Lifting the Ban on Blacks

[mfbukowski]

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

That's Cecil Murray from First AME here in LA? Gotta be!

[Hamba Tuhan]

In light of a number of things which have been said already, I find this letter from the First Presidency (taken from Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church. Edited by Lester E. Bush, Jr., and Armand L. Mauss. Signature Books; Midvale, Utah: 1984. Link here.) interesting:

December 15, 1969

To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.

Dear Brethren:

In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.

First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by "wise men" whom God raised up for this "very purpose," and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended "for the rights and protection" of all mankind.

In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is "not right that any man should be in bondage one to another." These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church's deep and historic concern with man's free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.

It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.

However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.

This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to [p.223] join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.

A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, "The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God....

"Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man's mortal existence, extending back to man's pre-existent state."

President McKay has also said, "Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood."

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.

We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our [p.224] chosen form of religion just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of Constitutional right.

We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.

We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in His wisdom and in His tender mercy.

Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the out-reachings of our divine souls.

Faithfully your brethren,

The First Presidency

By Hugh B. Brown

N. Eldon Tanner

[paulpatter]

In light of a number of things which have been said already, I find this letter from the First Presidency (taken from Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church. Edited by Lester E. Bush, Jr., and Armand L. Mauss. Signature Books; Midvale, Utah: 1984. Link here.) interesting:

Apostle Hugh B. Brown wept when he signed the letter you post or one like it (two "PR" letters were released as I recall, as pressure mounted on the Church to lift the ban). Apostle Brown had hoped for a complete elimination of the ban. I believe (would have to research it) the account of his weeping is in his grandson's book, An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown.

[Lamanite]

the Lord upheld it....

This is a misstatement. He "stayed his hand" would be more appropriate. God did not condone this policy at any time. His silence is not an endorsement! It can rightfully be interpreted as a chastisement for unworthiness of the Saints.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[consiglieri]

It can rightfully be interpreted as a chastisement for unworthiness of the Saints.

Or possibly that no answer at all means "not yet."

Or possibily, given what I am reading in this thread, that the failure of the President to consolidate opinion among the apostles means "not yet."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Lamanite]

Or possibly that no answer at all means "not yet."

Or possibily, given what I am reading in this thread, that the failure of the President to consolidate opinion among the apostles means "not yet."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You are absolutely correct. "Not yet", means not yet. I and others attach opinion to the utterance.

What we know is that there is no known revelation instituting the ban; and that there was a revelation lifting the ban. Why's and reasons for both are matters of speculation.

That is why when I discuss this topic in Church it is centered on Prophets, revelation, and a true and living Church.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Jeff K.]

Or possibly that no answer at all means "not yet."

Or possibily, given what I am reading in this thread, that the failure of the President to consolidate opinion among the apostles means "not yet."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Amazing what you can learn when you actually read the Doctrine and Covenants isn't it?

[consiglieri]

The 1969 First Presidency letter quoted above contains this interesting paragraph:

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Does anybody know why this teaching would be attributed to Joseph Smith in the absence of supporting evidence?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

Now you might want to take the reasoning a bit further, if you dare "go there".

[consiglieri]

Now you might want to take the reasoning a bit further, if you dare "go there".

I am sure I have no idea what you are saying.

Care to elucidate?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[emeliza]

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.

Okay, this is my horrible memory working, but wasn't there some type of issue when the saints were starting to head west with a black man declaring himself a prophet and taking white wives including some women that left their husbands? I thought I read about that on the board and that this caused many issues as it was really 'bad' during that time period for interracial marriages, especially for women already married.

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

I have that one too and it is really good. I liked Blacks In the Scriptures better, but that is probably because Darius and Marvin are both awesome speakers.

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

Marvin? As in Marvin Perkins?

[paulpatter]

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.

We have more than theories. In Neither White nor Black, edited by Lester E. Bush and Armand L. Mauss (Signature Books, 1984), we read:

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, 16 January, 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 [emphasis added], and to bear witness 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.

"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 [emphasis added]. From the initial remark in 1849 throughout his presidency, every known discussion of this subject by Young. . .invoked the connection with Cain as the justification for denying the priesthood to blacks." Note that there is nothing in the Genesis account to indicate that the mark of the curse involved a dark skin. That was a 19th century myth.

[Jeff K.]

I am sure I have no idea what you are saying.

Care to elucidate?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

When is group think the decision of individuals and when is it the decision of the spirit within the group to check desire over revelation?

