Mitt Romney got some very tough questioning today on “Meet the Press.” Some of the toughest questions had to do with he 1978 revelation ending the priesthood ban for those with African blood. Romney was asked at least twice if the policy was wrong, and he bypassed the question. It was nice to see his extremely emotional response in which he recalled his father’s work on civil rights and his own weeping when the priesthood ban was ended.
I predict Romney will be questioned on this topic relentlessly as long as he is still in the campaign. And this raises two interesting questions: will he ever say the Church’s position was wrong? And should he?
My own take is pretty simple: the policy was certainly wrong by secular understanding. It certainly seems wrong. There are historical reasons to think some Church leaders may, at times, have misunderstood the reasons for the priesthood ban. I’ve seen many comments that showed that to be the case. So, you could argue some Church leaders were wrong on some aspects of the ban.
But at the end of the day, I believe that President Kimball received a revelation in 1978 to lift the priesthood ban, a revelation that other prophets did not receive. There is considerable evidence that President McKay and other prophets asked the Lord about ending the priesthood ban and were told it was not the time. So, it is really a difficult thing to demand that Romney, a loyal Latter-day Saint, second-guess the prophets on this issue. I don’t think he can or should do this.
He really appears to be boxed in politically. If his campaign continues beyond February (and I predict it will), the questions may become even more insistent. He will be asked again and again, “was your church’s position wrong?” His answer today, when given time to respond on a one-hour news show, was very good, but it didn’t answer the question.
Once again, we Mormons are faced with a difficult and intractable situation. Nearly every church in U.S. history has had policies that today we consider to be wrong. Yet other candidates are not ask to justify every past policy of every church. Baptist churches justified slavery and segregation for decades, yet Mike Huckabee is not asked about that. I’m not sure how you justify papal infallibility and indulgences and the Inquisition. Yet I don’t remember John Kerry being asked about that in 2004 (although he was asked about abortion, but that is a different and not comparable issue because he was not asked to justify his Church’s position — he was asked how he could be a good Catholic and not follow church doctrine).
So, at the end of the day, Romney should not even be asked the question. Yet he will be asked. Repeatedly. I’m sure glad I’ll never be running for president.
Would members of the Church condemn him if he came out and said, “Yes, I think it was wrong”?
I wouldn’t condemn him, but I don’t think he should be required to give his opinion on the matter.
I used to watch Meet Depressed every Sunday morning, but when church started at 8am, I was more worried about getting kids ready for church than watching Tim Russert (I do missing watching it, though). Thanks for the heads-up on the Romney interview.
Try MSNBC at 6:00 p.m. I watched it this evening.
First, Mitt was mis-remembering his whereabouts that day. He had finished law school in ’75, I think. (I had just finished my first year of law school in June ’78, and Mitt’s a lot older than I am.)
Second, I don’t think there’s any good explanation that will satisfy an unbeliever, so why bother. You could talk about the difference between attitudes and policy, and the way the church turned on a dime, without schism or vocal dissent, but that might just raise questions about what other policy the Church might adopt without anybody complaining. You could talk about ancient Israel, and how only the direct descendants of Aaron got to be priests, and the other Levites only got to be the equivalent of deacons, but that would just bring a response like “That was 3000 years ago.”
Or you could say: But in the eternities they’ll get all the blessings. We always believed that. And someone will say, Yeah, right.
So, don’t condemn the church, talk about your civil rights street cred, and ignore the invitations to slam the church.
Brian D.
You can download an application called Miro (I’d link to it at http://www.getmiro.com/ but M* won’t let me, what’s up with that?) that will automagically (and legally) download Meet the Press every Sunday. We’re watching it right now.
It works on Windows, Mac, and Linux. You can also subscribe to NBC Nightly News and a bunch of other stuff.
Even my black friends say they’re tired of the question. That’s how stale it’s gotten.
