Priesthood Ban - Evidence For When It Began?

[thesometimesaint]

sethpayne:

I joined the Church in 1971. Seven years before OD2. I've heard just about every rumor concerning blacks and the Priesthood there was. Never believed any of them. To me it is just one big "I DON'T KNOW". Hopefully one day we'll all find out.

How does the Church apologize for something it never taught? I believe BRM statements on receipt of OD2 comes about as close to an "apology" as possible. 33 years is a long time to hold a grudge.

[Bernard Gui]

But it's entirely improper to make a claim that the scriptures "say something" possibly debatable and even inflammatory and then just cite an entire book ("The D&C says there will be progression between the kingdoms"), and narrowing it down to a chapter is only slightly less unhelpful.

The citation was Abraham 1, not the Book of Abraham. The verses, 21-27. I am not interested in debating them for reasons that I will explain, but mainly because it has been done to death, and still no one knows for sure.

If you are claiming that the Book of Abraham actually provides scriptural support for the priesthood ban of the 19th and 20th centuries, do us all the favor of actually cutting and pasting the verses that support that claim. There may be those on this forum who know which verses you are referring to, but there may be newer participants that don't, and it would be a tragedy for someone to think that "the Book of Abraham provides scriptural support for the latter day priesthood ban" if, in fact, it didn't.

It might do such readers a lot of good to read it for themselves and come to their own conclusions. I am well aware of the controversy and the "scholarship" surrounding Abraham 1. It's been argued to death, so I don't care to embark on another futile search for the smoking gun of Joseph's or Brigham's racism and the real reason for the ban. IMO, it did come from

God through a prophet, and it was done for reasons known to God and planned by Him as a significant part of the

Restoration.

Since Brother Brigham is not here to defend himself, nor is Brother Joseph around to clear things

up and put Brigham in his place, if that is needed, I choose to err on the side of the Prophets, rather on the side of the scholars, regardless of their acumen and erudition. I have followed the arguments since this first became an issue in my life in 1961 when I encountered my first black student in high school. It wasn't a shock, by the way. He was our school's student council president. The next year, my friend Joseph Trujillo was president.

On one side of our family, membership goes back to the handcart days. On the other side, membership only goes back to Father Gui. In both groups, there was a pronounced racial arrogance (I hesitate to call it bigotry out of respect). They, and, I suspect most Americans that came before them, held similar feelings, not only toward Blacks, but also Native Americans, Latinos, Asians or whatever minority they didn't happen to belong to.

Shoot, mobs burned down Great Grampa Efrustafio's home in Tennessee in the late 1800's because he was a Mormon. This arrogance did not transfer to my generation of the family. Of course, I'm citing anecdotal evidence, but I suspect many my age saw the problem, saw the issues, saw the injustice, and didn't care to perpetuate it. We were being prepared.

As a missionary I had to explain the ban to men who had Black African ancestry when they joined the Church and learned about the priesthood. It was very uncomfortable, but I knew at the time (1966) that a change was coming. I was being prepared.

I have close personal black friends who joined the Church before the ban. One sister discovered her grandfather was black, so her sons could not hold the priesthood. It was not easy for her or her husband. They did not bolt the church, but chose to have faith and trust that God would see it through. I rejoiced with them when the ban was lifted. I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when Mrs. Gui and I heard the news on the radio, and I remember exactly our words to each other and the tears of joy that we shed together.

We had been prepared for this event, as had much of our generation. We were ready for it, anticipated it, hoped for it, and prayed for it. As things turned out, it was the right time for the change to be made. IMHO, this issue would have fractured the Church from the days of Joseph Smith. Perhaps in God's planning of the Restoration, this was a necessary thing to happen while the infant Church grew in strength. I often wonder what the reaction of white European and American converts (the early foundation of the Church) would have been if they were being taught by former African slaves, had the ban not been in place. I don't know, but it is interesting to contemplate.

This is my personal view of the issue. I don't expect anyone to agree, but I have come to terms with it on my own, and I'm satisfied. The current crop of Guis, as far as I know, has moved on beyond Mrs. Gui and me, to greater pastures of inclusion and harmony. I personally do not recall anyone I know getting bent out of shape over the revelation, but perhaps there were some. For me, that's what it was all about. It is high time to put it to bed and say good night.

By the way, do you know of any evidence that the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthoods were given to anyone other than descendants of Abraham between his time and 1978 (the anomalies of the Joseph Smith era not included)?

Bernard

Edited December 22, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[sjdawg]

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."

