Need Help With Uninformed Black African Member

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

We had this conversation in the Joanna Brooks thread. At times Black members could not:

- Hold a leadership calling (auxiliary presidencies)

- Attend the temple in any form (including baptisms)

- Pray in sacrament meeting

I've said it before and will say it again. The ban was not inspired. There was no revelation to instigate it. The church was in error for over 100 years.

Could be? It is a marvelous thing that they can now hold and participate entirely in the church.

[Nevo]

You cannot be remotely serious that the church hid this from him. I mean It is in our scriptures under the previously mentioned OD 2.

OD2 doesn't say anything about a priesthood ban barring anyone of African descent from holding the priesthood. I don't find it inconceivable that a teenager might not know about this. It's not as if the Church goes out of its way to remind everyone of the ban. I'm not sure if I've ever heard it mentioned in a church meeting.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Nevo

[canard78]

Delete duplicate

Edited June 17, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

Could be? It is a marvelous thing that they can now hold and participate entirely in the church.

I certainly celebrate it now. That we spent 100+ years relegating to the status of 'second-class saint' is a blot on our history.

When I read the history of I can only conclude one thing: it was brought in through racist attitudes and perpetuated through a combination of continued racist attitudes and ignorance of its origins.

That it was presumed inspired by later generations of leaders we presume to be inspired is troubling.

[SamIam]

Johnnie, when visiting the junkyard looking for a few clean used parts, don't be surprised at being jumped by the attack dogs. In this organization all of your past devotion means zip. You're only as good as your last performance.

That's why God put's such a high price on enduring to the end.

[cinepro]

OD2 doesn't say anything about a priesthood ban barring anyone of African descent from holding the priesthood. I don't find it inconceivable that a teenager might not know about this. It's not as if the Church goes out of its way to remind everyone of the ban. I'm not sure if I've ever heard it mentioned in a church meeting.

I do find it inconceivable that a black teenager wouldn't know of the priesthood ban.

Honestly, if they don't, the Church is being really irresponsible, because when they find out....

[mfbukowski]

We had this conversation in the Joanna Brooks thread. At times Black members could not:

- Hold a leadership calling (auxiliary presidencies)

- Attend the temple in any form (including baptisms)

- Pray in sacrament meeting

I've said it before and will say it again. The ban was not inspired. There was no revelation to instigate it. The church was in error for over 100 years.

Frankly I think most US members acknowledge this to one degree or another.

In the South even today, churches are de facto segregated- theare are Black Baptist churches and White Baptist churches.

It's a grand old American tradition we are still struggling with (sarcasm- for those sarcastically impaired). You can elect a Black president but go to church with Blacks? In some areas it is still a problem outside of big cities, as incredible as that is.

[Avatar4321]

How does the Church hide something that is clearly mentioned in the scriptures the Church constantly teaches us to study in?

[rockpond]

How does the Church hide something that is clearly mentioned in the scriptures the Church constantly teaches us to study in?

Where is it clearly mentioned in the scriptures?

[Avatar4321]

Where is it clearly mentioned in the scriptures?

OD2

[Nevo]

How does the Church hide something that is clearly mentioned in the scriptures the Church constantly teaches us to study in?

The priesthood ban isn't "clearly mentioned" in the scriptures, but even if it was, there would probably still be a lot of youth that wouldn't be aware of it. I've recently been looking at a "basic doctrine assessment" conducted among 16- and 17-year-old youth in our ward. One-third thought that "elder" was an office in the Aaronic priesthood. That in spite of D&C 107:7.

[rockpond]

OD2

Where in OD2?

OD2 does not mention men of African descent. It doesn't mention the priesthood ban nor does it mention that they were denied access to temple ordinances.

[Calm]

With all due respect, I find this very, very hard to believe. Are you saying that an 18 year old black member of the Church didn't know about the priesthood ban at all, and when he approached two different leaders about it, they both told him that the ban was an "anti-Mormon lie"? Between the three of them, none of them were even aware of Official Declaration 2 in the back of their Doctrine and Covenants, which they presumably carry with them to Church every week? And unless you have a very young Stake President, he would have at least been a child during that historic day in 1978, and would surely remember it!

Maybe they were not members at the time and did not live in the States.

