To all worthy male members...


Justice
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have a question.

A friend of mine from high school, that I haven't seen in 25 years, drove out from Arizona to spend week with my family. He is currently staying with my brother, who was also a good friend. It seems he may be staying here. After getting a divorce in Arizona, he was looking for a change.

We took very different paths. He spent a total of 15 years as a minister for a branch of the Church of Christ. His duties took him to various countries in Europe and Africa, where he lived and organized churches.

It's important here to mention that he's black.

During our discussion he said the Mormon Church was wrong for not allowing blacks to hold the Priesthood (he didn't word it that way--actually he didn't know exactly what it was, he just knew there was "discrimination" of some kind).

I'd like to hear how you would explain this to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't know if it makes a difference, but this man is like family. He came to live with us for a year after we moved away from California during mine and his senior years in high school. He lived in my room with me and we grew very close.

After all this, 25 years passed, without contact, and he still says I was the best friend he ever had, and he considers me a blood brother.

That might help you with your answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The history of the Priesthood is the story of its expansion. Initially, it was patrilineal. Only those in the line of the patriarchs held it. After Israel's time, the lesser Priesthood was given to Levi's descendents, and only they held it. In the meridian of time, it expanded beyond that, and we can assume that even Gentiles probably held the Priesthood.

Joseph Smith ordained a black man (of African descent) to be an Elder. But for some reason, those of black African descent were in general barred from holding the Priesthood earlier in this dispensation. We do not know why; many men expressed their opinions or understanding, but I don't believe the First Presidency ever gave a canonical reason why. As at other times, that restriction was eventually overcome, and for more than 30 years the Church has taught the all worthy men may hold Christ's Priesthood and receive the blessings associated with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to think that the priesthood ban was a prejudice thing, but then I studied how the church grew in Western Africa. 20 years before the priesthood ban, black Africans in Ghana and Nigeria were embracing the gospel. They started their own LDS branches on their own, taught and converted people to the gospel, all the while waiting until the priesthood would be sent to their countries. The church did send out representatives but could not establish churches because there would be no priesthood to lead them, so the church told these leaders to continue what they were doing. One story tells of the mission president of the South African mission going to meet these leaders in Ghana, and finding at the airport a dozen men waiting to greet him. Not just the number surprised him, but that none of them knew about each other. The church grew, and finally in 1978, the ban was lifted, and the church had thousands of black Africans ready to establish God's church in those countries. They had stakes, wards and branches opened almost immediately. Now there is a temple in Ghana and another in Nigeria. it is my firm testimony that this great work could never have happened if the Lord did not preapare these people in the way that He did and teach them sacrifice and patience and trust in the Lord. They are now known as the African pioneers and have struggled and toiled for the Lord and been blessed just as the pioneers who crossed the plains in 1847. Their faith is strong in the Lord because they were tested. That is why God waited until he did.

And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith. - Ether 12:6

Edited by bytebear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I don't know if it was "official" revelation.

As Vort pointed out Joseph ordained a black African.

I think it was like the subject of birth control or certain types of fornication that at one time were forbidden but are no longer. Many will disagree because of the "Prophet won't lead the church astray clause" if you will, but it didn't destroy the church so i think it is possible that it was simply the personal opinions/ time period bias (like the other examples).

When it was taught they couldn't have the Priesthood because they were less valiant in or because they were the decendents of Cain most members see the last part as wrong/opinion yet can't fathom that if the reason was wrong, the issue might have been as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest HEthePrimate

Hi, Justice.

I believe it was wrong to deny blacks the priesthood, and this is what I suggest you tell your friend. That kind of discrimination bothered the prophets (starting at least with D.O. McKay), and they questioned the policy--and even if it WAS a policy, or just a tradition that started during Brigham Young's administration (during Joseph Smith's time, blacks were ordained to the priesthood). And finally, under President Kimball, the policy/tradition was changed. I think the priesthood ban originated not with the Lord, but with prejudiced Church members. Once enough Church members (and leaders) were willing to accept blacks, things changed. I can just picture S.W. Kimball praying his heart out about this matter, and the Lord replying "Geez, it's about time!" :D

HEP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One explanation is that the people weren't ready. The white members of the church, perhaps, wouldn't be as so 'gung-ho' about the church if it allowed blacks the priesthood - It's sad, but probably true in some ways.

Also, I think it may have just been the stereotypes seeping into the church; and then God corrected it.

I tend to think this comment by Stallion is at least part of the reason, it had to do with being prepared for it. I would just tell him the truth......which is we don't really know the exact answer. The following quote from Elder McConkie, I think provides some insight.

