I should probably first say that I don't think it really needed a revelation to overturn it because no revelation introduced it. The leadership could have ended it ages earlier if needed. Reason for further delay include, in my opinion:
First:
It was never a "burning platform." The brethren of the past had the following attitude:
Quote
“From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.”
https://archive.org/...age/n4/mode/1up
There was no urgent need to change it and so there was no pressing desire to "question" it. This accounted for the first 100 years.
Second:
After initial movement towards a resolution under Pres. McKay and Elder Brown, the subsequent prophets didn't maintain the momentum. There was little progress under Pres Smith and Lee.
Quote
Despite the now-official, public “we don’t know” position, most leaders still privately stood by the traditional twentieth-century explanation that a spirit’s premortal conduct justified priesthood restriction in mortality. Joseph Fielding Smith, who succeeded President McKay, was among those most consistently supporting the traditional views, as was Harold B. Lee, who became his First Counselor.
https://byustudies.b...efec584dcd9.pdf
In 1972 Pres. Lee was not chasing the change. Instead he was waiting for it. In 1972 he said:
Quote
"For those who don’t believe in modern revelation there is no adequate explanation. Those who do understand revelation stand by and wait until the Lord speaks."
ibid
This echoes the sentiment of the 1947 FP letter: "It's always been this way, don't ask questions, it will be sorted when it's the Lord comes and tells us."
According to his son's article (linked in to from the recent LDS.org article), President Kimball, succeeding in 1973 had seen the division the topic caused in the 1960s and was committed to unanimity.
Third:
The new lds.org article includes the information on the church needing an urgent solution in 1976 to the question of the Brazil temple being funded and built by mixed race members. This was perhaps finally the burning platform that provided the impetus to get a solution.
Fouth:
There were two apostles still in the 15 that are known to have racist views: Delbert Stapley and Mark E. Petersen. Elder Stapley's 1964 letter makes for extremely uncomfortable reading. He even goes as far as warning that USA presidents and others who had tried to campaign for black rights had ended up dead. Anyone with that belief is an unlikely advocate for blacks to have more rights in the church - for fear of his life. He emphasizes that "it was the Lord's responsibility--not man's--to change His decision." He goes on to oppose the "public accomodations; the taking from the Whites their wishes to satisfy the Negroes." He continues that "the Negro" should not be entitled to "full social benefits nor inter-marriage rights with Whites, nor should Whites be forced to accept them into restricted White areas." He warns of"punishment for our acts" if people agitate for change for black people.
http://www.boston.co...ert_stapley.pdf
I find this letter both disturbing and very telling. When you add Mark E. Petersen's racist attitudes there were clearly two potential blockers to making the change if we're looking solely at personal opinions. For example Petersen said:
Quote
From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the negro seeks absorbtion with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feeling to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, " First we pity, then endure, then embrace."
http://content.lib.u.../UU_EAD/id/1918
When President Kimball lead the initiative in 1978 he spent several days getting each of the apostles to bring their own typed up opinions to him, followed by a long group discussion. They reached the unanimous conclusion that it could happen and then prayed for confirmation. Even before the prayer, President Kimball got every member of the group to say they were in favour of the change. This was before any revelation was sought and received. They had studied it out in their mind and unanimously agreed that they were in favour of all men holding the priesthood, regardless of race.
Quote
Elder Packer said, a few weeks later, “One objection would have deterred him, would have made him put it off, so careful was he . . . that it had to be right.”
https://byustudies.b...efec584dcd9.pdf
Two Apostles were absent for both the individual presentations and group discussions (see page 55 of the Kimball document linked above): Elder Stapley (in hospital) and Elder Petersen (sent on assignment to South America). Only after the deliberations were completed, the discussions over and the prayer of confirmation given, answer received and the statement of change in policy written up were these two Elders consulted. It had already had the stamp of approval of the other 13 and these two were contacted to be told that the revelation had been received and would they sustain it?
Quote
The significance President Kimball attributed to unanimity can be seen in how President Tanner presented the matter to the Church at the next general conference:
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.He then proposed acceptance as “the word and will of the Lord.”
Two of the Twelve had not attended either meeting. Elder Mark E. Petersen was on assignment in South America, and Elder Delbert L. Stapley was seriously ill in the LDS Hospital. Later in the day of June 8, Spencer telephoned Elder Petersen in Quito, Ecuador, informed him what had happened, had Francis Gibbons read him the announcement about to be published, and received his approval. Elder Petersen later recalled, “I was delighted to know that a new revelation had come from the Lord. I felt the fact of the revelation’s coming was more striking than the decision itself. On the telephone I told President Kimball that I fully sustained both the revelation and him one hundred percent.” All three of the First Presidency visited Elder Stapley. He responded, “I’ll stay with the Brethren on this.” Thus, support from the Twelve was unanimous.
(Ibid)
It is possible that if the two absent apostles had been involved in the "study it out in your mind" they might not have reached unanimity before praying - enough to scupper the prayer ever even happening.
No comments:
Post a Comment