Priesthood Ban - Evidence For When It Began?

[baddonkey]

I have seen evidence that the so called priesthood ban began in the mid to late 1840's, with declarations made by Brigham Young, and I am wondering if there is any good evidence, first hand accounts, of Joseph Smith having stated that black people were children of Cain or of Ham or that that particular lineage was not to be given the priesthood. I do not want to discuss whether the ban was of God or whether it was doctrine or policy, only if there is evidence that it originated with Joseph Smith rather than Brigham Young. Please avoid expressing unsubstantiated opinions and provide references if you can. A friend of mine who is a lady of Carribean African ancestry is asking about it and I was wondering if there is anything out there that I am not aware of because she was given a tract about it by one of her coworkers who is an Evangelical Christian and I want to make sure I have my facts straight when I try to explain it when we meet tomorrow for lunch.

[KevinG]

Driveby post... http://www.blacklds.org/priesthood

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Another drive-by post: "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood", by his son Edward L. Kimball for BYU Studies, is a fantastic history of the entire saga. See also the BYU studies review of two important books dealing with the cultural expectations and (incorrect) Biblical rationalizations of unequal treatment that the early Saints had to deal with: "Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of Slavery."

[sethpayne]

1852 - Brigham Young speech to the Utah Legislature

[ERMD]

Another drive-by post: "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood", by his son Edward L. Kimball for BYU Studies,

One of my favorites.

[David T]

One of my favorites.

Agreed. The definitive work on the subject. Anyone who proceeds without reading that paper isn't really interested in answers.

[Freedom]

Another drive-by post: "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood", by his son Edward L. Kimball for BYU Studies, is a fantastic history of the entire saga. See also the BYU studies review of two important books dealing with the cultural expectations and (incorrect) Biblical rationalizations of unequal treatment that the early Saints had to deal with: "Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of Slavery."

I had never seen this paper by E Kimball before, thanks for sharing it.

[Emerson]

Here are the four pertinent debates for the discussion:

Brigham Young, in early 1847, noting that there was no priesthood ban in existence: "[the priesthood has] nothing to do with the blood for of one blood has God made all flesh, we have to repent (and) regain what we av [sic] lost–we av [sic] one of the best Elders an African in Lowell [i.e., Walker Lewis.].” (Brigham Young Papers, March 26, 1847, LDS Church History Library)

Very shortly after that, the Church leaders encountered two issues: first, half-African American convert William McCary, who had been ordained to the priesthood and was living with the Church in Winter Quarters, was excommunicated and began to fight for his own converts. Parley Pratt, in an attempt to undercut McCary's authority, said that was a black man with the blood of Ham in him which lineage was cursed as regards the priesthood." (General Church Minutes, April 25, 1847, LDS Church History Library)

The second major problem that arose was the issue of interracial marriage, which many see as the impetus behind the ban. Finding out that some black elders had married white women, Young declared that “The curse remained upon them because Cain cut off the lives of Abel. . . . The Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood.” (Journal History of the Church, February 13, 1849.) Young made interracial marriage a crime in Deseret Territory.

And finally, the first public declaration of the policy came in 1852, when Young declared the following to the territory legislature: –“Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane [sic] in him Cannot hold the priesthood & if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it.” (Wilford Woodruff Diary, January 4, 1852.) I think it is important to note that Young acknowledge that this might have been spoken by "no other Prophet...Before."

Hope this helps.

[why me]

http://mormonstories.org/?p=83

The podlink gives a pretty good understanding of blacks and the priesthood by two active members. I hope that everyone will listen to it.

[cinepro]

I have seen evidence that the so called priesthood ban began in the mid to late 1840's,

Wait a sec. What's wrong with the term "priesthood ban"? Isn't that what it was? What would you call it?

Edited December 18, 2011 by cinepro

[baddonkey]

It seems to me that Joseph Smith believed blacks to be of Cain and Ham, but never officially announced it as a policy, and that when he told missionaries to the south not to baptize them without consent of their masters and not ordain them it is not completely clear whether he was talking only about slaves or about all blacks.

It turned out that my friend was concerned about a Joseph Smith Quote in the tract that said that he would "confine them by strict law to their own species" and she thought it might mean that he thought they were of a different biological species, but I told her I thought he used the word species in a general sense, meaning "kind".