That article says as much to me about "evolving" and "changing" doctrine in general as it does about blacks and the priesthood. I found it very interesting. Thanks

[sethpayne]

sethpayne:

I joined the Church in 1971. Seven years before OD2. I've heard just about every rumor concerning blacks and the Priesthood there was. Never believed any of them. To me it is just one big "I DON'T KNOW". Hopefully one day we'll all find out.

How does the Church apologize for something it never taught? I believe BRM statements on receipt of OD2 comes about as close to an "apology" as possible. 33 years is a long time to hold a grudge.

From what I understand by 1971 the Church had moved far away from the curse of cain or "fence-sitter" ideas and moved to "We don't know."

I do not recall of Mark E. Peterson or BRM ever expressed their views in conference or any "official" venue but these high-ranking Church officials did teach these awful ideas before 1971 and probably before 1963. I think Mauss' "The Fading of Pharoah's curse" article in Dialogue explores this very question in depth.

Also, I don't think it is a "grudge." It goes deeper than that if you *perceive* that your Church leaders once taught you were a fence-sitter or cursed. I can't speak from my own experience. I'm only relaying what members of my ward who have been impacted by these teachings have told me. So ... for what it's worth....

Probably about $.02

[Pahoran]

Yes. As I recall it was supposed to end some time during or after the millenium according to BY. I could be misremembering. I wasn't terribly clear. The entire notion of a "sunset clause" is completely bogus. Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abel -- and perhaps others. I'll take Joseph Smith's words/actions over Brigham Young's any day of the week.

I cannot see why you keep conflating two unrelated things. Do you know what a "sunset clause" is? The ordination of Elijah Abel, Walker Lewis and anyone else has nothing to do with the fact that the subsequent Priesthood ban was always expected to have a limited shelf life.

Its a miracle. On this we almost completely agree. In many ways BY was unlike his peers and in other ways he was similar. On race, BY=peers. On colonizing the American west, BY far surpasses his peers.

As I pointed out in connection with Utah's slavery laws, on race BY != his peers.

I admire your rhetoric. You can say one thing and then "clarify" by saying the exact opposite once your position is show to be false. I can't pull that off and your ability to do so is impressive.

I regret that I am unable to grasp how you can profess to hold a good faith belief that "practical impact" is "the exact opposite" of "impact."

Take comfort in the knowledge that it will cost you nothing at all to allow me the right to own my own position. I always did own it, and you will notice that I do not dispute that you own yours. All I ask is that you have the courtesy to acknowledge this rather uncontroversial fact.

What you said is absolutely false. Sorry.

So you've now resorted to the "is not" argument. What a brilliant retort; I wonder how you manage to come up with them.

No can do, Pahoran. Just like you, I call em' like I see em'!

Then maybe you might want to consult a competent ophthalmologist.

Do you know how much I wish you had been around to speak with Issac Haight and John D. Lee about Missouri? Seriously, so much trouble could have been avoided if only your wisdom was available to these men in 1857.

Sigh. Got anything relevant to say?

Again, forgive my lack of precision. *Some* within certain communities in the US view the Church as racist, unfortunately. The Pew research center has some data on this I think -- but I could be wrong.

Of course I forgive your lack of precision; as I said, that's what human language is like. Indeed, I think I can safely promise not to start accusing you of saying "the exact opposite" of what you said before simply because you've clarified your intent, something you have a perfect right to do without anyone spitefully manufacturing false accusations about it.

Absolutely false. I know at least 4 who have been impacted.

"Impacted" in the real sense, meaning they were subject to the ban, or "impacted" in the diluted, derivative sense that they voluntarily chose to become vicariously indignant about the fact that it had once impacted others?

How about hurt feelings because your sunday school teacher tells you that you were a fence-sitter in the pre-existence or that you carry the curse of cain? Not meaningful. Not meaningful at all.

You're right; "hurt feelings" about ideas that never actually impacted you are not in any way meaningful.

Incidentally: every prophet from Brigham Young down who ever mentioned the "fence-sitter" notion rather expressly repudiated it. Just so you know. The Church never had to "move away" from it, because the Church never actually held to it.

BTW -- happy Holidays to you and yours.

And to you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[sethpayne]

Incidentally: every prophet from Brigham Young down who ever mentioned the "fence-sitter" notion rather expressly repudiated it. Just so you know. The Church never had to "move away" from it, because the Church never actually held to it.

Sincere CFR. I know about BRM's repudiation but am unaware of others. If you could point me to them I would greatly appreciate it.

Pahoran -- overall, probably another situation where we will have to agree to disagree. But, as always, the dialogue with you has been enjoyable.

