LDS/Mormons: Why did David O. McKay lie?

Yes, like Rrosskopf said, sometimes the LDS prophets just screw up and say things that are wrong. That's what I think too. The General Authorities are just flawed men and they are just giving their opinions. They don't have any special ability to speak God's word and they have no more authority over "the Truth" than you or I or anyone else.

And that's why Mormon teachings, practice, policy, and yes, doctrine, have changed over time and will continue to change. It is a human organization, and like all other human organizations, it is flawed.

The trouble comes when "The Brethren" make statements to the contrary, to the effect that the "Saints" need to obey what The Brethren say and consider The Brethren's teachings to be "scripture". And those sort of statements come all too frequently in Mormonism.

In this case, it is obvious to everyone (except the handful of internet apologists here apparently) that at one point, it WAS doctrine that blacks were cursed due to some disobedience or lack of valiant effort in the "premortal life". This was commonly taught and accepted within Mormonism for a LONG time. Nowadays, Mormons pretend that that wasn't the case. I find it just a tiny bit dishonest...

I agree that doctrines cover the basics of the gospel and are timeless. I agree that the ban of blacks from the priesthood was a long established policy beginning with Cain, carrying down through Ham's descendents and into the modern era based upon scripture that stated that the lineage of Cain was separated from the rest of Adam's posterity. That scriptural policy has been interpreted and applied differently from age to age. As has been mentioned, Joseph Smith both employed blacks and ordained them to the priesthood, sent them on missions and had them living in his home. His Presidential platform was one of abolition which made him very unpopular in certain parts of the country. Brigham Young is credited with implementing the modern ban on blacks from the priesthood. The Church and all of its leaders have always known that this was a temporary practice, that at some time the priesthood needed to be granted to all worthy males so that the blessings of the gospel could reach all nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples. The fact that Pres. George Albert Smith and Pres. David O. McKay viewed this practice differently may well be a function of the circumstances under which the statements were made. You would need the full context of their statements to mesh those two statements. However, I also agree with Joshsys that their words can easily be construed to be in agreement and only misinterpreted due to symantics.

The bottom line is that the long sought after time of full redemption arrived and all blessings were restored. All church leaders and members rejoiced that the time of full restoration of temple blessings to all people had arrived and is now in effect. The church has flourished in Africa and other areas of the world where African people are settled. I was in Brazil and the ban was a great difficulty for them. They rejoiced greatly with the lifting of the ban. As a result, Brazil has seen unprecedented growth in membership since then.

Those quotes actually seemed to be in harmony with each other, I think you're misreading them.

David McKay said that it's not doctrine, it's practice, thus inferring that at a point in time it would no longer be practice.

G A Smith said that "at this present time" clearly inferring the same thing that McKay said yet points out that it was by revelation "on which is founded the *doctrine* of the Church from the days of its organization". He didn't say that the doctrine of the church precludes black people from holding the priesthood but rather that revelation had stated that they shouldn't "at this time" and the doctrine of the church is based on revelation giving authority on revelation rather than making a policy doctrine and only using the word "doctrine" in a sense that makes "revelation" the subject rather than the temporary ban subject.

Why would he have emphasized that it was for a limited time if it was doctrine - which is meant to be eternal?

I don't see what you see - they are not infallible but in this case I don't see any disagreement.

1954, that is the interesting part. You may want to parse the words, but I see that this statement clarifying the position of the Church was made at an early phase in the civil rights movement. The earlier statement said nothing about a curse. In 1954 or 1949 the church was not segregated. The leadership was looking for answers to questions they struggled with. it took the Southern Baptist church another 40 years to officially recant the slavery and segregation issues from its past. No church, except perhaps the Quakers should be completely proud of their past.

NET - When the crowds heard this, they were amazed at His teaching.

KJV - And when the multitude heard [this], they were astonished at His doctrine.

--Matthew 22:33

Whatever Jesus "taught" was considered "doctrine". Whatever the LDS teaches is considered.... whatever they happen to determine? Stay away from any church that determines its own "doctrine".

Doctrines include such things as the atonement, grace, obedience, love, hope, forgiveness, faith in Christ.

Practices include such things as church meetings, what lessons are taught, the organizational structure of the church, qualifications for attending the temple, temporary policies.

We don't hold up our prophets as perfect. They have their own opinions, and choose their own words. Only once has God ever called a perfect person as a prophet. His son, Jesus, was certainly a prophet among other things. It isn't even unusual for prophets, both modern and ancient, to have their own understanding of scripture. Some will receive personal revelation in one area, and others in a different area.

All your questions will be answered, enjoy :)