Well, to be fair, the priesthood ban is a part of Mitt’s history. He was an adult memeber of the church when it was in full force. The same does not hold true for the other examples the people mention when saying this is unfair to him. Polygamy is something it is unfair to question him about, the priesthood ban, well, its easier to understand why that is seen as fair game. I’m playing devil’s advocate here, because really, I’d so much rather this not be made into an issue, but its plausible that to an outsider, this isn’t just about religion, but about affiliation with an organization that was descriminating based on rase as late as 1978. To find a comperable issue… wasn’t Alito’s involvement in CAP a huge deal in his confirmation hearings?
Ever since I realized that there was a distinct possibility that Mitt was going to be facing Obama in the national election, I’ve been praying that he doesn’t get the nomination. Maybe I would feel differently about this if I had been alive before 1978.
Megan,
Has Mitt shown any evidence of being a racist? If he has then it is a valid question. If he hasn’t then it borders on irrelevant. I don’t plan on voting for him but I think that some of the treatment he has received is horrible. It is amazing how much time on Meet the Press was wasted on religious questions that they’d never ask any other candidate.
As for the topic at hand, the revelation on the priesthood ban, in my dream world the Church was at the forefront of the civil rights battle and the ban was never instituted by Brigham Young. Instead things were left as they were under Joseph Smith and blacks held the priesthood from the restoration forward.
Unfortunately this was not the case. I don’t know why this was not the case. All I can do is speculate.
I’m watching it now on the DVR.
Actually I thought Russert called off the dogs on the issue. I’ve seen him go much tougher on some people on some issues (I believe he talked to Huckabee for what seemed like 15 minutes on whether he said AIDS patients should be quarantined–but I might be confusing it with a different program).
I have to disagree with some here and say that I don’t see this as being a big issue. He is clearly not a racist based on his own past. The policy was ended 30 years ago. If we’re going to start holding politicians accountable for the positions held by organizations they are affilated with, that have been changed 30 years prior, even when their personal opinion contradicts that policy, a lot of politicians are probably in trouble.
In the religious sphere it might be a big issue, but from a political perspective I don’t see it turning away people except for those who already won’t vote for him because of his religion.
P.S. I think Romney is doing great, but Russert is tough. Personally, I don’t like Russert (not just because he’s tough on Romney), because he asks the same questions over and over even after they have been answered. And I think he’s full of himself. He says something that he feels the person believes, and then the interviewee with refute the argument, but then Russert will go on to use his original position again in the premise for another question. He refuses to allow the interviewee to speak for themselves. Some might find that appealing, but I find it annoying.
I’m not necessarily advocating #1 as a campaign strategy. I’m just asking how the general membership should react if he did.
Some American church members would say, “He said WHAT?” and then ignore it as part of their support for Romney, and some would view it as a positive development (and admire Romney, if they didn’t support him). Perhaps a very tiny margin would openly oppose Romney as a traitor to Mormonism.
It’s probably not the best strategy politically, but I can’t see it offending church members too much…
ARJ, I actually have a DVR on my computer…but have been much too lazy to record Meet Depressed. When I actually record shows I want to watch, I never seem to have time to watch them. 🙁 Bummer!
Btw- M* will be migrating away from B2E soon. I had been playing around with Drupal, but couldn’t get it to work. We have chosen a new blogging platform that will allow links and other such frivolities when commenting. Hang in there while a non-techincal person (me) works on the transition. 🙂
#3:
You could talk about the difference between attitudes and policy, and the way the church turned on a dime, without schism or vocal dissent, but that might just raise questions about what other policy the Church might adopt without anybody complaining.
If Mitt made such a claim, then Russert’s researchers would very likely have managed to find the full-page newspaper ad which ran the day after the announcement, accusing Kimball of apostacy and calling for the formation of a new (fundamentalist) church. To say there was no “schism or vocal dissent” is simply not correct.
