When did the ban on Blacks holding the Priesthood start

[Avrham]

Hi just wondering when did the ban on Blacks holding the Priesthood start from? just curious was their a official ban on Blacks/Priesthod when Joseph Smith started the Church is/was it doctrine or was the ban a cultural thing:):):)

[Misshalfway]

I would like to know the answer to this too. It has been explained to me that some blacks did hold the priesthood at the time of JSmith. So, I would like to know how it all evolved over time.

[Palerider]

check out this web site.......

Black LDS Mormons

[BenRaines]

Was there a ban? I thought the instructions were that Priesthood was not to be given to those who were of a certain blood line. They were baptized. Held callings that did not require Priesthood.

Would you say that women are banned from the Priesthood?

Ben Raines

[Misshalfway]

TY, Pale. I read the timeline. It is a little vague with regards to when the ban started....it seems the early 12/post JSmith were confused as to whether the ban was inspired or not. It seems the brethren were very confused about sealings and the endowment and who should be given those too. And then later all of the sudden it is said that the ban was not policy or practice but that the church was under the constraints of God. Seems a little fuzzy. Maybe the historical accounts are just not documented well enough.

But I was impressed by the quote by Bruce R Mc. that we should forget all that was said before 1978 on the subject. It appears that there was much confusion about the issue. Maybe that is wise for all of us today.

[Misshalfway]

Was there a ban? I thought the instructions were that Priesthood was not to be given to those who were of a certain blood line. They were baptized. Held callings that did not require Priesthood.

Would you say that women are banned from the Priesthood?

Ben Raines

Only because the church did give the priesthood to blacks which practice slowly came to a halt. Then later on some blacks (of different origin) were given the priesthood. Something that seems funky to me too because if the church were using Patriarchal blessings to determine bloodline, then why not with the blacks of America.

[Snow]

Was there a ban? I thought the instructions were that Priesthood was not to be given to those who were of a certain blood line. They were baptized. Held callings that did not require Priesthood.

Would you say that women are banned from the Priesthood?

Ben Raines

Yes there was a ban against blacks receiving the priesthood.

Yes women are banned, as are non-members and argonauts.

ban: To prohibit, especially by official decree:

[BenRaines]

Thanks Snow :)

Ben Raines

[Snow]

Thanks Snow :)

Ben Raines

You're welcome - matter of semantics really - "banned" sounds negative or argumentative it doesn't necessarily have to be.

[Misshalfway]

The question still remains....when did the ban officially start because it wasn't with Joseph Smith. And when was the revelation given that supports what later prophets say about it being a dictate from God and not policy?

[Moksha]

I think it first came about at Winter Quarters when someone claimed that Joseph Smith had said something like this. This coupled with the animosity toward black member William McCrary, who by March 1947 was seen as a potential poacher of nubile brides - which was terribly offensive to many southern Mormons. Somehow this claim, became through a series of comedies and errors, became the working policy for 132 years.

[bytor2112]

I think it first came about at Winter Quarters when someone claimed that Joseph Smith had said something like this. This coupled with the animosity toward black member William McCrary, who by March 1947 was seen as a potential poacher of nubile brides - which was terribly offensive to many southern Mormons. Somehow this claim, became through a series of comedies and errors, became the working policy for 132 years.

I think you mean 1847....and really, do you think it was ONLY Southern Mormons:eek:

[rameumptom]

Racism as we know it today was very common throughout America in 1847. The concerns of marriages between blacks and whites was a big concern at the time, especially with the McCrary issue.

In deciding what to do, I think Brigham Young went back to his Protestant roots, which believed in the curse of Cain and Cainan (Ham's son) being a curse on black people, and he applied it to the priesthood. Why? Because writings in the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham and Book of Moses could ostensibly be read in such a way as to corroborate such a view. They did not know what textual or historical criticism was back then, and so didn't parse the words like scholars today can do into their proper meaning.

There is no known revelation causing the ban to occur. Brigham Young may have caused it to occur so as to maintain order within the Church (preventing blacks from marrying whites). But it could also be an issue of 19th century racism.

As it is, those who already held the priesthood, did not lose their priesthood. Elijah Abel was ordained by Joseph Smith as a 70, and went on several missions, including after the Saints went west. However, once the Endowment House and temples were built, he was not allowed inside. So, even he was restricted from further blessings at the time.

Since Brigham Young was such a powerful character and prophet, no one bothered to question the priesthood ban, but only studied ways to understand and support it. This is why there were so many different ideas tossed out, such as blacks being fence sitters in the premortal existence, later repudiated by the Church.

Two prophets did have researchers see if the ban began via revelation, and neither time was it confirmed. Pres McKay determined that it wasn't established by revelation, but when he asked, the Lord told him to keep it in place for a while longer.

