Elder Holland vs. the 1949 First Presidency

[Not Buying It]

The current issue of the Ensign contains this statement from Elder Holland:

From the mid-1800s, the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to the priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.1 No known records exist that explain the origin of the practice, and Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has emphasized that any theories given in an attempt to explain the restrictions are “folklore” that must never be perpetuated: “However well-intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. … We simply do not know why that practice … was in place.”2

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2018/06/comm ... d?lang=eng

Well the First Presidency in 1949 thought they knew “why that practice...was in place”. See below. So who are we supposed to believe?

First Presidency Statement (17 August 1949)

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

[Rob4Hope]

The LDS leadership has this really stupid practice of ALWAYS protecting their predecessors, unless and until they have no other choice.

Holland is lying. I'm sure he has his mental-gymnastic reasons for doing such, but its a lie. The 1949 message you quote is definitive, and even used by the FP as a way to whip someone into place!

[Not Buying It]

The LDS leadership has this really stupid practice of ALWAYS protecting their predecessors, unless and until they have no other choice.

Holland is lying. I'm sure he has his mental-gymnastic reasons for doing such, but its a lie. The 1949 message you quote is definitive, and even used by the FP as a way to whip someone into place!

You are not being too harsh. Elder Holland is out and out lying. He is aware of the 1949 First Presidency statement, he is aware Brigham Young was a raging racist who implemented, preached about, and promoted the policy against blacks having the priesthood. He is duplicitous when he says “we don’t know”, and he thinks he can get away with it because he knows most members will never question anything he says. He knows exactly what he is doing.

[jfro18]

My favorite part of this article in Ensign is that even ByCommonConsent did a fairly straight-to-the-point beatdown of this idea that the ban on blacks has no 'paper trail' in the church history.

I get *why* the church works so hard to disavow themselves of their past, but what drives me insane is how ballsy they are in doing so.

How many times will the church throw Joseph or Brigham under the bus as 'just a man' before members finally go 'How many times can a person make awful decisions before you realize they are con-men?'

[slavereeno]

Gaslight anyone?

[RubinHighlander]

The LDS leadership has this really stupid practice of ALWAYS protecting their predecessors, unless and until they have no other choice.

Holland is lying. I'm sure he has his mental-gymnastic reasons for doing such, but its a lie. The 1949 message you quote is definitive, and even used by the FP as a way to whip someone into place!

You are not being too harsh. Elder Holland is out and out lying. He is aware of the 1949 First Presidency statement, he is aware Brigham Young was a raging racist who implemented, preached about, and promoted the policy against blacks having the priesthood. He is duplicitous when he says “we don’t know”, and he thinks he can get away with it because he knows most members will never question anything he says. He knows exactly what he is doing.

Wow! Why the crap would Holland even want to go here?! He just further painted himself in a big ugly corner! Has he never read the correspondence between Lowry Nelson and the first presidency with George Albert? I think they made it pretty clear why it was policy. So either Holland is a dodo and hasn't read those historical documents or he's a flat out lying sob to his followers; I'm embarrassed I ever thought highly of him.
http://infantsonthrones.com/lowry-nelso ... ert-smith/

[oliblish]

However well-intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. … We simply do not know why that practice … was in place.

I think this is a great example of saying something without actually saying anything.

Were they wrong? No, inadequate and/or wrong.
All of them? No, almost all of them.
and the catchall: "We simply do not know why"

So what he is really saying is: "I think some of the explanations were inadequate, but actually we don't really know."

The Q15 are always using weasel words so you can't really hold them to anything they say. I think they hate having to explain why the Q15 of the past said things that don't make sense, so now they use language that sounds like they are saying something, but when you analyze their words they are not saying much of anything.

[oliblish]

First Presidency Statement (17 August 1949)

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

Does anyone have a good reference to where this 1949 First Presidency Statement is documented? I think I have seen the 1969 statement documented pretty well, but not the 1949. It would be nice to see a scan of an original signed statement, or a church published book that contains it or something like that. I would think that before 1978 this would be a document that they were not embarrassed by, and we should be able to find copies.

You would think that the church would have a record of all First Presidency statements documented somewhere. I guess they know better than anyone it would be a bad idea to keep those around for too long because they don't always have a great shelf-life.

I just looked on the FAIR site and they reference the church archives in Salt Lake. Surely there is a source that is a little more open than that...

[Rob4Hope]

However well-intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. … We simply do not know why that practice … was in place.

I think this is a great example of saying something without actually saying anything.