I agree that it’s simply not fair to call Romney on the carpet for a policy which changed 30 years ago. As an American, I’m much more concerned that Romney confirms he personally went to Gordon Hinckley to determine whether or not he should run for president. Russert asked about this, and Romney tried to deflect by dropping a barrage of other names. When Russert didn’t fall for the diversion tactic, Romney claimed that Hinckley had “no advice whatsoever” for him. Even if Romney is telling the truth, I have a hard time not seeing a scenario where the topic was discussed, with Hinckley saying, “Well, Mitt, you know I can’t give you advice in my capacity as president of the church, but…” In any case, the simple fact that Romney (a) has that kind of access, and (b) went there for an answer on whether he should run, is very disturbing when it comes to trying to lead a pluralistic nation.
Nick, I’m sorry, but that’s a completely bogus issue. Are you telling me that Mike Huckabee should never meet with another more senior Baptist pastor, and that John Kerry should never meet with a Cardinal or the Pope (if possible) or that Hillary Clinton should never meet with a senior Methodist pastor? Obama meets with his church’s leader all the time.
Former stake presidents meet with the Brethren all the time for various issues. For all we know, President Hinckley could have asked to meet with him because he was thinking of calling him as one of the Seventies (this just happened to my former stake president). Are you telling me it should somehow be taboo for a former stake president to meet with the Church leadership? You know enough about Church history to know that prophets meet with other Church members all the time for a variety of different reasons. President Kimball had a practically “open door policy” and met with literally thousands of members at different times for different reasons. So a former stake president who is a politician should somehow not be allowed to meet with the prophet?
Nick,
Were any of the people that ran the ad ever heard from again?
Nick,
I wasn’t aware of that ad. As arJ says, though, were any of the folks that ran the ad ever heard from again? If not, then my suggestion is that they were simply a Big Flock of Ducks.
As to the “issue” regarding Mitt’s meeting with Pres. Hinckley: I agree with Geoff. When someone’s considering a matter as substantial as running for President, the idea that he cannot seek counsel from his spiritual advisor is ridiculous. And your attempt to put words into Pres. Hinckley’s mouth in a conversation that you obviously didn’t hear is similarly ridiculous.
As to access, I suspect that when I’m governor of New York (don’t hold your breath, by the way), I could probably get a meeting with the president of the church. Especially if my name changes to Romney–I mean, Marion G. has got to be Mitt’s uncle or 2d cousin or something.
I just check familysearch.org. George Romney and Marion G. Romney were first cousins, which of course makes Mitt a first cousin once removed.
Again, I would suspect that if I were a governor and a close relative of a former member of the first presidency and a former stake president who likely had substantial contact with many of the general authorities there would be no problem getting an appointment with a member of the first presidency.
Geoff, surely you see a qualitative difference, where a candidate believes he is literally consulting a prophet of god. In the other examples you cite, the spiritual advisors are seen as giving “good advice,” but not “the word of god.” Even where the Pope is concerned, it seems fair to say that American Catholics hold him far short of the officially-claimed infalliability. Romney, on the other hand, consulted a man he believes to be the literal mouthpiece of deity upon the earth. That raises some policy implications which are troubling for those who respect our nation’s religious pluralism.
You seem to suggest that that Romney probably met with Hinckley for some other purpose, most likely ecclesiastical, and that his presidential aspirations were not a topic. That would not seem to square with what Romney publicly stated. He didn’t refute that he met with Hinckley for the purpose of asking about whether his candidacy would be “a good thing and good for the [LDS] church.” Rather, he simply claimed that Hinckley refused to advise him. So far, in fact, we have public record that Romney and/or his campaign consulted the president of the LDS church, and at least one member of the quorum of the twelve, seeking advice and/or campaign assistance. In both instances, we have public denial that any response at all was given. Regardless, it indicates that on matters of national politics, Romney turns to LDS leaders for direction.
#14 and #15:
I don’t know whether the advertisers were ever heard from again, but I’m pretty confident the Danites didn’t get them. (Note: That was a joke, and should not be taken as some sort of scurrilous claim that Danites existed in 1978. I’ve had enough of people eager to take offense this morning.)
