Blacks and the Priesthood redux, ala David O. Mckay

[Tex]

I finally got around to purchasing the DOM book, and I've read most it. There were some very interesting chapters, and I have some criticisms of the authors for another date. But the chapter most referenced here (and most curious to me) is the 4th chapter: Blacks, Civil Rights, and the Priesthood. I found the narrative interesting, sometimes riveting, and apparently well-researched, so much so that I re-read the chapter three times to make sure I caught all the nuances.

From that reading, and the extensive (and often unkind) discussions I've participated in here on the topic, here are my observations from this portion of the book. Note: if you are in that group who typically trades barbs with me, I invite you to quit reading now. Little of what I say below is going to make you very happy, so save yourself the trouble. You know who you are.

Page numbers for these observations are in parenthesis.

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)

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.

3. It is disturbing to me that with the exception of the previous point, the authors have provided almost no other reference to any of the brethren seeking the will of the Lord in this matter. We do not read of Brown, Lee, Smith, Benson, Moyle, Tanner, etc. praying for guidance from the Lord, hypothesizing as to his purposes, wondering what would be best for the Church and its future, or any other altrustic thoughts. Instead, the brethren are portrayed as petty, agenda-driven, and overbearing. References to any desire to see the will of the Lord done are noticeably (and I believe incorrectly) absent. I have found this to be a deliberate pattern throughout the book, maybe in an effort to court non-member readers?

A wonderful example of this is Ezra Taft Benson. Every single time he is mentioned in the chapter, he is portrayed as a nutty anti-Communist firebrand (64, 70, 71, 72, 92), a shallow and one-dimensional picture. After finishing the chapter, one would expect to visit the church office building and find him marching the hallways yelling loudly, waving a gun, babbling about communism. I know about Benson's extreme conservatism--years ago I read his book An Enemy Hath Done This where he cataloged his political views. I do not think that this chapter treats the man fairly; I had hoped the remainder of the book might atone for this injustice, but it is perpetuated even worse in the chapter on communism.

In any case, I found this cardboard presentation of Benson to be typical of how the authors portrayed the authorities generally, representing those with whom they disagreed harshly (Lee, Smith) and lionizing those with whom they did agree (Brown). They even go so far as to editorialize on the prophet himself, calling him "unprogressive" and his ministry one of "missed opportunities" with respect to civil rights. (60, 61, 104) The theme of "missed opportunities" is another that permeates multiple chapters.

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).

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.

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.

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:

[Harold B. Lee's] daughter confided to a friend, "My daddy said that as long he's alive, [the blacks will] never have the priesthood," a prediction that proved to be correct. A quick glance at the footnotes reveals the source as "Maureen Lee Wilkins, quoted in Ramona Bernhard interview." (64, 417)

For a book that has so carefully documented its sources and appears to so value its scholarship, the inclusion of this line is an absolute embarrassment. There is no other statement I could find in the entire chapter that provides such poor context or corroboration for one of the brethren. This statement comes to us at least third-hand, and has no place in a book of this nature without further context. I am stunned that the authors included it. Perhaps Lee did in fact hold the view that the authors imply, but they did a poor job of proving it if this is their best evidence.

Less surprising but no less disappointing are the attempts by some CGers to spin this "quote" in the least flattering way possible for President Lee (a man who eventually became the earthly mouthpiece of God), morphing it so grotesquely as to appear in one context as having read "over my dead body." Coming quickly on the heels of a complete misrepresentation of a Russell Nelson statement on AIDS, I would hope that CGers would in the future be a little more circumspect about how eagerly they consume such poorly referenced material, to say nothing of the authors who publish it.

----

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.

Note again: if after reading this your initial thought is to tell me what a cold-hearted, racist, bigoted, unintelligent jerk I am, consider it said and move on. Thoughtful comments welcome.

[MikeWaters]

What I took away from the book is that the apostles and the first presidency are not always united on every issue, which I guess I had never given much thought to in the past.

SWK went to Herculean lengths to build unity in the quorum on this issue, based on the historical account that my stake president related in a meeting. I believe his comments were based on the recent biography of SWK. Very slowly, very deliberately, very patiently built a consensus, not based on politics, but a spiritual consensus.

The spirit cannot overcome our biases if we don't let it, and perhaps to some degree this is what happened in the past. I don't know.

Much of the book was sourced from Paul Dunn, who may have felt more free to speak given that he is no longer a general authority. FYI.

I loved that book. I should read it again.

I particularly enjoyed accounts from members of my ward, recalling when David O. McKay came to Dallas to dedicate a stake center (?). They way they described him, etc. Makes it all the more real.

[All-American]

Actually, good points. I believe you are within the realm of reasonable arguments on every point, even (especially) the last one.

[SeattleUte]

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)

When I read this, I was so gratified, thinking, "We have enlightened Tex. We are witnessing movement here." Alas, I was soon to be disappointed.

Originally Posted by Tex

3. It is disturbing to me that with the exception of the previous point, the authors have provided almost no other reference to any of the brethren seeking the will of the Lord in this matter. We do not read of Brown, Lee, Smith, Benson, Moyle, Tanner, etc. praying for guidance from the Lord, hypothesizing as to his purposes, wondering what would be best for the Church and its future, or any other altrustic thoughts. Instead, the brethren are portrayed as petty, agenda-driven, and overbearing. References to any desire to see the will of the Lord done are noticeably (and I believe incorrectly) absent. I have found this to be a deliberate pattern throughout the book, maybe in an effort to court non-member readers?