She was also disturbed by a quote from John Taylor about the seed of Ham being preserved from the flood so that the Devil would be represented here. I told her I had no idea why he would say that but that I can assure her 100% that Latter-day Saints DO NOT believe that Africans represent the Devil. I hope I did okay. I think she was mostly satisfied with my answers. Do you think I answered her questions alright?

@ Cinepro, I just said "so called" because I haven't seen it referred to as a "ban", which sounds negative to me, in any Church souces, but rather as a restriction or witholding or something like that.

[why me]

It seems to me that Joseph Smith believed blacks to be of Cain and Ham, but never officially announced it as a policy, and that when he told missionaries to the south not to baptize them without consent of their masters and not ordain them it is not completely clear whether he was talking only about slaves or about all blacks.

It turned out that my friend was concerned about a Joseph Smith Quote in the tract that said that he would "confine them by strict law to their own species" and she thought it might mean that he thought they were of a different biological species, but I told her I thought he used the word species in a general sense, meaning "kind".

She was also disturbed by a quote from John Taylor about the seed of Ham being preserved from the flood so that the Devil would be represented here. I told her I had no idea why he would say that but that I can assure her 100% that Latter-day Saints DO NOT believe that Africans represent the Devil. I hope I did okay. I think she was mostly satisfied with my answers. Do you think I answered her questions alright?

@ Cinepro, I just said "so called" because I haven't seen it referred to as a "ban", which sounds negative to me, in any Church souces, but rather as a restriction or witholding or something like that.

Did you listen to the podcast I linked to in a former post of mine? This will clarify much of your concerns.

http://mormonstories.org/?p=83

[orion88]

I have seen evidence that the so called priesthood ban began in the mid to late 1840's, with declarations made by Brigham Young, and I am wondering if there is any good evidence, first hand accounts, of Joseph Smith having stated that black people were children of Cain or of Ham or that that particular lineage was not to be given the priesthood.

Get the book called "The Way to Perfection," written by Joseph Fielding Smith. It

will explain this gospel principle more clearly and how it shaped the minds of the

Latter-day Saints of that era.

[Pahoran]

Get the book called "The Way to Perfection," written by Joseph Fielding Smith. It will explain this gospel principle more clearly and how it shaped the minds of the Latter-day Saints of that era.

What "gospel principle" is that?

I am aware that bits of The Way to Perfection, along with bits of Journal of Discourses and The Seer, are popular anti-Mormon talking points. Those who legitimately seek to learn and understand LDS doctrine will always balance these with other sources -- if, indeed, they use them at all.

The former Priesthood ban is not, and never was, a "gospel principle" in any sense. It is a historical footnote that is 33 years in the past, and continuing to recede, year by year. It has absolutely no relevance to the life of any current or future Latter-day Saint.

The refusal of anti-Mormons to let it go, and the determination they show to try to label it as some kind of core piece of LDS doctrine, demonstrates how desperate they are to find some cause to accuse the Church of something.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited December 21, 2011 by Pahoran

[why me]

.

The refusal of anti-Mormons to let it go, and the determination they show to try to label it as some kind of core piece of LDS doctrine, demonstrates how desperate they are to find some cause to accuse the Church of something.

Regards,

Pahoran

This is true. The critics have made so much hay from this ban that the barn is overflowing. What is often overlooked is that they were not refused membership in the lds church. Nor was their any signs of segregation.

[LeSellers]

What is often overlooked is that they were not refused membership in the lds church. Nor was their any signs of segregation.

There was no eternal effect, either.

Black Saints were still Saints. They could not hold the Priesthood, nor attend the Temple and receive its blessings in life, but they were not refused those blessings when it really counts: in the resurrection.

In fact, another piece that is often ignored is that for work for the dead, there was no hindrance for anyone. The forms onto which data were transcribed had no field for race. So prior to 1978, it was just as likely that a person for whom I received the Endowment 9or any other ordinance) was black as the proportion of Blacks in the population the original records contained.

I haven't looked and am unable to do so now, but I wonder when the Black Saints of fame had their work done in relation to their deaths. I'd guess it was not long.

Lehi

[cinepro]

The former Priesthood ban is not, and never was, a "gospel principle" in any sense. It is a historical footnote that is 33 years in the past, and continuing to recede, year by year. It has absolutely no relevance to the life of any current or future Latter-day Saint.

From "doctrine" to "policy" to "tradition" to "historical footnote". I can only wonder what comes after "historical footnote". ..

