Lifting the Ban on Blacks

[consiglieri]

I mentioned the Ten Commandments only because they are likely to be familiar to people whose knowledge of doctrine is derived from hostile sources rather than from studying the Scriptures.

So, just to be clear, you're arguing that the Ten Commandments are derived from hostile sources?

[mfbukowski]

Where did you get the notion that one must agree with everything another has spoken or written?

This was not addressed to you and you don't know the previous conversation.

This critic in no way believes anything written by BRM but will cherry pick what he wants to ridicule the church.

[mfbukowski]

That's what I was thinking.

Although I am heartened to see him reenter the fray, I've got a feeling Pahoran and I just aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this one.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think many already acknowledge that. Read the earlier posts by Marvin Perkins. President McKay acknowledged that in an interview by the SL Tribune in 1970.

If I knew how to upload a jpg from my hard drive, I would post a scan of the newspaper article, Jan 15, 1970. The "insert image" icon calls for a URL, and I don't think it is on the internet for free anymore.

[mfbukowski]

Salt Lake City Tribune, Jan. 15, 1970

Educator Cites McKay Statement of No Negro Bias in LDS Tenets

By Roger O. Porter

Tribune Staff Writer

President David O. McKay of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was quoted Wednesday as saying as early as 1954 that "There is no doctrine in this church and there never was a doctrine in this church to the effect that the Negroes are under any kind of a divine curse"

Dr. Sterling M. McMurrin, former U.S. Commissioner of Education and now E.E. Erickson Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and dean of the Graduate School at the University of Utah, recalled a conversation in which President McKay also said "As a matter of fact, there is no doctrine in this church whatsoever that pertains to the Negroes"

The philosophy professor, himself a Mormon, emphasized that he made detailed notes immediately following the 1954 conversation. And on Aug. 26, 1968, he wrote a three-page letter to President McKay's son, Dr. LLewelyn R. McKay, recalling the church leader's belief that Negroes were not cursed by God. copies of the letter were sent to President McKay's three other sons...(Dr. McKay).."told me later that he read the letter to his father, and that his father told him that it was an entirely reliable report of what happened and what he said," Dr. McMurrin stated.

This was confirmed Wednesday by Dr. McKay, who said there is "nothing contrary to what President McKay said," in the letter.

Dr. McMurrin said he often has told persons who have questioned him about Mormonism that there is no official doctrine on the Negro. But he has never referred to his "conversation with President McKay for the reason that I felt that it would be a lack of propriety to do so."

"I'm willing to discuss it now very frankly because I think President McKay's statement has has very good importance to the Mormon people. This has now become a major issue for the Mormon people and is attracting not simply national but to some extent even worldwide attention.

"

....As to the practice of barring Negroes from the Priesthood in the church, Dr. McMurrin quotes President McKay as saying:

"We believe that we have scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the Negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine and the practice will someday be changed. And that's all all there is to it."

[paulpatter]

This was not addressed to you and you don't know the previous conversation.

Reminds me of what Steve Martin used to say: "Well, e--x--c--u--s--e me!"

[cinepro]

Gosh, now you have totally confused me. On the other thread about death before the fall, you totally accepted everything BRM ever said about it. How terribly surprising!

Which post are you referring to?

You my be confused if we were discussing the Church's position on something (or BRM's position, or traditional LDS thought, etc), and I was quoting Church sources to illustrate a stated position. In such cases, I'm not stating my personal beliefs, but just the publicly stated beliefs of others.

I'm fascinated by the thought processes that allow otherwise believing LDS to sidestep certain LDS teachings, and in order to explore such things, it is often necessary to clarify what the exact teaching is by quoting official sources.

Typically, the first thing people do when they want to ignore a teaching or doctrine is to mis-characterize what the Church has published on the matter. (The second thing they do is downplay the importance of the teaching by creating super-classes of doctrine such as "Core Doctrine" or "Binding Doctrine", and then arguing that the teaching doesn't rise to the level of this newly invented class of doctrine.)

[cinepro]

Hey, why ask me? Why don't you ask the "experts" over on the parasite board, where you have been jeering at my earlier post behind my back?

Now, feel free to scurry back to the parasite board and misrepresent my position. You know you want to.

Regards,

Pahoran

Wait, you've been a member of that board since 2006 (even pre-dating my membership). How would me posting there be "behind your back"?

