Blacks and the Celestial Kingdom

[Nibowaka]

1. For centuries blacks were denied the priesthood because of the "curse of Cain". They were said to be spirits who were "not as valiant" in the pre-mortal life.

2. Children who die before the "age of accountability" are said to be Celestial spirits.

3. Millions of black children died before the "age of accountability" prior to blacks being allowed to hold the priesthood.

4. If blacks were punished for being "not as valiant" in the pre-mortal life, how then did black children who died before the "age of accountability" earn Celestial glory?

As for me, I accept all of God's children. We are all special spirits of our Heavenly Father. If their are any weak among us, they need to be lifted up.

[Starfish]

We do not officially know why blacks were denied the priesthood. We only have theories and opinions. We do know that throughout history the priesthood was available to limited groups. I belong to the last group to not receive the priesthood--women. I do not feel slighted or left out or unworthy. I don't anticipate ever receiving it, but you never know.

This I DO know. The Gospel is true and our Father in Heaven loves us all equally. His plan was set up to give each of us, in our own way, the greatest advantage to return to Him.

[BenRaines]

As far as I know it was only a mortal limitation that has now passed. I know of no doctrine that denied any race the Celestial Kingdom, some opinions perhaps, but no doctrine. All who die before the age of accountability are Celestial bodies. Sounds pretty clear to me. :)

Ben Raines

[livy111us]

The idea that blacks were neutral, or not valiant in the premortal life is 100% false. Here is a great article answering that question

Blacks and the priesthood/Pre-existence - FAIRMormon

The most popular source from this comes from McConkies "Mormon Doctrine", at least his first edition of that book. He was not an Apostle when this book was written, and could not be said it was written by an Apostle. The First Presidency was very disappointed in this book and actually told McConkie not to re-publish it because it was full of mistakes, this quote included.

"We [the First Presidency of the Church] decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, ‘Mormon Doctrine’ recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has received such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition."

There are several letters found in the Archives which discuss the whole issue between the Church and McConkie. See here for more info:

Mormon Doctrine (book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[pushka]

It is unfortunate that such a book was written and taken notice of by so many people. At my Gospel Principles class recently, our teacher referred heavily to that book about certain points of doctrine..I didn't have the heart to tell her of the controversy surrounding it!

A mildly amusing thing happened to me at church last week. We have a number of African, West Indian etc. members attending our ward and as I was leaving with the woman who gives me a lift to church last week we saw a number of these people also getting into their cars to leave. My lift turned to me and said 'there's lots of coloured people attending our ward isn't there? Well, it does say that they will become white eventually doesn't it? I don't mind anyone of any colour myself tho..' I was speechless! Does this woman truly believe that all blacks attending the church will eventually turn white? Does anyone else believe this?!! Surely she is taking the 'white and delightsome people' reference a little too literally!!!

[Elphaba]

The idea that blacks were neutral, or not valiant in the premortal life is 100% false. Here is a great article answering that question.

The most popular source from this comes from McConkies "Mormon Doctrine",

All of the early leaders of the Church claimed that blacks were not valiant in the pre-existence. McConkie was repeating what they said. However, I do believe he was the last influential member to repeat it.

"We [the First Presidency of the Church] >snip< We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition."

McConkie did publish a second edition, albeit heavily edited.

From the Wiki article: The second edition of Mormon Doctrine, with its approved revisions, was published in 1966. Horne states, "The most obvious difference between the two editions is a more moderate tone."

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

It is unfortunate that such a book was written and taken notice of by so many people. At my Gospel Principles class recently, our teacher referred heavily to that book about certain points of doctrine..I didn't have the heart to tell her of the controversy surrounding it!

A mildly amusing thing happened to me at church last week. We have a number of African, West Indian etc. members attending our ward and as I was leaving with the woman who gives me a lift to church last week we saw a number of these people also getting into their cars to leave. My lift turned to me and said 'there's lots of coloured people attending our ward isn't there? Well, it does say that they will become white eventually doesn't it? I don't mind anyone of any colour myself tho..' I was speechless! Does this woman truly believe that all blacks attending the church will eventually turn white? Does anyone else believe this?!! Surely she is taking the 'white and delightsome people' reference a little too literally!!!

Unbelievable. Or, at least it would be, if my mother didn't believe the same thing.

I've given up trying to explain to her that Mormon Doctrine is not doctrine.

It's good to see you Pushka!

Elphaba

[pushka]

Hi Elphie..it really is unbelievable what some people still believe...I'm wondering what the woman who helped me back to church believes about this, she has come up with some stunning versions of doctrine occasionally too, lol.

