Tag: Prohibition

  • NAACP

    NAACP

    Excerpt from a Salt Lake Tribune article from June 8 2020, ‘Despite joining President Nelson in call to end racism, NAACP would like to see the LDS Church do more.’: 1

    In yet another symbolic gesture of racial unity, LDS Church President Russell M. Nelson joined with top NAACP leaders Monday in calling for an end to “prejudice of all kinds.”

    High-level representatives of the two groups delivered much the same message opposing racism as they had two years ago but during a much different moment — coming amid nationwide protests in the wake of the George Floyd killing.

    “Unitedly we declare that the answers to racism, prejudice, discrimination and hate will not come from government or law enforcement alone,” they wrote in an op-ed for Medium. “Solutions will come as we open our hearts to those whose lives are different than our own, as we work to build bonds of genuine friendship, and as we see each other as the brothers and sisters we are — for we are all children of a loving God.”

    Theirs is an unexpected and unfolding collaboration.

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ centurylong ban barring blacks from its all-male priesthood and from its temples kept the Utah-based faith at odds with the NAACP well after the ban ended in 1978.

    Now, 42 years after that prohibition was lifted, the nation’s oldest civil rights organization and the church have become increasingly friendly, but their emerging partnership has not borne the fruits that some NAACP leaders had hoped.

    While he supports the sentiments expressed in Monday’s article, Wil Colom, special counsel to the NAACP president, said the group “hasn’t seen very much” progress on joint projects.

    The LDS Church has united with the historic black activists, the Medium piece said, to explore “ways to work together to improve self-reliance and upward mobility for inner-city and minority families.”

    Indeed, the two organizations have collaborated on a handful of employment and education initiatives. But those were “minor efforts,” Colom said. They “do not befit the stature and magnitude of what the LDS Church can do and should do.”

    The NAACP is “looking forward to the church doing more to undo the 150 years of damage they did by how they treated African Americans in the church,” Colom said, and by their “endorsement of how African Americans were treated throughout the country, including segregation and Jim Crow laws.”

    Derrick Johnson — the NAACP president and CEO, who signed the op-ed with Nelson and who met in Salt Lake City with the Latter-day Saint leader in May 2018 — said Monday that Colom was authorized to speak for the organization.

    “Since the relationship, formalized just two years ago, both organizations have learned much about one another,” church spokesman Doug Andersen said Monday. “Pilot projects involving money management and self-reliance have been completed in cities throughout the country with more to come. Senior leaders from both organizations continue to engage in determining how best to meet the practical needs of both organizations.”

    Monday’s article, also signed by Leon Russell, NAACP board chairman, and the Rev. Amos C. Brown, chairman emeritus of religious affairs for the group, decried Floyd’s death while in Minneapolis police custody as a “heinous act of violence” and urged “government, business, and educational leaders at every level to review processes, laws, and organizational attitudes regarding racism and root them out once and for all.”

    Saying that the “wheels of justice should move fairly for all,” the leaders lamented the “anger, hate, contempt and violence spilling onto America’s streets” and prodded parents, family members and educators to teach children to “love all, and find the good in others.”

    Both groups “have learned lessons from the past,” the joint commentary piece stated. “Both of us have been willing to listen to and learn from each other.”

    But there seems to be “no willingness on the part of the church,” Colom said, “to do anything material.”

    He looks forward “to their deeds matching their words,” he said. “It’s time now for more than sweet talk.”

    References

    References
    1 Salt Lake Tribune article from June 8 2020, ‘Despite joining President Nelson in call to end racism, NAACP would like to see the LDS Church do more.’ – https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/06/09/despite-joining-president/?fbclid=IwAR2nZ_cHBXw3mvFJEP7s8rwlBq3fEPqdtjuAEVBHEv6hm2hf4MTjZ9LZAao
  • Policy

    Policy

    Interview with Dallin H. Oaks and Neal A. Maxwell regarding the lifting of the race ban: 1

    New Policy Occasions Church Comment

    SALT LAKE CITY (AP) —Here is a partial transcript of an Associated Press interview with Elders Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks of the Mormon Church’s Council of the Twelve Apostles regarding the faith’s policy banning blacks from its priesthood and the reasons the ban was lifted 10 years ago:

    AP: Was the ban on ordaining blacks to the priesthood a matter of policy or doctrine?

    MAXWELL: Well, I don’t know. It certainly was church policy and, obviously, with some considerable commentary from early church leaders about it. It’s difficult commentary from early church leaders about it. It’s difficult for me to go beyond that.

    OAKS: I don’t know that it’s possible to distinguish between policy and doctrine in a church that believes in continuing revelation and sustains its leader as a prophet… I’m not sure I could justify the difference in doctrine and policy in the fact that before 1978 a person could not hold the priesthood
    and after 1978 they could hold the priesthood.

    AP: Did you feel differently about the issue before the revelation was given?

    OAKS: I decided a long time ago, 1961 or 2, that there’s no way to talk about it in terms of doctrine, or policy, practice, procedure. All of those words just fled you to reaffirm your prejudice, whichever it was. The only fair, just way to think about it is to reaffirm your faith in the prophet, and he says you don’t do it now, so you don’t do it now. And if he says tomorrow that you do do it, then you do it.

