When Did Other Church's Ordain Black Men To The Priesthood?

[Duncan]

My Mum's cousin's husband is a retired cleric from a Church here in the holy land. Since he retired he and his wife have started their own church. I was talking to my Mum about it and she said he has a MA in Div. but she doesn't know if that means he has the priesthood as per his old Church's definition which it looks like they don't have one. Given all this talk about blacks and the Priesthood I was wondering when did other Church's start ordaining black men to the Priesthood? I am assuming...that being a cleric is the same thing as holding the Priesthood.

[adoptednz]

My Mum's cousin's husband is a retired cleric from a Church here in the holy land. Since he retired he and his wife have started their own church. I was talking to my Mum about it and she said he has a MA in Div. but she doesn't know if that means he has the priesthood as per his old Church's definition which it looks like they don't have one. Given all this talk about blacks and the Priesthood I was wondering when did other Church's start ordaining black men to the Priesthood? I am assuming...that being a cleric is the same thing as holding the Priesthood.

 

By other churches, do you mean other denominations apart from Mormonism or other Mormon churches?

 

For other denominations, I would say it is so far back in time that it would be hard to pinpoint a date.  In regards to missonary work in other countries, I am quite sure that locals would have been ordained as priests to be able to continue the work of that denomination in that land so obviously race wouldn't have been an issue. 

 

I'm Anglican (Episcopalian in US) and I thought I would do a bit of googling to see when the first priest was ordained in the US and it looks like it was a gentleman called Absalom Jones (1746-1818):

 

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

 

Hey, we even have women priests (gasp).   Society hasn't collapsed.

[Duncan]

By other churches, do you mean other denominations apart from Mormonism or other Mormon churches?

 

For other denominations, I would say it is so far back in time that it would be hard to pinpoint a date.  In regards to missonary work in other countries, I am quite sure that locals would have been ordained as priests to be able to continue the work of that denomination in that land so obviously race wouldn't have been an issue. 

 

I'm Anglican (Episcopalian in US) and I thought I would do a bit of googling to see when the first priest was ordained in the US and it looks like it was a gentleman called Absalom Jones (1746-1818):

 

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

 

Hey, we even have women priests (gasp).   Society hasn't collapsed.

 

 

other Churches like Anglican or Lutheran or something-Thank you!

[Storm Rider]

Ordaining was one thing and allowing blacks and whites to have church together is something else. The Southern Baptist Convention did not mix congregations until...sometime post 1990 and did not become prevalent until the 2000s. 

[adoptednz]

Ordaining was one thing and allowing blacks and whites to have church together is something else. The Southern Baptist Convention did not mix congregations until...sometime post 1990 and did not become prevalent until the 2000s. 

 

That's a good point. 

[Yirgacheffe]

That's a good point. 

Is it only an American point, or only a point after the African slave trade took off?

[Duncan]

Ordaining was one thing and allowing blacks and whites to have church together is something else. The Southern Baptist Convention did not mix congregations until...sometime post 1990 and did not become prevalent until the 2000s. 

 

yeah, I am kind of wondering if being a minister or vicar or something is the same thing as holding the priesthood in non LDS Churches

[3DOP]

In pre-Civil War America, the record of Catholics towards black people is admittedly spotted. Gregory XVI condemned the slave trade around 1830. I don't think the first black Catholic priest in America came along until a few years after the Civil War. It is not a record of which I am proud as an American Catholic. Of course there has never been a time when the Catholic Church had any policy prohibiting blacks from the priesthood. The Ethiopian Church, which was recognized by Rome had prospered from Apostolic times and it has to be assumed that they ordained native priests. Since Mormonism suffered from the disadvantages of arising in a culture with racist attitudes, one should probably realize that early LDS policy must be considered in connection with its almost exclusively American roots.

 

I am a little ashamed to admit that I was at one time a Protestant who held to a now unpopular view that Ham was black, and God's curse was upon black people. I still insist it is not a completely implausible interpretation of the Scripture when divorced from the Tradition which I believe is necessary to properly understand Scripture. I don't think it means you are a racist because you hear the Bible taught in a way that compels you to believe that a sizable minority of the human race, a minority that seemed underachieving at the time, is undergoing God's punishment. It seems clear to me that none of the early LDS leaders were racist. I would be surprised though if there were not some who held to that "Ham theory", if I may call it that. I reject this interpretation now because it has no basis in Catholic Tradition. 