A wonderful example of this is Ezra Taft Benson. Every single time he is mentioned in the chapter, he is portrayed as a nutty anti-Communist firebrand (64, 70, 71, 72, 92), a shallow and one-dimensional picture. After finishing the chapter, one would expect to visit the church office building and find him marching the hallways yelling loudly, waving a gun, babbling about communism. I know about Benson's extreme conservatism--years ago I read his book An Enemy Hath Done This where he cataloged his political views. I do not think that this chapter treats the man fairly; I had hoped the remainder of the book might atone for this injustice, but it is perpetuated even worse in the chapter on communism.

In any case, I found this cardboard presentation of Benson to be typical of how the authors portrayed the authorities generally, representing those with whom they disagreed harshly (Lee, Smith) and lionizing those with whom they did agree (Brown). They even go so far as to editorialize on the prophet himself, calling him "unprogressive" and his ministry one of "missed opportunities" with respect to civil rights. (60, 61, 104) The theme of "missed opportunities" is another that permeates multiple chapters.

Tex, Maybe they were just bad men. Maybe the authors just got it right. Why won't you entertain that possibility? ETB is in fact universally regarded as a cold hearted nut job. The authors are not alone.

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).

This is the funniest part of your post. The payoff, what made it worthwhile for me to read to the end. McKay was assiduous about remaining neutral vis-a-vis racism? Really? How honorable of him. I think he was behaving like those Poles around Auszwitz pretending like they didn't know what was going on.

[SteelBlue]

Those are all reasonable points. In my opinion you overstate point #2, and I think it's a fact that at least some of the apostles of the day would have said the same. You simply have to factor in point #1 when considering point #2. It doesn't surprise me that someone holding racist views (and I agree with you that they were a product of the time) would have a hard time overcoming those biases and their respect for BY's policy. IMO this could have, and likely did, factor into the length of time required to receive the revelation and into which prophet received it.

The fact that there were reasons given for the ban from the time of BY until McKay and that every one of those reasons has been disavowed by the church tells me that it was likely policy all along.

[creekster]

I fail to see how you can conclude that the Lord was complicit in denying the priesthood. Perhaps complicit in allowing the ban to continue, but what evidence of the former do you have?

[SeattleUte]

Seriously, to say that racist views were a product of a time and place cuts no ice with me. There have always been large numbers of Americans who condemned slavery, Jim Crow, separate but equal, what have you. The leaders of the LDS Church represent themselves as the foremost moral authorities in the world, for crying out loud.

By 1964, a large majority of ordinary Americans knew racism in any form was wrong. Hence the mandate for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That the priesthood ban ever existed is an utter disgrace. That it took until 1978 to get rid of it is an ugly stain on the LDS Church. That the LDS Church won't candidly address this sordid part of its history and acknowledge that wrong is beyond disgraceful. Like changing one word in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, there is always coy evasion, never a candid and straightforward reckoning and settling of past wrondoing.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Seriously, to say that racist views were a product of a time and place cuts no ice with me. There have always been large numbers of Americans who condemned slavery, Jim Crow, separate but equal, what have you. The leaders of the LDS Church represent themselves as the foremost moral authorities in the world, for crying out loud.

By 1964, a large majority of ordinary Americans knew racism in any form was wrong. Hence the mandate for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That the priesthood ban ever existed is an utter disgrace. That it took until 1978 to get rid of it is an ugly stain on the LDS Church. That the LDS Church won't candidly address this sordid part of its history and acknowledge that wrong is beyond disgraceful. Like changing one word in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, there is always coy evasion, never a candid and straightforward reckoning and settling of past wrondoing.

I would argue this point, but a more pertinent question arises: why do you care? It's not like you'd come crawling back if the church granted you every concession you've got. You have no dog in the fight.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Seriously, to say that racist views were a product of a time and place cuts no ice with me. There have always been large numbers of Americans who condemned slavery, Jim Crow, separate but equal, what have you. The leaders of the LDS Church represent themselves as the foremost moral authorities in the world, for crying out loud.

By 1964, a large majority of ordinary Americans knew racism in any form was wrong. Hence the mandate for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That the priesthood ban ever existed is an utter disgrace. That it took until 1978 to get rid of it is an ugly stain on the LDS Church. That the LDS Church won't candidly address this sordid part of its history and acknowledge that wrong is beyond disgraceful. Like changing one word in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, there is always coy evasion, never a candid and straightforward reckoning and settling of past wrondoing.

I think there is truth to this. But I take a slightly different view. The Lord perhaps has sent out his messengers to speak the truth. Like Armaund Mass and Lester Bush. Like Darron Smith, who first introduced me to what seemed like a radical idea when I was 21--that the ban had nothing to do with God. And Prince and Wright and many others.

When I first started talking about this issue in 2001 on cougarboard, I was very close to being alone in my views. In 2007, on cougarboard, my point of view is not uncommon at all. The point is that the Lord works in mysterious ways, lest we doubt that he is working.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

I would argue this point, but a more pertinent question arises: why do you care? It's not like you'd come crawling back if the church granted you every concession you've got. You have no dog in the fight.

Not pertinent. Ad hominem.

What does "I would argue this point" mean? You would argue against it? Really? I hope you mean you would make the point I just made.