Lifting the Ban on Blacks

[consiglieri]

I am going to be discussing Official Declaration 2 in Sunday school next week (or the week after), and was wondering what things I ought, and ought not, to cover.

I personally find OD 2 fascinating because it claims to overturn by revelation a practice for which no authorizing revelation can be found. (If I should be wrong on this, I would appreciate clarification, but I have yet to run across an authorization revelation for a practice so widespread and controversial as to lead one to expect such a revelation to be at the bottom of it.)

I think the Missouri Period was formative for the Mormons, and one of the things that got formed there was the Mormon post-Joseph attitude toward blacks.

I am aware of William W. Phelps publishing an article (in the Evening and Morning Star ?) in 1833 Missouri titled, "Free People of Color," which caused a hue and cry among the non-Mormon settlers (claiming the Mormons wanted to have free black Mormons come in from Northern states and "pollute" their Missouri slaves), leading rather directly to the expulsion of the Mormons from Jackson County.

Trying to put the hornets back into the next, W.W. Phelps issued an extra of the paper in which he said he did not mean to imply any such thing, and further assuring the Missouri settlers that he did not even think blacks should be allowed to be members of the Church of Christ.

All in vain, as it turned out, and the Mormons were ejected from their designated Zion by force.

How much this had to do with subsequent LDS attitudes toward blacks may not be certain, but I find it hard to believe it played no part at all.

Especially when we know that Joseph Smith not only allowed blacks to join the Church, but also ordained them to the priesthood.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Brenda]

We have enough evidence that years of prayers and pleading to the Lord, by the Brethren, preceeded 1978. They were basically told by the Lord, "Not yet". I fail to see how the ban could have been created solely by man (if that's what you are suggesting), to then be firmly held in place by the Lord for some 130 years.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Since the whole point of this thread seems to be engaging in pure speculation, I believe Jacob 5 is the answer to all questions regarding priesthood restrictions and the lifting of such.

[GingerRed]

Go to www.blacklds.org

There's lots of good info there!

[Smith]

I looked over the info at FAIR just the other day and according to the articles there nothing written has been found as to the start of the ban. The simple answer is, we don't know.

[consiglieri]

Go to www.blacklds.org

There's lots of good info there!

Thanks for the link.

I printed off a couple of the articles for use in Sunday school.

I think that may be a good forum to dispel some myths.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Lightbearer]

Consiglieri,

Good to see you back on the board. I have missed crossing swords with you.

As far as discussing Official Declaration 2 in Sunday School I would suggest teaching the lesson as outlined. I know that sounds typical of me, but I have reasons for doing so. First the ideas you present in the OP while interesting and even plausible to a point, it leaves out one important fact:

(Abraham 1:26-27) "Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood. Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;"

This scripture does exist, and it is the only indication to me of why the practice of withholding the priesthood was done. Why Joseph ordained some blacks to the priesthood in early Church history could have been that these scriptures were either not revealed or not fully understood with all their implications until later. I realize this is speculation, but my speculation is as good as any other so why not speculate in a "faith promoting" way? I can swallow this much easier than declaring the Brigham Young or any of the other prophets were "racists" as our enemies want to urge against us. The lesson that you are teaching is to show that there is "Continuing Revelation to Latter-day Prophets" today. OD-2 is a prime example of this, I submit also my own speculation that The Proclamation on the Family is going to probably become OD-3. But that is just my opinion, for technically it is still a revelation even if it has not become a part of the standard works yet. The section from Our Heritage cited as a source is a good synopsis of the adoption of that revelation and how it came about:

(

[Maya]

I been reading the Setting Record Strait book of it by Marcus Martins. I think he aproaches it very well. BTW funny how diferent can Sundayschools be in different places. We had the lesson called continious revelation lst Sunday and our teacher just mentioned very fast the ban. No dischsition about it arose. I had the book with me just in case....

Well he says that:The real controversy grows out of the spekulative ideas and hypotheses developed as man- made attempts to understand the rationale and possible reasons of the ban.

1969 David O. MacCay said about ban: "reasons which beileve are known to God, but which he has not made fully known to man" Meaning... we dont kow..

"Among teh still-lingering speculative ideas and hypotheses about the prisethood ban - things that we do not know for sure or that we do not know at all are the following: 1 The preparedness hypotesis. 2 the premortially hypotheses 3 The selective ordination hypothese 5 the chriteria of preordination. 6 The heredity of courses.

Priesthood bans have been before... Hams son Canaan was cruised. After the Apocyfal story Han or Caanaan stole from Noa Adams garmenter and claimed to have his powers.... Noah...