While it is tragic what happened in conjunction with the ban, and how it encouraged its own form of racism in members, I always remember that God works with people in spite of their weaknesses, not because of them. Given the fact that Brigham Young was always fighting an uphill battle to succeed in the west, I'm surprised there were so few radical events and teachings come from him.

I think that this helped to preserve the Church. When we realize all the damage that occurred because of polygamy (death of Joseph and Hyrum, forcing Saints to go West, loss of Church property, imprisonment of members, etc), imagine the double struggle if the Church in the 19th century had blacks as equals to whites. Missionary work would have totally ended in the South and in many other places (segregation still exists, as most blacks and whites in other denominations attend racially segregated churches). This and the ending of polygamy in 1890 gave the Church a chance to become an international church, and strong enough to stand on its feet through difficult times.

I believe that the temple in Brazil was the key to having the ban lifted. The Church in 1978 was no longer a Utah Church. Brazil was exploding with baptisms, and the temple was about to be dedicated. With the racial mixture in Brazil, there was a definite need to know if the Lord would finally lift the ban. All of the First Presidency and 11 of the 12 were present (Elder Mark Peterson was absent).

Elder David B. Haight, recently called to the 12, stated that the revelation to lift the ban was a very sublime experience. Elder McConkie stated that it was a witness greater than the witness of the Son of God. (Both spoke in stake conferences in Bolivia in 1979, when I was on my mission there).

While I believe the ban was a sad and tragic reality of the human condition, I also believe that when the Church, Saints, and the world were finally ready, the Lord himself stepped in to open this wonderful dispensation of priesthood blessings to blacks everywhere.

[Moksha]

I think you mean 1847....and really, do you think it was ONLY Southern Mormons:eek:

Bytor, thanks for pointing out the 1847 and the fact that this unfortunate feeling was not limited to Southern Mormons. I should have also said "potential nubile polygamous brides" so it would not read like he was bothering any married women. I imagine McCrary knew better than that.

Has anyone ever read about black member Jane Mannings James pleas to receive Temple blessings?

LDS Women's History: Jane Manning James

:)

[HEthePrimate]

The question still remains....when did the ban officially start because it wasn't with Joseph Smith. And when was the revelation given that supports what later prophets say about it being a dictate from God and not policy?

I was under the impression it started under BY, but am not sure it ever "officially" started, but just kind of happened, and stayed that way out of sheer inertia until SWK took the matter up. Not sure there was an official revelation, either, saying that the ban was a dictate from God as opposed to a policy. It's all very murky, kinda like people were ashamed of it...

HEP

[Justice]

but when he asked, the Lord told him to keep it in place for a while longer.

Few have felt more confusion over this issue than I have throughout my life. However, shouldn't the above statement end the discussion?

[Snow]

Two prophets did have researchers see if the ban began via revelation, and neither time was it confirmed. Pres McKay determined that it wasn't established by revelation, but when he asked, the Lord told him to keep it in place for a while longer.

One would think that Christ's church would lead the pack, not straggle behind. Give the harm that the ban (and polygamy for that matter) have done to the Church, why would God want to leave the ban in place?

By the way, can I get the correct quote or citation?

[rameumptom]

That is found in Prince's book on McKay. I don't have the book with me right now, so I can't give page number.

And the Lord's Church doesn't always "lead the pack." Genealogy did not really take off, even in the Church, until Alex Haley's Roots movie became a hit, for instance. Christian missionary work in many areas began, not with the LDS Church, but other churches. And we were slow to get onto the Internet, as the Church tried to figure out how it wanted to do it.

[Guest Believer_1829]

I moved this from the polygamy thread per Head Moderator Ben Raines's request...

Originally Posted by breecatasnana

What you say is quite true. I understand this concept completely as I believe that God put the ban on Blacks holding the priesthood through Joseph Smith and then removed it later through a different prophet.

But saying God did not tell Joseph Smith to put the ban on blacks holding the priesthood, but rather Joseph did it on his own because of peer preasure, and that he then lied to the church saying God commanded it when He did not, is not the same thing at all.

My question to you then is: Did God put the ban on Blacks holding the priesthood or did Joseph Smith do it claiming God did?

Penny

Could you please share a single instance where Joseph Smith taught that blacks could not have the Priesthood?

Thank you.

[Snow]

That is found in Prince's book on McKay. I don't have the book with me right now, so I can't give page number.

And the Lord's Church doesn't always "lead the pack." Genealogy did not really take off, even in the Church, until Alex Haley's Roots movie became a hit, for instance. Christian missionary work in many areas began, not with the LDS Church, but other churches. And we were slow to get onto the Internet, as the Church tried to figure out how it wanted to do it.

