Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
It occured to me some time ago that the two main “revelations” within the LDS Church that have had the most impact, “polygamy/plural marriage” and the ban against “black men holding the priesthood”, would be an apt discussion here at RFM. It’s not that those two have never been discussed here before—they obviously have—but perhaps never from the viewpoint I’m attempting to present here. I have never seen it approached anywhere in my mildly extensive reading and studing and pondering of things Mormon over the last 12 years or so since leaving TCOJCOLDS. I figure that if I haven’t run into this
POV the likelihood is that most here have not either and may be worth considering. Maybe I’m wrong. I’m certainly not a “scholar”! Maybe some have considered it. Please chime in.
In approaching the subject I think it imperitive that the idea of “revelation” not be part of the equation of change in LDS policy regarding those two subjects—at least revelation as most LDS think of it, that God Almighty appeared to or spoke with the prophet and said, basically, “I want you to implement the changes necessary that will allow black men to hold the priesthood, and do it immediately. See to it!”. That
didn’t happen and most of us here would probably agree. There exists some circumstantial evidence that supports that position, as in the wording of the Manifesto itself (for polygamy), as well as the apparent continuation of polygamous marriages, authorized from the highest levels of LDS, Inc. for at least another 10 years and possibly 20 beyond the advertized 1890 deadline. LDS will insist, however, that is exactly how the “revealations” took place.
So, from our RFM point of view, it DID NOT happen that way. If our view is correct, to me, it begs the question, HOW DID the Big 15 gain the consensus needed among that council? They would obviously need that consensus on these two topics, “blacks and the priesthood/polygamy”, in order to affect change. That same consensus was probably necessary with respect to changes in the temple ceremonies as well as
changes to the Book of Mormon, the D&C and other changes/modifications. We are currently seeing a change taking place in the LDS faith regarding DNA/BoM. When they finally decide how to handle that “problem” we’ll likely see yet another “revelation” that will cover it.
The reason for my focus on these two topics, “blacks and polygamy” is the fact that both are or were treated as “commandments of God”. The other changes made were not to commandments per se, but changes in policy and proceedure.
The point is that SOMEONE among the Big 15 had to have the balls, balls made of Titanium, to be able to broach the subject of changing a“commandment of God” and do so in front of 14 other zealot Mormon council members. How were they able to do so without experiencing what many of us have experienced,
being shouted down as “evil ministers of Satan”. Or were they initially demonized but overcame it out of necessity that “something has to be done or the church will be destroyed”? Was it a difficult process or an easy one? We may never know the exact answers unless and until the minutes to those meetings are made public (HAH!). But we can guess, we can surmise and analyze and compare.
Maybe “revelation” did happen—not with God’s appearance to the prophet but by “revelation” ie., by making a connection with a single individual among the Big 15 wherein they were made to “see” the “problems” and at the same time, perhaps, infuse the person with the desire to seek a resolution—similar
to the experiences of some of us here where we were able to leave TCOJCOLDS—to be ABLE, as active BIC Mormons, to “wake up”, against all odds, to “our awful state” as members of a false religion. I dunno?
Any comments on HOW the changes might have been suggested/implemented—the planning stage, the discussion stage, etc? Given what WE experience when attempting to discuss certain LDS topics with LDS family and friends, even while members, it couldn’t have been an easy subject to broach, even at that level, given that the apostles and prophets are not really that much different than the average member—in
terms of loyality, dedication and devotion—not to mention their level of brainwashing and indoctrination.
How do you think those changes were even discussed by the Big 15?
POV the likelihood is that most here have not either and may be worth considering. Maybe I’m wrong. I’m certainly not a “scholar”! Maybe some have considered it. Please chime in.
