Priesthood Ban And Revelation

[Scottie]

Yeah, we do. It is preliminary to sealings.

Boy, I swear I learn something new every day!

Do they actually do the laying on of hands and ordain them to the Aaronic, then Melkezedic priesthoods?

Yes, we do. (Can't say more than that, Scottie, but if you're really interested in knowing more, you could always repent and go to the temple ... )

Yeah....I'm not THAT interested...

[juliann]

Do they actually do the laying on of hands and ordain them to the Aaronic, then Melkezedic priesthoods?Yeah....I'm not THAT interested...

I don't think anyone wants to go into the details on a message board.

[Scottie]

I don't think anyone wants to go into the details on a message board.

Fair enough.

[hgomez2]

Sorry didn't read through the whole thread if it was already posted... but I'm wondering: which prophet instituted the ban in the first place, and where can I find that revelation?

Thanks

[cinepro]

Sorry didn't read through the whole thread if it was already posted... but I'm wondering: which prophet instituted the ban in the first place, and where can I find that revelation?

Thanks

Your question is answered in exaustive detail by Lester Bush in his 1973 essay "Mormonismâ??s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview". You can read it online here. It is my understanding that this article was very influential in helping people in the Church Office building re-organize their thinking regarding the ban.

Here is a pertinent quote regarding the origin of the ban:

Though Brigham Young clearly rejected Joseph Smith's manifest belief that the curse on Ham did not justify Negro slavery, possibly an even greater difference of opinion is reflected in the importance Young ascribed to the alleged connection with Cain. "The seed of Ham, which is the seed of Cain descending through Ham, will, according to the curse put upon him, serve his brethren, and be a 'servant of servants' to his fellow creatures, until God removes the curse; and no power can hinder it;"83 or,

[T]he Lord put a mark upon [Cain], which is the flat nose and the black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.84

Brigham Young derived a second far-reaching implication from the genealogy of the Negro. Asked what "chance of redemption there was for the Africans," Young answered that "the curse remained upon them because Cain cut off the lives of Abel.... [T]he Lord had cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood." The Journal History account of this conversation, dated February 13,1849, is the earliest record of a Church decision to deny the priesthood to Negroes.85 At the time practical implications of the decision were limited. Though reliable information is very scanty, there appear to have been very few Negro Mormons in 1849. Only seven of the twenty thus far identified were men, and three of these were slaves; two of the four freemen had already been given the priesthood.

Though Brigham Young reaffirmed his stand on priesthood denial to the Negro on many occasions, by far the most striking of the known statements of his position was included in an address to the Territorial legislature, January 6, 1852, recorded in Wilford Woodruff's journal of that date. In this gubernatorial address, Young appears to both confirm himself as the instigator of the priesthood policy, and to bear testimony to its inspired origin:

. . . any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] . . . in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it . . .

This clearly is one of the most important statements in the entire history of this subject.

Placed in a fuller context, these remarks are part of one of several discussions of slavery and Negro capability by Governor Young in conjunction with the enactment of Utah's slavery codes in February and March of 1852. Other significant points in the address include Young's statement, "The Negro cannot hold one part of Government" (this immediately followed the above quotation); he would "not consent for the seed of [Cain] to vote for me or my Brethren"; "the Canaanite cannot have wisdom to do things as white man has"; miscegenation required blood atonement (offspring included) for salvation; and the curse would some day be removed from the "seed of Cain."

While it will be seen that the Church eventually abandoned a number of Young's contentions, and though one hesitates to attribute theological significance to a legislative address, were this account to be unequivocally authenticated it would present a substantial challenge to the faithful Mormon who does not accept an inspired origin for Church priesthood policy. That such statements exist and have not appeared in previous discussions of this problem, either within the Church or without, is an unfortunate commentary on the superficiality with which this subject traditionally has been approached.

Though it is now popular among Mormons to argue that the basis for the priesthood denial to Negroes is unknown, no uncertainty was evident in the discourses of Brigham Young. From the initial remark in 1849 throughout his presidency, every known discussion of this subject by Young (or any other leading Mormon) invoked the connection with Cain as the justification for denying the priesthood to blacks. "Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot receive the priesthood . . ." (1852);87 "When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood . . . it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity" (1854);88 "Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood" (1859);89 "When all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain" (1866).90

Dialogue, Vol.8, No.1, p.26

I wonder how Brigham Young would have reacted had someone suggested that we all probably have at least one ancestor that could trace their lineage back to Cain?

[ACW]

Those of you who keep talking about the curses need to really read those scriptures again. The "curse" is being apart from God, not having a pigment change.