It’s a simple question, “was your church’s position wrong?”, why can’t he give a straight answer? When friends have asked me about it, I tell the truth, I think it was a policy formed by man and had nothing to do with God. Why can’t Romney just say Yes the position was wrong, or No the position wasn’t wrong?
He’s just like every other politician in this world, trying to hedge his bets and come out sparkly clean on ever single issue.
Nick, sorry, there is no record of Romney turning to Church leaders for direction. Here is the transcript from the Russert interview:
========================
MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask you about an interview you had with Sam Stone–Sunstone magazine. Here’s it on the cover. It’s a Mormon-based magazine. This is from November of ’05, and it says, quote, “Romney sought advice from the man he admires most in this world, Mormon President Gordon Bitner Hinckley. The conversation eventually turned to whether a run for the presidency would be good for him and the church. The specifics of the conversation are, of course, known only to people who were there.”
Should voters be concerned that you were seeking input from the leader of the Mormon church as to whether or not you should run for president?
GOV. ROMNEY: Well, the decision about running for president was one that I made entirely by myself, and I got a lot of advice from a lot of people, some solicited, some not solicited, as you might imagine. And the decision was made by my sons and daughters-in-law and my wife and myself in December of last year. And I got, I got the kind of support that, that I guess a lot of folks would hope that they’d get from their family, each of them recognizing that there was a downside for them personally and potentially for me, but that these are such critical times in our nation’s history with the threat of radical jihad, the, the new competitive threat that we face from China and, at the same time, our domestic problems–overspending, overuse of oil, failure in our schools and so forth–that it was time for someone that had experience outside government to finally take the reins in Washington to get us on the right track. But I’m, I’m happy to get as much advice as I can from as many people as I can.
But I, I also pointed out in my address, as you know, in, in College Station that, that I would accept no guidance or, or input of an inappropriate nature from anyone in any religion. The, the leaders of a faith have their responsibility and authority in the sphere of their faith, but in the sphere of public, of the public domain, they have, they have no authority.
MR. RUSSERT: So if President Hinckley told you it would not be in the best interest, in his judgment, for you to run for president, you would still run if you’d made that decision?
GOV. ROMNEY: I would have listened to a lot of people on a lot of topics, but the decision was mine, and the nature of my faith is not to have church officials tell you what to do. I believe very firmly in the principle of, of free agency, people making their own decisions and doing what they think is right.
MR. RUSSERT: Did he encourage you?
GOV. ROMNEY: He didn’t offer any advice on, on, on a run for office whatsoever.
==========================================
Nick, you have no idea what Romney and Hinckley discussed, and neither does Sunstone magazine. We have no public record that Romney consulted the LDS church on this issue. Your claim is bogus.
Geoff,
While you’re searching the Internet for cut and paste, you may as well also pull the articles revealing that Romney campaign staff consulted a member of the LDS quorum of twelve, hoping to use BYU alumni as a campaign resource. The interview segment you posted makes it quite clear that Romney did, in fact, solicit Hinckley’s advice on whether to run for POTUS. If he hadn’t done so, he would have denied meeting or asking the question. Instead, he claimed that Hinckley didn’t offer any advice “on, on, on a run for office whatsoever.”
Why be so defensive on this, to the point of misrepresentation, Geoff? I’d expect you to think it’s a good thing Romney was asking for Hinckley’s direction.
Nick, it is not a matter of being defensive, it is a matter of being truthful, which, unfortunately, you are not.
1)The transcript does not make it clear that Romney solicited Hinckley’s advice. Again, you have no idea what they talked about and are inserting your own conspiracy theories.
2)Your claim regarding campaign staff is false, and was debunked and discussed at length here:
https://millennialstar.org/index.php/2006/10/19/romney_reaches_out_to_church_leaders
(1) Assuming Romney isn’t completely inept at communicating clearly, he specifically did not deny that he met with Hinckley and solicited his advice. After considerable stuttering (from which I’ll avoid drawing immediate conclusions), Romney states that Hinckley gave him no advice. No “conspiracy theories” are needed to conclude that Romney sought the advice of Hinckley. Otherwise, Romney surely would have said something more like, “I never consulted Gordon B. Hinckley on whether I should run for the presidency.”