Were they wrong? No, inadequate and/or wrong.
All of them? No, almost all of them.
and the catchall: "We simply do not know why"

So what he is really saying is: "I think some of the explanations were inadequate, but actually we don't really know."

The Q15 are always using weasel words so you can't really hold them to anything they say. I think they hate having to explain why the Q15 of the past said things that don't make sense, so now they use language that sounds like they are saying something, but when you analyze their words they are not saying much of anything.

Weasel words. YEP. I remember that one, and I think it was even a GA who taught about it.

The church is in the massive business of creating pathways of plausible deniability for their future escapes. They don't want to be pinned down.

That just blows my mind. The whole goal is a type of propaganda double-speak that doesn't say anything and everything all at once. As long as the people listening get whipped up into involvement and paying their money, its all good.

A church of con-men, and those who are so involved now they can't back out...so they continue the con. And there it is.

[Arcturus]

Does anyone have a good reference to where this 1949 First Presidency Statement is documented? I think I have seen the 1969 statement documented pretty well, but not the 1949.

Assuming the 1949 statement actually happened, wouldn't it be surprising if the church attempted to get rid of any trace of it a few decades later after the ban was lifted? Actually, now that I think about it, I wouldn't be that surprised.

[Not Buying It]

Does anyone have a good reference to where this 1949 First Presidency Statement is documented? I think I have seen the 1969 statement documented pretty well, but not the 1949.

Assuming the 1949 statement actually happened, wouldn't it be surprising if the church attempted to get rid of any trace of it a few decades later after the ban was lifted? Actually, now that I think about it, I wouldn't be that surprised.

I promise you, it happened. If something like that had been fabricated, you can bet the Church would make damn well sure people knew it was fake. Their silence tells you all you need to know.

[Hagoth]

There's also a 1969 First Presidency that throws the constitution under the bus. I particularly like the "so you can't fault us for withholding the priesthood because you don't believe in it anyway" loophole:

It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.

However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.

This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to [p.223] join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.

Then they throw God under the bus:

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

They are also throwing Pres. McKay under said bus by quoting him as the messenger, even though his name is not included in the signatures at the bottom (too old/sick?).

This statement is a great example of a favorite tactic the church uses for just about everything reprehensible in their history. "Gosh we really love the negroes (their word) and we so badly wish they could fully join us in full fellowship, but God told us they were bad in some unremembered pre-earth past, so we have no choice but to exclude them. Cuz God. What are ya gonna do?"

Compare to the polygamy essay's answer: "Poor Joseph Smith didn't want to secretly marry all those girls and other men's wives. It was a great personal challenge for him that he had to hide from his beloved wife as a tender mercy to her, but he had no choice because it was so important to God that Joseph have lots and lots of sex that He had to force him to do it with a sword-weilding angel. Poor guy!"

Compare to, "We truly love our LGBT members and it's such a shame that our children are killing themselves at 6 times the national average, but our lawyers delivered a policy that, much to our surprise, turned out to be a revelation from God. It that says we have to keep LGBT-tolerant people away from our anti-LGBT-indoctrinated kids. It hurts us to do that, but it's really to protect them. Because we love them soooooo much."

[Not Buying It]

Does anyone have a good reference to where this 1949 First Presidency Statement is documented? I think I have seen the 1969 statement documented pretty well, but not the 1949.

Assuming the 1949 statement actually happened, wouldn't it be surprising if the church attempted to get rid of any trace of it a few decades later after the ban was lifted? Actually, now that I think about it, I wouldn't be that surprised.

I promise you, it happened. If something like that had been fabricated, you can bet the Church would make damn well sure people knew it was fake. Their silence tells you all you need to know.

FAIR seems to think it’s legit:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Morm ... ments#1949

[Arcturus]

FAIR seems to think it’s legit:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Morm ... ments#1949

Great point NBI.

[Palerider]

FAIR seems to think it’s legit:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Morm ... ments#1949

Great point NBI.

I have a photocopy somewhere that my son sent me. You guys are always asking for stuff I saw years ago and then I have to try to remember where the hec I put it.

I'm getting too old for this stuff....

Oh....and Holland is so full of crap he's disgusting.

[moksha]

I have a photocopy somewhere that my son sent me. You guys are always asking for stuff I saw years ago and then I have to try to remember where the heck I put it.

I'm getting too old for this stuff....

Our memory slips with age. I would suggest using Google with some essential keywords if only I could remember where I put my mouse and cursor.

[TestimonyLost]

The obvious lack of divine involvement in the racist temple ban was my shelf breaker. So discussions on the topic always get me going!

