In the spirit of MikeWaters' religious and political conspiracy theories

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Aw, even SteeBlue believes I'm a racist.

SteelBlue doesn't know anything about you.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What have you been taught?

About noon the next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. 12In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. 13Then he heard a voice saying, ‘Get up, Peter; kill and eat.’ 14But Peter said, ‘By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.’ 15The voice said to him again, a second time, ‘What God has made clean, you must not call profane.’ 16This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven. 17 Now while Peter was greatly puzzled about what to make of the vision that he had seen, suddenly the men sent by Cornelius appeared. They were asking for Simon’s house and were standing by the gate. 18They called out to ask whether Simon, who was called Peter, was staying there. 19While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, ‘Look, three* men are searching for you. 20Now get up, go down, and go with them without hesitation; for I have sent them.’ 21So Peter went down to the men and said, ‘I am the one you are looking for; what is the reason for your coming?’ 22They answered, ‘Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man, who is well spoken of by the whole Jewish nation, was directed by a holy angel to send for you to come to his house and to hear what you have to say.’ 23So Peter* invited them in and gave them lodging.

It was a clear Jewish tradition that Gentiles were unclean. Whether that was a valid tradition is subject to debate, but significant authorities exist that some segments of Jewish society did not agree with teaching the Gentiles. Else why would Peter have to be taught?

Why did you stop with the preamble? Yes, Jews had been taught under certain Old Testament precepts, "not to associate with the unclean", but the whole point of this chapter, just a few verses later, is that this is a NEW message, and not the system of rules from the Old Testament under which Simon/Peter had been conditioned (or are you somehow claiming that Christ told him that?). It is to be preached to all and doesn't show favorites. So this chapter supports my premise that Christs message (reinforced here by the dream, from the Holy Spirit, presumably) is one equal for all, and to "reform" it to one that excludes in any way any race or peoples is to make a church that is more consistent with Old Testament ideology, and not consistent with the early Christian Church.


==============================================

27Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. 29So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?"

30Cornelius answered: "Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me 31and said, 'Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. 32Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.' 33So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us."

34Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. 36You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.

[Tex]

An alternative explanation popped into my head while I was musing on this topic over the weekend.

Could it be possible that the world was not ready for blacks to hold the priesthood? Could it be that the reason for the delay--the "not yet" to McKay--was at least in part because a racially divided America would not accept a race-neutral LDS church? Could it be that God thought it best not to have his organization be the one to lead out by changing its doctrine first, thus inserting itself publicly into the coming national dialogue on the topic?

We know that political and legal considerations played a role in the discontinuation of polygamy, why not for the priesthood ban? McKay became president in 1951, at the leading edge of two decades of racial unrest. Could not the Lord have withheld as a means of protecting his church from its host country who at one time went to war over this same issue?

What evidence do I have to support such a hypothesis? I have no more than that which has been put forward for any of the other theories. But this one at least has the advantage of taking a kinder (and in my opinion, more consistent) approach to the men God chose to lead his church. And it reflects better on the body of the membership who, in truth, are God's people.

I don't necessarily subscribe to this theory. I just put it forth to illustrate that there could be a dozen explanations for the ban (or a combination of the same). I don't know why we must necessarily adopt the one that opens the biggest chasm between God, his prophet, and his people.

Just a thought.

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

After 3 >15 page threads on the topic I'm more than weary. All of the points you listed have been thoroughly addressed, and I'm not going to waste any more time (today at least) typing the same thing again and again. However, I found your point number 4 here to be humorous. Why? Well, it appears that this was one of the greatest worries of the brethren as they were working this whole thing out. McKay commissioned a committee from the 12 to study the matter and they apparently came to the conclusion that there was no scriptural evidence for the ban but that the membership was not ready for a change (McKay book chapter 4).

I'm gonna be fascinated to read that book. I'd really like to see the internals of a study commissioned by the 12 to find out: are LDS folks too racist for black elders? What was it, a phone survey?

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm gonna be fascinated to read that book. I'd really like to see the internals of a study commissioned by the 12 to find out: are LDS folks too racist for black elders? What was it, a phone survey?

So, are you mocking the study conducted by the Quorum of 12? I thought it was a sin to criticize the church leaders?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Tex

An alternative explanation popped into my head while I was musing on this topic over the weekend.

Could it be possible that the world was not ready for blacks to hold the priesthood? Could it be that the reason for the delay--the "not yet" to McKay--was at least in part because a racially divided America would not accept a race-neutral LDS church? Could it be that God thought it best not to have his organization be the one to lead out by changing its doctrine first, thus inserting itself publicly into the coming national dialogue on the topic?

We know that political and legal considerations played a role in the discontinuation of polygamy, why not for the priesthood ban? McKay became president in 1951, at the leading edge of two decades of racial unrest. Could not the Lord have withheld as a means of protecting his church from its host country who at one time went to war over this same issue?

What evidence do I have to support such a hypothesis? I have no more than that which has been put forward for any of the other theories. But this one at least has the advantage of taking a kinder (and in my opinion, more consistent) approach to the men God chose to lead his church. And it reflects better on the body of the membership who, in truth, are God's people.

I don't necessarily subscribe to this theory. I just put it forth to illustrate that there could be a dozen explanations for the ban (or a combination of the same). I don't know why we must necessarily adopt the one that opens the biggest chasm between God, his prophet, and his people.

Just a thought.



I'm gonna be fascinated to read that book. I'd really like to see the internals of a study commissioned by the 12 to find out: are LDS folks too racist for black elders? What was it, a phone survey?

A good thought. I think the one hole in the theory is that the reversal of the priesthood ban came comparatively late. The church was definitely behind the rest of the world in the civil rights era.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It is an interesting thought, but it is also a bit problematic. It suggests that what many of us perceive as being doctrine may not actually be doctrine (in the sense of eternal truth) but may rather be a position taken because it is socially popular or acceptable, or that the "true" principle that the church doesn't adopt may be unpopular or socially unacceptable (typically not something you would expect a church to worry about as a "moral guide").

It wouldn't be any different than divorce allowed under the law of Moses, due to the hardness of the hearts of the people.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It is an interesting thought, but it is also a bit problematic. It suggests that what many of us perceive as being doctrine may not actually be doctrine (in the sense of eternal truth) but may rather be a position taken because it is socially popular or acceptable, or that the "true" principle that the church doesn't adopt may be unpopular or socially unacceptable (typically not something you would expect a church to worry about as a "moral guide").

I believe the manifesto gives this very reason for the discontinuation of polygamy--that the chasm it opened between the church and America was wide and would grow only wider, to the point of threatening the existence of the church. And as All-American points out, it is not without scriptural precedent. I mean ... we even teach that the apostasy itself was God's "reaction" (for lack of a better word) to the unfaithfulness of the world.

Why could we not postulate that similar concerns would drive God's church in this situation as well? Perhaps it would've threatened the physical safety of its members, the physical integrity of its chapels, or its ability to effectively proselyte?

Again, I offer no evidence to this end. Just hypothesizing.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Tex

I believe the manifesto gives this very reason for the discontinuation of polygamy--that the chasm it opened between the church and America was wide and would grow only wider, to the point of threatening the existence of the church. And as All-American points out, it is not without scriptural precedent. I mean ... we even teach that the apostasy itself was God's "reaction" (for lack of a better word) to the unfaithfulness of the world.

Why could we not postulate that similar concerns would drive God's church in this situation as well? Perhaps it would've threatened the physical safety of its members, the physical integrity of its chapels, or its ability to effectively proselyte?

Again, I offer no evidence to this end. Just hypothesizing.

Like I said, the only problem I see with this idea is the fact that the church was very late in the game making the change. Brown v. Board had taken place over twenty years earlier, and Martin Luther King Jr. had already been assassinated nearly a decade earlier. I'm not sure how closely these events followed the general sentiment among the plebeians, but 1978 seems to trail behind the rest of the world. This implies to me that the issue was an internal one, whether in the leadership or the membership.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I believe the manifesto gives this very reason for the discontinuation of polygamy--that the chasm it opened between the church and America was wide and would grow only wider, to the point of threatening the existence of the church. And as All-American points out, it is not without scriptural precedent. I mean ... we even teach that the apostasy itself was God's "reaction" (for lack of a better word) to the unfaithfulness of the world.

Why could we not postulate that similar concerns would drive God's church in this situation as well? Perhaps it would've threatened the physical safety of its members, the physical integrity of its chapels, or its ability to effectively proselyte?

Again, I offer no evidence to this end. Just hypothesizing.

No, the manifesto doesn't give that as a reason. It notes that Congress passed a law prohibiting polygamy and that the church would comply. That isn't a statement that polygamy is unpopular so the church won't do it anymore. It is a statement that the church will follow the law.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, the manifesto doesn't give that as a reason. It notes that Congress passed a law prohibiting polygamy and that the church would comply. That isn't a statement that polygamy is unpopular so the church won't do it anymore. It is a statement that the church will follow the law.

Yes, it is that too. But there's this statement made by Woodruff:

"Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost ..."

Clearly the unpopularity of the practice influenced Woodruff's thinking. And even if it weren't a primary concern, it could not escape being a secondary concern: the law would never have been passed without popular support.

Originally Posted by All-American

Like I said, the only problem I see with this idea is the fact that the church was very late in the game making the change. Brown v. Board had taken place over twenty years earlier, and Martin Luther King Jr. had already been assassinated nearly a decade earlier. I'm not sure how closely these events followed the general sentiment among the plebeians, but 1978 seems to trail behind the rest of the world. This implies to me that the issue was an internal one, whether in the leadership or the membership.

I don't know if it trailed "behind the rest of the world" but it did certainly trail American legislation. All the same, using Brown or King' assassination as benchmarks is a bit facetious given they were at the very beginning (or crucible) of the movement. If my theory is to be believed, the church (or the Lord) would want to make the change at a time when it would have the least negative impact, which would be when public opinion had settled somewhat.

In any case we're only talking about a handful of years here. If you're familiar with the glacial pace at which the church operates, one decade is practically overnight.