When did the ban on Blacks holding the Priesthood start

[ttribe]

Useful links on this topic:

Black LDS Mormons

The LDS Church and the Race Issue | Blacklds.org

Genesis Group

Curse and mark of Cain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I served my mission in TN and KY and this topic became very important to me - I have an opinion on how this came about, how it ended, etc. However, I am quite aware that my conclusions aren't popular. Therefore, I won't throw them out there. If someone is particularly interested, I may respond via PM.

[Moksha]

2. Yes, Brigham Young was a racist. But so were virtually all other Americans in his day. Though he was a prophet, he was also a mortal with ideas and beliefs formed over decades as a Protestant follower.

Thankfully this racism did not stop the Prophet Joseph Smith from ordaining blacks to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

[Just_A_Guy]

If you read Prince's book on David O. McKay, you will see that Pres McKay prayed for the ban to be lifted, but the Lord did not approve it at that time.

Just thought that bore repeating.

People can demonize Brigham Young and dismiss "man-made" Church policies (and then insert sly innuendos about whatever current Church policy offends their political sensibilities) all they want. But they can't get around David O. McKay emerging from his office in tears because he had just been denied permission to rescind the priesthood ban.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Vooduguru]

One of my stances on the "racist" claims is that as early as 1957 (according to blacklds.org) the Melanesians which had really black skin were ordained priesthood holders, as they didn't share the same lineage as those that were denied. As I've pointed out to some friends, is the denial wasn't based on just skin color as is one of the tenets to racism. In a sense, a blind exclusion of anyone of a race different than another. My dad and I spoke on the matter when I was a teenager, and he pointed out that there were white skinned members that were denied the ordination of the priesthood for the same reasons.

HD, what's your thought on that?

[Moksha]

pointed out that there were white skinned members that were denied the ordination of the priesthood for the same reasons.

HD, what's your thought on that?

My thought is that tests of racial purity were put to ill use.

[TheJoker]

I do think the Church was not ready until 1978 to lift the ban.

Why not? Many other religions had already accepted black people as equal.

Part of it had to do with the struggles of surviving as a Church that was frequently under attack.

No more than any other religious group.

Also, racism was big in the USA, especially in the South, and it would have harmed our efforts to get a foothold in many places (a sad truth, but true, nonetheless).

That is the same now. Many people in the south still are racist.

Just as the restored gospel first required a few centuries of Reformers to prepare the way, I believe the Civil Rights movement and other events, including some in the Church (building of the Sao Paolo Brazil temple), were key in this.

This is totally different from the restored gospel though. This is allowing black men to have the same authority and power as white men.

I know it wasn't just something the Church had to come to terms with.

How do you know this? The church was pretty much the last major religion to allow black people the same rights in the church. If they hadn't have finally let it happen. It would have turned very bad for the LDS members.

It was a real revelation.

I disagree

I've heard several of the apostles speak on this topic.

So have I. None of them have ever made an apology on behalf of the church for allowing this to happen for 150ish years.

Eleven of the 12 apostles were present for the revelation.

Doesn't make it any more credible that it was an actual revelation.

Elder Haight spoke on it frequently in General Conference, as it was the most sublime experience he'd ever had. Elder McConkie said it was an experience greater than the witness of the Son of God. Clearly, there was a major revelation that ended the ban.

I disagree. I think the ban was lifted or the church would have been labled a racist group. If there was a church like that today. It would definatly be labled as such.

President Kimball had prayed about it frequently.

Doesn't add to the credibility it was a revelation.

He knew that the Brazil temple was a huge event, bringing a temple into an area with many of African descent. The time was right. They needed an answer, and the Lord gave it to the First Presidency and Twelve.

Again. I disagree.