In approaching the subject I think it imperitive that the idea of “revelation” not be part of the equation of change in LDS policy regarding those two subjects—at least revelation as most LDS think of it, that God Almighty appeared to or spoke with the prophet and said, basically, “I want you to implement the changes necessary that will allow black men to hold the priesthood, and do it immediately. See to it!”. That
didn’t happen and most of us here would probably agree. There exists some circumstantial evidence that supports that position, as in the wording of the Manifesto itself (for polygamy), as well as the apparent continuation of polygamous marriages, authorized from the highest levels of LDS, Inc. for at least another 10 years and possibly 20 beyond the advertized 1890 deadline. LDS will insist, however, that is exactly how the “revealations” took place.
So, from our RFM point of view, it DID NOT happen that way. If our view is correct, to me, it begs the question, HOW DID the Big 15 gain the consensus needed among that council? They would obviously need that consensus on these two topics, “blacks and the priesthood/polygamy”, in order to affect change. That same consensus was probably necessary with respect to changes in the temple ceremonies as well as
changes to the Book of Mormon, the D&C and other changes/modifications. We are currently seeing a change taking place in the LDS faith regarding DNA/BoM. When they finally decide how to handle that “problem” we’ll likely see yet another “revelation” that will cover it.
The reason for my focus on these two topics, “blacks and polygamy” is the fact that both are or were treated as “commandments of God”. The other changes made were not to commandments per se, but changes in policy and proceedure.
The point is that SOMEONE among the Big 15 had to have the balls, balls made of Titanium, to be able to broach the subject of changing a“commandment of God” and do so in front of 14 other zealot Mormon council members. How were they able to do so without experiencing what many of us have experienced,
being shouted down as “evil ministers of Satan”. Or were they initially demonized but overcame it out of necessity that “something has to be done or the church will be destroyed”? Was it a difficult process or an easy one? We may never know the exact answers unless and until the minutes to those meetings are made public (HAH!). But we can guess, we can surmise and analyze and compare.
Maybe “revelation” did happen—not with God’s appearance to the prophet but by “revelation” ie., by making a connection with a single individual among the Big 15 wherein they were made to “see” the “problems” and at the same time, perhaps, infuse the person with the desire to seek a resolution—similar
to the experiences of some of us here where we were able to leave TCOJCOLDS—to be ABLE, as active BIC Mormons, to “wake up”, against all odds, to “our awful state” as members of a false religion. I dunno?
Any comments on HOW the changes might have been suggested/implemented—the planning stage, the discussion stage, etc? Given what WE experience when attempting to discuss certain LDS topics with LDS family and friends, even while members, it couldn’t have been an easy subject to broach, even at that level, given that the apostles and prophets are not really that much different than the average member—in
terms of loyality, dedication and devotion—not to mention their level of brainwashing and indoctrination.
How do you think those changes were even discussed by the Big 15?
If Utah did not abandon polygamy the US Government was going to crush the church, and it did seize all of their assets.
If Utah did not change their policy of Blacks, the NAACP and civil rights movements, the impending lawsuits and the already happening boycotts of BYU would have all combined to wreck the church. Not only that, but the temple in Brazil where many people of Black lineage would be affected helped necessitate a policy change.
The brethren read the reports, they see the writing on the wall, and cave in to pressure.
Curiously, the law of common consent was never invoked. When a new revelation is to come forth, there is supposed to be discussion and the vote of the church to accept or reject it.
Instead, the brethren make a decision and the membership robotically votes to sustain a new policy.
So how does the process look? Just like a board meeting, I'd guess. If you read the various leaders' descriptions of the events in the room surrounding the revelation of the Priesthood, they all differ, meaning that this was not a manifestation of God to them as a whole, but a personal feeling on how to vote. But one thing is the same- they prayed and then voted on it after not getting a revelation to keep it in place.
Knowing that such important event are not brought before the membership to be discussed, does simply imply that it was a business decision by the administration.
If Utah did not change their policy of Blacks, the NAACP and civil rights movements, the impending lawsuits and the already happening boycotts of BYU would have all combined to wreck the church. Not only that, but the temple in Brazil where many people of Black lineage would be affected helped necessitate a policy change.