 

I tend to suppose that the "Ham theory" fit nicely with slave trading and racist attitudes in America especially, but it also fit with how sub-Saharan Africa was perceived by people of the best will towards black folks. Its happy disappearance isn't necessarily because it is biblically ridiculous, but more likely because American Christians have at long last become embarrassed to be perceived as having racist tendencies. I am thankful that the Catholic record in America does not require me to be overly critical of my church historically. In any case, if some are proposing a revisionist CoJCoLdS that should show blatant disregard for the reputation of its founders, it would seem to me to be unnecessary. This Ham theory, if it has always been false according to Latter-day revelation was everywhere, and although it influenced your leaders, it doesn't mean it was revealed doctrine. I don't know my Latter-day revelation well enough to say if that is plausible. That would assuredly be the most comfortable way to deal with it. But it seems to me like if were LDS, I would not be shaken if it so happened that Latter-day revelation taught the Ham theory. Would it be impossible for Mormons today to say that the time limit, as it were, had run its course, and the Ham theory...er "Ham fact", was therefore overturned in due course in 1978?

Edited December 31, 2013 by 3DOP

[mormonnewb]

Interesting question so I had to "research" this issue on the source of all truth in the universe -- Wikipedia.  Accordingly, here is what I found:

 

Catholics -- It doesn't appear they ever had a priesthood restriction.  They had a black pope as early as 189 AD (Pope Victor I)

 

Lutherans -- Ordained Jehu Jones of New York, its first black minister in North America, in 1832.

 

Methodists/Episcopalians -- Absalom Jones was the first African American ordained as a priest in the Episcopal Church of the United States and founded the AME (African Methodist Episcopal) Church, in 1804.

 

Presbyterians -- John Gloucester was a called as a pastor to start the First African Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia in 1807.

 

Baptists -- Licensed a slave, George Leile of Georgia, as first African American minister in 1773.

 

 

On the bright side, I don't think that the Amish have ordained ANY blacks to their priesthood as of yet, so we're not the LAST group to do so.

 

In fairness to us, these other groups were no more hospitable to blacks than we were.  In fact, part of the reason for ordaining black ministers was so they could have segregated services.  They didn't want to deny blacks the blessings of salvation but they weren't willing to go so far as to sit in the same pews with them either.

Edited December 31, 2013 by mormonnewb

[Yirgacheffe]

 

Interesting question so I had to "research" this issue on the source of all truth in the universe -- Wikipedia.  Accordingly, here is what I found:

 

Catholics -- It doesn't appear they ever had a priesthood restriction.  They had a black pope as early as 189 AD (Pope Victor I)

 

Lutherans -- Ordained Jehu Jones of New York, its first black minister in North America, in 1832.

 

Methodists/Episcopalians -- Absalom Jones was the first African American ordained as a priest in the Episcopal Church of the United States and founded the AME (African Methodist Episcopal) Church, in 1804.

 

Presbyterians -- John Gloucester was a called as a pastor to start the First African Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia in 1807.

 

Baptists -- Licensed a slave, George Leile of Georgia, as first African American minister in 1773.

 

 

On the bright side, I don't think that the Amish have ordained ANY blacks to their priesthood as of yet, so we're not the LAST group to do so.

 

In fairness to us, these other groups were no more hospitable to blacks than we were.  In fact, part of the reason for ordaining black ministers was so they could have segregated services.  They didn't want to deny blacks the blessings of salvation but they weren't willing to go so far as to sit in the same pews with them either.

 

This is still very American centric, I wonder about ordination outside the US long before it was even colonized.  How were blacks treated by Christianity between the 1st and say the 14th centuries?

[mormonnewb]

Ordaining was one thing and allowing blacks and whites to have church together is something else. The Southern Baptist Convention did not mix congregations until...sometime post 1990 and did not become prevalent until the 2000s. 

 

Here is a report on racial segregation in the SBC from 1945-1995.

 

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=6359

 

The SBC was originally founded to defend slavery and continued its discriminatory policies well into the 1960s.  However, in 1968, the SBC made a formal declaration to end segregation and encouraged Southern Baptists to work toward equal opportunities in public services, education and employment.  It even began to allow blacks into its colleges and universities (although in relatively small numbers).  Nevertheless, there was little integration in individual congregations well into the 1990s, causing the SBC to issue a formal apology for its past racism.  And just last year, it named its first African American leader of the SBC.

 

Notwithstanding, Dr. King's statement from 50 years ago is still true in the SBC, our Church and just about every other Christian church in America.