(2) I looked back to the entry in question, Geoff, and the only “dunbunking” I saw was your refusal to believe that a meeting took place, or that such would be wrong if it did. One of the commentors graciously posted the official church response, including this:
But according to the transcript provided by Otterson, Elder Holland did not advise Romney’s people to use the BYU Management Society.
“He told them what they already knew†that neither the Church, nor BYU, nor any other direct arm of the Church would or could ever sponsor or publicly support a political candidate, and that our position of institutional neutrality was well-known and of long standing,” according to the transcript.
In other words, yes, a meeting took place between Romney campaign staff and according to Otterson, Holland made direct comments to them regarding the question of campaign support from the LDS church and/or BYU. So much for “debunking” the claim that this meeting took place, Geoff. Feel free to apologize for calling me “dishonest.”
Sorry, Nick, you are still dishonest, and unfortunately your antipathy for the Church and for Romney are showing in this thread.
1)You are continuing to read things into a conversation of which you have no knowledge. Yes, it is a conspiracy theory, of which, unfortunately, you have many. You have no factual claim to know what they discussed, yet you continue to put the worst spin possible on it. That, my friend, is dishonest.
2)Yes, a meeting took place, but it was clearly, by your own admission, a meeting that was not nearly the conspiracy you originally claimed it to be:
“Elder Holland’s secretary simply responded to a request from Kem Gardner to come by his office, and she set up the appointment. Kem Gardner asked if he could bring Mitt’s son Josh and Don Sterling, (sic) a Romney colleague dating back to Olympic days, for a handshake and a chat — literally a courtesy call. This was simply a response to an appointment requested by an old friend.”
Again, your claims are dishonest and you are quick to see conspiracies where they don’t exist.
Nick, this discussion is side-tracking us from the original purpose of this post. It will now end. I suggest you get back on topic. Thanks.
Geoff, if it is “dishonest” to conclude that Romney’s lack of denial constitutes an admission, it is equally dishonest to pretend that Romney’s lack of explicit confirmation constitutes a denial. Together with your edited recast of the Holland meeting (as if nothing whatsoever came up regarding Romney’s run), you are simply placing your own biased spin on things, and then calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar.
Now that the record is clear, I’ll gladly drop the matter.
The only truth that you’re telling in that response is the truth about what you think. (Thus, we know that you in fact think that the policy was invented by man, but we cannot know, based solely on your statement, whether what you think is true.) Whether in fact the policy was God-given or man-invented is, presumably, something that you’re not privy to, absent a direct revelation to you from God.
And, if you were to claim such a revelation, what reason is there that we should believe that it was in fact a true revelation?
In the face of thousands of years of scriptural history where blessings were given or withheld to persons of certain lineage based solely on that lineage, who knows well enough the mind of God to say that the priesthood ban was not of God?
Mark B, nice comment. Thanks for that.
Romney probably went to Hinckley to inform him he was running for president, and to be prepared for an onslaught of media scrutiny. Stop the conspiracy theories becuase there’s no evidence to support anything. And no, you shouldn’t draw immediate conclusions because Romney stuttered for a brief moment. It happens!
So, what should be his answer? If Romney doesn’t want to say his Church was wrong before the ’78 revelation (which I think is an unfair question), what kind of “sound bite” answer does he give that satisfies friend and foe alike? Maybe his campaign could benefit from our ideas.
Well, it’s not a simple “yes” or “no” answer. Members of the church need to have faith in and a testimony of the leaders that they are called and inspired of God. I personally feel in a situation like this, it comes down to if you believe the ban was instituted and upheld justly by God’s chosen leaders or not. If you do believe, then it is just something you need to accept. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t sad and unfair, which I think it was, but I’m not going to say the church was “wrong” or hold enmity.
In situations like this, I like to think of possibly my favorite New Testament scripture, “by their fruits ye shall know them.” Yes, the church did have an unequal policy towards blacks, but did they treat them poorly? Were worship services segregated? No. Did they support abolition? Yes.