The brethren read the reports, they see the writing on the wall, and cave in to pressure.
Curiously, the law of common consent was never invoked. When a new revelation is to come forth, there is supposed to be discussion and the vote of the church to accept or reject it.
Instead, the brethren make a decision and the membership robotically votes to sustain a new policy.
So how does the process look? Just like a board meeting, I'd guess. If you read the various leaders' descriptions of the events in the room surrounding the revelation of the Priesthood, they all differ, meaning that this was not a manifestation of God to them as a whole, but a personal feeling on how to vote. But one thing is the same- they prayed and then voted on it after not getting a revelation to keep it in place.
Knowing that such important event are not brought before the membership to be discussed, does simply imply that it was a business decision by the administration.
I only skimmed through your paragraphs, so I am just answering the last sentence. The answer in both cases is survival.
They either "repealed" [on the surface] polygamy, or the government was going to seize and dismantle the church.
For blacks, it was a matter of taxes. They either repealed the ban on blacks or risked losing tax exempt status, starting with YBU.
Both "revelations" were a matter of survival.
They either "repealed" [on the surface] polygamy, or the government was going to seize and dismantle the church.
For blacks, it was a matter of taxes. They either repealed the ban on blacks or risked losing tax exempt status, starting with YBU.
Both "revelations" were a matter of survival.
Here are two good sources that I have found interesting:
http://connellodonovan.com/black_white_marriage.html
http://www.irr.org/mit/pdfs/Skin-Color-&-LDS-Church.pdf
--Anybody
http://connellodonovan.com/black_white_marriage.html
http://www.irr.org/mit/pdfs/Skin-Color-&-LDS-Church.pdf
--Anybody
Thanks ya'all for your responses.
Yes, I understand that it was NOT "revelation" that brought change to those two commandments--which, according to some early leaders were "never to be done away with", but that, in truth, it WAS a matter of survival.
Yes, they were acting in their capacity as as Administrators of the Corporation. I guess my problem is in understanding how it is that a group of God's supposed most holy,inspired and chosen men (The Big 15) (in their own eyes at least) could so easily set aside their religious beliefs and deal with these two items that had been FOR YEARS regarded as Holy and Godly Commandments and merely treat their decisions on them as if they were deciding on where in SLC to go have lunch. Do you get my drift?
In any case, I'd love to have been a "fly on the wall" in those meetings. I can't imagine it being anything other than a hotly debated decision. Normal people don't just easily set aside their strongly held notions as to what is right--as these commands appeared to be to them prior to those meeting.
If they were able to set those important things aside in the interest of peace and safety and discard those beliefs so easily, I can only conclude that they never held them as God's word on the matter in the first place--which is exactly what a false church or cult WOULD DO! Another nail in their coffin as far as I'm concerned...
Yes, I understand that it was NOT "revelation" that brought change to those two commandments--which, according to some early leaders were "never to be done away with", but that, in truth, it WAS a matter of survival.
Yes, they were acting in their capacity as as Administrators of the Corporation. I guess my problem is in understanding how it is that a group of God's supposed most holy,inspired and chosen men (The Big 15) (in their own eyes at least) could so easily set aside their religious beliefs and deal with these two items that had been FOR YEARS regarded as Holy and Godly Commandments and merely treat their decisions on them as if they were deciding on where in SLC to go have lunch. Do you get my drift?
In any case, I'd love to have been a "fly on the wall" in those meetings. I can't imagine it being anything other than a hotly debated decision. Normal people don't just easily set aside their strongly held notions as to what is right--as these commands appeared to be to them prior to those meeting.
If they were able to set those important things aside in the interest of peace and safety and discard those beliefs so easily, I can only conclude that they never held them as God's word on the matter in the first place--which is exactly what a false church or cult WOULD DO! Another nail in their coffin as far as I'm concerned...