 

"The most segregated hour of Christian America is eleven o'clock on Sunday morning."  Dr. King

[mormonnewb]

This is still very American centric, I wonder about ordination outside the US long before it was even colonized.  How were blacks treated by Christianity between the 1st and say the 14th centuries?

 

Given that I assume we are looking at this issue from a comparative standpoint, it probably makes sense to compare apples to apples -- the LDS church vs. other American churches.  To compare our beloved church's stance on the ordination of blacks to, say, a Nestorian church in 7th century China, isn't likely to give us a good context for examining our church's history in this regard.

 

That being said, I'd also be very interested to know how blacks were treated by Christian churches in the first 14 centuries.  Off hand, I'd guess much better than we were in the next 6 centuries of Christianity.  My understanding is that the need to justify the slave trade set in stone racial divisions that had been more malleable up to that point.  However, my understanding is almost always wrong, so I'd love to read what you or others find on the subject.

Edited December 31, 2013 by mormonnewb

[williamsmith]

By other churches, do you mean other denominations apart from Mormonism or other Mormon churches?

 

For other denominations, I would say it is so far back in time that it would be hard to pinpoint a date.  In regards to missonary work in other countries, I am quite sure that locals would have been ordained as priests to be able to continue the work of that denomination in that land so obviously race wouldn't have been an issue. 

 

I'm Anglican (Episcopalian in US) and I thought I would do a bit of googling to see when the first priest was ordained in the US and it looks like it was a gentleman called Absalom Jones (1746-1818):

 

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

 

Hey, we even have women priests (gasp).   Society hasn't collapsed.

 

That is actually so completely false.  People can't pinpoint a "date" because there isn't the bigotry against most other religions that has such bans or similar, and so few know of such "dates".

I don't know that anyone has actually done a study on the subject however on the dates of various religions allowing blacks to do whatever.

 

BTW, we have "Women Priests" also....  They simply aren't callings.  We also have women leaders at all levels.  Most after all lead the women of the church "gasp".... society hasn't collapsed.

 

There is another important distinction also.  Priesthood is a calling to men as motherhood is a calling to women.  All men are Priests in the LDS Church, in contrast to other religions in which the "elite" were/are only Priests.

Edited December 31, 2013 by williamsmith

[cdowis]

The question in the OP is based on a false assumption.

[Duncan]

The question in the OP is based on a false assumption.

 

care to extrapolate? as I say I assume...that other Church's having a minister and that person to them also holds that church's view of the Priesthood and maybe I am wrong in that assumption. So, I had a Prof. in University who was a Catholic and a member of the Society of Jesus, so I assume that means he is a minister in that Church and holds the Priesthood whereas my Mum's cousin's hubbie may  have the MA in Div. thing but there Church may not even believe the Priesthood is still around

[Michael Sanders]

My Mum's cousin's husband is a retired cleric from a Church here in the holy land. Since he retired he and his wife have started their own church. I was talking to my Mum about it and she said he has a MA in Div. but she doesn't know if that means he has the priesthood as per his old Church's definition which it looks like they don't have one. Given all this talk about blacks and the Priesthood I was wondering when did other Church's start ordaining black men to the Priesthood? I am assuming...that being a cleric is the same thing as holding the Priesthood.

Here is a synopsis of the former RLDS Church:

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V12N02_39.pdf

Mike

[BlueDreams]

care to extrapolate? as I say I assume...that other Church's having a minister and that person to them also holds that church's view of the Priesthood and maybe I am wrong in that assumption. So, I had a Prof. in University who was a Catholic and a member of the Society of Jesus, so I assume that means he is a minister in that Church and holds the Priesthood whereas my Mum's cousin's hubbie may  have the MA in Div. thing but there Church may not even believe the Priesthood is still around

 

I could be (very) wrong on this, but most protestant faiths have more of an idea of priesthood of all believers and that a minister/pastor, is a special call rather than indicative of holding the priesthood. 

 

So the parallel wouldn't be very accurate. The forms of discrimination and racism within these faith were very different. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[cdowis]

care to extrapolate? as I say I assume...that other Church's having a minister and that person to them also holds that church's view of the Priesthood and maybe I am wrong in that assumption.

 

 

The issue is that you are using the same word to describe two very different things.  Are you able to see that the LDS priesthood is not the same thing as Catholic priesthood, for example.  You simply cannot compare the two, regardless of your view whether they are authorized by God.  A Catholic priest is an occupation, a career which normally requires formal training, so how can you talk about whether blacks are eligible for the priesthood "before" the LDS allowed it?