Edited December 22, 2011 by cinepro

[sethpayne]

The former Priesthood ban is not, and never was, a "gospel principle" in any sense. It is a historical footnote that is 33 years in the past, and continuing to recede, year by year. It has absolutely no relevance to the life of any current or future Latter-day Saint.

Hi Pahoran,

I completely agree. The restriction of men of black African heritage holding the priesthood and being given the blessings of the initiator, endowment, and sealing has never been a gospel principle. Of course, by saying this I mean to illustrate that members and leaders of the Church often proclaim and believe things that simply aren't true and try to pawn them off as gospel principles. The priesthood restriction has always been wrong.

However, I disagree with you that no current or future Saint is not impacted by the restriction that spanned from 1852 - 1979. I've had the opportunity to be in Wards here in the Northeast US which are in urban locations, urban buildings and, in the colloquial sense, urban neighborhoods. Some members of African descent are still upset/hurt/angry that the Church has not officially denounced the false teachings of previous Church leaders. When I went on splits with missionaries I would say 50% of the first couple of visits with new contacts from urban neighborhoods always involved a discussion about how the Church isn't racist. The fact is of course, that the Church is not racist. Mauss demonstrates this fact well. The problem is that the Church is perceived as racist within certain communities. I would say that perception has a HUGE impact on future members of the Church; especially in determining who is likely, and unlikely to become a member. More than one convert from urban neighborhoods told me that they were shunned by their community for joining a racist organization. Uncle Tom and all that.

My $.02 (and that's about what it's worth).

Seth

[Bernard Gui]

The restriction of men of black African heritage holding the priesthood and being given the blessings of the initiator, endowment, and sealing has never been a gospel principle. Of course, by saying this I mean to illustrate that members and leaders of the Church often proclaim and believe things that simply aren't true and try to pawn them off as gospel principles. The priesthood restriction has always been wrong.

There are several principals involved.

1. There is no right to hold the priesthood.

2. God may withhold the priesthood from an

individual or a group as He pleases.

3. The President of the Church holds the keys

of the Priesthood as God's only approved agent on earth.

4. The higher Priesthood of the temple is patriarchal.

5. The temporary exclusion is explained in the Book of Abraham which is part of our canon.

The exclusion had its purpose, and it has now been rescinded. It was ended when the world and the Church were ready. The above principals remain unchanged.

Bernard

Edited December 22, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Pahoran]

Hi Pahoran,

I completely agree. The restriction of men of black African heritage holding the priesthood and being given the blessings of the initiator, endowment, and sealing has never been a gospel principle. Of course, by saying this I mean to illustrate that members and leaders of the Church often proclaim and believe things that simply aren't true and try to pawn them off as gospel principles. The priesthood restriction has always been wrong.

Y'know Seth, I have far more patience than some people like to imagine with people expressing opinions that differ from mine. But I'd really rather you did not express an opinion that is not mine and claim that in so doing you are agreeing with me.

When you assert (not "illustrate") that "members and leaders of the Church often proclaim and believe things that simply aren't true and try to pawn them off as gospel principles," you are making a statement that, if it is true in any sense, is not now and never was true of the historical Priesthood ban.

It was never a "gospel principle," nor was it ever put forward as such. It was always expected to come to an end at some time in the future; even Brigham, the alleged uber-racist, said so. There is no "sunset clause" on any gospel principle that I know of, but the Priesthood ban always had one.

However, I disagree with you that no current or future Saint is not impacted by the restriction that spanned from 1852 - 1979.

1978. June, to be exact.

I've had the opportunity to be in Wards here in the Northeast US which are in urban locations, urban buildings and, in the colloquial sense, urban neighborhoods. Some members of African descent are still upset/hurt/angry that the Church has not officially denounced the false teachings of previous Church leaders.

Then permit me to rephrase: there is absolutely no rational reason why the ban should have any relevance to the life of any current or future Latter-day Saint.

I can't help the fact that there are some people who obsess about historical grievances. Those who still won't talk to their great-aunt Ermengarde because she gave them that ugly purple vase for Christmas twenty years ago really need to get over it.

When I went on splits with missionaries I would say 50% of the first couple of visits with new contacts from urban neighborhoods always involved a discussion about how the Church isn't racist. The fact is of course, that the Church is not racist. Mauss demonstrates this fact well. The problem is that the Church is perceived as racist within certain communities. I would say that perception has a HUGE impact on future members of the Church; especially in determining who is likely, and unlikely to become a member. More than one convert from urban neighborhoods told me that they were shunned by their community for joining a racist organization. Uncle Tom and all that.