So you watched the Blacks in the Scriptures video. What did you think? I enjoyed it very much. It doesn't really answer "why" the ban, but it did clear up some misinformation.

[rpn]

QUOTE:

As long as you believe the Bible to be the word of God, there is no reason to doubt that God has withheld certain blessings according to race.

UNQUOTE

Levites were not a separate race. So how does this analogy lend any creedence to a withholding because of skin color.

Haven't we all moved past repeating the reasons we used to use in defense?

[cinepro]

Assigning fault based on pre-existence has been repudiated.

Just so I'm clear, when was this "repudiated"? I know that different GA's over the years have taught it as truth, but I've never heard of the Church or a GA teaching that it wasn't true.

[Cold Steel]

What's the matter with saying we don't know and leaving it at that? Seems to me that if the priesthood ban were of man and not God, that a revelation wouldn't be needed to reverse it. It also seems that President McKay could have reversed it on his own authority, but he was quite clear in saying that the Lord strongly requested it not be brought up again between them. Having said that, the revelation didn't actually say it was reversing anything; rather, that it was time that all men receive the benefits and blessings of the priesthood. Given all that, what else can be said?

[Cold Steel]

Levites were not a separate race. So how does this analogy lend any creedence to a withholding because of skin color.

When Moses first called Moses up to the Holy Mount, it was His intention to give all of Israel the Holy Priesthood, that is, the Melchizedek priesthood. Through the iniquity of the people, the law of the gospel was replaced with the Law of Moses and the Israelites given the lesser, prepretory priesthood.

The time of the Gentiles wasn't until after the resurrection. By that time the holy priesthood was given to both Jew and Gentile, along with the lesser priesthood, which no longer was restricted to the Levites. This does smack of dispensationism, but otherwise proves nothing.

[cinepro]

When Moses first called Moses up to the Holy Mount, it was His intention to give all of Israel the Holy Priesthood, that is, the Melchizedek priesthood. Through the iniquity of the people, the law of the gospel was replaced with the Law of Moses and the Israelites given the lesser, prepretory priesthood.

The time of the Gentiles wasn't until after the resurrection. By that time the holy priesthood was given to both Jew and Gentile, along with the lesser priesthood, which no longer was restricted to the Levites. This does smack of dispensationism, but otherwise proves nothing.

There is a difference between reserving a privilege for a select few or group of people, and giving a privilege to absolutely everyone (European/white, mexican and south american, asian, polynesian, middle eastern etc.) and saying that this one specific group (African-descended blacks) doesn't get it.

The analogy with the Levites would be much more fitting if the other tribes did get the priesthood, but the Levites were singled out not to get it. Same with the Gospel going first to the Jews and Nephites, and later to the rest of the world.

[Traela]

Here's another aspect to consider: until the ban was lifted, Black Africans were not baptized. In Ghana, there were something like 10,000 people who had organized themselves as best they could, and faithfully followed the Church until the ban was lifted. At which point, they were all baptized as quickly as possible.

Why wouldn't the Church allow them to be baptized? After all, it probably would have been great for public relations. The answer in mind shows that God was, if fact, in control. If all those Black Africans had been baptized, the Church would have been forced to set up wards with a small, all-white Priesthood that did everything for the members - a situation that would have been very similar to other Christian churches. Such a set-up would be fine if the Church leadership were the racist pigs some would suppose them to be. It would also be fine if the Blacks weren't going to receive the Priesthood until after the Millennium.

But God knew that the ban was going to be lifted. So there was no reason to set up a flawed system that would create bad habits and an unhealthy dependence both on whites and on the bishopric. It was much better to teach the Black Africans correct principles and let them govern themselves as much as possible, until the time came when the General Authorities could formally call the leaders they already had.

[cinepro]

Here's another aspect to consider: until the ban was lifted, Black Africans were not baptized.

No, they were not proselyted. There was never a baptism ban against blacks of African descent.

Obviously, as you noted, it was impractical to baptize large groups of people that could never even pass the sacrament in their own wards; large numbers of white priesthood holders would have to be imported to run every aspect of the Church organization. This was probably a logical result of the ill-conceived ban in the first place, not a divine sign of God's hand in things.

The first year following OD-2, there were about 1700 baptisms in Nigeria and Ghana. Not sure what happened to the other 8300 people; they probably ended up being pentacostal with the other 14 million other Nigerian and Ghanans who ended up in that religious movement.

[juliann]

But God knew that the ban was going to be lifted. So there was no reason to set up a flawed system that would create bad habits and an unhealthy dependence both on whites and on the bishopric.