Someone noted that both the 1949 and 1969 statements are on the FAIR website. My favorite part of that page is the fact that there are exactly 3 quotes under the header "Statements made by Church leaders regarding the priesthood ban." Um, I'm quite certain there are other comments over the years on the priesthood ban.

Just one source for funsies. The church essay on the ban quotes Brigham's February 1852 speech. It lifts one very specific part: "At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would 'have [all] the privilege and more' enjoyed by other members." And ignores so many good quotes:

"I am as much oposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term, it is abused. I am opposed to abuseing that which God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants, but those they serve should use them with all the heart and feeling, as they would use their own children, and their compassion should reach over them, and round about them, and treat them as kindly, and with that humane feeling necessary to be shown to mortall beings of the human species."

Totally opposed to slavery but yeah the purpose of their existence is to serve us. And it's a blessing to them! Nelson's recent sermon in Africa seems to be in this spirit. I wonder how many African tithe payers would be needed to cover just the expenses of the world tour.

"Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has has the Affrican blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of preisthood; Why? because they are the true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it, men cannot. the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure, and not one partical of power can that posterity of Cain have, until the time comes the says he will have it taken away. That time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privelege of and more."

Can you imagine if Brigham heard Holland describe the justifications of the ban as "folklore"? He saw it as an absolute decree from the heavens. And he was prophet so that means he's right...right?

"In the preisthood I will tell you what it will do. Where the children of God to mingle there seed with the seed of Cain it would not only bring the curse of being deprived of the power of the preisthood upon themselves but the entail it upon their children after them, and they cannot get rid of it. If a man in an ungaurded moment should commit such a transgression, if he would walk up and say cut off my head, and kill man woman and child it would do a great deal towards atoneing for the sin. Would this be to curse them? no it would be a blessing to them. -it would do them good that they might be saved with their Bren. A man would shuder should they here us take about killing folk, but it is one of the greatest blessings to some to kill them, allthough the true principles of it are not understood."

Ah blood atonement. It would be a blessing to them if mixed race babies and their parents were murdered. That's what he said. That's what a prophet of God said.

It turns out that instead of funsies this stuff is just stomach turning.

"What the Gentiles are doing we are consenting to do. What we are trying to do to day is to make the Negro equal with us in all our privilege. My voice shall be against all the day long."

Down with equality. Must be why Benson was so opposed to the civil rights movement. Just channeling the spirit of Brigham.

[oliblish]

First Presidency Statement (17 August 1949)

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

Does anyone have a good reference to where this 1949 First Presidency Statement is documented? I think I have seen the 1969 statement documented pretty well, but not the 1949. It would be nice to see a scan of an original signed statement, or a church published book that contains it or something like that. I would think that before 1978 this would be a document that they were not embarrassed by, and we should be able to find copies.

You would think that the church would have a record of all First Presidency statements documented somewhere. I guess they know better than anyone it would be a bad idea to keep those around for too long because they don't always have a great shelf-life.

I just looked on the FAIR site and they reference the church archives in Salt Lake. Surely there is a source that is a little more open than that...

(Replying to myself here...)
I found the 1949 Statement is referenced and partially quoted here on the BYU website:

In the early history of the Church, men of black African descent were restricted from receiving the priesthood and temple blessings. In 1949 the First Presidency reaffirmed the Church’s position: “The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.” [5]

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/sperry-sym ... tion#_edn5

In the footnotes it references the Church Archives:

[5] See statement of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, August 17, 1949, Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City.

I have a foggy memory of looking this up on the BYU website about 5 years ago. I followed a link in a footnote to see one of the FP statements on the priesthood ban but the link was dead. I wasn't sure if it was just a mistake or if someone was trying to hide the document.

I wish the old NOM site was visible because I believe I posted about it there at the time...

[Rob4Hope]

This has been a very interesting thread. I've read a lot of this material over years, but its good to see it condensed and lies detected throughout.

The church uses quotes when they want to say: "Yeh...we speak for God and make no mistakes"...but when something happens and they are caught in their con, they say: "A man is only a prophet when he is acting as a prophet".

Lets have cake and eat it to!...while we protect and lie to the world,...which we preach AGAINST!

[DPRoberts]

1969
It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.

This was an eye opener. In 1964 the apostle Delbert Stapely sent a letter to George Romney, then governor of Michigan, admonishing him for his pro civil rights views. And just five years later we a have a statement that appears to say that the church supports civil rights Can this organization be truthful about anything?
http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/geo ... ey-letter/
The provable lack of veracity in current church leaders is more than enough reason for my complete lack of confidence in them. And here I thought Holland might be one of the good ones. If he is, he definitely has an evil twin.