LDSGuy Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 As we know, the Church faced heavy persecution in its Missouri and Illinois days. We know that few black male converts received the priesthood, in relation to the handful of black members (most of whom were probably former slaves). Missouri wanted to be a slave state, and with a bunch of Mormon abolitionists moving into town, this did not set well with them. While not the only factor contributing to persecution, it was a factor. Now we throw in the mix of this that Latter-Day Saints are giving the priesthood to former slaves, meaning that black members of the church could have authority over white members. In these days, I'm sure that this would have been highly frowned upon by a pro-slavery society, and would cause further peresecution of the Saints. Is it possible that the church in order to reduce persecution, in the days following Joseph Smith, decided to deny priesthood authority to black membes? And that following this restriction, they sought to support their decision scripturally? Such as the priesthood being limited to just the Levites in the Old Testament, the curse of Cain, etc.
why me Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 Is it possible that the church in order to reduce persecution, in the days following Joseph Smith, decided to deny priesthood authority to black membes? And that following this restriction, they sought to support their decision scripturally? Such as the priesthood being limited to just the Levites in the Old Testament, the curse of Cain, etc.The problem started with Black Pete ( William Mccreary) taking upon himself the right to practice polygamy and marrying a few white women. He was not authorized to do so. This sent a shock wave toward Brigham and Orson. I think that they decided that something needed to be done and they acted accordingly. If word got out that a black man was married to several white women, I do believe that a massacre would have occurred with many mormons murdered.
LDSGuy Posted April 20, 2012 Author Posted April 20, 2012 The problem started with Black Pete ( William Mccreary) taking upon himself the right to practice polygamy and marrying a few white women. He was not authorized to do so. This sent a shock wave toward Brigham and Orson. I think that they decided that something needed to be done and they acted accordingly. If word got out that a black man was married to several white women, I do believe that a massacre would have occurred with many mormons murdered.So you concur that giving black men authority over whites, would have dramatically increased persecution?
David T Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 All this aside, I just learned that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Community of Christ) had a revelation, through Joseph Smith III, following the Civil War in 1865 (a little over a decade after Brigham Young instituted the restriction over in Utah), confirming that blacks were indeed eligible to receive the Priesthood along with everyone else. (RLDS D&C 116) - this was canonized in 1878 - exactly one hundred years before the ban initiated by Brigham Young was explicitly removed through revelation on our side.Not gonna lie - this definitely gives me some pangs of holy envy.
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 They beat us to women holding the Priesthood too. *pangs*
Log Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 Gee, if only the 21st century started in the 1800s... sigh. 1
cinepro Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 Now we throw in the mix of this that Latter-Day Saints are giving the priesthood to former slaves, meaning that black members of the church could have authority over white members. In these days, I'm sure that this would have been highly frowned upon by a pro-slavery society, and would cause further peresecution of the Saints.We don't have to wonder. Elijah Abel, a black man, did receive the priesthood in 1839. Are there any records of anti-Mormons taking exception to this?
why me Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 So you concur that giving black men authority over whites, would have dramatically increased persecution?With polygamy actively happening at that time and no longer kept under wraps, then yes, I would agree. I think that the experience with Black Pete was a catalyst. Now whether it was god inspired or not I cannot say. But this is what I know: african americans were welcomed into the church, allowed to sit with white members in the same pews and worship together. This was not about color since non-whites were joining and getting the priesthood, for example, hispanics. I rremember the spanish speaking ward that met on sunday in NYC. All eligible men had the priesthood and they came in various shades of brown.Something else was at play here. There is a great podcast by John Dehlin about blacks and the priesthood. You can listen to it here:http://mormonstories.org/mormon-stories-026-blacks-and-the-lds-priesthood-an-interview-with-darius-gray-and-margaret-young/I always link to this podcast when people wish to find out more about it. Click on the audio presentation and you will see a segment on Black Pete (william mccleary).Something else was at play.
why me Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 We don't have to wonder. Elijah Abel, a black man, did receive the priesthood in 1839. Are there any records of anti-Mormons taking exception to this?Different time from black pete. And it wasn't the priesthood that caused the problem. But with him practicing polygamy without the consent of the brethern. It was unauthorized. Now if the frontier people would have seen black pete in town with his many wives and they were white, what do you think the reaction would have been from the 'gentiles' toward the mormons?
why me Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) All this aside, I just learned that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Community of Christ) had a revelation, through Joseph Smith III, following the Civil War in 1865 (a little over a decade after Brigham Young instituted the restriction over in Utah), confirming that blacks were indeed eligible to receive the Priesthood along with everyone else. (RLDS D&C 116) - this was canonized in 1878 - exactly one hundred years before the ban initiated by Brigham Young was explicitly removed through revelation on our side.Not gonna lie - this definitely gives me some pangs of holy envy.I can understand that. I can feel the same way. But... Edited April 21, 2012 by why me
why me Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) Maybe it would have given mormons some play with the critics today if we had a revelation back in the 1870's as the reorganized church, but would the church have millions of members at the moment or would lds church be somewhat over 200,000 members? Think about it a little. Edited April 21, 2012 by why me
Minos Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 Is it possible that the church in order to reduce persecution, in the days following Joseph Smith, decided to deny priesthood authority to black membes? And that following this restriction, they sought to support their decision scripturally? Such as the priesthood being limited to just the Levites in the Old Testament, the curse of Cain, etc. Do not open race based what if threads.
Recommended Posts