I don’t think lifting the ban was a priority for either of them, especially since Hugh B Brown (one of the strongest proponents of lifting the ban) was not kept in the presidency of either President Smith or President Lee after Pres. McKay passed away.

Not disagreeing, but…correlation = causation? Hmm…

Although I suppose in the case of the latter, President Lee = causation for correlation

Just a little correlation committee humor for you, folks. I’ll be here all week.

After Pres. McKay died, Pres. Smith only served for two years – then Pres. Lee served for less than two years (dying of an unexpected heart attack even though he was the youngest president to take office in decades at 73). I don’t think lifting the ban was a priority for either of them, especially since Hugh B Brown (one of the strongest proponents of lifting the ban) was not kept in the presidency of either President Smith or President Lee after Pres. McKay passed away.

There were actually 6 people in the First Presidency in 1969. The presidency consisted of:

Pres McKay,
1st Hugh Brown 1958 1975
2nd N Eldon Tanner 1962 1982
3rd Thorpe Isaacson,
4th Joseph Fielding Smith 1910 1972 (Pres of Quorum)
5th Alvin Dyer.

Isaacson and Dyer hold the distinction of being apostles who were not part of the Quorum of 12. Dyer holds the distinction of being the only person to be ordained an apostle first, and then ordained to be a Seventy (which happened in 1976.)

Prince outlines that all the apostles present unanimously agreed to lift the ban. We know that Apostle Harold B Lee came back and opposed it, as well as Dyer. Most likely, McKay did as well. It is not clear how Thorpe, Tanner, or Smith responded, or whether they were part of the meetings with the Twelve. Thorpe suffered a stroke in 1966, and may not have been part of the discussions. (His stroke is the reason Dyer was added to the First Presidency.)

I gather from comments above that Smith probably would have been in the “no” group. It would appear that Mark E Peterson would have voted to lift the ban. This is interesting, because of his comments regarding blacks.

I count 11 apostles available for the vote in 1969. I’ve included year called to apostleship, and death, so you can count seniority when the First Pres was dissolved upon death of Pres McKay.

Harold Lee 1941 1973 (Acting Pres of 12, absent for 1st vote)
Spencer Kimball 1943 1985
Ezra Benson 1943 1994
Mark E Peterson 1944 1984
Delbert Stapley 1950 1978
Marion Romney 1951 1988
Legrand Richards1952 1983
Richard L Evans 1953 1971
Howard Hunter 1959 1995
Gordon Hinckley 1961 2008
Thomas Monson 1963

Boyd K Packer was called an apostle in 1970 upon death of Pres McKay. Note that Bruce R McConkie was not an apostle until October 12, 1972, so he wouldn’t have been part of the vote either.

I wasn’t able to determine a 12th apostle. Joseph Fielding Smith was called to the First Presidency in 1965. (If you can’t tell, I’ve done a ton of research on this too.)

Good fruit cannot come from bad trees, right?

Cicero…the David O. McKay book (Rise of Modern Mormonism) is sitting about 15 feet from where I am right now, but it’s just too late for me to check on that. If your question is still unanswered in the morning, I’ll get it. But I’ll bet Ray or some other dedicated commenter will beat me to it.

I’m trying to remember were I read it, but I remember it being a rather reputable source, that towards the end of David O Mckay’s Presidency, that the Twelve met to discuss the priesthood ban and it’s possible reversal. That all but one of the 14 apostles (12 in the quorum and 2 counselors) spoke in favor of removing the priesthood ban. But that Harold B Lee spoke against it on the grounds that such a reversal required revelation from the Lord through His prophet, and that it would not be right to act on such a matter when President McKay was so ill and unable to provide guidance.

That would mean Joseph Fielding Smith had supported reversing the ban.

How certain is everyone about where people lined up on the matter?

I mean I think Bruce R. McKonkie was pretty clear, but how much of the purported positions are because of extrapolations from statements that seem clear to us, but were not so cut and dried to the men who made them?

(Thanks for posting it, Stephen.)

That’s a comment someone left in a branch-off of this discussion. I really thought it fits well with the concept of speculation. The commenter blogs at http://www.deadseriously.net/

I hope the quotation mark after “hawkgrrrl’s” is enough separation so as to not distract the reader.

CLASSIC!! I had to go back and re-read the comment to catch the concern, and I absolutely cracked up when I did.

fun also is more fun than personal growth…hawkgrrrl’s “nipples, sexism and racism” posting got 94 comments….surprised that one wasn’t more…

I hope the quotation mark after “hawkgrrrl’s” is enough separation so as to not distract the reader. I could have structured the sentence another way, I suppose.

“why would one not to compare God’s assignment of the priesthood to Levi to the exclusion of the other tribes to the exclusion of the priesthood …

What do you accept about the comparison, what do you reject and why?

I’m looking for questions, not providing answers.”

I don’t understand how you can compare God’s giving the priesthood to Levi and man’s denial of the priesthood to blacks. If you’re not interested in providing answers and are only thinking up questions, then never mind.

Also Lorin #118, thanks for saying what I feel deep in my heart of hearts.

Hawkgrrl-I don’t know how to enter a smiley face, but if I did I would smile at you now.

and I just contributed to extending the conversation away form the topic of the post. I won’t do it again.

Some in the bloggernacle express dismay that their prayers don’t seem to be answered. Could it be that the Lord is far from the thoughts and intends of their heart, and that their spiritual energy is focused on matters that are essentially trivial while the weightier matters: faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, acquiring the Holy Ghost, and the doctrine of Christ are seldom mentioned.

That is an accusation couched in terms of a thoughtful question. It leaves little doubt that the “correct” answer is believed to be:

Of course, the reason people can’t get answers to their prayers is because their hearts are far from the Lord – and they would receive answers if only they changed their hearts.

It is what it is, no matter how it is clothed.

Please, everyone, let’s not continue this threadjack here. It is worthy of a separate post, but let’s not derail this one.

why would one not to compare God’s assignment of the priesthood to Levi to the exclusion of the other tribes to the exclusion of the priesthood …

What do you accept about the comparison, what do you reject and why?

I’m looking for questions, not providing answers.

I think you missed my point. I didn’t accuse anyone of anything. I didn’t say that specific people are not getting their prayers answered. I’m observing, not being critical. There is a difference.

I’m on topic. I’m wondering why the subject at hand is so interesting. It seems that whenever it is touched on there is huge interest. But when other topic that are central to our salvation are touched on, which doesn’t happen all that often, then the comments are sparse in comparison.

No accusation here, more of a question–wondering.

I run across comments where people express a concern about receiving answers to their prayers. Could it be there is a connection. I think there might be.