[mfbukowski]

In fairness to us, these other groups were no more hospitable to blacks than we were.  In fact, part of the reason for ordaining black ministers was so they could have segregated services.  They didn't want to deny blacks the blessings of salvation but they weren't willing to go so far as to sit in the same pews with them either.

 

I will bow to your opinion on this subject, if you have one, but I have had two kids go on missions in the deep South- one to Mississippi and the other to South Carolina, and both said that there, LDS services are probably more integrated today than any other denomination, for the reasons you mention.

[Tacenda]

I will bow to your opinion on this subject, if you have one, but I have had two kids go on missions in the deep South- one to Mississippi and the other to South Carolina, and both said that there, LDS services are probably more integrated today than any other denomination, for the reasons you mention.

My husband went to Mississippi on his mission in 1979-1981, I believe.  So he probably saw a lot.  I'll find out what he saw at the crux of it all.  It may or may not matter to your post here.  I do recall that he taught mostly whites.  I'll have to find out why. 

[mfbukowski]

That is actually so completely false.  People can't pinpoint a "date" because there isn't the bigotry against most other religions that has such bans or similar, and so few know of such "dates".

I don't know that anyone has actually done a study on the subject however on the dates of various religions allowing blacks to do whatever.

 

BTW, we have "Women Priests" also....  They simply aren't callings.  We also have women leaders at all levels.  Most after all lead the women of the church "gasp".... society hasn't collapsed.

 

There is another important distinction also.  Priesthood is a calling to men as motherhood is a calling to women.  All men are Priests in the LDS Church, in contrast to other religions in which the "elite" were/are only Priests.

And of course women perform ordinances in the temple, paralleling the ordinances for the men.

 

In fact and practice, the temple Matron runs the "sister's side" as much as the President runs the men's.  It's like two different systems of administration running in parallel.

 

And I like your mention of priesthood "elitism" in other churches.  Good point!  Only the specially trained are leaders- as I recall Peter didn't spend a whole lot of time in the University studying theology.

Edited December 31, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

My husband went to Mississippi on his mission in 1979-1981, I believe.  So he probably saw a lot.  I'll find out what he saw at the crux of it all.  It may or may not matter to your post here.  I do recall that he taught mostly whites.  I'll have to find out why. 

Both my kids taught mostly African Americans because they were the most receptive to the gospel.

[juliann]

This is outdated and was a response to a then-current anti-Mormon book. http://www.blacklds.org/reynolds#en31

but it includes some comparisons to to other religions treatment of blacks to counter the assertions that racism was a Mormon invention .   What others were doing does not excuse what we did, of course...put it does put it in perspective.   From my research, I would consider Catholics to have the "best" record although they certainly had their ups and downs, too.  

 

Since we have lay leadership and other churches often had leadership through seminaries, that is a better point of comparison.  LDS made it easy to see the discrimination, other religions had the benefit of excluding blacks by excluding them from seminaries.  So people tend to look at blacks in the congregation without considering that they also were restricted from leadership positions.  That is why the AME was formed.  Any review of antebellum Southern practices is, well, horrifying and anything BY said pales in comparison. Even BY, in the midst of his most egregious comments would still declare that they were the seed of Joseph who would become white (his way of saying they would be sharing heaven with everyone else). Evangelicals have the worst stats when it comes to acceptance of blacks as of the writing of Emerson and Smith's Divided by Faith.  Billy Graham sat out the Civil Rights era and they have moved more slowly than we have considering we can literally turn a switch and the integrating is done.  

 

What became of most interest to me as I researched for the article were the declarations that blacks had souls (see JS) and that they would receive the priesthood.  This came at a time when it was debated whether blacks were humans which explains JS's declaration that they do.   I don't think that has been emphasized near enough.

They came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on.  Joseph Smith, History
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 5, 217.

 

I don't think it is even possible to have a meaningful discussion about religion and race without setting it next to the progression of race theory in American history.

[juliann]

 

 

In fact and practice, the temple Matron runs the "sister's side" as much as the President runs the men's.  It's like two different systems of administration running in parallel.

 

 

I disagree, the temple matron has no authority or ability to make rules without President approval.   That is not parallel.

[juliann]

I could be (very) wrong on this, but most protestant faiths have more of an idea of priesthood of all believers and that a minister/pastor, is a special call rather than indicative of holding the priesthood. 

 

So the parallel wouldn't be very accurate. The forms of discrimination and racism within these faith were very different. 

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

I think it was just more hidden.  If one is prevented from that call, it signals an underbelly of overall exclusion.  Without access to the decision making positions, blacks had no say in the practice of their religion... or their treatment.