I know you didn't mean this to sound condescending but we shouldn't even be comparing fat and happy white Americans to those who waited for the church to arrive (I believe someone found a BOM). We can only sit around and brag about the pioneers who did the work for us. These people did something just as noteworthy...and they did it on their own. The church would have died without the immigrations of the English/Danish block. I wonder if blacks coming in are going to do something just as important...those that join despite the flack they get in and out of the church are already walking to the beat of their own drum. Any group would be strengthened with this population.

[MormonMason]

Here's another aspect to consider: until the ban was lifted, Black Africans were not baptized. In Ghana, there were something like 10,000 people who had organized themselves as best they could, and faithfully followed the Church until the ban was lifted. At which point, they were all baptized as quickly as possible.

...

Malarkey. They were told to be patient until leadership could be selected for them. Black Africans were baptized whenever missionaries were present but they were not actively proselyted. The movement you described was not a part of the Church but they had founded their own church based on the ideas they had found in Church literature.

Many Blacks were baptized into the Church from the time of Joseph Smith to the present.

[MormonMason]

Hi MormonMason,

I am a bit hazy about the priesthood restrictions among the children of Israel. From my reading of the relevant portions, I assumed that those of the tribe of Levi who started in the Lord's service at age thirty obtained the Levitical priesthood. I refer to Joshua 18:7 But the Levites have no part among you; for the priesthood of the Lord is their inheritance: ......."

I do recall a rebellion among some of the Levites because of that priesthood ban, but I thought that it was because of the Melchizedek priesthood being taken from among them. I probably need to do a little more research on this.

Glenn

No, they were seeking the Aaronic Priesthood at that time. The Melchizedek priesthood previously was removed from their midst as a result of their stupidity in worshipping idols and engaging in debauchery. They were supposed to become a royal priesthood but failed to receive the higher law, instead receiving the law of carnal commandments and the second set of tablets. Several people of the other tribes rebelled over the fact that they could not hold the priesthood as did Aaron's sons. Following this, the miracle of the budding rod demonstrated to all Israel who the rightful holders of that priesthood were to be.

[cinepro]

No, they were not proselyted. There was never a baptism ban against blacks of African descent.

Obviously, as you noted, it was impractical to baptize large groups of people that could never even pass the sacrament in their own wards; large numbers of white priesthood holders would have to be imported to run every aspect of the Church organization. This was probably a logical result of the ill-conceived ban in the first place, not a divine sign of God's hand in things.

The first year following OD-2, there were about 1700 baptisms in Nigeria and Ghana. Not sure what happened to the other 8300 people; they probably ended up being pentacostal with the other 14 million other Nigerian and Ghanans who ended up in that religious movement.

Upon further reading, it appears there may have actually been a de facto "baptism-ban" in South Africa:

Just as this favorable view towards American Indians had some bearing on the strong presence of missionaries and the rapid growth of the church in South America, so too had the pre-1978 prohibition preventing blacks from receiving the priesthood forced church leaders to urge patience upon those in black African countries who had heard about the Book of Mormon and pleaded with the church to send missionaries. For many years, to baptize an African was to mark him as a second-class citizen in the Kingdom of God, unworthy, for whatever reason, to receive all of the Father's blessings. But as hard to bear as this condition must have been for African Mormons in countries like Ghana and Nigeria who had come into contact with the restored Church of Jesus Christ, at least it did not coincide with--and give implicit support to--a system of social and political organization based upon complete separation of the races.

Moreover, while American or European blacks were at least allowed the opportunity of baptism during this time period, in South Africa blacks had to wait. Moses Mahlungu, the Elders quorum president when I visited Soweto, learned about the Book of Mormon in 1966, fourteen years before he was allowed to be baptized.3 He told me that during much of this time he showed up at the church building in Johannesburg every Sunday--rain or shine--and would have to wait outside. After meeting with the mission president, he was told that attending the same church as whites would be a violation of civil law. After the church applied to the government in Pretoria and received special permission to baptize blacks, Brother Mahlungu and three others came into Hougton, one of the wealthiest white sections of Johannesburg, for special gospel lessons on Sundays and Thursdays. The day before he was going to be baptized in the late 1960s, word came from Salt Lake City that the gospel was to be preached first to whites in South Africa, then to blacks. He waited longer, until Spencer W. Kimball finally rescinded the church's prohibition of blacks receiving the priesthood.