I think Mitt did the best he could and just avoided it. It sounds cheap and lazy, but nothing we can say will make everybody happy. Unfortunately, this isn’t a “sound byte” answer and requires a more in-depth discussion. Saying something along the lines of “it was a difficult issue that didn’t sit well but we believe our leaders are inspired and won’t lead us astray” will open up a whole other issue. This is why we need to just keep religion out of politics. You can’t make everyone happy, so just leave it alone. Bob Jones III knows what’s going on.
I don’t think necessarily that church members would condemn him if he said he felt it was wrong, but I personally see it as questioning God. It was just a loaded question that is specifically designed to make him and the church look bad.
I think I read something somewhere about the exact lineage of the ban, and aborijines in Australia held their priesthood through the ban. I bring that up because for the life of me I can’t find the reference to see if the source was even credible.
If this is true, then the ban wasn’t racial at all.
If that fleeting claim has no merit (and it probably doesn’t, but I’d like to confirm), then I have no problem with Romney saying the ban was wrong. The way I see it, the commandment to sustain and not speak ill of the bretheren applies only to the current bretheren. If he thinks the ban was wrong, he should say so without fear of retribution.
I think my last bishop was crazy. I never said that while he was my bishop and I was his ward clerk. Now that I’m no longer in that ward, yeah, the guy was cuckoo for cocoa puffs.
Ok, I think I found where I read the above claim, if not the exact reference to back it up. It’s from Jeff Lindsay (Mormanity):
“Interestingly, the exclusion policy applied to ancestry, not to skin color. There were completely white-skinned Americans who had been serving in the priesthood who later found out that they were of partial African descent. These white Americans then had to step down from their priesthood offices. Likewise, natives of the Fiji Islands, who have a beautiful, deep black skin, are apparently not of African descent and were able to hold the priesthood prior to 1978. And Asians, native Americans, Indians, and many other peoples of color have always had access to the priesthood.”
So is racism based on skin color or ancestry? Technically, I think it’s the latter. But I’ve only ever heard racists attack people based on the former.
I can’t believe I’m about to say this, but…
How is it not hypocritical to say that denying the priesthood to blacks was wrong but denying it to women is ok?
Now that I’ve stirred up the hornets’ nest, let me say that I’m not an advocate of giving women the priesthood, nor would I be an opponent if the policy were changed by revelation. And I don’t know if the priesthood ban on blacks was from God or not. But I don’t see much difference between denying blacks the priesthood and denying it to women, except that one is more socially accepted than the other.
The whole premise behind the argument that denying the priesthood to blacks was wrong is that people who are equally worthy have the right to the same priesthood. Going by that premise, how do you argue that women should be denied the priesthood? The only argument that upholds that position is that God chooses who holds the priesthood based partially, but not only, on their worthiness. If that’s the case, then what’s the problem with denying the priesthood to other groups of people if that’s what God chooses? It’s certainly been done historically.
So which is it? Does God give the priesthood based on worthiness alone or can there be other considerations (like gender or race)?
(p.s. I realize the term “blacks” can be considered offensive. I would normally use the term “African American” except that we’re not talking about only Americans.)
And if the answer is the latter, but you argue that denying the priesthood to blacks was not of God because it’s racist, then why is God permitted to discriminate by gender but not by race on this issue?
Let me say that I’m asking these questions truly out of a desire to understand this problem–not to provoke argument.
Quote Lincoln’s 2nd inaugural:
The Almighty has his purposes . . .
Mark (#35), My questions are directed towards those who are so sure that denying the priesthood to blacks was wrong and the result of racist tendencies in men, not a policy instituted by God. I would like to know how they reconcile that view with the fact that God denies the priesthood to women, but that’s OK (assuming that they feel it is OK).
Again, I don’t know whether the priesthood ban was of God or man, so I’m perfectly willing to accept “The Almighty has his purposes” and move on. But that’s not consistent with the “Romney should have said it’s wrong” view. I’m not trying to put forth my own views on the subject, just trying to understand others.
