Elder Holland vs. the 1949 First Presidency

[BlackMormon]

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.

If you go past HOLLAND's blatant lies, you can see that what he is doing is actually trying to create history for the future so that Mormons 20-40 years from now will be quoting HIM and not the FP of 1949. They are trying to create NEW truths that will slowly BURY the ones that have been controversial for over 170 years.

[Corsair]

If you go past HOLLAND's blatant lies, you can see that what he is doing is actually trying to create history for the future so that Mormons 20-40 years from now will be quoting HIM and not the FP of 1949. They are trying to create NEW truths that will slowly BURY the ones that have been controversial for over 170 years.

It's like the narrative of the Great Apostasy in reverse. Instead of restoring the plain and precious truths that were lost, now they are working to discard the embarrassing and problematic truths that were revealed.

[Rob4Hope]

If you go past HOLLAND's blatant lies, you can see that what he is doing is actually trying to create history for the future so that Mormons 20-40 years from now will be quoting HIM and not the FP of 1949. They are trying to create NEW truths that will slowly BURY the ones that have been controversial for over 170 years.

That is EXACTLY what I think is going on. They can't remove the history because of the internet. But they ARE working to obfuscate and bury it.

Its a form of telling lies.

You know...I hear people like Ballard say (in the youth interview) that there is nothing but integrity in the men who lead the church...and then I hear lies like this being spoken.

These men are liars. They are wicked, self absorbed liars. They can't admit the truth. They can't say: "Yeh, that guy said that, and we believe it was a mistake. We believe he was acting with the best light and knowledge he had...but it wasnt' enough and he made a mistake. We don't believe that anymore--we have received more light and truth, and this is what we believe is God's will for us now." NO...THEY CAN'T SIMPLY SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT....OH NO!

Rather than do that, they will lie...

[Yobispo]

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!

Holland has an advanced degree in American Religious Studies or something close. I would wager that He knows the history as well or better than any of the 15. So yes, he is lying. And this is why I left the church - the lies. I think I could have found a way to NOM it out if a non-literal view was acceptable for a fully active member, but when the literal version is demanded (and I think it is) AND the leaders insist on lying, whitewaching and deceiving - I'm out.

It's been 2 years in June for me. NOM was the first safe place I found. I love you guys. But man, it's been an ugly, painful road. Doing way better today than 2 years ago, thats for sure.

[Mormorrisey]

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.

Just for reference, here's the post jfro18 is talking about:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/05/09/ ... n-origins/

From a "faithful" blog, this was in fact, a beatdown. A well-written beatdown, reigning hellfire on Holland's "folklore" crap.

I actually used the 1949 statement in an email exchange with a brother in our ward who challenged me on the notion that women should get the priesthood. He sent me Elder Ballard's talk at BYU in 2013 where he claims women can't have the priesthood and it is doctrine. So I sent this back to him, with the notion that if the doctrine was changed then, it surely can be changed now. He declined to engage further.

[Cnsl1]

Holland is protecting the church. Simple as that. I think the leaders are mostly kind men who probably understand most of the issues but feel it is better to build a strong current church than dwell on or apologize for past mistakes. It's political spin. It's what politicians and big corporations do to retain voters and customers. They just need most of the customer base to buy in. They're never gonna sell everyone.

[Not Buying It]

It's political spin. It's what politicians and big corporations do to retain voters and customers.

However, it is not what a Church led by God Himself would do. Unless you believe in Loki the Trickster God, then yes, it is what he would do.

[asa]

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.

It is in the semi official 5 volume set of Statements of the First Presidency published by Deseret Book .I am in the office not in my library , otherwise would give you a full citation

[oliblish]

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.

It is in the semi official 5 volume set of Statements of the First Presidency published by Deseret Book .I am in the office not in my library , otherwise would give you a full citation

I have never been able to find any official copy of the 1949 Statement on the internet. Could you scan it and upload it somewhere so there is a document we can point to when someone questions its existence?

[asa]

sorry temporary memory lapse . it is entitled Messages of the First Presidency by James Clark and it is 6 volumes. I will try to get the complete cite.