That they would be unaware of OD 2 is troubling though. (add-on: Nevo and others have pointed out that the ban of black African lineage Saints from the priesthood and temple is not specified in OD 2 so I am thinking of removing my one hesitancy...I think I will look at seminary manuals and YMs to see if it is specified or not)

Edited June 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

For what it's worth (I realize no one here really knows me either) I know Johnnie Cake and I tend to believe what he has posted. He's been very honest with me and since I was young he has been someone I've looked up to. I realize he's out of teh Church and has posted some provoking comments here but I don't think he has any desire to cause this 18 year old any trouble.

It is one thing to push people's buttons here on a message board where we more or less expect some buttonpushing, no matter how distasteful it can be at times. I am not surprised that people might act differently when encountering people in real life outside of an environment that has some inherent confrontational aspects to it and instead act supportive in an environment where the other would expect them to be supportive

[Bernard Gui]

I don't agree that the church was in error. The revelation came at exactly the right time. A new generation of Saints had been prepared for it and welcomed it, and it did not cause a schism in the church.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Bernard Gui

[BlueDreams]

Don't know how much he wants....but considering he's 18 he might like a movie/documentary. I haven't seen it yet but have generally heard great things about it and have met a number of the people featured in it.

http://blackmormonfilm.com/

At the very least there's a 9 minute trailer

With luv,

BD

Edited June 18, 2013 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

Also,

Just from personal experience, too much of it in one sitting can be overwhelming....especially for someone who had no clue about it prior (It wasn't me, specifically but someone i knew). I'd start out with things that are smaller, and less info-dense and go from there.

With luv,

BD

[canard78]

How does the Church hide something that is clearly mentioned in the scriptures the Church constantly teaches us to study in?

This isn't really a topic of whether they hide the history, but how to share it with someone discovering it for the first time.

Is it possible for a 18-yo to be unaware? If they are a convert, possible. I also can't imagine someone born in the church to black members would not be taught this (Johnnie, can you clarify?).

Is it possible that a stake leader would call 'blacks got ph in 1978' anti-Mormon lies? Very unlikely. But if the 18-yo went to them and said "I was reading about black priesthood on MormonThink/mormonsandnegroes and they said... (Brigham said racial intermarrying caused instant death/something from Mark E. Petersen in 1954)... Then the Stake leader could have said 'don't read those anti-Mormon lies. The quotes actually aren't lies. They're real quotes that the SP is probably not aware of and, when all lined up and out of context look highly racists (and some of them simply are).

The story seems simplified (by Johnnie or the 18yo) but some of it could have happened.

[canard78]

The priesthood ban isn't "clearly mentioned" in the scriptures, but even if it was, there would probably still be a lot of youth that wouldn't be aware of it. I've recently been looking at a "basic doctrine assessment" conducted among 16- and 17-year-old youth in our ward. One-third thought that "elder" was an office in the Aaronic priesthood. That in spite of D&C 107:7.

Exactly. My friend, a former Bishop, bemoans the fact that even adults now see him as the oracle and come to him with doctrinal questions that could be answered within a few minutes of opening scripture or searching LDS.org

People on this board forget that just because they are immersed and engaged in the history and doctrine of the church to an extreme level, a lot of members are not.

[Nevo]

I think I will look at seminary manuals and YMs to see if it is specified or not

This past year seminary students studied the New Testament. Here is the reference to OD2 in the NT teacher's manual: "Point out that this revelation [to Peter in Acts 10] can be compared to Official Declaration 2 in the Doctrine and Covenants. Just as Peter’s revelation instructed the early Church to take the gospel to the Gentiles, this modern revelation through President Spencer W. Kimball is allowing the modern Church to expand missionary work and the blessings of the temple throughout the world."

That's it. The student manual (intended for home study students) isn't much more explicit:

Peter’s vision, teaching him that God is “no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34), brought a major change in the Church. For the first time, Gentiles were baptized into the Church without regard to the requirements of the law of Moses. This helped the Church grow rapidly among all people, not only among Jews. A similar situation existed in the Church in our day. Since Old Testament times, Heavenly Father had restricted the right to hold the priesthood. At the time of Abraham the right to the priesthood was patriarchal, meaning that it was passed from father to son (see D&C 107:40; Abraham 1:2–4, 26–27). In the days of Moses the Melchizedek Priesthood was taken from Israel and the Aaronic Priesthood was held only by the tribe of Levi (see Numbers 18:6–8 ). When the gospel was restored in the latter days, the Melchizedek Priesthood was also restored and the right to bear that priesthood was given to many outside of the house of Israel. In June of 1978 the Lord revealed to President Spencer W. Kimball that the time had come that “all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color” (Official Declaration 2). Again the Lord acted to help the Church take the gospel to all of Heavenly Father’s children throughout the world.

