DCP self-editing his thoughts on the priesthood ban

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
drumdude
God
Posts: 5196
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

DCP self-editing his thoughts on the priesthood ban

Post by drumdude »

Typically DCP just reposts the same things verbatim, but I thought it was interesting that today he decided to revisit a 4 year old blog entry and make quite a few changes to its' language. I can't see much rhyme or reason to the changes, perhaps the board would be able to find some interesting choices within.
DCP in 2022 wrote:From time to time, I encounter the suggestion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should apologize for the policy, which lasted into mid-1978, that barred people of Black African descent from ordination to the priesthood. I’ve seen it again within the past few days. I understand the suggestion. I know how the former policy looks, and I know from painful personal experience how it looked when it was still in place.

Thus, I expect that my disinclination to apologize for it will earn me considerable flak. It’s not a politically correct stance to take, and some, no doubt, will say that it’s an immoral one. I get that. Again, I know how it looks.

But permit me to explain.

I found the pre-1978 priesthood ban baffling and, to say the least of it, awkward, and I was absolutely delighted when the news of the revelation rescinding it reached me in Switzerland. Now, Black men and boys could be ordained to the priesthood, Black men and women of the appropriate ages could enter the temples of the Church, and Black families could be sealed in those temples for time and all eternity. I still remember where I was when I heard the news, and I recall very clearly the glow that enveloped me for days thereafter. I was ecstatic.

That said, though, I tend to resist confident assertions that the priesthood policy was, simply, the product of racism — whether Brigham Young’s or more general — that it was an evil mistake, and that the Church should therefore apologize for it. Please note that I have no theory of its origin to offer, no theological justification to provide for it, no apologetic rationalization to set forth on its behalf. I simply point to the fact that at least some Church leaders had hoped to rescind it earlier but felt themselves prevented (by the Lord himself) from doing so.

Now, obviously, such an argument will carry little if any weight with those who believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by ordinary mortals (or, even, by less than ordinary mortals) who have no access to the mind of God. But for me, since I believe that there is a God and that he stands in a special revelatory relationship with the prophets and apostles who stand at the helm of the Church, it’s pivotal.

Here is a specific illustration of what I have in mind, drawn from Gregory A. Prince and Walmart. Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005), 103-104, 183:

It appears that President Hugh B. Brown, the first First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of whom I was very much aware and a man for whom I felt and still feel considerable veneration, really hoped to see the priesthood exclusion policy overturned. Therefore, he attempted to persuade President David O. McKay to make that change.

Reportedly, President McKay told some people that he had prayed about the matter and that the answer was “Not yet.” In fact, according to Richard Jackson, President McKay said that he had prayed repeatedly about the question and that he was told by the Lord not to bring the subject up again. He was informed that the change would come, but not during his administration. The Prophet even seems to have felt himself somewhat rebuked:

“I’ve inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone.”

If accurately reported and true, these accounts strongly suggest that, for his own inscrutable reasons, the Lord himself permitted the ban to continue until June 1978. And that would tend to suggest that the policy was something more than merely the lamentable product of regrettable (and undeniable) nineteenth-century racism.

The opening sentence of Gregory A. Prince, “David O. McKay and Blacks: Building the Foundation for the 1978 Revelation,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35/1 (June 2010): 145, which quotes a General Authority who served under President McKay, is significant here: “If there was ever a person, in terms of social justice in our society, for fairness, it would have been David O. McKay. Had it been up to him, alone, he would have given the Black the priesthood that quick!”

But President McKay — like President Spencer W. Kimball after him — plainly didn’t believe that a resolution of the matter was simply “up to him, alone.” Both President McKay and President Kimball believed that lifting the race-based restriction on access to priesthood ordination would need to be authorized by clear revelation. And both — both — believed themselves to have received revelation on the subject.

That is why, deeply happy though I am that the priesthood ban is no longer in place, I find myself unable simply to brush it off as a human mistake or as the simple and glaringly obvious product of human sin — however much it may look like precisely that.