[juliann]

Looks like a white guy with black hair to me but the photo is kind of grainy. More importantly, Lund and other church leaders from Abel's day up until 1978 maintained that "...the Priesthood has been mistakenly given to some Negroes who are light of color." (The Church and the Negro p. 78)

Your picture is of questionable authenticity. So is using Lund as equivalent to church leaders. He was a seminary/institute teacher at the time according to his dust jacket bio.

BTW, I secured a copy of one of his books on this topic. It is an awful collection of every piece of folklore imaginable enhanced with plentiful wild speculation and was on the extreme side even in its day. I would put this in the same class as Glenn Beck's use of Mormon theology to support his own views. It is not done hand in hand with the church.

Edited December 22, 2011 by juliann

[juliann]

Also, I don't think it is a "grudge." It goes deeper than that if you *perceive* that your Church leaders once taught you were a fence-sitter or cursed. I can't speak from my own experience. I'm only relaying what members of my ward who have been impacted by these teachings have told me. So ... for what it's worth....

Probably about $.02

Have they seen Darius' Nobody Knows? Rev. Chip Murray of the First AME speaks of a private apology from Pres. Hinckley. I wish that was better circulated, it needs to be heard.

[juliann]

I do not recall of Mark E. Peterson or BRM ever expressed their views in conference or any "official" venue but these high-ranking Church officials did teach these awful ideas before 1971 and probably before 1963. I think Mauss' "The Fading of Pharoah's curse" article in Dialogue explores this very question in depth.

I don't recall official teachings so much as the "common knowledge" factor...the types of things we hear in Gospel Doctrine stated as fact. I'm sure there were things said from leaders, but it wasn't something that needed to be openly taught since there were so few blacks in the church at the time. My sole contact was one student who attended for a semester at my SLC high school. He was seen as an exotic oddity and he was whispered about but not mistreated. It was so uncommon in our white lives that I was able to ask Darius Gray about him a few years ago and he knew who he was. (He became a doctor) I remember the discomfort with this unfortunate policy growing as the horrors of the Civil Rights movement were televised.

[Calm]

"Impacted" in the real sense, meaning they were subject to the ban, or "impacted" in the diluted, derivative sense that they voluntarily chose to become vicariously indignant about the fact that it had once impacted others?

You're right; "hurt feelings" about ideas that never actually impacted you are not in any way meaningful.

I would agree that if an adult heard this taught she should be able to dismiss it as a misinformed or even bigoted remark just as she would dismiss a remark equating her ethnicity with her intelligence or ability. However, if a teenager were taught this by an adult teacher as fact, even if he was aware it was folk doctrine, I think it could be a significant blow. There are plenty of studies out there demonstrating the impact of a teacher's attitude on a child's performance, how it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, may result in lower self esteem, etc.

The ban itself may not have a direct impact on anyone these days since no one is being refused the Priesthood or any blessings based on that criteria (though even there I might debate you on those who formed their opinions prior to the ban's removal and whose current behaviour is based on such attitudes....though I suppose you could say since it is attitudes created by the ban and not the ban itself that there is no direct impact) but if there are individuals out there still attempting to justify the ban by pointing to folklore as doctrine which denigrates others and youth are being exposed to these ideas, then the context surrounding the ban at least is still having an impact on others, especially if there is not an immediate correction of the false teaching, giving it time to burrow into a child's or even adult's self image.

Normal, healthy human beings care about what others think of them, such health requires a balance between self confidence and caring about one's reputation. To believe that one has been labeled as a spiritual failure or less worthy would be a difficult self concept to balance, especially since the label of "not good" is attached to one's spirit.

[juliann]

The citation was Abraham 1, not the Book of Abraham. The verses, 21-27. I am not interested in debating them for reasons that I will explain, but mainly because it has been done to death, and still no one knows for sure.

It might do such readers a lot of good to read it for themselves and come to their own conclusions. I am well aware of the controversy and the "scholarship" surrounding Abraham 1. It's been argued to death, so I don't care to embark on another futile search for the smoking gun of Joseph's or Brigham's racism and the real reason for the ban. IMO, it did come from

God through a prophet, and it was done for reasons known to God and planned by Him as a significant part of the

Restoration.

-snip-

By the way, do you know of any evidence that the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthoods were given to anyone other than descendants of Abraham between his time and 1978 (the anomalies of the Joseph Smith era not included)?

Bernard

Not sure what you mean by descendants of Abraham, which would include all races. But if you mean blacks....

http://www.blacklds.org/history

On November 27, 1900, Enoch Abel, son of Elijah Abel, is ordained an Elder. (Also see the references to baptisms in the Phillipines.)

I also have to take strong exception to any scripture being used to validate exclusion by "race" (a questionable concept anyway). Certainly, scriptures were conveniently interpreted at times that but that says little about the scriptures themselves. The Bible was used to promote slavery but I don't think anyone today would argue that it actually does.