Last year's Old Testament teacher's manual didn't mention OD2 and next year's Book of Mormon manual won't mention it either. So even a teen who goes through four years of seminary is only likely to hear the OD2 mentioned once or twice and the priesthood ban perhaps not at all. The current D&C manual (due to be replaced in 2014-15) does explicitly state on p. 272 that blacks were denied the priesthood prior to 1978. Assuming a student doesn't miss that particular day of seminary (in four years of seminary), and assuming the teacher isn't too embarrassed to bring up the ban,* they may hear of it then.

* Frankly, I would have difficulty following the current D&C manual's instruction to "tell students that . . . [f]or many years, the Lord instructed the prophets that those of Black African descent could not receive the priesthood or the ordinances of the temple.The Brethren said that the reasons for this restriction had not been fully revealed. But they taught that these children of Heavenly Father would someday receive these blessings."

[canard78]

I don't agree that the church was in error. The revelation came at exactly the right time. A new generation of Saints had been prepared for it and welcomed it, and it did not cause a schism in the church.

Can you point me towards one of the following for the origin of the original practice:

- A revelation from the prophet

- The doctrine received and sustained by common consent

- Evidence of it being doctrine in any scripture (ancient or modern)

Doctrine is established by one or more of the above. The practice was non-doctrinal. I suppose that's a more neutral way of saying it was a false doctrine. But given it was viewed at times by later leaders to be doctrinal then their view can be shown to be incorrect.

E.g:

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

It was not doctrinal, not revealed, not sustained by common consent, not scriptural.

[canard78]

I'm not sure that the exact dates are all that important. I don't think that anyone is disputing the fact that, with a small handful of exceptions, those of African descent were not permitted full fellowship in the church beginning under the Presidency of Brigham Young and continuing until 1978 when President Kimball received OD2.

1847-1978 is a long time by anyone's reckoning.

March 1836: Elijah Abel ordained an Elder by Joseph Smith Jr. (Eunice Kinney: “My Testimony of the Latter-day Work”).

1847: Parley P. Pratt "a black man with the blood of Ham in him which lineage was cursed as regards the priesthood." (This is My Doctrine, p. 388)

1852: Wilford Woodruff, quoting Brigham Young "Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot hold the priesthood"

(Wilford Woodruff's Journal, Vol. 4, p. 97)

1853 : Elijah Abel not allowed by Brigham Young to receive his endowment.

October 9, 1859: Brigham Young:

"How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion."

Talk in the Tabernacle, Journal of Discourses 7:282

March 8, 1863: Brigham Young,

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”

Talk in the Tabernacle, Journal of Discourses 10:109

Edited June 18, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned the trilogy Standing on the Promises by Margaret Young and Darius Gray. It is a well referenced fictionalized (we don't have original words very much) story of the history of Blacks in the church.

Also http://blacksinthescriptures.com/

And I think you have your dates wrong about how long it lasted. Elijah Able was ordained by Joseph Smith or at his direction and he served a mission for the church in his original mission field in Ohio, in the 1870's. Nathaniel Lewis, a very prominent priesthood holder in Massachusetts came to visit Utah in the 1850's (he returned to MA, and left the church, so it must not have been a good visit).

See my previous post. The Ables were an exception (and Elijah was denied the endowment).

By the late 1840s or early 1850s there were talks in the tabernacle saying blacks could not hold the priesthood (usually referenced as 'seed/blood of Cain or Ham).

[canard78]

OD2

Where?

To Whom It May Concern:

On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:

June 8, 1978

To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Sincerely yours,

Spencer W. Kimball

N. Eldon Tanner

Marion G. Romney

The First Presidency

Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.

Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978. (Doctrine and Covenants, Official Declaration, OD 2)

It says no-where in the declaration that Black Africans were the (only) 'race and colour' restricted from receiving it. There were many, many non-Caucasians who already held the priesthood (with no revelation needed to permit it).

[Nevo]

Oct 1846: William “Black Pete” McCary baptized and ordained.

I see John Dehlin has perpetuated this mistake all over the Internet, but "Black Pete" and William McCary were two different people. McCary's antics appear to have helped precipitate the priesthood ban. "Black Pete," on the other hand, was a figure from the earliest days of the Church in Kirtland (Dale Broadhurst, a former poster here, once notoriously suggested that Joseph Smith had him murdered). "Black Pete" was an interesting character and is treated at length in Mark Staker's excellent book, Hearken O Ye People.