He explains why each spekulation is wrong..

[paulpatter]

. . . . I personally find OD 2 fascinating because it claims to overturn by revelation a practice for which no authorizing revelation can be found.

Apostle Hugh B. Brown made that very point. He had labored long and hard to convince the Brethren to eliminate the ban. At one point he even suggested giving Blacks the Aaronic Priesthood as a constructive first step. Apostle Brown said that inasmuch as the ban was not received by revelation, a revelation was not needed to terminate it [emphasis added].

In An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, the Apostle writes: "For any church, country, nation, or other group to believe that it is [the] only people in whom God is interested or that it has special merit because of color, race, or belief, that they are inherently superior and loved by God without regard for the lives they live is not only a great and dangerous fallacy but is a continuing barrier to peace. This is demoralizing, whether it is the exploded and presumptuous myth of an Aryan race of supermen or disguised in more subtle forms. We should all steadfastly avoid such demoralizing arrogance" (page 130). Edwin B. Firmage, Apostle Brown's grandson and editor of Abundant Life, adds: "Grandfather never believed [the ban] had the slightest doctrinal justification, and he succeeded in initiating. . .administrative changes to mitigate [its] effects" (page 142).

[GingerRed]

What's funny to me, is if the old ban doesn't bother our thousands of African- Haitian- Jamacian-Etc members, then why should it bother the general public?

I can't understand why this is continually thrown in our face...its OVER!!! It's NO MORE! For Pete's Sake, would they rather that we had NEVER lifted the ban at all?? Why don't we ever get credit for CHANGING it?? Can't they al LEAST say, well hey those Mormons saw the error of their ways and the ban is gone...Oh Happy Day! Now we don't have to get on their case anymore.

[paulpatter]

Consiglieri,

Good to see you back on the board. I have missed crossing swords with you.

As far as discussing Official Declaration 2 in Sunday School I would suggest teaching the lesson as outlined. I know that sounds typical of me, but I have reasons for doing so. First the ideas you present in the OP while interesting and even plausible to a point, it leaves out one important fact:This scripture does exist, and it is the only indication to me of why the practice of withholding the priesthood was done.

Dr. Armand L. Mauss comments: "The Book of Abraham is the only place. . .where any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage; but even then it is only the specific lineage of the pharaohs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any, especially in the modern world, would be covered by that proscription" ("Dispelling the Curse of Cain, or How to Explain the Old Priesthood Ban Without Looking Ridiculous," Sunstone, October 2004).

(Dr. Mauss is professor emeritus of sociology at Washington State University and a member of the Dialogue Foundation Board of Directors. He is the author of many books and articles, including All Abraham's Children.)

Then there is the problem of the curse placed on Cain taking the form of a black skin. This is a corruption of the scripture. There is nothing to indicate that the mark of the curse was a black skin.

[Kevin Christensen]

No discussion of the origin of the LDS practice between the 1840s and 1978 is either complete or coherent without recognition of the recent books on Noah's Curse: the Biblical Justification of Slavery and the Curse of Ham. (Search for them on Amazon). They were reviewed in BYU Studies within the past couple of years, and discussed by the author of that review on By Common Consent a while back. Comparison makes it clear that the LDS were parroting the common beliefs and arguments of the larger Western Culture, which arose rather late as part of the attempt to justify slavery, and were emphatically NOT offering a uniquely Mormon take, nor were they accurately interpreting Noah's curse on Ham, as originally understood.

Joseph Campbell explains that one of the functions of a myth is to sustain and justify the social order. The reading of Noah's curse in this sense was a late misreading, a poor use of the text, inherited by the LDS as part of their Protestant baggage.

The misreading of the passage in Abraham is a direct consequence of the pop culture use to justify slavery, despite the fact that Abraham says nothing whatsoever about race and priesthood. What the Book of Abraham does, and Nibley observed in Abraham in Egypt, is describe an attempt by a matriarchial ruler to claim and imitate a patriarical priesthood.

And the "black" passages in the Book of Moses should be interpreted not in light of 19th century prejudices, but should be compared with the comparable use in 1 Enoch (in the animal apocalyse, notice the Black and white bulls), and use of black and white as symbolic of moral states in Ancient Near Eastern thinking.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Brenda]

Apostle Hugh B. Brown made that very point. He had labored long and hard to convince the Brethren to eliminate the ban. At one point he even suggested giving Blacks the Aaronic Priesthood as a constructive first step. Apostle Brown said that inasmuch as the ban was not received by revelation, a revelation was not needed to terminate it [emphasis added].

In An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown, the Apostle writes: "For any church, country, nation, or other group to believe that it is [the] only people in whom God is interested or that it has special merit because of color, race, or belief, that they are inherently superior and loved by God without regard for the lives they live is not only a great and dangerous fallacy but is a continuing barrier to peace. This is demoralizing, whether it is the exploded and presumptuous myth of an Aryan race of supermen or disguised in more subtle forms. We should all steadfastly avoid such demoralizing arrogance" (page 130). Edwin B. Firmage, Apostle Brown's grandson and editor of Abundant Life, adds: "Grandfather never believed [the ban] had the slightest doctrinal justification, and he succeeded in initiating. . .administrative changes to mitigate [its] effects" (page 142).

Yet, how does that fit with this?:

"From the biography of President Boyd K. Packer by Sister Lucille Tate, we get some insight into the process of revelation, specifically in relation to President Kimball's receiving the revelation of the priesthood being extended to all worthy males in the Church:

At the same time the LDS edition of the scriptures was being prepared for publication another matter was weighing heavily upon the soul of one of the Lord's great watchmen, President Spencer W. Kimball. Other latter-day prophets had wrestled with the same dilemma: that of obeying the divine command to preach the gospel to every kindred, tongue, and people, while being keenly aware that, because of race, some of those people were denied the full blessings of the gospel-that is, denied the priesthood and the temple ordinances. Thus these prophets had pleaded mightily with the Lord for answers to the problem, and none of them more intensely than President Kimball. Yet always the Spirit had indicated that the time had not yet come."

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/gospeldoctrine/dc/051011dc42.html

[Jason]

Where is the revelation that states that women cannot hold the priesthood?

If we can't find one, does that mean that the Church's current policy of not granting the priesthood to women must be a doctrine of men that is obviously in error?

[sethpayne]

I am going to be discussing Official Declaration 2 in Sunday school next week (or the week after), and was wondering what things I ought, and ought not, to cover.

I personally find OD 2 fascinating because it claims to overturn by revelation a practice for which no authorizing revelation can be found. (If I should be wrong on this, I would appreciate clarification, but I have yet to run across an authorization revelation for a practice so widespread and controversial as to lead one to expect such a revelation to be at the bottom of it.)

I think the Missouri Period was formative for the Mormons, and one of the things that got formed there was the Mormon post-Joseph attitude toward blacks.

I am aware of William W. Phelps publishing an article (in the Evening and Morning Star ?) in 1833 Missouri titled, "Free People of Color," which caused a hue and cry among the non-Mormon settlers (claiming the Mormons wanted to have free black Mormons come in from Northern states and "pollute" their Missouri slaves), leading rather directly to the expulsion of the Mormons from Jackson County.

Trying to put the hornets back into the next, W.W. Phelps issued an extra of the paper in which he said he did not mean to imply any such thing, and further assuring the Missouri settlers that he did not even think blacks should be allowed to be members of the Church of Christ.

All in vain, as it turned out, and the Mormons were ejected from their designated Zion by force.

How much this had to do with subsequent LDS attitudes toward blacks may not be certain, but I find it hard to believe it played no part at all.

Especially when we know that Joseph Smith not only allowed blacks to join the Church, but also ordained them to the priesthood.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hey Consig,

I have found the best resource on this subject is Armand Mauss' "The Fading of Pharaoh's Curse"

http://www.mormonstudies.net/dialogue/pharoah.pdf

Also:

"Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview" by Lester Bush -- this one is significant because it was written before the ban was lifted.

http://www.mormonstudies.net/dialogue/bush_mormonism_negrodoctrine.pdf

[sethpayne]

Yet, how does that fit with this?:

"From the biography of President Boyd K. Packer by Sister Lucille Tate, we get some insight into the process of revelation, specifically in relation to President Kimball's receiving the revelation of the priesthood being extended to all worthy males in the Church:

At the same time the LDS edition of the scriptures was being prepared for publication another matter was weighing heavily upon the soul of one of the Lord's great watchmen, President Spencer W. Kimball. Other latter-day prophets had wrestled with the same dilemma: that of obeying the divine command to preach the gospel to every kindred, tongue, and people, while being keenly aware that, because of race, some of those people were denied the full blessings of the gospel-that is, denied the priesthood and the temple ordinances. Thus these prophets had pleaded mightily with the Lord for answers to the problem, and none of them more intensely than President Kimball. Yet always the Spirit had indicated that the time had not yet come."

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/gospeldoctrine/dc/051011dc42.html

Gotta love dueling Apostles!

Brown was always one of the more liberal members of the Q12. He got himself in some hot water in 1963-64 when he told a newspaper that the ban would be lifted soon. -- Someone correct me here if my dates are off.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I am not sure where you live. Do you have any Blacks in your class? I have many in mine. If so will it change your approch?

[consiglieri]

Where is the revelation that states that women cannot hold the priesthood?

If we can't find one, does that mean that the Church's current policy of not granting the priesthood to women must be a doctrine of men that is obviously in error?

I think we will see the day when women can receive the Priesthood in the LDS Church, in large part due to the reason you cite, and with OD 2 serving as precedent.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

The misreading of the passage in Abraham is a direct consequence of the pop culture use to justify slavery, despite the fact that Abraham says nothing whatsoever about race and priesthood. What the Book of Abraham does, and Nibley observed in Abraham in Egypt, is describe an attempt by a matriarchial ruler to claim and imitate a patriarical priesthood.

Thanks for the good info, Kevin.

I want to be responsible in what I teach, which is one of the reasons I appeal to well-versed board members for help.

I did want you to know that I mentioned exactly the above concept in our discussion of Abraham 1 a few weeks ago.

Abraham cannot emphasize enough that he is a rightful heir of the priesthood that came down "through the fathers" unto him, and then when he mentions that Pharoah claims a false priesthood, he says twice that it came through the daughter of Ham.

It appears the point he is trying to make is one of patriarchy versus matriarchy. (I think Hugh Nibley had something to say about that, too.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cinepro]

If I were preparing a handout on the subject, I would focus on Elder Holland's quote in the PBS interview (maybe editing it for clarity), and President Hinckley's "How can any man" quote.

At most, I would emphasize the unknown origin of the ban, and let members draw their own conclusions. Based on how the Church approaches the topic these days, it might be too much to even mention that it was a specific race that couldn't have the priesthood.

I think we will see the day when women can receive the Priesthood in the LDS Church, in large part due to the reason you cite, and with OD 2 serving as precedent.

--Consiglieri

If you look at the topic of the lesson, it would entirely appropriate (and very interesting) to end the class by asking the members for ideas on what might be revealed in the future, and writing their responses on the board. Their answers would indicate exactly how committed they are to the idea of "Continuing Revelation".

[Rich Hansen]

I personally find OD 2 fascinating because it claims to overturn by revelation a practice for which no authorizing revelation can be found. (If I should be wrong on this, I would appreciate clarification, but I have yet to run across an authorization revelation for a practice so widespread and controversial as to lead one to expect such a revelation to be at the bottom of it.)

--Consiglieri

This is a little strange. I know of no recorded revelation lifting the ban on blacks holding the priesthood. There is a written declaration, but no revelation. There is also, apparently, no recorded revelation forbidding blacks from holding the priesthood. What then, was God's involvement in any of this, if anything?

[cinepro]

This is a little strange. I know of no recorded revelation lifting the ban on blacks holding the priesthood. There is a written declaration, but no revelation. There is also, apparently, no recorded revelation forbidding blacks from holding the priesthood. What then, was God's involvement in any of this, if anything?

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church.

Official Declaration 2

Just to be clear, are you saying the you don't believe the First Presidency when they say they had a revelation, but you would believe them if they actually produced something that they claimed was a revelation?

[why me]

I am surprised the John Dehlin's podcast is often overlooked. John had a wonderful podcast about blacks and the priesthood. It was full of information.

Here is the podcast:

http://www.staylds.com/?p=234

Here is some interesting information:

http://mormonstories.org/?p=75

I hope that this helps. The podcast is a must.

[Jason]

I think we will see the day when women can receive the Priesthood in the LDS Church, in large part due to the reason you cite, and with OD 2 serving as precedent.

So, do you believe that witholding the priesthood from women at this time is in fact an error - something the Church came up with independent of any revelation and not in fact sanctioned by God?

[Rich Hansen]

Just to be clear, are you saying the you don't believe the First Presidency when they say they had a revelation, but you would believe them if they actually produced something that they claimed was a revelation?

I am saying that revelations of this magnitude have a history of being recorded. Joseph received revelations that were recorded and are interpreted from the written word. Where is the revelation on the ban? Has it been recorded and not published, or was it a consensual feeling of the twelve leading to a declaration?

In my mind, God's direct, written word would seem to have more power than man's summary.