[Hemidakota]

One of my stances on the "racist" claims is that as early as 1957 (according to blacklds.org) the Melanesians which had really black skin were ordained priesthood holders, as they didn't share the same lineage as those that were denied. As I've pointed out to some friends, is the denial wasn't based on just skin color as is one of the tenets to racism. In a sense, a blind exclusion of anyone of a race different than another. My dad and I spoke on the matter when I was a teenager, and he pointed out that there were white skinned members that were denied the ordination of the priesthood for the same reasons.

HD, what's your thought on that?

My friend Scott has Irish skin and reddish blonde hair and he was denied the Priesthood based on his father's heritage - Ham. As I spoke to him years ago in his backyard, it was hard for him prior to the church announcing the life of this ban, to except the church. It may have plagued him for years of resentfulness and not living the fullness of gospel, later he fell away from the church. Over the years, I have met his wife, who works in the local area and take cares of the Marines stationed at Camp Pendleton. She is still an active member of the church. Sad to see much grief come to this man life.

[rameumptom]

One of my stances on the "racist" claims is that as early as 1957 (according to blacklds.org) the Melanesians which had really black skin were ordained priesthood holders, as they didn't share the same lineage as those that were denied. As I've pointed out to some friends, is the denial wasn't based on just skin color as is one of the tenets to racism. In a sense, a blind exclusion of anyone of a race different than another. My dad and I spoke on the matter when I was a teenager, and he pointed out that there were white skinned members that were denied the ordination of the priesthood for the same reasons.

HD, what's your thought on that?

Before that time, it was based on skin color. However, when Pres McKay prayed to have the ban lifted, he came to the understanding that the ban did not apply to all black skinned peoples, but to those of African descent.

BTW, I do not believe Joseph Smith made a mistake in ordaining Elijah Abel and other blacks to the priesthood. I do believe that as issues arose after his death regarding race and religion, Brigham Young had to make some difficult decisions, and based them on a faulty Protestant reading of the Bible and other LDS scriptures.

At the same time that I note Brother Brigham's probably misreading, I also note that the Church was already going through a very difficult period with polygamy, the Mormon War, and potential destruction of the Utah settlements by enemies. No doubt that allowing blacks to receive the priesthood and be "equal" with the rest of the saints in early Utah, would have brought greater danger to the Saints. Missionary work in the American South would have been more dangerous. The concept of blacks and whites intermarrying would have emerged as another major issue that would have caused almost all Americans to attack Mormonism. The Church would not have grown as quickly as it did.

Only after America had gotten over its racist tendencies and the Church was big enough to survive any external attacks, was it time to lift the ban. So, while Brigham Young's reasonings for causing the ban may have been racist based (at least to some extent), the Lord still could use it to help the Church avoid more invasions and attacks, until it was ready to stand forth.

[Just_A_Guy]

With all due respect, I'm not sure the Brazil temple explanation holds water one way or the other. The south of Brazil was heavily colonized by (white) German immigrants, and that was the primary teaching pool of the LDS missionaries at least through World War 2 (the Brazilian government supposedly made it illegal to speak German during that time period, which seriously cramped the missionaries' style).

It also seems questionable that the Church at that time would have built a temple where there were insufficient priesthood holders to fully staff it. In the south of Brazil, I think the church could have functioned perfectly well (for a while, at least) even if the pre-1978 policy hadn't been changed.

[ttribe]

Why not? Many other religions had already accepted black people as equal.

And many still have not.

That is the same now. Many people in the south still are racist.

Correct...saw it when I served my mission in TN and KY.

How do you know this? The church was pretty much the last major religion to allow black people the same rights in the church. If they hadn't have finally let it happen. It would have turned very bad for the LDS members.

This all appears to be supposition...have any facts?

So have I. None of them have ever made an apology on behalf of the church for allowing this to happen for 150ish years.

They may not have issued some formal "apology", but Elder McConkie sure made it clear what he said - "Forget everything I have said, or what…Brigham Young…or whomsoever has said…that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." Almost sounds like - "we were wrong."

I disagree. I think the ban was lifted or the church would have been labled a racist group. If there was a church like that today. It would definatly be labled as such.

It was already labeled as such...nevertheless, if there was no revelation at the outset (which there wasn't), why does that preclude a revelation on the back-end? Edited October 16, 2009 by ttribe

[Moksha]

With all due respect, I'm not sure the Brazil temple explanation holds water one way or the other. The south of Brazil was heavily colonized by (white) German immigrants, and that was the primary teaching pool of the LDS missionaries at least through World War 2 (the Brazilian government supposedly made it illegal to speak German during that time period, which seriously cramped the missionaries' style).

It also seems questionable that the Church at that time would have built a temple where there were insufficient priesthood holders to fully staff it. In the south of Brazil, I think the church could have functioned perfectly well (for a while, at least) even if the pre-1978 policy hadn't been changed.

Are you suggesting that the Boys from Brazil became the Elders from Brazil?

[TheJoker]

And many still have not.

Wouldn't you expect the one true church to be leading the way on equal rights?

Correct...saw it when I served my mission in TN and KY.

Okay.

This all appears to be supposition...have any facts?

Look it up.

They may not have issued some formal "apology", but Elder McConkie sure made it clear what he said - "Forget everything I have said, or what…Brigham Young…or whomsoever has said…that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." Almost sounds like - "we were wrong."

Almost sounds like they are dodging an apology. And saying that is just trying to dodge saying "We were wrong for many decades."

It was already labeled as such...

Seemed to help speed up the prophecy then.

nevertheless, if there was no revelation at the outset (which there wasn't), why does that preclude a revelation on the back-end?

There is evidence that Joseph Smith actually baptised and confirmed the Priesthood on two black people. The whole black people not being allowed to hold the Priesthood seems to have started with Brigham Young.

[Hemidakota]

I am always curious on what is referenced, which makes me look into my own archive of saved articles -

"Forget everything I have said, or what…Brigham Young…or whomsoever has said…that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

This was reference to - "All Are Alike Unto God," and address given to Church Education System Religious Education Symposium, BYU, on August 18, 1978 [page 12].

Let me add the whole quote here to give some additional weight to his address given by Elder Bruce R, McConkie, August 17, 1978, reminded a group of Church teachers that, despite past comments by some General Authorities, the new revelation, verified by powerful spiritual confirmations to all the General Authorities, changed everything:

"I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" And all I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more."

When President Kimball, June 8, 1978, in a letter to all general and local priesthood officers, the First Presidency made one of the most far-reaching announcements of our time. What needs to be remembered on how it happened, was President Kimball's constant petitions to the Lord in the Salt Lake Temple -

"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."

[ttribe]

Wouldn't you expect the one true church to be leading the way on equal rights?

I don't know; is that your litmus test for "one true church"? Is there no human element?

Look it up.

Where?

Almost sounds like they are dodging an apology. And saying that is just trying to dodge saying "We were wrong for many decades."

Maybe...but it seems you are unwilling to give any credit here.

Seemed to help speed up the prophecy then.

You mean the same one that it is documented to have been requested numerous times previously by David O. McKay?

There is evidence that Joseph Smith actually baptised and confirmed the Priesthood on two black people. The whole black people not being allowed to hold the Priesthood seems to have started with Brigham Young.

I don't disagree. But that still doesn't answer my question. Edited October 19, 2009 by ttribe

[TheJoker]

I don't know; is that your litmus test for "one true church"? Is there no human element?

Human element yes. But these are supposed to be prophets of god. Shouldn't they be leading the way to make the world a better and fairer place?

Where?

Google it. Check it has a reasonable source. Think about it from a reasonable level. Don't just assume it's nonsense or it will automatically have no value to you.

Maybe...but it seems you are unwilling to give any credit here.

If i apologise to someone. I don't just say reasons why i did the thing which was bad.

You mean the same one that it is documented to have been requested numerous times previously by David O. McKay?

