DiscussMormonism.com

Do you think Mitt Romney could get away with these responses?

Helen Whitney: I've talked to many blacks and many whites as well about the lingering folklore [about why blacks couldn't have the priesthood]. These are faithful Mormons who are delighted about this revelation, and yet who feel something more should be said about the folklore and even possibly about the mysterious reasons for the ban itself, which was not a revelation; it was a practice. So if you could, briefly address the concerns Mormons have about this folklore and what should be done.

Elder Holland: One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

Helen Whitney: What is the folklore, quite specifically?

Elder Holland: Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... We just don't know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. ... That's my principal [concern], is that we don't perpetuate explanations about things we don't know. ...

We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present. That's the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. ...

http://www.pbs.org/Mormons/interviews/holland.html

I like how he throws all the earlier leaders under the bus and pleads ignorance because he didn't live during that time. Except he was 37 when blacks were finally given the priesthood, so he was at least an Elder for 18 years during the time these things were being taught. Based on his wiki page, he was a missionary, institute teacher, institute director, bishop, counselor in the stake presidency, Director of the Melchizedek Priesthood MIA, Dean of Religious education at BYU, and commissionaer of the church education system all before 1977. I find it hard to believe that he can't really remember what was taught back then. Also, I like how he refers to previous prophets and apostles as "my earlier colleagues." I'm going to start referring to the old latter-day prophets and apostles as "Jeffrey Holland's previous colleagues."

"I don't know" is the best and most honest answer that can be given to most critical questions about the history of the church. It's a shame that Mopologists don't follow Holland's lead. Instead, they offer wild speculation in an attempt to obtain plausibility.

I guess that would be boring, though. The entire Mormon Dialogue board would be filled with nothing but "I don't know" replies on every issue.

DarkHelmet wrote:I like how he throws all the earlier leaders under the bus and pleads ignorance because he didn't live during that time. Except he was 37 when blacks were finally given the priesthood, so he was at least an Elder for 18 years during the time these things were being taught. Based on his wiki page, he was a missionary, institute teacher, institute director, bishop, counselor in the stake presidency, Director of the Melchizedek Priesthood MIA, Dean of Religious education at BYU, and commissionaer of the church education system all before 1977. I find it hard to believe that he can't really remember what was taught back then. Also, I like how he refers to previous prophets and apostles as "my earlier colleagues." I'm going to start referring to the old latter-day prophets and apostles as "Jeffrey Holland's previous colleagues."

Or, you could call them your once and future colleagues, DarkHelmut--one day you might become an LDS apostle.

I like how he throws all the earlier leaders under the bus

How did he do that? I agree no one should have been speculating on why, but that hardly counts as throwing under the bus.

I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

Almost indeed. All we have is the scripture on the matter.

Do you think Mitt Romney could get away with these responses?

Generally yes. But he'll not have to.

I bet Brigham loves hearing an apostle of the church call his doctrine "folklore."
Maybe McConkie should have called his book Mormon Folklore.

I bet Brigham loves hearing an apostle of the church call his doctrine "folklore."

I'll bet he doesn't mind seeing as how he didn't get to review the JoD for doctrine as per his own words.

Maybe McConkie should have called his book Mormon Folklore.

His work was never approved for publication under the auspices of the Church and contains a disclaimer in his own words.

I'm personally encouraged by Elder Holland's view on this.

On top of that, i think its unreasonable to hold him to his position of those leaders pre-1978 on that basis of him being 37 at that time. He wasn't involved as a General authority previous to that time. I think its fair.

I can't help but thinking a stand of "I don't know" is meant to relieve us of the burden of acknowledging the wrongness of this past policy. I think the true answer is found in President Gordon Hinckley's statement that no one who is a true disciple of Christ can have racial hatred in his heart.

Cardinal Biggles wrote:"I don't know" is the best and most honest answer that can be given to most critical questions about the history of the church.

No it isn't. I don't really like it when a lot of critics accuse the GAs in Salt Lake of lying about this and that, but I'm pretty upset reading his response to Helen Whitney again, because there's no friggin way that he didn't know what was being taught, which was simple: the blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence.

How is it that I was only 9 years old in 1978, not even a deacon, and Holland was all those things a previous poster mentioned, at age 37, and yet I know, and can say with no hesitation whatsoever what was being taught. Everyone knew it. For him to prevaricate about this is damnable.

"We just don't know" is the excuse LDS members give when they know that something previously taught gets blown straight out of the water. We only don't know, because those who came before, who thought they did know, and claimed to know, and explained what they knew, turned out to be wrong, and we don't know how to get out of the jam they put us in.