What proof does anyone have who insists that the LDS church caved into pressure?

during the 1960s, the LDS were under a great deal of pressure from various national organizations and leaders. if they had made the policy change then, they would have appeared to be caving in to political expediency, rather than maintaining its own prophetic and procedural integrity in the face of public criticism.

in reality......

- social pressure was actually on the decline after the civil rights movement

- coordinated protests at BYU athletic events ceased in 1971.

- allegation that the LDS church's tax-free status was threatened were categorically shown to be false - that the federal government made no such threat in 1978 or at any other time.

I like what jan shipps (methodist scholar studying mormon history and culture) had to say....

"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."

clearly - from her studies of the events she determined that it wa in the view of expansion rather than caving to pressure.

Dear Mormon_4 Jesus

I don't have any proof of anything except to say that during the Carter administration, I think, your church President got a new revelation and blacks were given full status in the LDS organization, including the priesthood, which I understand that they did not have before. In light of statements from LDS leaders in the 19th century, this is a sea change for the LDS. I think that you have to take history into account here, but for whatever reason the policy was changed. I am always amazed at the number of blacks who have become Mormons, nevertheless.

Some Mormons are very nice people and are fun to talk with. The differences are theological between Christians and Mormons, and I only began to examine Mormonism in detail with the recent nomination of Mitt Romney. To tell you the full truth, I rely on people like Sandra Tanner and Ed Decker since they are still working on the question. I would like to see cordiality with Mormons, but I live in an area where they are weak and I have little contact with Mormons. Mostly, at the moment, I know people who worship Mammon or who are nothing at all.

I never thought that blacks bore the mark of Cain.

Edited Note: Ed Decker says constantly that he loves Mormons. Sandra Tanner, now a widow, grew up in Mormonism, and I am sure that she would say that she loves Mormons, also. Mormon theology contradicts Christianity on all points. Romney showed the way to be cordial and friendly and I think that cordiality and friendliness is the best way to discuss the vast differences between Christianity and Mormonism. Perhaps some of our everyday problems can be solved.

Most of the pressure to change policy came from within the church according to accounts I've read that come from LDS church sources. It was an embarrassing policy, to exclude a group based on race. And yes, there was external pressure, but I personally think the main motive was to remove a growth barrier.

But prove...I'm not sure why you would ask.

Clearly LDS policy has been influenced by social pressures. The Manifesto (1890) shifting the policy on polygamy allowed Utah to gain statehood. We also know that polygamous marriages extended well into the early 1900's, showing a clear deception on the part of LDS church leadership. This fact has been well established by both LDS and non-LDS historians.

Gordon B. Hinckley, when he said the didn't know much about men becoming gods on national TV was also a reaction to the public perception of this doctrine. Yet I'm glad to see that doctrine regain prominence in LDS manuals. Once again I see this being taught openly, clearly in manuals such as the Lorenzo Snow Teachings of the Prophets. Way to go.

But regarding race, it was not an easy decision to shift a policy like that. Bruce R. McConkie admitted openly that his belief such a change would happen only after Christ's return was wrong. I admire that kind of openness, somewhat rare when it comes to LDS doctrine.

Regarding your belief that Mormonism the most Biblical church, I believe you are wrong. I see almost no resemblance between the practices, doctrines, and organizational structure of the New Testament group of believers and the LDS church.

Would it surprise you that Sandra Tanner knew almost immediately that Mark Hoffman was selling fraudulent documents to the LDS church? Gordon B. Hinckley took the bait while the Tanners ran the other way. And as it turned out, Tanner was dead right and Mark Hoffman was dead. And Hinckley, who initially denied knowing Hoffman, was again proven to have lied about that. Sad, actually.

An I feel sad that you traded the trust in the righteousness of Jesus for trust in obedience to laws and ordinances administered by the LDS authority claim. Not a good trade my friend. Be blessed.