[sethpayne]

Have they seen Darius' Nobody Knows? Rev. Chip Murray of the First AME speaks of a private apology from Pres. Hinckley. I wish that was better circulated, it needs to be heard.

I saw an early screening at Sunstone on the Claremont campus. You were there as I recall. That was the Sunstone where I first presented my study on ex-Mormon narratives.

Great film. I haven't seen the final cut but your comment has inspired me to go pick it up on DVD.

Seth

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

I was 20 when I joined. So I was exactly a teenager, but still was a young adult. I believe it is up to parents to help a secure sense of self in the children. Parents of course can't do it all but they do provide the foundations.

[Calm]

I agree, but I think if Primary and SS teachers are damaging children's self esteem, they are in the wrong calling.

Church, like home, should be a place of safety and support where the child and youth feel like they belong.

Edited December 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[zeez]

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.

I'm curious if you feel Joseph Smith Jr. was closer to God than Brigham Young. Personally, I feel that must be the case. Why else would Brigham Young say such crazy stuff all the time?

[juliann]

I'm curious if you feel Joseph Smith Jr. was closer to God than Brigham Young. Personally, I feel that must be the case. Why else would Brigham Young say such crazy stuff all the time?

What he was saying wasn't crazy at all for the times. That is very easy to see in contemporaneous literature. The only reason he isn't given a pass along with the even worse behavior in other religions is because he was....a Mormon. In some ways he showed some enlightenment, such as the laws he put in place for the treatment of slaves. The expectation that men of God cannot be a part of their culture and environment seems as unreasonable as demanding that they prove they are prophets by giving us the cure for cancer.

One of the most eye rolling things I have seen is the 60s article (LOOK ? LIFE? magazine) with the JFS interview where he refers to blacks as "darkies". It was pointed out with such glee by critics that I bought a copy online. The magazine was having a grand time tongue clucking at those unenlightened Mormons. Meanwhile, there was not a black to be seen in that magazine anywhere....except a group picture of charity recipients meant to showcase the wonderfulness of the white donors. This was actually far more damaging racism than anything a small church could accomplish. So there was indeed a lesson in that magazine but not the one intended. Those who look for scapegoats are blitheringly unaware of their own racism.

[zeez]

You have a point, Juliann. My fav contribution of Brigham is the wide road design in SLC. Maybe God intended the roads to accommodate bicycles? Personally, I believe the Bike is more divine than the Car.

[frankenstein]

What he was saying wasn't crazy at all for the times. That is very easy to see in contemporaneous literature. The only reason he isn't given a pass along with the even worse behavior in other religions is because he was....a Mormon. In some ways he showed some enlightenment, such as the laws he put in place for the treatment of slaves. The expectation that men of God cannot be a part of their culture and environment seems as unreasonable as demanding that they prove they are prophets by giving us the cure for cancer.

So the mouth piece of God is making the same comments as those whose hearts were far from God who also were persons that Joseph was told not to join. Your sure do not leave room that the LDS church is the one true church headed by God. It's just one more religious institution driven by the wind of popular culture

And as for being part of ones culture, in the world but not of the world comes to mind. And iirc elder Grow spoke in conference and said that if your culture conflicts with the church your drop your culture. By your reasoning the Church is nor its leaders are "ensigns" for anything, because we should just let popular culture dictate what the LDS do or not do. So much for all the talk of staying away from pornography and the like as our culture would say in moderation it is good for us.

One of the most eye rolling things I have seen is the 60s article (LOOK ? LIFE? magazine) with the JFS interview where he refers to blacks as "darkies". It was pointed out with such glee by critics that I bought a copy online. The magazine was having a grand time tongue clucking at those unenlightened Mormons. Meanwhile, there was not a black to be seen in that magazine anywhere....except a group picture of charity recipients meant to showcase the wonderfulness of the white donors. This was actually far more damaging racism than anything a small church could accomplish. So there was indeed a lesson in that magazine but not the one intended. Those who look for scapegoats are blitheringly unaware of their own racism.

So rather than address the comment let's just distract attention by calling someone else racist? Not a quality approach for FAIR to take, but so long as it distracts the attention of another and that person forgets their original question then all is well I assume, this too is a poor approach for FAIR/Blacklds to take; not faith promoting in the least.

That a lds leader used the term darkies after using the term Negro several times is unfortunate, saying "who cares those people.over their are more racist" is even more unfortunate and does to address any concern a person legitimately has with the use of the term earliest. Though this approach is not surprising, often people will divert attention rather than address a persons concern.

