Was the revelation associated with Manifesto and 1978 true?

[_readtoomuch]

I have been reading the essays the church has published at LDS.org and I continue to have major issues with them. I don’t pretend to be an expert on this stuff. Most faith based issues requires just that…Faith. But in reality faith is what kicks in when knowledge is absent. In this situation, knowledge is not absent. Everything I am going to mention is published by the Church. Now I am constantly being confused by what I read. After fifty two years of being in the church and also being a student of history and a returned missionary, I am amazed by what I read that has been released by the Church. The big problem is that most members don’t know anything about these essays.

The focus of my essay is to explore the use of “revelation” to augment the credibility of a policy change in the church. Changes such as the 1890 Manifesto and the 1978 change in policy with the Blacks and the Priesthood, both were enhanced by the claim that divine intervention took place. However, with the recent release of this year’s essays by the church, another look at these claims is warranted. What seemed almost as a “matter of fact”, now, it starts to appear that the divine intervention was perhaps a fabrication in order to provide moral authority to the change itself. My essay is designed to take a brief look at these two issues and hopefully open people’s eyes to what is actually going on in the church.
As I read the latest Essay on the Manifesto, I am really bothered by the “Big White Elephant” in the room. Which is, if the Lord really did in fact command Wilford Woodruff to stop Polygamy, then why didn’t Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith stop, at least at a minimum, the solemnizing of new Polygamous marriages? To me, in my simple mind, this destroys the credibility of his message that the Lord was telling him to stop. I understand that the stopping of actual marriages would create some real problems. Children and Mother’s needs would have to be carefully considered. But stopping all new marriages is a no brainer to me. To claim moral authority by claiming as a Prophet that the Lord commanded the Church to stop polygamy, and yet continue to authorize new Polygamous marriages, simply exposes the Prophet of potentially manufacturing a revelation for convenience purposes. Not sure if anyone else sees it the way I see it?

However, my real purpose for writing this post relates to my frustration big time with the Race & Priesthood Essay the church released earlier this year. In the same vein of reasoning with the manifesto, I think the church has potentially damaged its credibility the 1978 announcement. When I first read the “Race & Priesthood” essay, I was infuriated by it. I could point to certain things that made me upset, but just until recently; I haven’t been able to properly describe my frustration.

To start, I will give a little background information. Except for early in the church, Blacks of African descent, have been denied the rights to the Priesthood. Correspondingly, they were unable to go to the Temple, be sealed, receive their endowments or serve in any major callings. This went on for more than 130 years. Over 5 generations of Blacks fell into this restriction. In 1978, the church removed those restrictions and since that date, all members have had the opportunity to enjoy all the blessings of the church. Around the first of the year, the church released the new essay “Race and the Priesthood”. About 36 years after the ban was lifted, the church completely disavowed the doctrine of dark skin being related to cursing. They also disavowed the doctrine of black skin being related to how a person lived in the pre-existence. They also stated the position of the church and the blacks was based on the prejudices and theories of their day. In short, in 1978 the church righted a wrong. 36 years later, the church admitted that it was wrong and disavowed any beliefs or teachings that attempts to justify the policy. All this is good and a step in the right direction. However, upon further careful review, I think I can demonstrate that just like the manifesto situation renders the concept that the Lord really did command the stopping of polygamy dubious at best; likewise, the claim that the Brethren actually received a revelation regarding the Blacks and the Priesthood in 1978 can be easily shown to be equally dubious. To illustrate, I will add comments (in red) to the actual words published in the D&C Official Declaration 2.

The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.

Here the church admits that they have no idea why this was ever started. There is a lack of information. Yet it is interesting that the Church leaders spoke so authoritatively regarding it. Furthermore, if the origins were really unknown, why then not just fix the problem?
Here are some words of the Prophets regarding the Doctrinal aspects of this policy which in their own words is a “policy with no clear insight”. It is important to note that this is a small selection of quotes. There are in reality many more that could be shown.

1. Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel. (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, pages 101-102) Joseph Fielding Smith

2. "Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abra. 1:20-27.) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them... negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of Spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate." (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 527-528)

3. "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)
At the time the devil was cast out of heaven, there were .some spirits that did not know who had the authority, whether God or the devil. They consequently did not take a very active part on either side, but rather thought the devil had been abused, and considered he had rather the best claim to the government.
These spirits were not considered bad enough to be cast down to hell, and never have bodies ; neither were they considered worthy of an honourable body on this earth : but it came to pass that Ham, the son of Noah, saw the nakedness of his father while he lay drunk in his tent, and he with " wicked joy," ran like Rigdon, and made the wonderful disclosure to his brethren ; while Shem and Japheth took a garment, with pity and compassion, laid it upon their shoulders—went backwards and covered their father, and saw not his nakedness. The joy of the first was to expose—that of the second was to cover the unseemliness of their father. The conduct of the former brought the curse of slavery upon him, while that of the latter secured blessings, jurisdiction, power and dominion. Here was the beginning of blessing and cursing in the family of Noah, and here also is the cause of both. Canaan, the son of Ham, received the curse ; for Noah wished to place the curse as remote from himself as possible. He therefore placed it upon his grandson instead of his son.
Now, it would seem cruel to force pure celestial spirits into the world through the lineage of Canaan that had been cursed. This would be ill appropriate, putting the precious and vile together. But those spirits in heaven that rather lent an influence to the devil, thinking he had a little the best right to govern, but did not take a very active part any way were required to come into the world and take bodies in the accursed lineage of Canaan ; and hence the negro or African race. Now, therefore, all those who are halting concerning who has the right to govern had better look at the fate of their brethren that have gone before them, and take warning in time
lest they learn obedience by the things which they suffer. " Choose ye this day whom you will serve." These things are among the mysteries of the kingdom, and I have told them, not by constraint or by commandment, but by permission.
(SPEECH OF ELDER ORSON HYDE, DELIVERED BEFORE THE HIGH PRIESTS' QUORUM, IN NAUVOO, APRIL 21th, 1845 ..., p. 30)

4. The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. First Presidency, The First Presidency on the Negro Question, 17 Aug. 1949

I don’t think a rational argument can be made that the members of the church over many years were indoctrinated that the policy of the Blacks was not a policy but rather was a commandment of God.

Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.
So we have affirmation that a revelation from God would be needed to overturn this policy for which they have no clear insights as to its origins.

The church, in June 1, 1978, effectively ended the ban due to a direct revelation from God. Now here is where you must look at the actual words of the declaration. This letter was sent out to the whole church throughout the world:

To Whom It May Concern:
On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:
In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.
President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:
June 8, 1978

To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:
Dear Brethren:
As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.
Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.
He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple.
Now this is where I need to make a point. “The Lord has heard our prayers”. The Lord confirmed that the long-promised day had come. The clear implication here is that the policy which excluded the Blacks from holding the priesthood was according to the will of GOD.

Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.
We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Sincerely yours,
Spencer W. Kimball
N. Eldon Tanner
Marion G. Romney
The First Presidency

My point in showing this stuff is to illustrate clearly that the Church Leaders state that it was the Lord that decided that the time was now for a change. Almost as if, he was monitoring the situation and had planned all along that 1978 was the great day.
Now that I have laid the foundation, let’s look at what the church said in the essay “Race & Priesthood”

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

I don’t recall reading any words from the General Authorities that sounded like an expression of a theory. As you can recall from above, the examples I provided speak “matter of fact”. I think most of them sound very much like official doctrine of the church. Conveniently, the church casually dismisses them all with this essay.

Now back to the essay:

The Church Today
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.24

Did the church just throw the Book of Mormon, Book of Moses and Book of Abraham under the bus? If you will notice, the church “disavows the theories advanced in the past”. You see, why wasn’t the church leading the world into racial desegregation? Why wasn’t the church leading the way long before the civil rights movement? Yet, in 1967, Elder Ezra Taft Benson said the following in General Conference regarding the civil rights movement in the United States:

There is no doubt that the so-called civil rights movement as it exists today is used as a Communist program for revolution in America just as agrarian reform was used by the Communists to take over China and Cuba. (Ezra Taft Benson, General Conference October 1967)

There is no wonder why the church was so slow in changing its policies. Our leaders were speaking this kind of stuff from the pulpit during General Conference.