Great to see you too, Elphie! It's not often we get on the board at the same time these days! When I tried to reply in the Thanks thread that Iggy started, my laptop erased both attempts, so I gave up in the end..of course the people who need thanking by me already know who they are, I hope! :)

[Palerider]

people....please check out BlackLDS.org

its a great website and alot of info....:)

[tubaloth]

1. For centuries blacks were denied the priesthood because of the "curse of Cain".

Okay? That’s a statement you are making as fact?

They were said to be spirits who were "not as valiant" in the pre-mortal life.

Who’s they? Again another statement, not a question.

2. Children who die before the "age of accountability" are said to be Celestial spirits.

Who says this? Yes I believe it, but I just wanted you to site your source.

3. Millions of black children died before the "age of accountability" prior to blacks being allowed to hold the priesthood.p

Only Millions? We are talking sense Cain right? That’s seem pretty low, you better check your stats.

4. If blacks were punished for being "not as valiant" in the pre-mortal life, how then did black children who died before the "age of accountability" earn Celestial glory?

Woa, was that a question?

The one link you are missing is that blacks not having the priesthood kept them from the Celestial Kingdom. This is not true! Blacks not having the priesthood DID NOT MEAN that they COULD NOT gain Celestial Glory. This is what you are Assuming (reading between the lines).

This is what is taught

Therefore if a [black] joins the Church through the waters of baptism and is confirmed by the laying on of hands and then he remains faithful and true to the teachings of the Church and in keeping the commandments the Lord has given, he will come forth in the first resurrection and will enter the celestial kingdom of God.

What other church can make a better promise? Moreover we know whereof we speak, for the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored with all its powers and divine authority.

The [black] who accepts the doctrines of the Church and is baptized by an authorized minister of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is entitled to salvation in the celestial kingdom or the highest heaven spoken of by Paul. It is true that the work of the ministry is given to other peoples and why should the so-called Christian denominations complain? How many [black]s have been placed as ministers over white congregations in the so-called Christian denominations? It appears that a great deal of noise has been made over a problem that does not really exist or is not peculiar to the Latter-day Saints!

Every man whether he seeks office or to maintain a good name in the community should be judged by his devotion and integrity to principles of truth and righteousness, not condemned through rumors, prejudices, or the views of others.

It is strange that so many persons are tried and condemned by well-meaning people because of assumed notions and prejudice without a true knowledge of the facts.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 4: 172.)

And really to just answer your over all question. (if we can call it a question)

The revelations of the Lord to the Prophet Joseph Smith declare that all little children who die are heirs of the celestial kingdom. This would mean the children of every race. All the spirits that come to this world come from the presence of God and, therefore, must have been in his kingdom.

Little children are redeemed by the Lord's decree from the foundation of the world through the ministry of Jesus Christ; every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and all who rebelled were cast out; therefore, all who remained are entitled to the blessings of the gospel.

The only souls coming to this world who are under restriction are the [black]s, and they cannot hold the priesthood; but [blacks]s may be baptized, and we have many [black]s in the Church. Therefore, by what right or reason are we going to deprive innocent children whether they are black, brown, or yellow who die in their infancy-innocent and without sin-from entering the celestial kingdom? If a Black can receive the celestial kingdom by baptism, and the Chinese, Japanese and all other races, where would there be consistency in saying that any children, because they are born under adverse circumstances, should be deprived of entrance into that kingdom? It seems definitely clear that the Lord means exactly what he said to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956], 2: 55.)

[livy111us]

All of the early leaders of the Church claimed that blacks were not valiant in the pre-existence. McConkie was repeating what they said. However, I do believe he was the last influential member to repeat it.

McConkie did publish a second edition, albeit heavily edited.

From the Wiki article: The second edition of Mormon Doctrine, with its approved revisions, was published in 1966. Horne states, "The most obvious difference between the two editions is a more moderate tone."

Elphaba

That is why I made sure to say that he was the most popular source instead of "the" source.

Antis LOVE the first edition of Mormon Doctrine. Further printings have most of the controversial subjects removed.

[deseretgov]

1. For centuries blacks were denied the priesthood because of the "curse of Cain". They were said to be spirits who were "not as valiant" in the pre-mortal life.

2. Children who die before the "age of accountability" are said to be Celestial spirits.

3. Millions of black children died before the "age of accountability" prior to blacks being allowed to hold the priesthood.

4. If blacks were punished for being "not as valiant" in the pre-mortal life, how then did black children who died before the "age of accountability" earn Celestial glory?

As for me, I accept all of God's children. We are all special spirits of our Heavenly Father. If their are any weak among us, they need to be lifted up.

Holding the preisthood(for a man) in this life is not a requirement for salvation. I don't believe people with darker skin were any less valiant than those who have lighter skin. Color of skin does not determine righteousness.

