I am Community of Christ/RLDS. And we had the ordination of black’s after the end of the Civil War. I was LDS until 2005. I never liked the ban, but i never thought the church wrong to wait for God to lift the ban. I did not think how he could do it since God inspired the ban. I thought the ban was as hard to overturn as the law of Moses. I did not think it could be done.

You won’t be able to find any revelation in the scriptures, so OD-2 is no different than any other sacred writing. Rather all we have is a record of various revelations. Some revelation is a co-creative process between man and God. Men ask the questions and formulate responses under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. So I believe that OD-2 captured the essence of what was confirmed in the hearts and minds of the prophets, seers, and revelators on that day in 1978.

However their experience transcends what can be communicated with mere words. If you need more information I recommend reading the latest Spencer W. Kimball biography and then humbly praying for your own spiritual witness.

I can’t comment on your suggestion that there was a church conspiracy to control the Salt Lake police to prevent Wallace from entering the Tabernacle. I am not familiar with what kind of legal pressure Wallace could have exerted on the Church. I am not familiar with the details.

Such social pressure had such little success in changing the Church’s attitudes prior to then, and in fact played a counterproductive role. Any lawsuit against the Church would have been small potatoes compared to what they already faced.

Here is non-Mormon Jan Shipps’s understanding on why the ban was lifted.

A revelation in Mormondom rarely comes as a bolt from the blue; the process involves asking questions and getting answers. The occasion of questioning has to be considered, and it must be recalled that while questions about priesthood and the black man may have been asked, an answer was not forthcoming in the ‘60s when the church was under pressure about the matter from without, nor in the early ‘70s when liberal Latter-day Saints agitated the issue from within. The inspiration which led President Kimball and his counselors to spend many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple pleading long and earnestly for divine guidance did not stem from a messy situation with blacks picketing the church’s annual conference in Salt Lake City, but was “the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth.”

So consider me underwhelmed by the speculation that social pressure played a role in lifting the ban. I can see where it might have prepared some members to accept the revelation when it came. Humans latch on to conspiracy theories as stories used to explain the gaps in their world.

I don’t think you can say the outside pressure had completely gone away in 1978, not that internal pressure is any better for getting God to give revelation.

You had some very imbarrassing incidents at that time that were public relation nightmares for the church.

There were numerous lawsuits filed subpoenaing President Kimball, which were tied to the negro issue. One of them was by Douglas Wallace, who along with Dr. John W. Fitzgerald, was the subject of Salt Lake City police surveillance outside the city limits of Salt Lake, and in which one officer was accidentally shot and paralyzed.

The church denied any involvement, and that prompted the officer who had been shot, a Mormon, to speak out. This is what he said:

“I would like to thank Spencer W. Kimball for his incorrect press release concerning the police involment combined with the LDS Church’s efforts to restrict Douglas A. Wallace from the temple grounds, specifically the tabernacle, on April 3, 1977. His denial of these actions is wrong. Any man who can take such actions and still call himself a prophet deserves more than I to be confined to this wheelchair.” (Salt Lake Tribune, January 18, 1978)

Maybe you view this public relations nightmare as internal pressure, but from my perspective the views of those on the outside looking in is outside pressure. I just don’t buy that there was no external pressure to end the priesthood ban.

By the way, I’ve been requesting a copy of this revelation for quit some time. I know that it exist, because O.D.-2 mentions it. I’ve always felt like it would be important to see what the Lord said on such an important topic, and what changed to allow this doctrinal shift. Do you know where I can find this revelation, so I can read it for myself?

But i wasn’t thinking Romney needed to explain anything. A politician does not have time for getting into comparative religion’s and apologetic’s. They are busy running for office.

I appreciate your thoughts and the time you took to put them together. Here are a few responses.

Anyone is free to believe, disbelieve, or question Mormonism. That doesn’t make them an “Anti-Mormon.” But, when they start publishing, teaching classes, and producing videos about what “Mormons believe” it would be a good idea to really be talking about what Mormons believe and not about trying to spin something to put Mormons in the most negative light possible. Some of the material on Mormonism sounds like it comes from a Michael Moore movie.

The Mormons didn’t allow blacks as Bishops. You are correct. But the outside pressure had gone away by 1978. It was the internal pressure that made the change. Yes, I can call early Mormons racist, just like I can call early Southern Baptists racists and early Methodists racist. We all lived in a racist society. But while Mormons were concerned over who had “the priesthood” some protestant denominations wouldn’t even allow African-Americans to sit in the pew. Most Americans still worship in segregated congregations. So, calling Mormons racist as if we were worse than others is another evidence for the double standard.

I appreciate your sample speech for Mitt and I can honestly say I wouldn’t have a problem with your version. But, I think it is wrong to ask any candidate to explain his religious beliefs. Asking Mitt is insulting. Name one other presidential candidate who had to explain his religious beliefs. Even Kennedy just said that they wouldn’t influence his presidency. That is the same thing that Mitt said. But, people wanted more.

As for asking a Mormon to speak in Sunday School, that is exactly how I learned about Judaism. My Mormon Sunday School teacher asked the local Rabbi to come in and talk about it. He was treated as the expert. He wasn’t contradicted or corrected while he was there or after he left.

This differs from how Mormons are treated. We spend our time talking with Evangelicals about so called important Mormon Doctrines that aren’t even discussed in church. It isn’t that they are secret; it is that they are not doctrinal and therefore, not discussed. How important can a teaching be if we don’t teach it?

He could affirm a belief in Jesus. But Evangelical’s will see him as sincere, but a believer in a false Jesus. To them a belief in that Jesus will only get him into hell.

I do not lump all Evangelical’s in the same category. I understand Evangelical’s are six hundred million in number. So i hate to say that they are all responsible for Anti-Mormon ministries that spring up.

I also hate to say Evangelical’s i meet are all bigot’s. That is true in some cases in regard’s to Mormon’s. But i have had good experiences with some Evangelical’s. It’s important not to confuse passionate disagreeing with the Restoration with hate prejuudice. One should meet the person before decideing they feel hate toward’s Mormon’s or Mormonism.

LDS with 12 million plus strong have an educating the public problem. The LDS Church has a strong control on the activities of it’s member’s at church. So an organization like FAIR would have a problem being worked into as a welcome part of the LDS program. But in an Evangelical church they can invite Anti-Mormon ministries in to educate their people on Mormonism.

With FARMS they were made a welcome part of BYU. But i doubt you can go to any LDS church and find apologetic material. The LDS Church does not promote such material, so it’s lucky if a member stumbles upon it in private research.

Also, can FAIR accurately explain what happened here: I think that the Mormon church didn’t allow Blacks as bishops until the public gave negative attention to this racist and bigoted practice – wasn’t BYU refused play by Stanford (and possibly other schools and the ACLU?) Only after negative public attention did the LDS change its position. And yes, that is racism. Can early Mormons be called racist?

My point is not to be “anti” or smear Mormons, or the faith. In fact, many of my closest friends are Mormons, who I love dearly. Mormons are good people – for sure, so please don’t take what I’m saying and box me in as Anti - which probably already happened.

Pointing fingers at Evangelicals for the cause of Mitt’s demise is easy. Just like pointing fingers to overdressed missionaries walking down a street on a hot day as being lame. It’s an obvious target for ridicule. While I supported Mitt’s candidacy with financial contributions and a vote, I don’t like the whining against Mormons or against Evangelicals. The fact is that more Americans voted for McCain than Romney and Huckabee combined. However you lump it, the Republican Party is more liberal than it used to be. We don’t like to think it, or accept it…but that’s the truth of where people are at. That’s the political landscape. Times are changing. McCain got more votes because he’s more liberal as a Republican.

For Romney to appeal as the super conservative was a waste. Conservatives would have voted for him anyway. They’re like a charity shot in Pool – it’s easy to win them over once they know you’re super conservative like them. The voters in the middle don’t want to be extreme, and Romney didn’t do enough to win them over. That’s where McCain cleaned up.

Then the question of Evangelicals. I can tell Mitt’s a smart man, and he surrounded himself with smart advisors. I just wonder how many of his advisors were Evangelicals who were focusing on helping Mitt bridge cultural gaps? The reason this is significant is that the gaps between his beliefs and those of bible-based Christians are vast. Without a bridge, people will confuse the religious gaps for the political gaps. In short, Mitt’s message was confused. Instead, they did everything logically. His speech in December wasn’t enough – he was pandering, not building a bridge. That’s what was needed and he didn’t fully deliver (he said some things, but not in a way Christians understand it – that’s why an Evangelical tuned to Christian culture on the team would have made such a big difference.)

Here’s a crack at how it should start:

Dear Christians of America, my faith and religious convictions are things that some of you wonder about, so I wanted to share with you those things we have in common, and how it would influence my Presidency. I too believe in Jesus. I too believe in the teachings of the Holy Bible. I hold the word of God in my heart. My church, the Mormon church, stands side by side with Christians in every political position ever raised: from the freedom of speech to the sanctity of human life in the mother’s womb. I know there are some gaps in theology, but when it comes to your conservative values, we are on the same team. Moreover, I feel called to not only help this country get its economic act together, but also support our combined efforts in helping America stay strong by being the salt and light of our communities.

As a bigoted Evangelical Christian, if I heard that, I’d say “ok.”

A couple other minor points: Get real. Would LDS invite Pastors to come and talk to a Ward? So why would you hold them to such a standard and expect them to invite Mormon Bishops to speak to their churches?

Lastly, give the meat, not the milk to non-Mormons. Be honest. Giving milk is insulting. Mitt gave milk, but the country smelled meat. That’s why he was seen as unauthentic. Moreover, Mormons really believe that nobody notices this. That’s self-deception, and by the way, people see through it.

Here’s the link to the NY Times where they choose not to call Christians “bigots”:
http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/mitts-funeral/