And I’m thrilled that President Russell M. Nelson, successor to Brigham Young and to David O. McKay and Spencer W. Kimball, has been methodically building bridges with our Black brothers and sisters.
DCP in 2018 wrote:I hope that I’ve made it clear enough that I found the pre-1978 priesthood ban baffling and, to say the least of it, awkward, and that I was absolutely delighted when it was rescinded. (I’ve had a few critics claim that I’m lying about this, just as I lie about almost everything else. There seems no point in insisting that I’m telling the truth; once they’ve decided that I’m an inveterate liar, they’re not likely to accept any claim that I make. Oh well.)

That said, though, I tend to resist confident assertions that the priesthood policy was, simply, the product of racism, that it was an evil mistake, and that the Church should therefore apologize for it. I have no theory of its origin to offer, no theological justification to provide for it, no apologetic to make on its behalf. I simply point to the fact that at least some Church leaders had hoped to rescind it earlier but felt themselves prevented (by the Lord himself) from doing so.

Now, obviously, such an argument will carry little if any weight with those who believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is led by ordinary mortals (or, even, by less than ordinary mortals) who have no access to the mind of God. But for me, since I believe that there is a God and that he stands in a special, revealing relationship with the prophets and apostles at the helm of the Church, it does seem important.

Here is a specific illustration of what I have in mind, drawn from Gregory A. Prince and Walmart. Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2005), 103-104, 183:

It seems that President Hugh B. Brown, the first First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church of whom I was aware and a man for whom I felt and still feel considerable veneration, really hoped to see the priesthood exclusion policy overturned. Therefore, he attempted to persuade President David O. McKay to make that change.

Reportedly, President McKay told some people that he had prayed about the matter and that the answer was “Not yet.” In fact, according to Richard Jackson, he said that he had prayed repeatedly about the question and that he was told by the Lord to not bring the subject up again, that the change would come, but not during his administration. He even seems to have felt himself somewhat rebuked:

“I’ve inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone.”

(Thanks to Spencer Hall and Mike Tannehill for supplying the source and the quotation. I’ve been wanting to post this for several days now, but am far away from my library and could not find what I needed online.)

If accurately reported and true, these accounts strongly suggest that, for his own inscrutable reasons, the Lord himself permitted the ban to continue until June 1978. That would make the policy seem to be something more than merely the lamentable product of regrettable nineteenth-century racism.

The opening sentence of Gregory A. Prince, “David O. McKay and Blacks: Building the Foundation for the 1978 Revelation,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35/1 (June 2010): 145, which quotes a General Authority who served under President McKay, is significant here: “If there was ever a person, in terms of social justice in our society, for fairness, it would have been David O. McKay. Had it been up to him, alone, he would have given the Black the priesthood that quick!”

But President McKay — like President Spencer W. Kimball after him — plainly didn’t believe that a resolution of the matter was simply “up to him.” Both President McKay and President Kimball believed that race-restricted access to priesthood ordination was an issue that required revelation. And both — both — believed themselves to have received such revelation.

Here's a link to a visual tool which highlights the differences that Peterson made to his text.

https://www.diffchecker.com/CgvNWZLD
Tom
Area Authority
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:41 pm

Re: DCP self-editing his thoughts on the priesthood ban

Post by Tom »

“I simply point to the fact that at least some Church leaders had hoped to rescind it earlier but felt themselves prevented (by the Lord himself) from doing so.”

“the fact”?

“Reportedly, President McKay told some people that he had prayed about the matter and that the answer was ‘Not yet.’”

“Reportedly”?

“In fact, according to Richard Jackson, President McKay said that he had prayed repeatedly about the question and that he was told by the Lord not to bring the subject up again. He was informed that the change would come, but not during his administration.”

So a church architect, Richard Jackson, claims McKay told him he had repeatedly prayed and was told not to bring it up again. Why is McKay talking to a church architect about a matter of such significance? Why didn’t McKay relate this supposed experience in general conference so that church members and the world could be filled in?