[deseretgov]

It is unfortunate that such a book was written and taken notice of by so many people. At my Gospel Principles class recently, our teacher referred heavily to that book about certain points of doctrine..I didn't have the heart to tell her of the controversy surrounding it!

A mildly amusing thing happened to me at church last week. We have a number of African, West Indian etc. members attending our ward and as I was leaving with the woman who gives me a lift to church last week we saw a number of these people also getting into their cars to leave. My lift turned to me and said 'there's lots of coloured people attending our ward isn't there? Well, it does say that they will become white eventually doesn't it? I don't mind anyone of any colour myself tho..' I was speechless! Does this woman truly believe that all blacks attending the church will eventually turn white? Does anyone else believe this?!! Surely she is taking the 'white and delightsome people' reference a little too literally!!!

I've never heard someone say they will become white and could never believe that would happen. I'm married to a filipina and her brown skin is a major part of her beauty. If she has to become white I might as well have found a white woman to marry.

P.S. sorry fo the double post I guess I should have read the whole thread before posting. Hehehe.

[bytor2112]

It is unfortunate that such a book was written and taken notice of by so many people. At my Gospel Principles class recently, our teacher referred heavily to that book about certain points of doctrine..I didn't have the heart to tell her of the controversy surrounding it!

A mildly amusing thing happened to me at church last week. We have a number of African, West Indian etc. members attending our ward and as I was leaving with the woman who gives me a lift to church last week we saw a number of these people also getting into their cars to leave. My lift turned to me and said 'there's lots of coloured people attending our ward isn't there? Well, it does say that they will become white eventually doesn't it? I don't mind anyone of any colour myself tho..' I was speechless! Does this woman truly believe that all blacks attending the church will eventually turn white? Does anyone else believe this?!! Surely she is taking the 'white and delightsome people' reference a little too literally!!!

The second addition was revised under the direction of the First Presidency and with the assitance of Spencer W. Kimball and it is still heavily quoted by GA's today. McConkie's father in law (Joseph Fielding Smith) approved of the content and many leaders expressed similar views of blacks being less valiant. The controversy surrounding Mormon Doctrine was the authoratative title of the work. The first edition has some very direct criticism toward the Catholic church and towards LDS members who for example, played cards or gave pre-written talks, etc. I have a copy of the second edition and it is a great resource and much of the doctrinal commentary found within is footnoted and attributed to JS or other sources.

I think the better question is not whether skin color denotes how valiant someone was in the pre-exitence, but rather, were some of us less valiant than others in the pre-existence....I think the answer is yes.

Edited October 26, 2008 by bytor2112

[Guest DeborahC]

You know, what someone USED to say or believe..

or how someone USED to act or think

just isn't as important to me as how they act and think now, and what they say and believe now.

The positive I see in this, whether it is an actual change in doctrine or WHATEVER... the progress I see and support is that NOW there is no longer any discrimination that I can see.

Edited October 27, 2008 by DeborahC

[Moksha]

The whole notion of being cursed with a black skin for whatever reason is offensive nonsense. As President Hinckley said, racism has no place in the Church.

[Guest DeborahC]

Well, I agree that it is nonsense, but it did used to be talked about by members because I remember some of those conversations in my early days. So it didn't just come out of nowhere...

I remember the day it was announced that Black brothers could hold the Priesthood. It was no small matter. Here is the Official Declaration: Official Declaration 2.

I suspect that the Lord never intended blacks not to receive the Priesthood, but that it was mostly due to social pressure that it didn't happen.

Edited October 26, 2008 by DeborahC

[tubaloth]

Holding the preisthood(for a man) in this life is not a requirement for salvation.

Actually it is, and why we do it in the temple for the dead.

[Prodigal_Son]

Regardless of whether or not some folks were "turned" black, to deride an entire race because they chose to have children is just ridiculous. Do we really think that God is exiling his less valiant spirit children to Africa? Or to inner cities?

I suspect that whatever may have (or not) happened initially no longer applies to the current generations. Were the lamanites' posterity lesser people? Of course not. The same applies today. The sins of the father are not the sins of the son.. but the genetics of the father ARE the genetics of the son.

[Hemidakota]

Perhaps, search engine of past written posts or paleriders link may be more useful than speculation here. We are brothers and sisters of the same creator. Does it really matter what we look like or genetic pigmentation we inherited?

In fact, I can say, most mortal brothers and sisters were not at that first pre-mortal council meeting, which Abraham spoke of, no matter the mortal pigmentation of ones body, culture environment received, and so on. It was the second council that all were gathered together that we made that commitment of the Plan of Salvation. Was that speculation? Think about what I just said...then seek out your own answer.