Edited December 23, 2011 by frankenstein

[KevinG]

I'm curious if you feel Joseph Smith Jr. was closer to God than Brigham Young. Personally, I feel that must be the case. Why else would Brigham Young say such crazy stuff all the time?

You drag ten of thousands of people across the wilderness, set up a town and fend off the Federal Armies and see how charming you are at the end of the ride. While you are at it have secretaries transcribe your every public utterance and find out how many "stupid" excerpts your enemies can find. Expecially 150 years in the future when your most enlightened thoughts may come across as positively cave man.

I think Brigham (although not perfect) was the right man to preserve the Saints after Joseph's death. Just as President Hinkley was the perfect man to lead the church into the media age. I don't think I would have assigned either man to the others responsibilities.

[Bernard Gui]

Not sure what you mean by descendants of Abraham, which would include all races. But if you mean blacks....

Let's try it this way...

Since the time of Adam, ordination to the Aaronic, Melchizedek, and Patriarchal Priesthoods has been limited by God to a very small nuImber of men. As far as we know, they are all identified, either by name or as a well-defined group, in the LDS standard works. All others were excluded by God - banned, as it were, from holding the Priesthood.

I also have to take strong exception to any scripture being used to validate exclusion by "race" (a questionable concept anyway). Certainly, scriptures were conveniently interpreted at times that but that says little about the scriptures themselves. The Bible was used to promote slavery but I don't think anyone today would argue that it actually does.

I take strong exception to accusing the prophets of using the scriptures as a convenient way to subvert the purposes of God, especially the prophets of the Restoration. The Kingdom has rolled out as it should, including the orderly extension of the Priesthoods to all men. This is cause to rejoice, not recriminate.

Bernard

Edited December 23, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[cinepro]

You have a point, Juliann. My fav contribution of Brigham is the wide road design in SLC. Maybe God intended the roads to accommodate bicycles? Personally, I believe the Bike is more divine than the Car.

Interestingly, Deseret News has a less mysterious explanation for the wide streets:

Shortly after the Mormon pioneers arrived, Brigham Young directed that the streets in downtown Salt Lake City be wide enough for a wagon team to turn around without "resorting to profanity."

Over the years, those streets have maintained their 132-foot width. But a lot has changed.

Edited December 23, 2011 by cinepro

[cinepro]

Since the time of Adam, ordination to the Aaronic, Melchizedek, and Patriarchal Priesthoods has been limited by God to a very small nuImber of men. As far as we know, they are all identified, either by name or as a well-defined group, in the LDS standard works. All others were excluded by God - banned, as it were, from holding the Priesthood.

Alma doesn't sound nearly so picky:

10 Now, as I said concerning the holy order, or this high priesthood, there were many who were ordained and became high priests of God; and it was on account of their exceeding faith and repentance, and their righteousness before God, they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish;

11 Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb.

12 Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.

Alma 13

Nothing about lineage, and if anyone knew about lineage, it was those Book of Mormon prophets!

[Sethbag]

I love the idea of some engineers out there observing some wagon teams, measuring tapes in hand, taking notes. Apparently the swearing stopped at the 131.83 foot mark, give or take a few thousandths, but they rounded it up to an even 132' so the construction workers who had actually to build these roads wouldn't think they were just being "that guy" again.

:-)

[why me]

So the mouth piece of God is making the same comments as those whose hearts were far from God who also were persons that Joseph was told not to join. Your sure do not leave room that the LDS church is the one true church headed by God. It's just one more religious institution driven by the wind of popular culture

Yes, men of god are a part of the culture that sprouts them. We see this is the apostles and in the beginnings of the early church at the time of James, Peter and Paul. Here is the point: men of god can not separate themselves from the culture of their times. We see this in Joseph Smith and his personal traits which come from puritan new england stock. He could not separate himself from those traits. And it would be no different for Brigham.

We have no idea just what cultural traits the apostles had as they went about preaching the gospel. We also don't have any notetaking of their speeches as we do with brigham and Joseph. We may just be surprised with what they were saying or doing. What is overlooked with brigham by the critics is the immense beauty of many of the things he said. They garden pick quotations.

[why me]

I think Brigham (although not perfect) was the right man to preserve the Saints after Joseph's death. Just as President Hinkley was the perfect man to lead the church into the media age. I don't think I would have assigned either man to the others responsibilities.

I think that many who are not of critic persuasion find Brigham to be a brillant organizer and a builder of a state. And they consider Joseph and Brigham to be innovators. The mormon exception is a marvel to behold. From a small upstate new york sect to a relgion that can now boast of two republican candidates for president with a world wide membership is a miracle in itself.