The Fading Curse of Cain: Mormonism in South Africa

Andrew Clark*

Dialogue, Vol. 27, No. 4, p.50

[LifeOnaPlate]

Oh how quickly all this wrangling fell into the background as I sat in the Tabernacle tonight and heard the wonderful testimonies in song and word from my black and white brothers and sisters in Christ.

[Calm]

Oh how quickly all this wrangling fell into the background as I sat in the Tabernacle tonight and heard the wonderful testimonies in song and word from my black and white brothers and sisters in Christ.

Do you know if this was recorded?

[ACW]

Just so I'm clear, when was this "repudiated"? I know that different GA's over the years have taught it as truth, but I've never heard of the Church or a GA teaching that it wasn't true.

Until now....

"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept (2 Ne. 28:30; Isa. 28:9-10; D&C 98:11-12; 128:21). We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter anymore.

"It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978). It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light into the world on this subject."

â??Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie

Part IIâ??The Mission of the Holy Ghost

Chapter 9â??Revelation on the Priesthood 1989

(Also spoken at a CES conference at BYU in August 1978)

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't know if it was recorded.

I know it was awesome, though. I also know that our friend Aaron Shaf was there doing his best to help in the cause of civil rights. It's not as though Mr. Shaf was simply using whatever opportunity came along in order to mount his complaining and condemning pulpit, he's not a hypocrit. Mr. Shaf has been known to advocate on civil rights for years.

Oh, wait. Nope. He was just there to denigrate the Church. And he looked silly doing it. Waving at traffic holding his sign. It might as well have been advertising a cheap pizza for Little Caesars.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't know if it was recorded.

I know it was awesome, though. I also know that our friend Aaron Shaf was there doing his best to help in the cause of civil rights. It's not as though Mr. Shaf was simply using whatever opportunity came along in order to mount his complaining and condemning pulpit, he's not a hypocrit. Mr. Shaf has been known to advocate on civil rights for years.

Oh, wait. Nope. He was just there to denigrate the Church. And he looked silly doing it. Waving at traffic holding his sign. It might as well have been advertising a cheap pizza for Little Caesars.

I saw a guy there with a placard haranguing folks as they crossed the street from the TRAX platform. But it wasn't Shaf.

As I came out, there were groups of young folks at a couple of the Temple Square gates singing hymns. But no protesters in sight. I wonder if the hymn singers drove them off.

And LOAP, I had the same feeling as you did as I sat in the Tabernacle for the program. I've not felt the Spirit that strongly in a while. There were no superstars on the program this time (unless you count Alex Boye). Just good, faithful and impressive Latter-day Saints bearing heartfelt testimony.

I overheard an usher tell someone it was being recorded for later broadcast on KBYU. And the skybox on this morning's Deseret News indicates one can go to the Web site and see a slide show with audio from last night's event.

[LifeOnaPlate]

The heavy man outside the gates was Lonny, the "Independent Baptist." I was able to get him to quit yelling for awhile by asking him a myriad of questions (mostly about his views on the upcoming election). He and Shaf were the only ones there. (And a few of Shaf's pals.) They didn't get much mention in the press, which I appreciated, since they were a gigantic non-story. They're the same guys that are there for any and all larger events; it isn't as though they are making a point about blacks and the priesthood other than to denigrate the LDS Church in general, as they do about just about any issue they can. Hence, non-story.

[Scott Lloyd]

The heavy man outside the gates was Lonny, the "Independent Baptist." I was able to get him to quit yelling for awhile by asking him a myriad of questions (mostly about his views on the upcoming election). He and Shaf were the only ones there. (And a few of Shaf's pals.) They didn't get much mention in the press, which I appreciated, since they were a gigantic non-story. They're the same guys that are there for any and all larger events; it isn't as though they are making a point about blacks and the priesthood other than to denigrate the LDS Church in general, as they do about just about any issue they can. Hence, non-story.

I can recognize Lonny and some of the usual gang. The guy I saw looked older and more conservatively dressed, with a hat. May have been one of Shaf's pals.

I agree about it being a non-story. The usual distortions: "It's still in their scriptures" and that sort of thing.

[Lamanite]

Oh how quickly all this wrangling fell into the background as I sat in the Tabernacle tonight and heard the wonderful testimonies in song and word from my black and white brothers and sisters in Christ.

I have to agree. President Clark (I think that was his name, correct me if I'm wrong, he was the first speaker) gave some insight into the "why questions" which for me boiled down to 3 things; I don't know, it doesn't matter, and a loving Heavenly Father knows best so it's best to trust in Him. As the Spirit seared this into my heart I thought of this thread and felt a little embarrassed. O ye of little faith, is often a scripture written specifically for me.

Big UP!