We received the priesthood first in the premortal existence and then again as mortals. Adam held the keys and used the priesthood when he participated in the creation of the earth. After his baptism he received the priesthood again, and he now stands as the presiding High Priest over all the earth.

All of us who have calls to minister in the holy priesthood were foreordained to be ministers of Christ, and to come here in our appointed days, and to labor on his errand. -Elder Bruce R. McConkie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the book 'Mormon Doctrine' disregarded by the Presidency, now? 'Cause, in there it claims that 'negroes' were "on the fence" in heaven, that is that they weren't fully committed to God's plan; therefore they have certain restrictions in this life.

What is the First Presidencies view on this?

That was in the first edition and is not in the revised edition. Elder McConkie made some changes in the second edition along with the assistance of Spencer Kimball and under the direction of the First Presidency. So, my assumption is that the second edition which has a much "softer" tone is viewed as an accurate characterization of LDS beliefs.

I think the views of McConkie who was a Seventy when he published the first edition of Mormon Doctrine were reflective of the brethren's understanding of those issues. I have read some talks by other GA's that reflect the same sentiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the book 'Mormon Doctrine' disregarded by the Presidency, now? 'Cause, in there it claims that 'negroes' were "on the fence" in heaven, that is that they weren't fully committed to God's plan; therefore they have certain restrictions in this life.

What is the First Presidencies view on this?

the first edition was a bit of a scandal, but the LDS Bible Dictionary is largely compiled from Mormon Doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest GoodnessGracious

I have a question.

A friend of mine from high school, that I haven't seen in 25 years, drove out from Arizona to spend week with my family. He is currently staying with my brother, who was also a good friend. It seems he may be staying here. After getting a divorce in Arizona, he was looking for a change.

We took very different paths. He spent a total of 15 years as a minister for a branch of the Church of Christ. His duties took him to various countries in Europe and Africa, where he lived and organized churches.

It's important here to mention that he's black.

During our discussion he said the Mormon Church was wrong for not allowing blacks to hold the Priesthood (he didn't word it that way--actually he didn't know exactly what it was, he just knew there was "discrimination" of some kind).

I'd like to hear how you would explain this to him.

there is a book that came out I think in the early 80's of the first lds black man given the priesthood after Kimball's announcement. It's his life story and offers some background of what life was like for black members before that time. Not sure if you can get it anymore but definitely worth a read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Justice.

I believe it was wrong to deny blacks the priesthood, and this is what I suggest you tell your friend. That kind of discrimination bothered the prophets (starting at least with D.O. McKay), and they questioned the policy--and even if it WAS a policy, or just a tradition that started during Brigham Young's administration (during Joseph Smith's time, blacks were ordained to the priesthood). And finally, under President Kimball, the policy/tradition was changed. I think the priesthood ban originated not with the Lord, but with prejudiced Church members. Once enough Church members (and leaders) were willing to accept blacks, things changed. I can just picture S.W. Kimball praying his heart out about this matter, and the Lord replying "Geez, it's about time!" :D

HEP

In point of fact, David O. McKay prayed to the Lord and asked for permission to remove the ban. He received the answer that the time to lift the ban had not yet arrived. I believe his son recounted the story later; it's in McKay's biography by Mary Jane Woodger.

I think all we can really say is that we don't know why the ban came about; but we know that it came about through one man we accept as a prophet of God (Brigham Young); was confirmed by direct revelation to another man we accept as a prophet of God (David McKay), and was ended by yet another man we accept as a prophet of God (Spencer Kimball). We know, by a careful study of the scriptures, that God is not quite as egalitarian as we 21st-century Americans would like Him to be. But anything else really comes down to speculation.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My usual (internal) response to things like this, or things that pop up that you never knew about church history (or the like) usually goes along these lines:

It's not like God wasn't aware of that when I prayed about the Book of Mormon and whether the Church was true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I don't know if it was "official" revelation.

As Vort pointed out Joseph ordained a black African.

I think it was like the subject of birth control or certain types of fornication that at one time were forbidden but are no longer.

What do you mean certain types of fornication that at one time were forbidden are no longer forbidden? I do not understand what you mean by this statement.

To my knowledge fornication is sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons. The gospel has always taught that this is a violation of God's standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean certain types of fornication that at one time were forbidden are no longer forbidden? I do not understand what you mean by this statement.

To my knowledge fornication is sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons. The gospel has always taught that this is a violation of God's standard.

Think President Clinton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But surely what he did is still forbidden??????

My own personal understanding of the priesthood not being given to certain races during a period of time might have more to do with the ability of other races to accept it than with the worthyness of those races who were denied it for a while.

Your thinking of whom he did it with, i'm referring to the action itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share