The bottom line:

In both the Manifesto and the 1978 Revelation and related lifting of the ban of Blacks holding the Priesthood, the church leaders have clearly undermined their credibility of divine intervention. In the case of the Manifesto, if the Lord really did tell Wilford to stop Polygamy, President Woodruff, I believe, would have stopped it. Yet the Church tells me he did not. Likewise, the 1978 Revelation and lifting of the ban is relegated to exaggeration due to the 2014 disavowals in the “Race and the Priesthood”. If, according to the words of the church leaders, the ban was based on theories and prejudices of their day. And, the origins were unknown. Then how could the Lord have said the time had come? He never sanctioned the policy. It wasn’t his revelation that justified it. To disavow all prior discussions, teachings and theories, renders the reality of 1978 revelation to be nothing but a fabrication. In 1978, the church didn’t say they were righting a wrong. They didn’t disavow anything. They simply said (by inference) that the ban was legit and the now the time had come via revelation that the ban now should be lifted. In 2014, the church threw everything under the bus. The essay message was a tacit acknowledgement that God endorsed the policy. It took another 36 years for the Church to admit that holding the priesthood from the Blacks was racist, not founded in revelation and was wrong. In doing so, the Church effectively exposed the deception in the 1978 announcement. The Lord would not have told them the time “had come” if the entire policy was based on theories and was a man-made restriction. In essence, the Lord never mandated the restriction so why would have told them to stop doing it? Actually, I would ask a simple question. Why didn’t the Lord tell them to let everyone enjoy all the blessings after the Civil War? How about during the WW2 or in 1967? This suggests to me that the Lord had nothing to do with the 1978 announcment. It was simply used to add credibility to their actions. If he had in fact played a role in the announcement, the Church would not have disavowed the policy, doctrine and theories in an essay at the start of 2014.

It appears that the Church leaders are quick to legitimize their authority by appeals to direct revelation. Based on their own words, they have undermined their own credibility and thus we have a furthering of the concept “Lying for the Lord”. Only this time, the gig is up.

[_Gunnar]

Welcome to the forum, readtomuch! You made very valid and well stated observations, and I like your approach to the subject. You will find, though, as you peruse previous threads on this forum, that there have already been a lot of discussion on these issues here making some of the same points you just made.

It is obvious that increasing awareness of these issues due to the modern information age will increasingly undermine the Church's credibility and its ability to gain new converts and reduce the growing tide of disillusionment among its current membership. The current series of essays like the ones you referred to are a desperate (but lame) attempt at damage control that I suspect will ultimately prove futile, in the long run, and only inadvertently further undermine confidence in the Church's claim to be the one True Church of God in the minds of both existing members and potential future converts who are not afraid to use their brains and think for themselves.

[_moksha]

The clear implication here is that the policy which excluded the Blacks from holding the priesthood was according to the will of GOD.

A clearer implication is that the racism of the policy was unholy and had no connection whatsoever with God. The Church was rectifying a horrible mistake.

[_Jaybear]

I think the church has potentially damaged its credibility the 1978 announcement.

What credibility?
In 78, the prevailing opinion of the non-lds world, was, "A revelation from God? Well that's convenient."

To claim moral authority by claiming as a Prophet that the Lord commanded the Church to stop polygamy, and yet continue to authorize new Polygamous marriages, simply exposes the Prophet of potentially manufacturing a revelation for convenience purposes. Not sure if anyone else sees it the way I see it?

Yeah, just about everyone in the world would see it that way. That is why the LDS Church came down on Quinn when he published his essay on post manifesto polygamy.

[Guest]

-

[_Bazooka]

As I understand it, there was no revelation.

From "Race and the Priesthood"

Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.

President McKay was met with silence when he asked if God wanted him to lift the ban. He took that to mean God wanted the ban to stay in place.

In 1978 Spencer W. Kimball approached the race problem in the same way, asking for guidance via prayer, and he too was met with silence. The difference though is that SWK asked the question David O'McKay should have asked. SWK told God in prayer that he had decided to lift the restriction and that if God didn't want that to happen He was to give SWK a sign to that effect. Silence. If McKay had asked the SWK question, the ban would have been lifted much earlier.

Both Prophets were met with silence, it was just their interpretation of that silence which was the deciding factor. No revelation. Nothing. Just God being silent.

P.S. I've decided to utilise the technique of the Prophet SWK. I prayed to God informing Him that I had decided not to pay tithing but that if He didn't want me to stop He should send me a sign. Silence. Therefore I can reasonably conclude that God agrees that I should withhold paying tithing.

[_Sanctorian]

Great post. These are the thoughts that will lead you out of the church or will cause you to have major mental gymnastics. Either way, you can't possibly view the church from the traditional chapel Mormon view point. Both options are better for the church as a whole and will force the church to change.