If Romney had said it was wrong, I wouldn’t be surprised if Russert responded with, “Is it wrong then for your church to exclude women from the priesthood?” I just don’t know how one can answer that and not be a hypocrit–that’s what I’m getting at.
If I were Mitt and I had been asked that question, I probably would have responded with something like:
To me, who has a very limited understanding compared with God, the priesthood ban seems unfair and unfortunate. There are many things in the Bible alone that appear to be unfair. Was it fair that only the Levites were allowed to officiate in the Aaronic priesthood during the days of Moses? Was it fair that Christ only had the Gospel presented first to the Jews, while the Gentiles had to wait? Was it fair to Lot’s wife to be turned into a pillar of salt just for turning around?
With our limited view of the world, it is extremely difficult to determine what is really fair and unfair in the mind of God. What is fortunate, is that today all worthy males can now hold and officiate in the priesthood.
What would be really unfair is to judge those leaders of the past for their decisions regarding this issue when we are unable to speak to them directly and get a first hand account for the real reasons behind what they did.
Huh, I thought my post was pretty clear, but obviously not. When Tim Russert asks Romney if his church was wrong, he’s not asking if Romney thinks what the church did was a result of poor communication with God, he’s asking if Romney feels that it was the wrong thing to do morally. When a friend asks me if I think the ban was wrong, he’s not asking if I think the church interpreted a revelation from God incorrectly, he’s asking if I think what the Church did was morally wrong.
Maybe Romney was trying as hard to spin the question as you are my comment, I guess Russert should have spelled out what we all know he was trying to say. “Governor Romney, do you feel it was wrong for your church to deny the priesthood to someone based on their ancestry Yes or No?”
He’s not asking Romney to speak for the church, he’s asking Romney for his individual feeling on the ban.
Mark, if I ask you if you think the ban was wrong, do you understand what I mean? You wouldn’t think I was asking you if you’d received revelation for the whole Church, right? Would you understand that I am asking do you, Mark, think the Church was morally wrong to do what they did?
Jjohnsen, your post was clear, but I personally don’t agree with it. Here’s what you wrote:
“It’s a simple question, “was your church’s position wrong?”, why can’t he give a straight answer? When friends have asked me about it, I tell the truth, I think it was a policy formed by man and had nothing to do with God. Why can’t Romney just say Yes the position was wrong, or No the position wasn’t wrong?”
I agree with you that some church leaders have said very unfortunate things, that are not from God, trying to justify the priesthood ban. But I do not agree with you that it was “a policy formed by man and had nothing to do with God.” Several prophets before Spencer W. Kimball prayed about ending the priesthood ban and were told, “no.” Pres. Kimball prayed about it and was told “yes.” So, either the prophets are lying (which I do not believe happened) or they really prayed about the policy and were told it was not the time. For some reason that I certainly don’t understand, the priesthood ban was necessary for some period of time.
So, if you were to ask me if the priesthood ban was wrong, I would have to say, “no,” because if it were wrong God would have not allowed it in the first place or would have overturned it decades earlier than it was overturned.
Mitt presumably agrees with my position in some way or another (without even attempting to put words in his mouth). So, he is not willing to say it is wrong because doing so would undermine the revelatory connection between prophets and the Lord.
I will speculate that there is another important reason not to say it is wrong: we get into a whole other line of questioning that is not helpful to his candidacy and the Church. Why don’t women have the priesthood? Is that wrong, yes or no? Why did the Church allow polygamy for so many years? Is that wrong, yes or no? Why aren’t non-members allowed to attend weddings in the temple when their sons or daughters get married? Is that wrong, yes or no? Why does the Church support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage? Isn’t that discrimination?
So, really the only way to answer this without getting into a two-hour discussion involve the Levites and gentiles and all of the other useful ways of explaining the priesthood ban is to try to move on and say that you oppose discrimination in general, which is what Mitt did.
