to visit the church office building and find him marching the hallways yelling loudly, waving a gun, babbling about communism. I know about Benson's extreme conservatism--years ago I read his book An Enemy Hath Done This where he cataloged his political views. I do not think that this chapter treats the man fairly; I had hoped the remainder of the book might atone for this injustice, but it is perpetuated even worse in the chapter on communism.

In any case, I found this cardboard presentation of Benson to be typical of how the authors portrayed the authorities generally, representing those with whom they disagreed harshly (Lee, Smith) and lionizing those with whom they did agree (Brown). They even go so far as to editorialize on the prophet himself, calling him "unprogressive" and his ministry one of "missed opportunities" with respect to civil rights. (60, 61, 104) The theme of "missed opportunities" is another that permeates multiple chapters.

4. It is apparent that one reason for church instransigence on civil rights and blacks/priesthood is McKay's unwillingness to have the church be used for political posturing. On multiple occasions detailed in the book, he resisted chances to clarify or declare policy in an interest of keeping the church as neutral as could be hoped for (62, 67, 68). He was particularly resistant to being pushed on the issue, both from without (69, 71, 88) and from within (95, 96, 97, 99, 100).

We also see a wonderfully plain example of a modern Uzzah trying to steady the ark, in the person of Sterling McMurrin. While obviously earnest in his beliefs and (justly) anxious to see a policy he disagreed with rescinded, he overstepped the bounds of authority and propriety. In particular, his stoking of the fires late in McKay's life created nothing but further turmoil (97). It is a good example of what not to do when you disagree with church leadership.

Another example, slightly less applicable but instructive nonetheless, is that of the Nigerian mission president-to-be LaMar Williams and his persistent (the First Presidency used the word "over-enthusiastic") advocacy for establishing the church there. Williams was understandably reluctant about cancelling or postponing church efforts in Nigeria, the wisdom of which however was borne out by the circumstances of the Biafran War (92-94). Another good example of learning to follow the prophet.

5. This last point is included specifically for Cougarguard. It is apparent that the President Lee's purported quote has been badly misrepresented. The exact statement from the book is as follows:

[Harold B. Lee's] daughter confided to a friend, "My daddy said that as long he's alive, [the blacks will] never have the priesthood," a prediction that proved to be correct. A quick glance at the footnotes reveals the source as "Maureen Lee Wilkins, quoted in Ramona Bernhard interview." (64, 417)

For a book that has so carefully documented its sources and appears to so value its scholarship, the inclusion of this line is an absolute embarrassment. There is no other statement I could find in the entire chapter that provides such poor context or corroboration for one of the brethren. This statement comes to us at least third-hand, and has no place in a book of this nature without further context. I am stunned that the authors included it. Perhaps Lee did in fact hold the view that the authors imply, but they did a poor job of proving it if this is their best evidence.

Less surprising but no less disappointing are the attempts by some CGers to spin this "quote" in the least flattering way possible for President Lee (a man who eventually became the earthly mouthpiece of God), morphing it so grotesquely as to appear in one context as having read "over my dead body." Coming quickly on the heels of a complete misrepresentation of a Russell Nelson statement on AIDS, I would hope that CGers would in the future be a little more circumspect about how eagerly they consume such poorly referenced material, to say nothing of the authors who publish it.

----

Those are my thoughts on the much-ballyhooed DOM chapter on the blacks. Despite my criticisms, I found it to be very enlightening, and with some reservations have enjoyed the other chapters I've read. I'll post thoughts on some of the other chapters some other time.

Note again: if after reading this your initial thought is to tell me what a cold-hearted, racist, bigoted, unintelligent jerk I am, consider it said and move on. Thoughtful comments welcome.

I've heard an interesting take on the "racism" of not allowing blacks to have the priesthood. Many of the explanations involve the preexistence as the crux of the reason black men could not hold the priesthood. The common thread in all of those explanations is that their actions at that time prevented them from holding the priesthood on earth. Given that the preexistence actually existed, and given that actions in that life would result in consequences in this life, I have to agree that these explanations would not be racist per se because implicit in each explanation is an action of the individual that prompts the loss of the priviledge to hold the priesthood. Of course, all of this is provided we agree that racism is an unreasoning dislike and effort to disadvantage a group because of skin color and ancestry.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

5. This last point is included specifically for Cougarguard. It is apparent that the President Lee's purported quote has been badly misrepresented. The exact statement from the book is as follows:

[Harold B. Lee's] daughter confided to a friend, "My daddy said that as long he's alive, [the blacks will] never have the priesthood," a prediction that proved to be correct. A quick glance at the footnotes reveals the source as "Maureen Lee Wilkins, quoted in Ramona Bernhard interview." (64, 417)

For a book that has so carefully documented its sources and appears to so value its scholarship, the inclusion of this line is an absolute embarrassment. There is no other statement I could find in the entire chapter that provides such poor context or corroboration for one of the brethren. This statement comes to us at least third-hand, and has no place in a book of this nature without further context. I am stunned that the authors included it. Perhaps Lee did in fact hold the view that the authors imply, but they did a poor job of proving it if this is their best evidence.

Less surprising but no less disappointing are the attempts by some CGers to spin this "quote" in the least flattering way possible for President Lee (a man who eventually became the earthly mouthpiece of God), morphing it so grotesquely as to appear in one context as having read "over my dead body." Coming quickly on the heels of a complete misrepresentation of a Russell Nelson statement on AIDS, I would hope that CGers would in the future be a little more circumspect about how eagerly they consume such poorly referenced material, to say nothing of the authors who publish it.

After more thought, I am a little puzzled why this issue has you so up in arms. The book did not hide the fact that it was based on hearsay. And this is not a court of law. It is a history book. And the book was clear and upfront about the source of the quote. It is left to the reader to analyze the significance. Are we going to limit history to firsthand accounts only? If so, there are quite a few things about LDS history that will need to change. I seem to recall not too long ago when your signature line contained a second-hand account of a conversation regarding "leading the church astray".

And you claim that "over my dead body" is a "grotesque" misrepresentation of what was said. But the exact quote was "My daddy said that as long he's alive, [the blacks will] never have the priesthood,". Seems awfully similar to me.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

By complicit, I meant complicit in allowing it to continue. Sorry for the confusion.

Failing to act is complicit?

I don't see it as that. If he truly failed to intervene, perhaps he recognized the wretched state of the membership before intervening.

I see other alternatives than just the one you've assumed.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by K-dog

Of course, all of this is provided we agree that racism is an unreasoning dislike and effort to disadvantage a group because of skin color and ancestry.

Wow. You've really revealed yourself in the past two days.

No, we do NOT agree.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

And you claim that "over my dead body" is a "grotesque" misrepresentation of what was said. But the exact quote was "My daddy said that as long he's alive, [the blacks will] never have the priesthood,". Seems awfully similar to me.

As long as he's alive is simply more polite and less colloquial than over my dead body.