[IT_Veteran]

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.

It is in the semi official 5 volume set of Statements of the First Presidency published by Deseret Book .I am in the office not in my library , otherwise would give you a full citation

I have never been able to find any official copy of the 1949 Statement on the internet. Could you scan it and upload it somewhere so there is a document we can point to when someone questions its existence?

This is an interesting idea. Who can tell me what impact copyright has on things like this and how fair use applies? I'd be willing to spin up a website just to post scans of pages out of old church books, with citations, that we could point to as necessary. Something searchable and useful. Maybe tag each post with the author of the document, the title, and relevant topics for it.

The problem is, I have no interest, time, or financing available to deal with takedown orders from publishers, estates, or the church itself. I don't think it would be difficult to do though, from a technical standpoint, with some of the content management system packages that are readily available. I already pay for unlimited web hosting for a couple of other sites, I'd just need a domain name to attach to it and a reasonable assurance I'm not going to be sued by anyone.

[Kalikala]

This is an interesting idea. Who can tell me what impact copyright has on things like this and how fair use applies? I'd be willing to spin up a website just to post scans of pages out of old church books, with citations, that we could point to as necessary. Something searchable and useful. Maybe tag each post with the author of the document, the title, and relevant topics for it.

The problem is, I have no interest, time, or financing available to deal with takedown orders from publishers, estates, or the church itself. I don't think it would be difficult to do though, from a technical standpoint, with some of the content management system packages that are readily available. I already pay for unlimited web hosting for a couple of other sites, I'd just need a domain name to attach to it and a reasonable assurance I'm not going to be sued by anyone.

This sounds fun. Aren’t you glad I have a book addiction!?!

[IT_Veteran]

I’m pretty sure you’d be the primary contributor.

[Mormorrisey]

I’m pretty sure you’d be the primary contributor.

My God. This would literally fulfil all of my dreams, that Sis. M would flame me like this on an online forum. This was an AWESOME exchange. Love that you're both here!

[jfro18]

I’m pretty sure you’d be the primary contributor.

My God. This would literally fulfil all of my dreams, that Sis. M would flame me like this on an online forum. This was an AWESOME exchange. Love that you're both here!

Agree 100% - I love seeing the fun back and forth here and it gives me the slightest, tiniest shred of hope that I might someday be in the same boat about all this. It really is great to see!

[IT_Veteran]

Thanks guys/gals for the kind words.

[RubinHighlander]

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've seen this same issue with a couple of different documents I used to reference from BYU. There was a research paper on the evolution of the WoW and one other one that were there for a year or two, then the link went dead. Makes you wonder if it's intentional or just old content lost in the site maintenance.

[Reuben]

I’m pretty sure you’d be the primary contributor.

My God. This would literally fulfil all of my dreams, that Sis. M would flame me like this on an online forum. This was an AWESOME exchange. Love that you're both here!

Agree 100% - I love seeing the fun back and forth here and it gives me the slightest, tiniest shred of hope that I might someday be in the same boat about all this. It really is great to see!

Pfft. I was going to tell them to get a room.

Honestly, kids.

[Reuben]

A Wheat and Tares post suggests that some church leaders were considering the ban to be policy in the 1950s. I find it a little disingenuous to cite President McKay's 1968 statement to Sterling McMurrin as evidence, though. EDIT: Never mind, McKay said it in 1954. Didn't read far enough.

It would have been nice if the Q15 had let the members in on the changes to sentiment. Of course, calling them out would mean church leaders had been wrong, and that's the problem.

[IT_Veteran]

My God. This would literally fulfil all of my dreams, that Sis. M would flame me like this on an online forum. This was an AWESOME exchange. Love that you're both here!

Agree 100% - I love seeing the fun back and forth here and it gives me the slightest, tiniest shred of hope that I might someday be in the same boat about all this. It really is great to see!

Pfft. I was going to tell them to get a room.

Honestly, kids.

Good luck. We’ve been married 18 years and I still can’t get her to stop grabbing my butt in public.