[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

1. It is apparent that some/many of the brethren in this period held racist views--REAL racist views, not the fake racism I am frequently accused of. From the "curse of Cain" to the "curse of Canaan" to "pre-existantly less valiant" to "pre-existantly rejected the priesthood" to all the other speculative views on the "why" of the ban, all these reflect the fundamental concept of racism: that race alone makes someone inferior or superior to someone else. There is no question in my mind that these views were a product of the environment of the day, and that they influenced their approach to church policy. (65, 73, 75)

And yet it didn't influence church doctrine?

Originally Posted by Tex

2. It is apparent that multiple prophets, including Grant, McKay, Lee, Smith, and of course Kimball, all felt that whatever the ban's origin, its recision requred divine intervention (74, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83, 85, 89, 90, 101). It is, in fact, mentioned so many times throughout the chapter that one wonders how anyone could ever argue otherwise. This includes multiple accounts of McKay in particular, pleading and petitioning the Lord for further light on the topic. (80, 103, 104) Assuming the events in the book are true as related, there can be no remaining question that the Lord was complicit in denying the priesthood to blacks before June 1, 1978.

And yet, towards the end of DOM's life, there was a substantial debate among the quorum as to whether the ban was policy or doctrine. And whether a revelation was necessary to overturn it. Why would that be?

Originally Posted by Tex

4. It is apparent that one reason for church instransigence on civil rights and blacks/priesthood is McKay's unwillingness to have the church be used for political posturing. On multiple occasions detailed in the book, he resisted chances to clarify or declare policy in an interest of keeping the church as neutral as could be hoped for (62, 67, 68). He was particularly resistant to being pushed on the issue, both from without (69, 71, 88) and from within (95, 96, 97, 99, 100).

One of DOM's biggest weaknesses, IMO, was trying too hard to be "neutral". Often at great expense.

Originally Posted by Tex

We also see a wonderfully plain example of a modern Uzzah trying to steady the ark, in the person of Sterling McMurrin. While obviously earnest in his beliefs and (justly) anxious to see a policy he disagreed with rescinded, he overstepped the bounds of authority and propriety. In particular, his stoking of the fires late in McKay's life created nothing but further turmoil (97). It is a good example of what not to do when you disagree with church leadership.

How do you know that folks like Sterling McMurrin didn't hasten the day that the change was made? Then again, not surprising at all that you would take this stance. Fortunately, DOM stood by him in the end.

Originally Posted by Tex

Another example, slightly less applicable but instructive nonetheless, is that of the Nigerian mission president-to-be LaMar Williams and his persistent (the First Presidency used the word "over-enthusiastic") advocacy for establishing the church there. Williams was understandably reluctant about cancelling or postponing church efforts in Nigeria, the wisdom of which however was borne out by the circumstances of the Biafran War (92-94). Another good example of learning to follow the prophet.

This one really has me scratching my head. How could you possibly know that the war was proof that the decision was correct? Is it due to potential danger to the white missionaries who would have been there? What about the thousands or tens of thousands of Africans that would have joined the church? Would you also argue that missionary activities in Europe prior to WW2 were in error?

Originally Posted by Tex

5. This last point is included specifically for Cougarguard. It is apparent that the President Lee's purported quote has been badly misrepresented. The exact statement from the book is as follows:...

I think you are cherry-picking a little here. You don't like that quote? Fine, there are plenty others with clear documentation.

Originally Posted by Tex

Those are my thoughts on the much-ballyhooed DOM chapter on the blacks. Despite my criticisms, I found it to be very enlightening, and with some reservations have enjoyed the other chapters I've read. I'll post thoughts on some of the other chapters some other time.

Glad you liked it. I look forward to your other comments.