[cinepro]

Okay, this is my horrible memory working, but wasn't there some type of issue when the saints were starting to head west with a black man declaring himself a prophet and taking white wives including some women that left their husbands? I thought I read about that on the board and that this caused many issues as it was really 'bad' during that time period for interracial marriages, especially for women already married.

You're probably thinking of this guy:

Brigham Young's decision to deny blacks the priesthood was undoubtedly prompted by several factors. Among the most important may well have been the controversy generated in 1846-47 by the flamboyant activities of William McCary, a half-breed Indian-black man referred to variously as the "Indian," "Lamanite," or "Nigger Prophet."35 The descriptions of McCary are vague and often conflicting, making it difficult to determine his exact activities and relationship to the Latter-day Saint movement. McCary's origin and occupation are not known. The earliest known account, written in October 1846, claims that Apostle Orson Hyde while at a camp near Council Bluffs, Iowa, "baptised and ordained ... a Lamanite Prophet to use as a tool to destroy the churches he cannot rule."36

Elijah Abel and the Changing Status of Blacks Within Mormonism

The story continues at that link, summarizing thusly:

While the whirlwind generated by McCary's activities upset Brigham Young and other church leaders, the decision to deny blacks the priesthood was probably prompted as much, if not more, by the exposure of the Latter-day Saints to a large number of blacks

[Uncertain]

Hi All,

This topic was recently discussed in this thread:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/46161-has-or-did-the-restriction-on-blacks-holding-the-priesthood%E2%80%A6/page__st__300

In my opinion whether or not the priesthood ban on the basis of African lineage is man made is a settled question the ban was clearly man made.

Here is what I posted on the other thread.

I believe the evidence for the priesthood ban on the basis of African lineage being man made is very strong to the point of being overwhelming. Such concepts are greatly weakened if not falsified outright by population genetics. For example as you go back in time you reach a point where if someone has any living descendants they are the ancestors of everyone currently living. Estimates place this point within historical times i.e.(2,158 B.C. - 5,353 B.C.) ref( Rohde D, Olson S, Chang J (2004) Modeling the recent common ancestry of all living humans. Nature 431:562

[emeliza]

Yep, that is the guy I was thinking about. Here is the wikipedia about him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McCary

[Brenda]

What is the bottom-line purpose of this whole discussion?

Is it to determine if BY made a huge error, and the Lord did not intervene to fix that error for approx. 130 years?

If so, then we must question all of BY's statements?

Then we must question the Lord for penalizing an entire race during that time, due to one man's mistake?

Just trying to have clarity.

[sethpayne]

What is the bottom-line purpose of this whole discussion?

Is it to determine if BY made a huge error, and the Lord did not intervene to fix that error for approx. 130 years?

If so, then we must question all of BY's statements?

Then we must question the Lord for penalizing an entire race during that time, due to one man's mistake?

Just trying to have clarity.

I think you have pretty much summed it up.

[tsubotsubo]

What is the bottom-line purpose of this whole discussion?

Is it to determine if BY made a huge error, and the Lord did not intervene to fix that error for approx. 130 years?

If so, then we must question all of BY's statements?

Then we must question the Lord for penalizing an entire race during that time, due to one man's mistake?

Just trying to have clarity.

There've been much bigger mistakes in the world than Brigham Young's. That's if it was a mistake (I was saying it might be).

And, think about it. How long is 130 years?

And we already question quite a lot of Brigham Young's statements. He's said some quite dodgy things, as I'm sure we're all well aware.

Brigham Young (or any prophet) is not perfect. They aren't deities. We do no worship them. If we did believe our prophets were perfect, our religion would've been disproved dozens of times.

Personally, I think the priesthood ban was of God, but how can you be 100% sure?

[cinepro]

What is the bottom-line purpose of this whole discussion?

Is it to determine if BY made a huge error, and the Lord did not intervene to fix that error for approx. 130 years?

Some people seem to feel this is the case.

If so, then we must question all of BY's statements?

Only those he made "as a man". Obviously, if he was speaking "As a Prophet", it's a different matter.

Also, Wilford Woodruff's statement that the Lord wouldn't let the Prophet lead the Church astray wasn't made until 1890, so it's possible Brigham Young was operating without such a guarantee.

Then we must question the Lord for penalizing an entire race during that time, due to one man's mistake?

Well, to be fair, it was a lot of different men's mistakes.

Just trying to have clarity.

Clarity on this issue would be a good thing, I agree.