If in fact it was true, does it matter today? Does it matter why our ancestors were not righteous before their Creator? It simply does not matter. We don’t have the time to be apologetic to any creed, race, culture of past mistakes but be together to fight evil and learn to be/walk like/in the Savior’s footsteps. We need to band together to become one as in Zion, not just thoughts, but deeds and love. So move on and ‘DO IT’.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Hemidakota

[Hemidakota]

Regardless of whether or not some folks were "turned" black, to deride an entire race because they chose to have children is just ridiculous. Do we really think that God is exiling his less valiant spirit children to Africa? Or to inner cities?

I suspect that whatever may have (or not) happened initially no longer applies to the current generations. Were the lamanites' posterity lesser people? Of course not. The same applies today. The sins of the father are not the sins of the son.. but the genetics of the father ARE the genetics of the son.

Personally, I think we are just about there with technology in converting or changing ones pre-born skin pigmentation of ones body.

[Guest DeborahC]

The sins of the father are not the sins of the son.. but the genetics of the father ARE the genetics of the son.

Well, it's a little confusing, isn't it?

Yes they do

(Exodus 20:5) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"

(Deuteronomy 5:9) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"

(Exodus 34:6-7) - "Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."

(1 Cor. 15:22) - "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive."

No they don't

(Deuteronomy 24:16) - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."

(Ezekiel 18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."

What I think:

Personally, I think the word sin or iniquity refers to genetics, in some ways. We are all a result of our own (or our ancestor's) decisions. Our problems are a result of our OWN decisions or of our ancestor's decisions.

If we choose to smoke, drink, eat food sprayed with poisonous chemicals and get cancer, it is a result of our own action. If we choose to talk on the cell phone and run a red light and are handicapped, or worse yet, handicap someone else, it is a result of our own choice. If we choose to cheat on our spouse, and they can't ever trust us again, it's our own choice, and our children suffer terribly. If we choose to view pornography or take drugs and get ourselves addicted, it's a result of our own choice.

We choose, every day, our future.

Cancer is rampant because we are misusing knowledge and out of greed, are poisoning our own environment. Some women have breast or uterine cancer as a result of radiation exposure from tests done in the mid part of the 1900's.

Some women get bladder cancer because vanity causes them to dye their hair black.

Very high heeled shoes cause foot problems and pain in older age, but again, vanity outweighs common sense, and we cripple ourselves.

Some believe children have "attention deficit disorder" because their little brains are bombarded from every direction, CONSTANTLY, with waves of energy; radio waves, television waves, microwaves from cell phones and computers. They never get rest, and their organs are forming, and we're idiots for thinking there won't be a price to pay.

Others believe it's from lack of discipline because we've decided that "sparing the rod, spoiling the child" is no longer good advice.

We give our kids everything, not wanting to disappoint them. But learning to be disappointed is a GOOD thing - it is a coping skill.

I see mothers negotiating with 3 year olds at the grocery checkout over candy. What ever happened to a simple, "NO!"

Kids today freak out because their 16 year old girlfriend leaves, and instead of getting over it, they take a gun and shoot up their school. It's madness!

We have diabetes because we consume sugar at a disgusting rate. We have obesity because we "can't get enough ______" to satisfy us (you fill in the blank with anything). Our children suffer and our grandchildren will suffer because of the decisions WE make.

So yes, I believe that the "sins" of the father are visited on the children, and grandchildren, every single day.

And I believe we'll be held responsible for it.

[Hemidakota]

Prodigal_Son, I have been researching for a few years now, whether or not if some genes are passed to a child that holds former intelligence of the parents; some of which made the next generation more venerable to weaknesses. What I am afraid of finding, that even at the lowest form of life, intelligence does exist, and we can inherit the former problems of life. No answers at this time but more of a continuation of ponderous thoughts.

[Prodigal_Son]

DeborahC: don't hold back. Tell us how you REALLY feel.

As a point of clarification, I wasn't inferring that the sins of the father didn't negatively affect the son. Only that: just because the father may or may not have been punished, doesn't mean that some change in physical characteristics for the son means that God is marking that son as just as guilty/inferior as the father.

Hmmmm, I'm not sure I'm making my point... Clear as mud?

[Old Tex]

Holding the preisthood(for a man) in this life is not a requirement for salvation. I don't believe people with darker skin were any less valiant than those who have lighter skin. Color of skin does not determine righteousness.

It is accurate if you are using the word "salvation" to mean resurrection, as most LDS do. If you are speaking of exaltation, then for a male, faith, repentence, baptism, confirmation, and ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood is necessary.

Edited October 27, 2008 by Old Tex