The Church had a practice/policy instituted by the Brethren from the mid 1960s until the mid-1970s prohibiting women from praying in Sacrament meeting (by requiring them to be offered by Melchizedek priesthood holders). I do not think that practice by instigated by God nor stopped by God. I think it came about because some of the Brethren thought it was a good thing to emphasize the importance of the Melchizedek priesthood (perhaps as part of the priesthood correlation movement) and ended because some of the Brethren thought it was more important to emphasize the relative equality of men and women.
In my opinion, God was involved only in the sense that He did not stop the Brethren from exercising their best judgment on those matters.
For a few years, male missions were shortened to 18 months by prophetic direction, but then extended again to 24 months. I think it was a matter of experimentation, and concluding that the experiment did not work. God was involved in those changes in policies in that He did not stop them.
I could well be flatly wrong on both counts. It may well be that there was a powerful revelation in the 1960s commanding that Sacrament prayers be limited to MP holders, and in the 1980s that male mission be shortened to 18 months. And that the change in those divinely directed policies only came about by direct, powerful revelation to the Brethren.
Of course, when we are asked why the Church prohibited females from offering prayers in Sacrament meeting or why missions were shortened to 18 months for a time, the proper answer would be, “We do not know why,” perhaps adding, “Only God knows the reason.”
And if we are asked if either of those things were wrong, it may be that the correct answer is “We believe in prophets and apostles, and that they speak and act for God. It is not my place to question the rightness of any decision made by any of them.”
A more interesting hypothetical is, if the Brethren felt inspired to again withhold priesthood and temple blessing based on alleged descent, how many posters here would automatically support it? That would be an acid test.
JJohnsen:
Geoff responded and said essentially what I would.
I will not say that what God has revealed is wrong. And I do not know that God did not reveal the priesthood ban. Thus, if you ask me to opine that the priesthood ban was immoral, I will not say that it was.
I suspect that those of us who experienced life before June 1978 had to struggle with reconciling our belief in revealed religion with a policy that “felt” wrong. That created some neural pathways that made it possible for us to abide a practice that we wished to God would be changed, without cursing either God or His prophets.
DavidH, I’m sure you would agree that there is a qualitative difference between ending the priesthood ban, which was important enough to be canonized in the D&C, and the two issues you mention. The brethren make dozens of decisions a month about changes in Church policy. They pray about the most important decisions and try to be guided by the Spirit. Sometimes the policies work out — sometimes they don’t. A lot of times when they don’t work out it’s because the members are not doing their parts. Sometimes the decisions appear to be wrong (or misguided or even silly) to our eyes. I believe there is definitely a revelatory process going on with the biggest decisions — I don’t know if there is on all the smaller decisions.
One example: the missionary program was recently changed around the “Preach My Gospel” manual. The number of lessons taught was decreased and there is a lot more emphasis on member participation. Does this mean the missionary program was wrong before and it’s right now? Well, it could mean that the missionary program of the 1980s and 1990s was right for that time but that in 2007 a different missionary direction is needed.
By the same token, it could be that for whatever reason the priesthood ban was necessary from about 1850 to 1978 for some reason that we simply don’t understand.
To answer your hypothetical, if the prophet made such a decision and announced it at conference and explained it clearly and said it was a new commandment from the Lord, I would support it, no matter how much I would be personally opposed. Thank goodness I will most likely never have to wrap my mind around that problem.
When I was investigating the church in 1976, the priesthood ban was the biggest stumbling block, until I researched the subject and prayed about it. Joseph Smith, it turns out, ordained a black man to the Melchizedek Priesthood and came under fire for being an abolitionist, so I ruled out racism. After much prayer, I received the assurance that I should go ahead and be baptized, since the policy would change someday. But since this answer was simply for my own use, I did not make that personal revelation public.
I’d like to see what our African American members have to say about this subject.
I honestly can’t remember where I read this, but it has been said that Catholics profess the pope to be infallible but don’t believe it, and Mormons profess the prophet to be fallible but don’t believe it.