“If accurately reported and true, these accounts strongly suggest that, for his own inscrutable reasons, the Lord himself permitted the ban to continue until June 1978.”

If accurately reported and true”? Peterson doesn’t give any details about the other account (notice that he uses the word “accounts”). Supposedly, McKay vented one day and told secretaries in his reception room that he had asked several times and been told “not yet.” Did McKay mention this in general conference for the benefit of church members and the rest of the world?

“The opening sentence of Gregory A. Prince, ‘David O. McKay and Blacks: Building the Foundation for the 1978 Revelation,’ Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35/1 (June 2010): 145, which quotes a General Authority who served under President McKay, is significant here: ‘If there was ever a person, in terms of social justice in our society, for fairness, it would have been David O. McKay. Had it been up to him, alone, he would have given the Black the priesthood that quick!’”

Notice that Peterson doesn’t name the general authority. Why not? For those keeping score at home, the general authority was Paul H. Dunn. I am not making this up. See here: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... 01_157.pdf

“But President McKay — like President Spencer W. Kimball after him — plainly didn’t believe that a resolution of the matter was simply ‘up to him, alone.’” “Plainly”?
Last edited by Tom on Sun Sep 25, 2022 6:48 pm, edited 3 times in total.
“But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong.” Heber C. Kimball, 8 Nov. 1857
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6107
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: DCP self-editing his thoughts on the priesthood ban

Post by Kishkumen »

I just don’t buy that the priesthood ban wasn’t, on some level, motivated by racism. There was a tendency in Early Mormonism to find an explanation for things that made sense of the status quo. The questions surrounding slavery and segregation fit that pattern. Why slavery? Why segregation? Handy justifications and explanations were produced. “Fence sitters” in the premortal existence, and the like. I just don’t see how this does not come from racist assumptions. The very idea that skin color requires some kind of explanation that covers everyone with the same pigmentation simply is, at the very least, racialist. That certain people are consigned to lower status through such explanations is racist.

We are left with two choices: either God really did not want Black people to have the priesthood for some reason, or the policy was motivated by racism. The latter option seems much more likely to me. The argument has been made that there was never a revelation that Black people should be denied the priesthood. I agree. I do not agree that the LDS Church did not ever put out the idea that divine revelation was the cause of the ban. Surely they did. This is well documented enough. The question is whether we are going to credit bad ideas to God or not. I think the wiser path here is to admit that banning Black people from the priesthood was a bad idea, and probably motivated on some level by racism.

Not everyone who was Mormon before 1978 personally had racist feelings against Black people and other groups. Good people participate in flawed systems. That is the way of the world. But let’s not make excuses for bad ideas after the fact. Just accept they were bad ideas and move on.
Last edited by Kishkumen on Sun Sep 25, 2022 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
drumdude
God
Posts: 5196
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: DCP self-editing his thoughts on the priesthood ban

Post by drumdude »

Kishkumen wrote:
Sun Sep 25, 2022 6:36 pm
I just don’t buy that the priesthood ban wasn’t, on some level, motivated by racism. There was a tendency in Early Mormonism to find an explanation for things that made sense of the status quo. The questions surrounding slavery and segregation got pulled into this issue. Why slavery? Why segregation? Handy justifications and explanations were produced. “Fence sitters” in the premortal existence, and the like. I just don’t see how this does not come from racist assumptions. The very idea that skin color requires some kind of explanation that covers everyone with the same pigmentation simply is, at the very least, racialist. That certain people are consigned to lower status through such explanations is racist.

We are left with two choices: either God really did not want Black people to have the priesthood for some reason, or the policy was motivated by racism. The latter option seems much more likely to me. The argument has been made that there was never a revelation that Black people should be denied the priesthood. I agree. I do not agree that the LDS Church did not ever put out the idea that divine revelation was the cause of the ban. Surely they did. This is well documented enough. The question is whether we are going to credit bad ideas to God or not. I think the wiser path here is to admit that banning Black people from the priesthood was a bad idea, and probably motivated on some level by racism.