Ah. A racial slur.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cinepro]

5. The temporary exclusion is explained in the Book of Abraham which is part of our canon.

CFR on #5

[Rivers]

The doctrine that blacks are descendents of Cain is still very much alive in the church today. Even though blacks can have all the blessings of the gospel, the idea that they are black because they are the descendents of the first murderer is a very hurtful teaching. The church has not renounced it unless you interpret Elder McConkie's famous statement as a renouncement of this teaching.

As far as I'm aware the priesthood ban/restriction began with Brigham Young, but the books of Moses and Abraham provide a scriptural basis.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Rivers

[Bernard Gui]

CFR:

Chapter 1.

Bernard

Edited December 22, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

The doctrine that blacks are descendents of Cain is still very much alive in the church today. Even though blacks can have all the blessings of the gospel, the idea that they are black because they are the descendents of the first murderer is a very hurtful teaching. The church has not renounced it unless you interpret Elder McConkie's famous statement as a renouncement of this teaching.

Everyone descends from someone. I even have Democrats in my family tree. The facts is, all men may now receive the Priesthood and the temple endowment. For all the world's history until 1978, this was not the case. Come, let us rejoice!

Edited December 22, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[sethpayne]

When you assert (not "illustrate") that "members and leaders of the Church often proclaim and believe things that simply aren't true and try to pawn them off as gospel principles," you are making a statement that, if it is true in any sense, is not now and never was true of the historical Priesthood ban.

Pahoran, I haven't illustrated anything. Lester Bush and Armand Mauss did that a long time ago.

It was never a "gospel principle," nor was it ever put forward as such. It was always expected to come to an end at some time in the future; even Brigham, the alleged uber-racist, said so. There is no "sunset clause" on any gospel principle that I know of, but the Priesthood ban always had one.

Hmm..... a "sunset clause?" Someone forgot to tell Joseph Smith about the restriction when he ordained Elijah Abel to the MP.

I don't think BY was an uber-racist. He was a product of his time and culture. Presentism is a terrible thing and BY should not be judged by 2011 cultural norms. He should be understood by 19th century cultural norms and, given his time and place, we should recognize that BY was very much like many of his peers. Given the controversy regarding slavery at that time (1852) It is no surprise that the issue of descent would be discussed.

1978. June, to be exact.

Typo on my part. Please forgive me, Pahoran. Ask my wife, I'm terribly broken up about it and I'm so ashamed you had to correct it. I am so sorry I wasted your time. I hope you can, in time, just "get over it."

Then permit me to rephrase: there is absolutely no rational reason why the ban should have any relevance to the life of any current or future Latter-day Saint.

Oh you can't change what you said after the fact, Pahoran and say you are rephrasing. You said that the restriction had NO impact on any current or future Saints. What you said is patently false. You are simply bringing up rationality now to try and recover from an unsupported claim which I imagine you *wish* were true. Well, Pahoran, I wish it were true as well. Unfortunately, it isn't.

I can't help the fact that there are some people who obsess about historical grievances. Those who still won't talk to their great-aunt Ermengarde because she gave them that ugly purple vase for Christmas twenty years ago really need to get over it.

Yeah! Just like we should just "get over" Haun's Mill, being driven from Missouri, the murder of Joseph Smith, and the seizure of Church property by the US government. The fact is, our history is part of our culture. You can't "get over" history but you can learn lessons from history. (I'm certainly not equating the persecution/murder of the Saints with the restriction. I'm using hyperbole intentionally and need to make that explicitly clear before you employ your very impressive rhetorical skills to avoid/miss the point entirely.)

Ah. A racial slur.

It is terrible, isn't it? Unfortunately it happens. Truth be told, US Mormons are actually statistically less racist than other Christian peers according to Mauss' study of the issue.

The fact remains that certain communities within the US perceive the Church as racist. And I can't believe I finally get to use one of your favorite phrases to dismiss what you consider to be a silly assertion:

"But, of course, you already knew that, Pahoran."

As a side note, I continue to be amazed at your rhetorical skills, Pahoran, and I'm being completely sincere. You are a master of using words to make it look like your position is the correct one -- even after it has become clear your position is patently false both here and in the essays/articles you have had published. I certainly don't have those skills and when it becomes clear that my position is incorrect I'm often forced to admit that I was wrong. It's truly horrifying.

Edited December 22, 2011 by sethpayne