The civil war was before DOM. Think about that. Not hard to know eventually black people would have the same freedom and rights as White people.

I don't disagree. But that still doesn't answer my question.

Does it not? It seems like JS had no problem with black people having the Priesthood. But BY did. So if a prophet does something...the next prophet can say it is wrong?

And weirdly enough. Every so often the prophet is sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator.

Seer meaning:

1. a person who can supposedly see into the future; prophet

2. a person who professes supernatural powers

3. a person who sees

So yes, Mormon prophets if they are genuinally Seer's, should have been trying to speed up the equal rights of black people in the gospel and in the world. As they can 'see' that it is going to be a good thing which will happen and it should happen asap.

Revelator: # (n.) That which is revealed.

1. That which is revealed by God to man; esp., the Bible.

2. Specifically, the last book of the sacred canon, containing the prophecies of St. John; the Apocalypse.

3. The act of revealing divine truth.

4. The act of revealing, disclosing, or discovering to others what was before unknown to them.

Two revelations have been revealed in the church. The revelation of black people being able to hold the priesthood. And Polygamy not being practiced anymore.

Both of these 'Revelations' were reversing JS 'Revelations' and seemed to have been made when the church was being criticised or threatened because of them.

[ttribe]

Human element yes. But these are supposed to be prophets of god. Shouldn't they be leading the way to make the world a better and fairer place?

Perhaps they were...and perhaps you are applying a little bit of presentism here.

Google it. Check it has a reasonable source. Think about it from a reasonable level. Don't just assume it's nonsense or it will automatically have no value to you.

I believe it is you assuming...not me.

You said - "The church was pretty much the last major religion to allow black people the same rights in the church. If they hadn't have finally let it happen. It would have turned very bad for the LDS members."

How am I supposed to "Google" your suppositions that "If they hadn't finally let it happen. (sic) It would have turned out very bad for the LDS members"?

BTW, I've posted this link before, and I've said we were definitely later than most, but there's plenty of racism still present amongst the sects of Christianity (which is what I was alluding to with my comment about TN and KY...still a lot of segregation there): Curse and mark of Cain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If i apologise to someone. I don't just say reasons why i did the thing which was bad.

That's nice. You certainly seem to have a preconceived set of standards you'd like everyone else to live up to.

The civil war was before DOM. Think about that. Not hard to know eventually black people would have the same freedom and rights as White people.

So? My point was that this had been going on behind the scenes for some time.

Does it not? It seems like JS had no problem with black people having the Priesthood. But BY did. So if a prophet does something...the next prophet can say it is wrong?

No, it does not mean a revelation at the back-end is precluded. Why you would think otherwise is still a mystery to me.

And yes, a current prophet can reverse a previous practice.

And weirdly enough. Every so often the prophet is sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator.

Seer meaning:

1. a person who can supposedly see into the future; prophet

2. a person who professes supernatural powers

3. a person who sees

So yes, Mormon prophets if they are genuinally Seer's, should have been trying to speed up the equal rights of black people in the gospel and in the world. As they can 'see' that it is going to be a good thing which will happen and it should happen asap.

Right...so unless it happens on the timetable YOU think it should have, must mean they aren't Seers, correct?

Revelator: # (n.) That which is revealed.

1. That which is revealed by God to man; esp., the Bible.

2. Specifically, the last book of the sacred canon, containing the prophecies of St. John; the Apocalypse.

3. The act of revealing divine truth.

4. The act of revealing, disclosing, or discovering to others what was before unknown to them.

Two revelations have been revealed in the church. The revelation of black people being able to hold the priesthood. And Polygamy not being practiced anymore.

Ummm...there's been a few more than 2, but you seem to have a bias in your interpretation of things anyway.

Both of these 'Revelations' were reversing JS 'Revelations' and seemed to have been made when the church was being criticised or threatened because of them.

Let's see if you decide to take this another step...my guess is you will...and you'll be wrong. Edited October 22, 2009 by ttribe