    MAxWELL: Mine was similar, with the sense of expectation that the direction would come from heaven at some time… As we went to the upper room, we sang a song. I regard myself as a pretty good reader of what is going on (but) I had no inkling of what was going on. And as we knelt down
    to pray, the spirit told me what it was going to be … and after that prayer, President Kimball began the description. I began to weep.

    AP: It appears that prior to 1978, there was a lack of unanimity among the brethren regarding the origin and efficacy of the policy. We understand 10 of the Council of the Twelve voted in 1969 to lift the ban as an administrative procedure, but the plan was overturned by Harold B. Lee.

    MAXWELL: These are things about which I wouldn’t have any knowledge.

    OAKS: That’s a new one to me, too.

    AP: To follow up, just for the sake of argument, in your deliberations on any issue, is unanimity required for a decision?

    MAXWELL: The scripture does lay a requirement of unanimity upon us, and I think that is adhered to, not in a nitpicky way, but it is substantial.

    AP: Does a policy such as this, the priesthood prohibition, require a revelation to change, or can it be done through discourse among the brethren?

    MAXWELL: I think anything as major and significant as this would have required the spiritual endorsement and sanction that was obviously there.

    AP: As much as any doctrine the church has espoused, or controversy the church has been embroiled in, this one seems to stand out. Church members seemed to have less to go on to get a grasp of the issue. Can you address why this was the case, and what can be learned from it?

    OAKS: If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, ‘Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that’ you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reason to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here, and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that. The lesson I’ve drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it. I decided that 25 years ago, so it was very easy for me when it was changed.

    AP: Are you referring to reasons given even by general authorities?

    OAKS: Sure.

     

    References

  • Obedience

    Obedience

    Interview with Dallin H. Oaks and Neal A. Maxwell regarding the lifting of the race ban: 1

    New Policy Occasions Church Comment

    SALT LAKE CITY (AP) —Here is a partial transcript of an Associated Press interview with Elders Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks of the Mormon Church’s Council of the Twelve Apostles regarding the faith’s policy banning blacks from its priesthood and the reasons the ban was lifted 10 years ago:

    AP: Was the ban on ordaining blacks to the priesthood a matter of policy or doctrine?

    MAXWELL: Well, I don’t know. It certainly was church policy and, obviously, with some considerable commentary from early church leaders about it. It’s difficult commentary from early church leaders about it. It’s difficult for me to go beyond that.

    OAKS: I don’t know that it’s possible to distinguish between policy and doctrine in a church that believes in continuing revelation and sustains its leader as a prophet… I’m not sure I could justify the difference in doctrine and policy in the fact that before 1978 a person could not hold the priesthood
    and after 1978 they could hold the priesthood.

    AP: Did you feel differently about the issue before the revelation was given?

    OAKS: I decided a long time ago, 1961 or 2, that there’s no way to talk about it in terms of doctrine, or policy, practice, procedure. All of those words just fled you to reaffirm your prejudice, whichever it was. The only fair, just way to think about it is to reaffirm your faith in the prophet, and he says you don’t do it now, so you don’t do it now. And if he says tomorrow that you do do it, then you do it.

    MAxWELL: Mine was similar, with the sense of expectation that the direction would come from heaven at some time… As we went to the upper room, we sang a song. I regard myself as a pretty good reader of what is going on (but) I had no inkling of what was going on. And as we knelt down
    to pray, the spirit told me what it was going to be … and after that prayer, President Kimball began the description. I began to weep.

    AP: It appears that prior to 1978, there was a lack of unanimity among the brethren regarding the origin and efficacy of the policy. We understand 10 of the Council of the Twelve voted in 1969 to lift the ban as an administrative procedure, but the plan was overturned by Harold B. Lee.

    MAXWELL: These are things about which I wouldn’t have any knowledge.

    OAKS: That’s a new one to me, too.

    AP: To follow up, just for the sake of argument, in your deliberations on any issue, is unanimity required for a decision?

    MAXWELL: The scripture does lay a requirement of unanimity upon us, and I think that is adhered to, not in a nitpicky way, but it is substantial.

    AP: Does a policy such as this, the priesthood prohibition, require a revelation to change, or can it be done through discourse among the brethren?

    MAXWELL: I think anything as major and significant as this would have required the spiritual endorsement and sanction that was obviously there.

    AP: As much as any doctrine the church has espoused, or controversy the church has been embroiled in, this one seems to stand out. Church members seemed to have less to go on to get a grasp of the issue. Can you address why this was the case, and what can be learned from it?

    OAKS: If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, ‘Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that’ you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reason to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here, and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that. The lesson I’ve drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it. I decided that 25 years ago, so it was very easy for me when it was changed.

    AP: Are you referring to reasons given even by general authorities?

    OAKS: Sure.

    References

  • Not by Commandment

    Not by Commandment

    Image: Prohibition era (1920 to 1933) image showing the disposal of alcohol.


    From Doctrine and Covenants 89:2,3, the revelation giving the Word of Wisdom[footnote]Doctrine and Covenants 89[/footnote]

    2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

    3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.

    In 1921, in the midst of the United States prohibition ban on alcohol, church leaders made adherence to the Word of Wisdom a requirement for admission to the temple.[footnote]The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement – Dialog Journal[/footnote]


     

    Crash Course:

    The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement – Dialog Journal
    Word of Wisdom – Wikipedia
    Word of Wisdom – Mormon Think
    Doctrine and Covenants 89