I can assure you that proxy temple work was being done long before Roots.

I can also assure you that missionary work started in the very earliest days of Church.

Internet usage is not a doctrinal or ethicall matter.

But my question was - in matters of doctrine, justice, ethics - for example treating black men with the same sense of Godly equality that Paul taught about 2000 years ago, why would God's church bring up the rear?

... when you have a chance, please check your sources on David O McKay - President Mckay thought it was a matter of policy, not doctrine and though he sought an answer from the Lord, never received it.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Snow

[Just_A_Guy]

Snow, FWIW, I recall reading something similar--I think it was in Woodger's biography--about McKay's son or secretary (?) happening upon McKay and finding him in tears, having just been denied permission to rescind the ban.

[rameumptom]

But my question was - in matters of doctrine, justice, ethics - for example treating black men with the same sense of Godly equality that Paul taught about 2000 years ago, why would God's church bring up the rear?

For the same reason the Lord would give commandments and then revoke them later - the Saints were not ready for them. Why do we not live the United Order right now?

For example, D&C 124:1 states God works through the "weak things of the world". He commanded a proclamation be written and sent to the president and the kings of the nations. Robert Thompson was to assist in writing it. Thompson died a few months later, and while Joseph tinkered with the proclamation on occasion, never completed it before his death. Parley P Pratt finished it in 1847, but it was never sent to the kings of the earth, as Brigham Young felt it was too strongly worded.

The Church's history is messier than we often think. This does not mean Joseph Smith was not a prophet, he was just one of the "weak things of the world" through whom God worked. I'm convinced that the same holds true in the issue of the priesthood ban.

[Misshalfway]

For the same reason the Lord would give commandments and then revoke them later - the Saints were not ready for them. Why do we not live the United Order right now?

For example, D&C 124:1 states God works through the "weak things of the world". He commanded a proclamation be written and sent to the president and the kings of the nations. Robert Thompson was to assist in writing it. Thompson died a few months later, and while Joseph tinkered with the proclamation on occasion, never completed it before his death. Parley P Pratt finished it in 1847, but it was never sent to the kings of the earth, as Brigham Young felt it was too strongly worded.

The Church's history is messier than we often think. This does not mean Joseph Smith was not a prophet, he was just one of the "weak things of the world" through whom God worked. I'm convinced that the same holds true in the issue of the priesthood ban.

So....you are saying it was the will of God that we didn't lift the ban sooner BECAUSE the people weren't ready? Which I think may very well have been true but I thought it was because the priesthood and lineage was important....for whatever wild reason.

The saints weren't "ready" for the WofW. It took the church years to ramp up to that one. And the church wasn't "ready" for polygamy. Who was it that threw his tea cup at the idea?

I guess I am left to wonder if the Lord actually did advise later prophets not to do anything about the ban until 1978 or if the church had to justify itself and used the "God told us so" label to do so until they could figure it out themselves. And if this is true.....then the church does have a credibility problem. Is this why they say so often that we should "just move on"?

In any case, I think that there is a need to come to terms with the human nature of the church. I think had the people known back then that God didn't dictate this that the Saints (some) would have demanded it sooner.

Edited August 3, 2009 by Misshalfway

[dazed-and-confused]

I had seen this thread for a while, but only just now read through it.

Many good points and counter-points have been stated and i appreciate reading them all.

Like misshalfway did, if i read it correctly, i have asked myself if the response to some issues being, "just move on", is one of avoidance by the church.

However, as i read this, one thing became clear to me, and that is how easily we (i), as people can get distracted by an issue that has, in fact, been resolved.

While discussion is a great thing, at some point one has to say to themselves, enough already, time to move on.....unless one really NEEDS the distraction.

[Misshalfway]

I had seen this thread for a while, but only just now read through it.

Many good points and counter-points have been stated and i appreciate reading them all.

Like misshalfway did, if i read it correctly, i have asked myself if the response to some issues being, "just move on", is one of avoidance by the church.

However, as i read this, one thing became clear to me, and that is how easily we (i), as people can get distracted by an issue that has, in fact, been resolved.

While discussion is a great thing, at some point one has to say to themselves, enough already, time to move on.....unless one really NEEDS the distraction.

You are right on one hand that the issue has been resolved and that we can finally move forward perhaps the way the Joseph had originally intended.

But I think the concern goes deeper than this particular issue. If we are to follow the prophets unconditionally and trust in the promise that we won't go astray, then we must have some assurance that they are not acting on human wisdom or trends of the day. We must know that the Lord is speaking and they have the courage to follow. Most of my upbringing has taught me to be very idealistic about this process and I think that is true for lots of LDS people. So, when we start getting into the nitty gritty of the process ....well, isn't it easy to see how doubt can develop?