And here is the sum total of my "jeering":

Just when I thought I had heard everything on the subject, Pahoran jumped into the ring to argue...well, I'm not quite sure what he's arguing. But here's what he says in post #106:

Reaction to the analogy has been a predictable mix of acceptance, confusion and rejection.

"Jeering"? Really?

I posted your analogy in its entirety, noted that I was unclear on what, exactly, you were arguing, and noted that reaction had been mixed. If that qualifies as "misrepresentation", I don't know what I could have done to better "represent" you.

[consiglieri]

I don't know what I could have done to better "represent" you.

Agreed with him, maybe?

[paulpatter]

Salt Lake City Tribune, Jan. 15, 1970

President McKay was among the first--at least as far as I can determine--to be genuinely concerned about the priesthood prohibition. Hence, his comments aren't particularly surprising, although they stand in stark contrast to the statements of BY, Presidents John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and Joseph Fielding Smith, as well as Apostles Mark E. Petersen and George F. Richards.

There is, indeed, wisdom in following living prophets.

[AKS]

Is it a false dichotomy to state that either the ban was a man-made mistake and generations of prophets and apostles "got it wrong" (possibly due to their own personal biases?) or the CoJCoLDS is not true because by definition no one was eligible to hold the priesthood until after 1978?

I understand the circular nature of the last statement.

[Jeff K.]

Doctrine and practice are intersting concepts when considering meaning, revelation can provide for both, and so the question would be "if no revelation to cease the practice was forthcoming to a presidency when the presidency inquires, does that not inturn leave open the possibility of revelatory confirmation to continue the practice?

[juliann]

Just to be clear, while it's great that BRM publicly admitted his error, we should remember that he only admitted he was wrong about the things he said that specifically contradicted OD2:

If you read OD2, you'll see that it doesn't say anything about the Curse of Cain, or valiance in the pre-existance, so the only teachings of BRM and other leaders that were contrary to OD2 were those saying that blacks would never have the priesthood in this life (or that everyone else on the Earth would get it first).

You seem to think the revelation is compatiible with the folklore. I don't think it matters what detail BRM was referring to because one cannot think someone is cursed and give them divine authority so demanding that Elder McConkie mention each floating theory (and what if he had done that but left one out) is nitpicking in the extreme.

[cinepro]

You seem to think the revelation is compatiible with the folklore. I don't think it matters what detail BRM was referring to because one cannot think someone is cursed and give them divine authority so demanding that Elder McConkie mention each floating theory (and what if he had done that but left one out) is nitpicking in the extreme.

The issue would be whether or not the ban was "valid" in the first place.

If it was valid (i.e. "from God"), then there had to be a Godly reason for it. As far as I can tell, the only reasons any Church leader ever put forth were the "Curse of Cain" or "Less-valiant-in-the-pre-existence" theories. Or there may have been some other reason we can't fathom or understand or guess.

But regardless, OD2 doesn't say that the reason for the ~1850-1978 ban was invalid; it just says that now they can have the priesthood. If someone wanted to, they could still teach that blacks couldn't have the priesthood from ~1850-1978 because of the Curse of Cain or pre-mortal invaliance and not be contradicting OD2 in the slightest.

The only teaching that OD2 contradicts or nullifies is the idea that they wouldn't receive it until later than 1978.

It may be nitpicky, but BRM was a lawyer.

[juliann]

The issue would be whether or not the ban was "valid" in the first place.

If it was valid (i.e. "from God"), then there had to be a Godly reason for it. As far as I can tell, the only reasons any Church leader ever put forth were the "Curse of Cain" or "Less-valiant-in-the-pre-existence" theories. Or there may have been some other reason we can't fathom or understand or guess.

But regardless, OD2 doesn't say that the reason for the ~1850-1978 ban was invalid; it just says that now they can have the priesthood. If someone wanted to, they could still teach that blacks couldn't have the priesthood from ~1850-1978 because of the Curse of Cain or pre-mortal invaliance and not be contradicting OD2 in the slightest.

The only teaching that OD2 contradicts or nullifies is the idea that they wouldn't receive it until later than 1978.

It may be nitpicky, but BRM was a lawyer.

This isn't about BRM. It is about your claim that divine authority can be reasonably be granted to anyone who is cursed or "less valiant in heaven" or any of the other justifications, thus creating a situation where every piece of folk doctrine has to be individually reputed to make a global statement valid. What someone could teach has little to do with what is valid. Unless you are claiming that this was being taught in General Conference or the Ensign.

You can't just declare giving priesthood and everything that signifies is compatible with curses you are going to have to give a very good reason how that is even possible.

[cinepro]

You can't just declare giving priesthood and everything that signifies is compatible with curses you are going to have to give a very good reason how that is even possible.

The typical explanation I've seen is that God was "rolling-out" the Priesthood. For reasons guessed or unknown, certain races were at the end of the line.

I wish Elder McConkie had been forthright about the scope of his mistakenness. And since that didn't happen, I wish the Church would clarify the matter in an official sense. But until they do, there is nothing in OD2 that stops someone (even people on this board) from believing that blacks couldn't have the priesthood until 1978 because of the Curse of Cain or some pre-existent deficiency.

[ACW]

The typical explanation I've seen is that God was "rolling-out" the Priesthood. For reasons guessed or unknown, certain races were at the end of the line.

I wish Elder McConkie had been forthright about the scope of his mistakenness. And since that didn't happen, I wish the Church would clarify the matter in an official sense. But until they do, there is nothing in OD2 that stops someone (even people on this board) from believing that blacks couldn't have the priesthood until 1978 because of the Curse of Cain or some pre-existent deficiency.

I agree. I wish BRM and others could have been more open and admitting that they didn't know for sure why the ban...instead of allowing speculation to continue circulating. Simply stating "I don't know" is weak but it is better than the folklore that is considered doctrine by some...and possibly still taught.

I am grateful for Darius Gray, Marvin Perkins and Margaret Young for their efforts to address the ban issue and wish more members would listen.

[juliann]

The typical explanation I've seen is that God was "rolling-out" the Priesthood. For reasons guessed or unknown, certain races were at the end of the line.

I wish Elder McConkie had been forthright about the scope of his mistakenness. And since that didn't happen, I wish the Church would clarify the matter in an official sense. But until they do, there is nothing in OD2 that stops someone (even people on this board) from believing that blacks couldn't have the priesthood until 1978 because of the Curse of Cain or some pre-existent deficiency.

Agreed....but believing is different than your original claim that they could teach it.

[juliann]

I agree. I wish BRM and others could have been more open and admitting that they didn't know for sure why the ban...instead of allowing speculation to continue circulating. Simply stating "I don't know" is weak but it is better than the folklore that is considered doctrine by some...and possibly still taught.

I am grateful for Darius Gray, Marvin Perkins and Margaret Young for their efforts to address the ban issue and wish more members would listen.

I don't know may be weak but it is probably the truth. It would certainly be easier on them to just come up with something because it creates a PR nightmare in a world where apologies have become an acceptable substitute for action. When someone does the most unpopular thing with the most blow back when there is such an easy and predictable alternative it does tend to indicate that honesty is driving them.

So that leaves it in our lap. My ward has two families with AA children. It wouldn't be pretty if anyone started up with the folk doctrine. All it would take is one person in every ward to put a stop to it. And when we find something untoward in any publication we need to notify the church so it can be removed in the next printing.

[Pahoran]

So, just to be clear, you're arguing that the Ten Commandments are derived from hostile sources?

Just to be clear, I'm arguing that most people have heard of the Ten Commandments, even those whose knowledge of LDS doctrine derives from hostile sources.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Wait, you've been a member of that board since 2006 (even pre-dating my membership). How would me posting there be "behind your back"?

He asked, innocently.

Since you know about my membership history on the sty, you are certainly aware of my recent posting activity there: i.e. nil.

And here is the sum total of my "jeering":

I posted your analogy in its entirety, noted that I was unclear on what, exactly, you were arguing, and noted that reaction had been mixed. If that qualifies as "misrepresentation", I don't know what I could have done to better "represent" you.

The best thing you could have done is not to have bothered. I am quite capable of representing myself, thankyouverymuch.

And no, I don't think I would bother anyway. I know that they encourage cross-posting -- as a parasite board, they would die without it -- this forum, in common with other better-class fora around, does not.

Regards,

Pahoran

[juliann]

Chris Smith made this veiled race slam in a thread that was just closed. I was very interested to read that he didn't rule out inspiration.

But I wouldn't go so far as to assert that no one is inspired. I'd merely say that certain groups have made claims for themselves and their leaders that clearly go beyond the evidence, and will probably have to be scaled back if they care to resolve the discrepancy.

I asked him which group (or groups) were inspired and which weren't. I'd like an answer.

[BlueDreams]

Consig,

So it's been over a week and I've bee scanning these posts and haven't seen anything about the class. I was wondering, how did it go?

With luv,

BD

[caudicus]

The source has forbidden temple stuff, so I won't advertise, but I found their timeline to be of interest.

Jan 23,1852 - Brigham Young instructs Utah Legislature to legalize slavery because "we must believe in slavery."

Feb 5,1852 - Brigham Young announces policy of denying priesthood to all those black African ancestry, even "if there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before" because "negroes are the children of old Cain....any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot hold the priesthood." Contrary to Joseph Smith's example in authorizing the ordination of Elijah Abel, this is LDS policy for the next 126 years.

Aug 20,1859 - Brigham Young regarding slavery: "We consider it of divine institution, and not to be abolished until the curse pronounced on Ham shall have been removed from his descendants.

Sep 7,1859 - Salt Lake City clerk records sale of twenty six year old "negro boy" for $800 to William H. Hooper. Until federal law ends slavery in U.S. Territories in 1862, some African-American slaves are paid as tithing, bought, sold and otherwise treated as chattel in Utah.

Nov 18,1861 - Abraham Lincoln checks out Book of Mormon from Library of Congress. He returns it on 29 July 1862, apparently first U.S. president to read Book of Mormon.

Oct 6,1863 - Brigham Young prophesies to general conference: "Will the present struggle (of the U.S. Civil War) free the slaves? No..... and men will be called to judgement for the way they have treated the negroe." The 13th Amendment legally ends slavery in the United States in 1865.

June 4,1879 - John Taylor and apostles decline to allow Elijah Abel to receive temple endowment because he is Negroid, even though Abel received Melchizedek priesthood with Joseph Smith's authorization in 1836. This African American regularly attends his Seventy's quorum meetings and serves proselyting mission just before his death in 1888.

May 18,1894 - In Salt Lake Temple, "Jane Elizabeth Manning (a Negro woman) is sealed as a servitor for eternity to the Prophet Joseph Smith." Joseph F. Smith acts as proxy.

Aug 22,1895 - First Presidency and apostles decide to deny temple endowments to "Black Jane" Manning (James) because of her "negro blood." Black women are banned from temple, as are black men until 1978.

Mar 22,1919 - "The Nigger" is the new production to be given at the Social Hall, proclaims Deseret News with explanation: "The Nigger" is distinctly Southern. It is a romance based on Southern ideals and the race problem.

Dec 9,1933 - Church News article "Mormonism in The New Germany," enthusiastically emphasizes parallels "between the LDS Church and some of the ideas and policies of the National Socialists." First, Nazis have introduced "Fast Sunday." Second, "it is a very well known fact that Hitler observes a form of living which Mormons term the Word of Wisdom. Finally, due to the importance given to the racial question by Nazis and the almost necessity of proving that one's grandmother was not a Jewess, there no longer is resistance against genealogical research by German Mormons who now have received letters of encouragement complimenting them for their patriotism."

Jan 25,1936 - Church News Section photograph of LDS basketball team in Germany giving "Sieg Heil: salute of Nazi Party.

Oct 6,1946 - Public release of Joseph Fielding Smith (b. 1899) as Patriarch to Church due to "ill health" but actually due to discovery of his recent homosexual activity.

Oct 9,1946 - First Presidency and apostles decide to allow faithful African-American Mormons to receive patriarchal blessings, and Patriarch Elder G. Smith blesses black couple for the first time.

Aug 17,1951 - First Presidency statement that church's restriction on negroid peoples receiving priesthood "is not a matter of the declaration of policy but of direct commandment from the Lord."

Mar 3,1953 - First Presidency secretary answers Mormon's inquiry about receiving blood transfusions from African Americans: "The LDS Hospital here in Salt Lake City has a blood bank which does not contain any colored blood." This represents five year effort to keep LDS Hospital's blood bank separate from American Red Cross system in order "to protect the purity of the blood streams of the people of this Church" (Counselor J. Reuben Clark's phrase.)

Nov 10,1960 - Brigham Young University's president tells Executive Committee of BYU's trustees "about a colored boy on campus having been a candidate for the vice presidency of a class and receiving a very large vote." The three apostles present want to exclude all African Americans from BYU. "If a granddaughter of mine should ever go the BYU and become engaged to a colored boy," Apostle Harold B. Lee fumes, "I would hold you responsible!"

June 22,1961 - First Presidency supports plan to persuade U.S. Army to send its "colored contingents" to California rather than to Utah. At its same meeting Presidency agrees to allow baptism of Nigerians seeking membership in church.

Sep 19,1962 - First Presidency rules that prominent Egyptian polygamist can be baptized because polygamy is legal in Egypt. This is in reference to "an earlier ruling in the matter of Indians who had married more than one wife and it was decided that they may be baptized, if they were legally married according to their tribal customs."

March 3,1965 - Apostle Harold B. Lee is "protesting vigorously over our having given a scholarship at BYU to a negro student from Africa. Brother Lee holds the traditional belief as revealed in the Old Testament that the races ought to be kept together and that there is danger in trying to integrate them on the BYU campus."

July 1967 - Church-wide Priesthood Bulletin prohibits women from praying in sacrament meeting. Ban stays in effect until late 1978.

Dec 19,1967 - BYU's Daily Universe publishes article in favor of recruiting African American athletes. BYU's president writes: "This argues all the more in favor of our making the student newspaper an agency of our Communications Department rather than a student publication." Universe ceases to be independent student paper on 18 Apr 1969, but "nothing would be announced about this new policy."

June 9,1978 - First Presidency announces "priesthood now available to all worthy male members." First Presidency secretary Francis M. Gibbons writes that this change "seemed to relieve them of a subtle sense of guilt they had felt over the years."

June 17,1978 - Church News headline "Interracial Marriage Discouraged" in same issue which announces authorization of priesthood for those of black African descent. Sources at church headquarters indicate that Apostle Mark E. Petersen requires this emphasis.

Dec 29,1978 - First Presidency allows women to pray in sacrament meetings again, rescind earlier ban from July 1967.

Oct 1,1981 - New York Times reports official announcement that new edition of Book of Mormon changes prophecy that Lamanites will "become white and delightsome." Instead of continuing original reference to skin color, new edition emphasizes inward spirituality: "become pure and delightsome."

April 15,1983 - University Post: The Unofficial Newspaper of Brigham Young University reports interview with director of Standards Department. He acknowledges that students suspected of cheating, illegal drug use, stealing, or homosexuality are expelled from BYU if they refuse to take polygraph examination. BYU Security has licensed polygraph examiner.

April 4,1987 - First Counselor Gordon B. Hinckley tells priesthood session of conference that "marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations of practices..." This reverses decades long policy formulated by Spencer W. Kimball.

Oct 2,1988 - Michaelene P. Grassli, general Primary President, is first woman to speak in general conference in 133 years.

April 17,1991 - Chronicle of Higher Education reports that Utah "ranks last in proportion of students who are female" throughout the United States. This is result of Utah's "traditions that inhibit the educational progress of women."

May 18,1993 - Apostle Boyd K. Packer tells All-Church Coordinating Council that LDS church faces three major threats: "The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals."

[why me]

(John Dehlin here)

Here is a version that includes the PowerPoint visuals. It's much better.

To download the video: http://mormonstories.org/podcast/BlacksPriesthood.m4v

To watch from your browser: http://mormonstories.org/blacksandtheldspriesthood/

(NOTE: It takes a while to load.)

Here's the PowerPoint Presentation if you just want to view it.

http://mormonstories.org/presentations/BlacksandtheLDSPriesthood.ppt

Please let me know if I can help w/ anything else!

Thanks John. I have to say that if critics and apologists would listen to this podcast much that the critics and apologists disagree with would be solved. It was one of your greatest podcasts, very informative. But this issue will continue to be batted around. And when I come across it in the discussion boards, I always recommend your podcast.

[consiglieri]

So it's been over a week and I've bee scanning these posts and haven't seen anything about the class. I was wondering, how did it go?

We won't get to this particular class until next week, but we went over the subject of evolution yesterday, and I hope to have time before the day is out to post a brief review.

Thanks for asking.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri