Lifting the Ban on Blacks

[Lamanite]

Let's assume for a moment that the first part of this proposition is true, that the 'ban' had nothing to do with Africans (not blacks, as others have pointed out) being ready to receive the priesthood but the Church being ready to receive African members. (This, by the way, is my own personal position.) Why then does it always have to be about racism or prejudice???

Jacob 5 makes it very clear that the Lord has in place an orderly plan for extending the blessings of the gospel to various peoples, and it further explains that one of the main considerations is that His plan is designed to keep the roots of the natural olive tree from being overwhelmed by the branches. Branches are grafted in a few here and a few there only as the roots are strong enough--prepared enough, one could say--to receive and to nourish them.

I could be wrong because my conclusion is based on my very narrow personal experience, but I've never met a less racist people in my life than the Latter-day Saints. The first time I ever heard anything remotely prejudiced from the lips of a Church member was exactly ten years ago, and it floored me due to its novelty. I've had that experience now a total of twice in my life.

For one year, I worked on a island which had a distinct mix of 'races' on it--descendants of African slaves, white Europeans, Indians brought in to labour by the British, and brown migrants from nearby islands with a more Hispanic heritage. It was the most racially divided place I've ever lived. People simply didn't mix, anywhere. They lived in separate parts of the islands, for the most part. There were white churches and black churches and brown churches. People hurled racially charged insults at each other in the streets. There existed one refuge from this madness on the entire island, and it was our branch chapel, where everyone was literally so jumbled up that it was impossible to tell which kids belonged to which families when one walked in the door, 'race' notwithstanding. Inside, we were literally Zion. We lived in each others homes and lives and hearts. Everyone belonged; everyone was valued.

The ward I live in now contains a crazy mixture of races and national origins. I don't find the term 'race' very helpful, but I think most people would identify at least four in our ward each Sunday. In addition to that, we have active members whose first languages number at least seven. National origins would top that. I'll be honest: We don't always understand each other (and I'm not talking about just language issues here). Sometimes we step on each other's toes inadvertently. But everyone puts forth his/her best effort to reach out, to mix, to understand, to love, and to serve each other. Our crazy little mini-UN works.

So, since we're all just speculating, why don't we agree that the Church wasn't ready to take the gospel into Africa (I've read studies which suggest we still aren't very good at this one, 'unofficial Mormon congregations' still flourishing in some areas) or into the struggling inner-city areas of North America until a few decades ago, but let's not unnecessarily jump to the conclusion of prejudice or some other ugly charge against the Saints. As my African housemate confirmed last night, the Lord has His own timetable.

I disagree, but you may be right. I am also wrong in making reference to "the Saints", implying "all" or "most" of them, it just makes it easier for discussions sake.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Hamba Tuhan]

I disagree, but you may be right.

And this is precisely why it would be a disservice for either of us to teach our personal understandings as part of a 'gospel doctrine' Sunday school class.

[consiglieri]

but let's not unnecessarily jump to the conclusion of prejudice or some other ugly charge against the Saints.

I agree with you that the Saints I have known have presented as being extremely unprejudiced . . . but then, I've never lived in Utah.

But as has been mentioned above, the ramifications of the policy of denying black men the Priesthood extended to admonishments to not intermarry with blacks, as the male children would not be able to hold the Priesthood.

I am not calling racism, I am just saying this is getting closer to the mark, though admittedly for purportedly doctrinal, and definitely practical, reasons.

I am intrigued by the fact that blacks were allowed to join the Church, but that black men could not hold the Priesthood.

This speaks to something different than just pure racism, as that would more likely lead to blacks simply being forbidden admittance en masse.

Something lies behind this, I think.

Somewhere in the literature provided in the links in this thread, somebody opined that Brigham Young became incensed that a black man was preparing to wed a white woman in the temple, and that this is what precipitated this action.

Does anybody know if there is any truth to that allegation?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

And this is precisely why it would be a disservice for either of us to teach our personal understandings as part of a 'gospel doctrine' Sunday school class.

This is why I try to adhere closely to the facts in class.

And when different views are espoused by different Church leaders, I give the different sides to the class with attribution while avoiding weighing in with what my personal feelings may be.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Lamanite]

And this is precisely why it would be a disservice for either of us to teach our personal understandings as part of a 'gospel doctrine' Sunday school class.

Agreed. But one may always offer opinion as opinion. The danger lay in offering up opinion as fact.

Nevertheless, my discussion of blacks and the priesthood always revolves around Prophets, revelation, and a living Church.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Pahoran]

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.

I confess myself completely at a loss as to why people announce this with such fanfare and expressions of amazement as if it were somehow important.

I cannot understand it. It astonished me the first time I saw it done, and it still does.

Can you find an authorising revelation, pre-Exodus, for people to worship Gods other than Jehovah?

Can you find such an authorising revelation for people to make and revere graven images?

Can you find such an authorising revelation for people to take the Lord's name in vain?

Can you find such an authorising revelation for people to profane the Sabbath?

Can you find such an authorising revelation for people to disobey and disrespect their parents?

Can you find such an authorising revelation for people to commit murder?

Can you find such an authorising revelation for people to commit adultery?

Can you find such an authorising revelation for people to steal?

Can you find such an authorising revelation for people to falsely accuse others?

Can you find such an authorising revelation for people to covet?

Because if you can't, then not only does every single one of the Ten Commandments "claim to overturn by revelation a practice for which no authorizing revelation can be found," but so do the overwhelming majority of all the revelations recorded in scripture.

Just FWIW.

Regards,

Pahoran

[paulpatter]

It is an endorsement that the Lord is in control of this Church.

True, the Lord is in control of this Church. But the Lord works through mortal, fallible human beings who are "works in progress" and are here to learn. As you know, LDS do not apply the concept of "papal infallibility" to their prophets. To the best of my knowlege, Brigham Young died a natural death; i.e., he wasn't translated. When he instituted the priesthood prohibition as a policy (no revelation), he demonstrated that fallibility.

[consiglieri]

I confess myself completely at a loss as to why people announce this with such fanfare and expressions of amazement as if it were somehow important.

I cannot understand it. It astonished me the first time I saw it done, and it still does.

Can you find an authorising revelation, pre-Exodus, for people to worship Gods other than Jehovah?

Can you find such an authorising revelation for people to make and revere graven images?

Can you find such an authorising revelation for people to take the Lord's name in vain?

Can you find such an authorising revelation for people to profane the Sabbath?

Can you find such an authorising revelation for people to disobey and disrespect their parents?

Can you find such an authorising revelation for people to commit murder?

Can you find such an authorising revelation for people to commit adultery?

Can you find such an authorising revelation for people to steal?

Can you find such an authorising revelation for people to falsely accuse others?

Can you find such an authorising revelation for people to covet?

Because if you can't, then not only does every single one of the Ten Commandments "claim to overturn by revelation a practice for which no authorizing revelation can be found," but so do the overwhelming majority of all the revelations recorded in scripture.

Just FWIW.

Regards,

Pahoran

You realize, of course, that your argument is completely illogical and ill-conceived.

Unless you are suggesting that the Lord at some point commanded adultery?

Admittedly, section 132 could be viewed that way; and then there is OD 1 that overturned it.

So perhaps you have a point.

Or are you suggesting that banning blacks from the Priesthood was as egregious as murder and hence required no revelation because it was so obviously repugnant to common moral decency?

This may be closer to the mark . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Pahoran]

You realize, of course, that your argument is completely illogical and ill-conceived.

No, I "realize" no such thing.

Can you explain it to me?

Unless you are suggesting that the Lord at some point commanded adultery?

No, I am not. That is the point. The Lord gave a revelation to forbid adultery in the complete absence of an authorising revelation previously instituting it.

Therefore the absence of a revelation authorising some practice is not a valid argument against the authenticity of a revelation ending said practice.

Q.E.D.

Admittedly, section 132 could be viewed that way;

Just not by any honest person discussing anything in good faith.

Or are you suggesting that banning blacks from the Priesthood was as egregious as murder and hence required no revelation because it was so obviously repugnant to common moral decency?

On the contrary, ending the Priesthood ban did require a revelation.

And that is because it was not a moral issue, and had nothing whatever to do with questions of "common moral decency," which are in the last analysis entirely irrelevant to the extension or withholding of special religious privileges.

This may be closer to the mark . . .

Of course it's not. I'm not stupid enough to make such an idiotic argument.

Regards,

Pahoran

[consiglieri]

No, I am not. That is the point. The Lord gave a revelation to forbid adultery in the complete absence of an authorising revelation previously instituting it.

Why do you think the Lord would give a revelation commanding an evil practice?

This is why your argument fails entirely, as I am happy to explain to you.

Making this argument equates the Priesthood ban with evil practices.

Do you want to go there?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

This is why I try to adhere closely to the facts in class.

And when different views are espoused by different Church leaders, I give the different sides to the class with attribution while avoiding weighing in with what my personal feelings may be.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You certainly don't practice it here. You have been called on your inaccuracy in the past consig, even as you never truly aknowledge it. Let us hope that your accuracy is significantly better in Gospel Doctrine than it is here.

Oh, and "all the best"

[Jeff K.]

Pahoran, on 02 December 2009 - 04:32 PM, said:

No, I am not. That is the point. The Lord gave a revelation to forbid adultery in the complete absence of an authorising revelation previously instituting it.

Why do you think the Lord would give a revelation commanding an evil practice?

This is why your argument fails entirely, as I am happy to explain to you.

Making this argument equates the Priesthood ban with evil practices.

Do you want to go there?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

No the argument doesn't fail, however your understanding of the position does. It is typical of you to avoid the issue in order to focus on something less so.

The Lord does not give automatic revelation for every commandment. Many are carried over from earlier dispensations. For instance, women were not given the priesthood in earlier dispensations, and the priesthood in earlier dispensations was limited to specific groups. Usually revelation comes as a matter of change, not just a matter of initiative.

Your disengenuous approach to the point reflects one of two options. You are entirely out of your depth in dealing with core issues and are easily flummoxed by a simple point reflecting that proactive revelation is not needed.

Or perhaps it is a disengenuous approach in which you do not really wish to answer the question so you hope to conflate distinct issues regarding the two subjects.

From my view either position is equally plausible.

But then maybe you don't "want to go there".

"All the best"

[DanGB]

No, I am not. That is the point. The Lord gave a revelation to forbid adultery in the complete absence of an authorising revelation previously instituting it.

Therefore the absence of a revelation authorising some practice is not a valid argument against the authenticity of a revelation ending said practice.

with all due respect, this has to be the most illogical and desparate example or analogy I've seen. This makes no sense at all. It's, sorry to say, nutso!

[Chaos]

The name calling and insults have to stop. Jeff, you will be removed from threads unless you keep the hostility in control.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why do you think the Lord would give a revelation commanding an evil practice?

This is why your argument fails entirely, as I am happy to explain to you.

Making this argument equates the Priesthood ban with evil practices.

Do you want to go there?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

This is interesting. I think you have missed the point that Pahoran is making. You have touched upon this point just a little bit in your post. God would not command men through a revelation to commence in an evil practice, how ever God will send a revelation to stop the practice of something that is not commanded of God. I would just say that the priesthood ban wasn't necisarrily "evil" just that it might not have been from God. Do you feel that if something was not from God that God shouldn't address it?

[ACW]

I bought about 6 sets of Blacks in the Scriptures and I am currently loaning them out. The reaction is very interesting. The black members and a few white members love it and see the value, but most white members are hesitant about even borrowing it... I know on more than one occasion I have guilted some people into watching it....Yeah, I know that's the wrong approach but they act as if I'm doing something wrong or anti-church....

Darius Gray and Margaret Young put this documentary out. Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons and it is very good.

[cinepro]

I confess myself completely at a loss as to why people announce this with such fanfare and expressions of amazement as if it were somehow important.

I cannot understand it. It astonished me the first time I saw it done, and it still does.

Can you find an authorising revelation, pre-Exodus, for people to worship Gods other than Jehovah?

...

Because if you can't, then not only does every single one of the Ten Commandments "claim to overturn by revelation a practice for which no authorizing revelation can be found," but so do the overwhelming majority of all the revelations recorded in scripture.

Just FWIW.

Regards,

Pahoran

I suppose all the things in the Ten Commandments were verboten before Moses went to Sinai. The revelation of the Ten Commandments didn't change anything (or signal a shift in the Lord's feelings on the subject); it only codified and made public the Lord's position.

So if you're arguing that the principles of OD2 were valid before OD2, and that the revelation only made them more official and well known, I would have to agree with you.

[cinepro]

I bought about 6 sets of Blacks in the Scriptures and I am currently loaning them out. The reaction is very interesting. The black members and a few white members love it and see the value, but most white members are hesitant about even borrowing it... I know on more than one occasion I have guilted some people into watching it....Yeah, I know that's the wrong approach but they act as if I'm doing something wrong or anti-church....

Darius Gray and Margaret Young put this documentary out. Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons and it is very good.

According to a recent Dialog article, that documentary has a black minister who knew President Hinckley, and this guy says President Hinckley actually apologized for the ban. Is that correct?

[Lamanite]

I suppose all the things in the Ten Commandments were verboten before Moses went to Sinai. The revelation of the Ten Commandments didn't change anything (or signal a shift in the Lord's feelings on the subject); it only codified and made public the Lord's position.

So if you're arguing that the principles of OD2 were valid before OD2, and that the revelation only made them more official and well known, I would have to agree with you.

well said

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Marvin]

This is interesting. I think you have missed the point that Pahoran is making. You have touched upon this point just a little bit in your post. God would not command men through a revelation to commence in an evil practice, how ever God will send a revelation to stop the practice of something that is not commanded of God. I would just say that the priesthood ban wasn't necisarrily "evil" just that it might not have been from God. Do you feel that if something was not from God that God shouldn't address it?

I know I'm a little late to this party, but just received an invitation via email to join so here I am.

We don't have to speculate. The scriptures are very clear. There is only one place in all of scripture where the Lord says that a certain group of people cannot have rights to the priesthood. That's in D&C 121:21. And here He was speaking of those who persecuted the Saints, driving and murdering them. But in Section 124 He even says even they can repent and come unto Him to receive the blessings. So as Joseph Smith needed to get instruction on how to set up the Lord's church, it would make sense that if the Lord wanted to be a respecter of persons, He would have given Joseph the command not to give Blacks the priesthood. But He did just the opposite. At least 12 times the Lord commanded the prophet to give priesthood to all men. See D&C 36:4-5, 7, 63:57 And so he did. There were several Blacks who held the priesthood. Elijah Able, Walker Lewis, William McCary, Black Pete, Joseph T. Ball et.

Also, there's no record of any revelation, inspiration or anything like it to restrict priesthood from Blacks. And if there were, wouldn't it make sense that so many of the incorrect teachings from leaders would have been created?

[Marvin]

According to a recent Dialog article, that documentary has a black minister who knew President Hinckley, and this guy says President Hinckley actually apologized for the ban. Is that correct?

That is Rev. Cecil Murray, and President Hinckley apologized to him for the church's role in slavery and racism in America.

[Brenda]

True, the Lord is in control of this Church. But the Lord works through mortal, fallible human beings who are "works in progress" and are here to learn. As you know, LDS do not apply the concept of "papal infallibility" to their prophets. To the best of my knowlege, Brigham Young died a natural death; i.e., he wasn't translated. When he instituted the priesthood prohibition as a policy (no revelation), he demonstrated that fallibility.

As far as I can tell here, no one has yet found the source for the origin of the ban. It may not exist in the record. All we seem to have are theories such as what you suggest.

So whether or not Brigham Young instigated it, or whether or not Joseph Smith started it, doesn't matter to me. Nor do the reasons for the ban matter to me. What I do know is that the Lord upheld it. For whatever purpose, the Lord kept it firmly in place, until He lifted it in 1978. The prophet worked on this for years in scripture study and prayer. Years of pleading with the Lord, yet acceptance of His will and timing. If Spencer W. Kimball hadn't been the prophet then, then someone else would have acted in his place. I don't believe it was because of SWK that the ban was lifted. I think the Spirit was working through him as he struggled with the issue.

[Jeff K.]

And those are the facts, though some will try and make all kinds of hay out of it. Mostly for their own personal reasons and not the Lord's.

[Obiwan]

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.

One important thing you should cover is that the ban WAS NOT for "Blacks"..... It was specifically for those of AFRICAN DECENT.... Plenty of "blacks" WERE GIVEN THE PRIESTHOOD on this planet. Even some "whites" weren't given it or had it taken away because of direct African lineage..... That's the most important thing....

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.)

You are wrong.... Because there are plenty of doctrines and revelation believed and practiced by the Church in which no MODERN "scriptural" based revelation was not recieved. First the revelation was interpreted from existed scripture, and second, you've forgotten one important thing about Revelation in this Church. Revelation is recieved all the time, it's just not "cannonized" as to the operations and policy's of this Church. But it is recorded.... There are vaults of them.....

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.

You would be wrong of course..... The Priesthood of God is based in FREEDOM..... Until the African was truly free, it would be inappropriate and a desicration for the Priesthood and the Church to be defiled by the evils or racism and slavery. Tell me, do you recall WHEN blacks finally were really "free"??? About the same time the revelation to give the priesthood for ALL worthy males.... Time and place guy.....

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.

Yes, you're getting closer to the full truth.

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.

Everyone has had an personal opinion before..... That doesn't make "the Church".

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.

You really should start looking much deeper into issues before you Church judge the Church and it's leadership as you so often like to do....

But, you are correct in one sense..... The Church does live "in" the world, and as such must sometimes adapt accordingly, similar to the ban on Polygamy.... Man in or out of the Church simply wasn't fully ready yet to live it and understand it, thus God removed it.

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

So, Christ allowed a couple of Gentiles into the Church.... yet otherwise they were banned. Christ would only bring Jews into the Church. It took Peter recieving a revelation conveniently (sound familiar) AFTER Christ's death to eventually allow the Gospel to be preached to the Gentile.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think you're close, but no cigar as too often usual with you.... A lot more important things you need to emphasize to show that the Church WAS NOT actually "racist". But, am I too late, my ward had this lesson last Sunday? Fortunately I was there to make some of these things clear.... Would recommend you follow the manual as well, it makes some important facts and info also....

[mfbukowski]

I know I'm a little late to this party, but just received an invitation via email to join so here I am.

Hi Marvin!

Welcome to the board, glad to see you here. These questions come up on occasion, and I think it is great we can get the info from an expert in the field.

Again, welcome!