The heading to section 89 says: As a consequence of the early brethren using tobacco in their meetings, the Prophet was led to ponder upon the matter; consequently he inquired of the Lord concerning it. This revelation, known as the Word of Wisdom, was the result.

I forget where I read (maybe History of the Church) where Emma’s complaint was the motivator of Joseph “pondering upon the matter.”

1)that individual members were, through supplication and protest, able to convince the prophet to lift the priesthood ban and

I can realize why that concept can make you uneasy but couldn’t it be argued that they were supplicating and protesting based on the spirit teaching them beforehand that things that they should pray for? While I realize that members do not receive revelation for the church, maybe their petitions created an awareness within the leadership of the church that they needed to give thoughtful and prayerful consideration to the matter. The spirit and tone with which they went about it is important but I don’t disagree that the membership of the church has not effect on policy and revelation.
Of course we don’t want to cheapen revelation by creating lobbying interests within the church but when issues come up you have to really respect leaders that listen and council with their councils. Then wait for the Lord to push them to act. I don’t believe Pres. Kimball and Wilford Woodruff were simply lobbied to the point of decision in their manifestos but I do believe they were influenced to the point of prayer, and with prayer came revelation and direction.

Truth be told, a group of LDS professors, and members need to have a symposium on music in worship. That would open a can of worms!! The liberal in me wishes that the culture of sacrament meetings was more flexible, but the 6th generation Mormon Republican,iron rodder in me worries about the risk. Anyone who hears Sister Gladys Knight give a fireside can’t help but wonder about music in worship. Are white Wasatch Mountain Mormons uncomfortable with someone expressing themselves in an animated way? A part of me fears emotions and expression getting out of hand, but right now our 18th century hymns are just not helping us create the most conducive enviornment for growth in some of our members and congregations.

In my college years, some of my professors (social “scientists”) tried to convince me that I could never really come to any conclusions about anything, because there are always exceptions, extenuating circumstances, perspectives, opinions, nuances, blah, blah, blah. It was very ironic because they clearly tried to promote their leftist conclusions among their students. Maybe I should have gone into the physical sciences because I could have avoided all the subjectivity that the social sciences thrive on. Anyway, I see this tactic used by the left all the time. When you make a generalization, they respond with anecdotes about how their experience is different. At some point we all paint with a broad brush or arrive at conclusions based on the totality of our experience and observations. Our brains were built to analyze/organize data and come to conclusions based on that experience. On this topic I recommend the book “Blink” by Malcolm Gladwell — it’s very illuminating. I also find Matthew 7:16–20 and the promptings of the Spirit to be of great help in learning truth.

Regarding Dr. Woodworth’s conclusion that the church has a long way to go, I have to agree. But I think he, like other professors, has a “glass is half full” mentality and fails to see the incredible progress over time. In general, I think it’s unproductive to allege racism by the church and use guilt and shame as a means to motivate.

A good way to destroy any argument is to demonize an opponents point as a broad stroke and nuance it into nonexistence. Its a typical “leftist” debate tactic to make uncomfortable subjects go away. Since you are not a “leftist” you may be only borrowing it. Or perhaps we have to get up in arms about my use of the word “leftist” or decry the broad stroke I used in choosing such a word and using it pejoratively.

I call BS. We can all turn on MTV. My kids attend(ed) an urban high school. I spent my mid twenties in Appalachia. I can see the popularization and spread of these cultures all around me. I am not blind. Ghetto, hillbilly, trailer trash etc. cannot be applied indiscriminately but we also know that no one invented these words to describe something that didn’t exist.

No I don’t believe that living in the ghetto, a trailer or a hillbilly holler force you into some specific lifestyle but I do believe that these words are acceptable shorthands for describing cultures.

I’m afraid it’s even more complicated and nuanced than what can be distinguished by the label “ghetto culture.”

I’ve lived in poor areas, on the fringe of what may be called “ghettos”, and have worked in very rough parts of town.

I’d like to point out that in the poor/ghetto/rough neighborhoods, that the negative elements you are referring to are among the minority.

It seems as if the majority of residents both suffer from, and get blamed for, the negative behavior and attitudes of the problem-makers.

Not all culture, preaching, and music in ghettos is bad. There are many people who are just too poor to move out of those areas. Also, due to expansion of poor populations, the “ghettos” also expand, and subsume (take over) the surrounding lower-middle class areas. People who can’t afford to move and start over then get swamped by those forces. The good people in a neigbhorhood can (and most often do) out-number the bad, but the bad elements often hold more sway and have a disproportionate influence in relation to their numbers.

There are plenty of good people living in blighted areas (ghettos), who go to good churches in those areas, and listen to good music both at home and in their church.

Often, the bad cultural elements are not passed down from parents to children, but larger forces from outside the family (gangs, popular enterntainers, peers) over-ride the influence of parents who just don’t know how to fight those outside influences, and/or can’t afford to move away from them.

By the way, “hillbilly” can also be a derogatory term for rural folks. And be careful of the word “trailer-trash”, as some people might think you’re talking about all people who live in trailers or mobile-homes. There are many upscale “manufactured housing” developments and “mobile-home parks” where “trailer trash” is just not applicable.

Another distinction is between hip-hop and gangster-rap. As I understand it, gangster-rap is usually bad. Not all hip-hop is bad.

I know it’s hard to craft blog comments so they won’t be misconstrued.

I _think_ I know which elements you’re decrying, but it’s easy for some people to misconstrue non-specific type comments.

Its an ill wind that blows no good. The side benefit of the delay (in granting the Priesthood) is that LDS congregations (unlike most protestant and many Catholic congregations) started out integrated. However, the more we emphasize the differences in the races and the more we mix race with culture the more pressure we put on the church to segregate. Once upon a time that pressure came from white members but more and more that pressure comes from members of color or culture who will not give up their cultures. In many areas of the church we have hispanic stakes and wards. Perhaps 10-15% of the hispanic stake has a language issue. The youth classes are taught in English. When church leader talk about integrating the stakes there is mass hysteria in the hispanic stakes. We ought to be studying John 17 and applying it in our lives. The New Testament says that the body of Christ is not divided. White members who resist people on race and race alone are a very small minority. White people who resist cultures and behaviors that are born of sin and false traditions are hopefully still a majority.

I live in a stake that has quite a few black members. We have recently had a very fine high councilor who served well. Others have served in ward leadership. These righteous men and women have been well integrated. We also have many black, white and hispanic “converts” who learned of our welfare system. They joined for the wrong reasons. They have not been well integrated. They didn’t leave their sins behind when they joined the church. The members have a hard time accepting them. It has nothing to do with race.

We do need to be more forthright in teaching people to abandon false traditions and accept all the revelation and the righteous traditions of the church.

Its easy to see black faces living a ghetto culture and conflate race and culture. So henceforth I will distinguish the two. I love the first but utterly reject the latter no matter the race of the person living that culture. I also reject calls for the church to be accepting of ghetto culture. We don’t need ghetto preaching, ghetto worship, ghetto music, or ghetto anything. Ghetto culture is a broad term but it covers hillbilly culture, trailer-trash culture, and any other false tradition from anywhere in the world

[Aside: I remember one dear old man who was a very prosperous merchant. Late in life, he left a Methodist church that had a significant amount of congregational control. Since he was wealthy he had a lot of power in that congregation. He tried to bring that culture with him to the church. He had to be taught by various leaders that that was not the way our church worked. He learned and he thrived.]

Since my whiteness and someone else’s blackness are of no consequence to God I also reject formulas that say that race must be taken into account in calling church leaders etc. That is pandering.