[Uncertain]

Hi Brenda,

Is it to determine if BY made a huge error, and the Lord did not intervene to fix that error for approx. 130 years?

If so, then we must question all of BY's statements?

Then we must question the Lord for penalizing an entire race during that time, due to one man's mistake?

Just trying to have clarity.

Personally I think this is an interesting means to get at how Prophetic fallibility is viewed by LDS members. I think most LDS members would readily admit Prophets are not perfect and they can make mistakes. But most would probably argue Prophetic mistakes are not "serious". That is a prophet may be wrong concerning a global flood but not wrong about the necessity of baptism or the divinity of Christ. In other words there are some mistakes that would just be to damaging such that God will not allow this to happen. With regards to the Priesthood ban some LDS seem to fall on the side of the ban being man made is just to serious of a mistake for God to allow to happen. While others are fine with this degree of Prophetic fallibility. It seems to me where to draw the line concerning how "serious" a mistake God will allow to happen is entirely subjective some will allow Prophets to make seemingly large mistakes i.e.(priesthood ban) while others just cannot believe God would allow Prophets to make such an error. Personally I don't believe the ban being man made necessarily invalidates LDS prophetic leadership. But I do understand nailing down exactly what degree of mistakes God will allow a prophet to make is fuzzy and not well defined and this line will be drawn at different points by different people.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Jeff K.]

I don't see the ban as a mistake, otherwise, when asked it would have been rectified.

It is something those attempting to paint a "nuanced" picture fail to take into account.

[emeliza]

Also, Wilford Woodruff's statement that the Lord wouldn't let the Prophet lead the Church astray wasn't made until 1890, so it's possible Brigham Young was operating without such a guarantee.

I always took this to mean that the Church wouldn't be lead to ruin or away from following the gospel of Christ by any prophet. I never took it to mean that the leaders of the Church wouldn't make mistakes and they wouldn't later have to be corrected.

I have said this before, but I always thought polygamy was sort of a mistake. However I don't think it was a mistake that lead the Church into ruin and I don't think it caused there to be any issue with the gospel. Therefore I don't think there was any reason for the Lord to correct it until it got to the point where it was going to stop the spread of the gospel (hence why it stopped when it stopped). Same goes for the priesthood ban. I think it was a man made mistake, but it didn't affect the reason for the Church. The mistake was allowed to continue until it reached a point where the mistake was going to severly hinder the future of the Church and the spreading of the gospel.

At the same time that I write this, I will be okay if I am wrong and neither were mistakes, but just things I don't 'get'. Most likely there will be much in the Church and gospel that I don't get and need to work out for myself. There also is the chance there will be other mistakes that just seem weird, but don't change what the vehicle by which the Church is for (spreading the gospel---with the authority, etc).

[paulpatter]

What is the bottom-line purpose of this whole discussion?

Is it to determine if BY made a huge error, and the Lord did not intervene to fix that error for approx. 130 years?

If so, then we must question all of BY's statements?

Then we must question the Lord for penalizing an entire race during that time, due to one man's mistake?

Just trying to have clarity.

One might also ask, "Why did the Lord wait circa 1,800 years before restoring the gospel?" Shouldn't we then, using your logic, "question the Lord for penalizing" millions of people during those centuries?

Yes, I know about 1) the necessity for the emergence of America as a land of religious freedom (but, of course, the Lord could have arranged for that at a much earlier date); and 2) temple work for the dead (but all those millions didn't have the temporal blessings available to those who lived post-1830, did they?).

[emeliza]

It seems to me where to draw the line concerning how "serious" a mistake God will allow to happen is entirely subjective some will allow Prophets to make seemingly large mistakes i.e.(priesthood ban) while others just cannot believe God would allow Prophets to make such an error. Personally I don't believe the ban being man made necessarily invalidates LDS prophetic leadership. But I do understand nailing down exactly what degree of mistakes God will allow a prophet to make is fuzzy and not well defined and this line will be drawn at different points by different people.

Ahh..this describes what I was saying in a nutshell. I think that so long as the Church is seriously teaching the gospel of Christ, His love and priesthood and authority and everything that is entailed in it, there can be lots of mistakes in policy/practice, so long as those policy/practices aren't physically hurting someone. I can't say too much for emotional hurts as that is too slippery. People get emotionally hurt by mean different things that don't affect the next person at all. So if the Church started talking about how we need to beat our kids into submission...in a loving way, that would be a 'serious mistake'. But if the Church said we need to all wear green on Tuesdays....in a loving way, that would be a weird mistake.