Not everyone who was Mormon before 1978 personally had racist feelings against Black people and other groups. Good people participate in flawed systems. That is the way of the world. But let’s not make excuses for bad ideas after the fact. Just accept they were bad ideas and move on.
Daniel takes the fork to the "God was racist" road. Which is much worse than simply admitting that Mormon leaders were wrong.

But that's how worshiped Mormon leaders are within the religion. You have to throw even God under the bus for them.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6107
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: DCP self-editing his thoughts on the priesthood ban

Post by Kishkumen »

Daniel takes the fork to the "God was racist" road. Which is much worse than simply admitting that Mormon leaders were wrong.

But that's how worshiped Mormon leaders are within the religion. You have to throw even God under the bus for them.
It is my understanding that some believers look at the extension of the priesthood from part of Israel, to some Gentiles, and then, finally, to all worthy men as God’s chosen path of progress. They ask: was it racist of God to limit the priesthood to only some Israelites?

Of course, the question is historically incoherent in a host of ways. It is better to ask whether racism was divinely ordained or not, as that was the prevailing way of understanding the apparent hierarchy of peoples in the time when Mormonism was founded. Mormonism just seeks to make sense out of that apparent hierarchy by attributing different statuses to the righteousness or unrighteousness of whole groups of people who have the same color of skin. Otherwise, the system makes no sense at all.

Because pigment does not track with righteousness and blessedness, I think it is pretty obvious that these theological explanations are just plain wrong, and that they are motivated by a blinkered worldview. This does not mean that everyone who has stupid ideas is a bad person or that they should feel bad because they belonged to a Church with some bad ideas. But it does no good to keep blaming God for bad ideas when humans are afraid to own up to their mistakes. If the mysteries of God are the hidden wisdom in bad ideas, then we are all in real trouble, because with such an approach it becomes possible to explain away practically any evil.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3836
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: DCP self-editing his thoughts on the priesthood ban

Post by Gadianton »

Kishkumen wrote:
Sun Sep 25, 2022 6:36 pm
I just don’t buy that the priesthood ban wasn’t, on some level, motivated by racism. There was a tendency in Early Mormonism to find an explanation for things that made sense of the status quo. The questions surrounding slavery and segregation fit that pattern. Why slavery? Why segregation? Handy justifications and explanations were produced. “Fence sitters” in the premortal existence, and the like. I just don’t see how this does not come from racist assumptions. The very idea that skin color requires some kind of explanation that covers everyone with the same pigmentation simply is, at the very least, racialist. That certain people are consigned to lower status through such explanations is racist.

We are left with two choices: either God really did not want Black people to have the priesthood for some reason, or the policy was motivated by racism. The latter option seems much more likely to me. The argument has been made that there was never a revelation that Black people should be denied the priesthood. I agree. I do not agree that the LDS Church did not ever put out the idea that divine revelation was the cause of the ban. Surely they did. This is well documented enough. The question is whether we are going to credit bad ideas to God or not. I think the wiser path here is to admit that banning Black people from the priesthood was a bad idea, and probably motivated on some level by racism.

Not everyone who was Mormon before 1978 personally had racist feelings against Black people and other groups. Good people participate in flawed systems. That is the way of the world. But let’s not make excuses for bad ideas after the fact. Just accept they were bad ideas and move on.
Yep. It's absolutely the construct of a racist worldview. It doesn't mean everyone who was brought up believing the myths were hardened racists. The deeper point you make though is that religions, Mormonism being a prime example, make up stories to preserve the status quo. Okay, outside of religion we might also spin myths to preserve a status quo, or fight against a status quo, but there is an especially problematic power behind not just making the myth, but canonizing it, and then excommunicating or disowning those who question it.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5777
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: DCP self-editing his thoughts on the priesthood ban

Post by Moksha »

The Lord was silent to the Mormons because He never had anything to do with this apartheid policy. It was an unholy policy that sprang directly from the iniquity of the Brethren and other Church members. It cannot be apologized for due to two reasons:

1. The Saints are a stiff-necked people
2. The process of repentance on an institutional level is not fully understood in the Church.

At some future point, further light and knowledge may enter the LDS world.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: DCP self-editing his thoughts on the priesthood ban

Post by dastardly stem »

That said, though, I tend to resist confident assertions that the priesthood policy was, simply, the product of racism
I get that he’s saying he has no other explanation but a policy designed to discriminate based on race is none other than the definition of racism. If the policy was not a product of racism, matters or, the policy is racism.

Ah well, you can’t really reason with someone whose unwilling to do so.

Tom informs:
So a church architect, Richard Jackson, claims McKay told him he had repeatedly prayed and was told not to bring it up again. Why is McKay talking to a church architect about a matter of such significance? Why didn’t McKay relate this supposed experience in general conference so that church members and the world could be filled in?
It’s silly how little myths created by someone in the church turns into this type of volley from DCP:
Both President McKay and President Kimball believed that lifting the race-based restriction on access to priesthood ordination would need to be authorized by clear revelation. And both — both — believed themselves to have received revelation on the subject.
Unfortunate as we’ve seen, revelation is no more than the opinions and hopes of these men called as leaders. Eyeing and others remind us of that.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
User avatar
malkie
God
Posts: 1476
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:41 pm

Re: DCP self-editing his thoughts on the priesthood ban

Post by malkie »

dastardly stem wrote:
Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:14 am
That said, though, I tend to resist confident assertions that the priesthood policy was, simply, the product of racism
I get that he’s saying he has no other explanation but a policy designed to discriminate based on race is none other than the definition of racism. If the policy was not a product of racism, matters or, the policy is racism.

Ah well, you can’t really reason with someone whose unwilling to do so.

Tom informs:
So a church architect, Richard Jackson, claims McKay told him he had repeatedly prayed and was told not to bring it up again. Why is McKay talking to a church architect about a matter of such significance? Why didn’t McKay relate this supposed experience in general conference so that church members and the world could be filled in?
It’s silly how little myths created by someone in the church turns into this type of volley from DCP:
Both President McKay and President Kimball believed that lifting the race-based restriction on access to priesthood ordination would need to be authorized by clear revelation. And both — both — believed themselves to have received revelation on the subject.
Unfortunate as we’ve seen, revelation is no more than the opinions and hopes of these men called as leaders. Eyeing and others remind us of that.
To be contrary about talking to the architect:

Over a period of a number of years I served in several wards as either ward clerk or exec sec. I often found myself ferrying the bishop around - especially to and from bishopric meetings.

On several of these occasions the bishop unburdened himself to me, sometimes talking about very personal matters. One bishop even said to me: "You know how everyone goes to the bishop with their problems? Have you ever wondered who the bishop goes to? Well, now you know.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details.
Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
IHAQ
God
Posts: 1533
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:00 am

Re: DCP self-editing his thoughts on the priesthood ban

Post by IHAQ »

From time to time, I encounter the suggestion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should apologize for the policy, which lasted into mid-1978, that barred people of Black African descent from ordination to the priesthood. I’ve seen it again within the past few days. I understand the suggestion. I know how the former policy looks, and I know from painful personal experience how it looked when it was still in place.

Thus, I expect that my disinclination to apologize for it will earn me considerable flak.
Notice how Dan positions himself as an authority from whom "people" want an apology for a Church policy that was based on skin colour and race. Well, it's not for him to apologise for it. It is the First Presidency of the Church to apologise for it, and last I checked Peterson hadn't been called to serve in that capacity.

What Dan thinks about the Priesthood Ban is largely irrelevant outside of his very limited blog audience. But it should be clear to that audience that Dan supported it at the time, and would be prepared to support it, or anything like it, in the future. And for that he's unapologetic.
Last edited by IHAQ on Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply