When did the ban on Blacks holding the Priesthood start

[Guest]

I just had this conversation with a friend of mine on getting married. He was asking how I knew my husband is the guy I wanted to be with forever (since we both believe in "marriage for a lifetime") and if there was ever a time I regretted it. I was telling him that it was a conscious decision. I feel love coursing through my entire being and I decided to act on it and marry the chap. After that, there was never any regrets because when a challenge comes up, the decision I made eliminates the question of, "Is he really the one?", and instead replaces it with, "How in the world am I going to deal with this thing?".

This is exactly the same as my decision to join the LDS church. I felt the truth course through my veins, made the decision and acted on it by getting baptized. So now, when challenges like "Blacks banned from the priesthood" or "Joseph Smith practicing polygamy" comes up, the decision I made eliminates the question of, "Are they true prophets of God" and replaces it with, "How in the world do I reconcile this in my head and bear testimony?".

So yeah, I still know without a shadow of a doubt that the Church is true and that every prophet from the time of Joseph Smith was a prophet of of God... blacks, polygamy, mountain meadow massacre, and all that considered.

[rameumptom]

So....you are saying it was the will of God that we didn't lift the ban sooner BECAUSE the people weren't ready?

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.

I do think the Church was not ready until 1978 to lift the ban. Part of it had to do with the struggles of surviving as a Church that was frequently under attack. 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). 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.

I know it wasn't just something the Church had to come to terms with. It was a real revelation. I've heard several of the apostles speak on this topic. Eleven of the 12 apostles were present for the 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.

President Kimball had prayed about it frequently. 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.

[Guest Believer_1829]

I don't know if I buy the "It was a matter of survival for the church." reason...

All of the other churches that believe in the Book of Mormon gave blacks the Priesthood in the 1800's, and they were based in the very heart of were the persecution and mobs happened, and they have somehow managed to survive.

Elder McConkie said it was an experience greater than the witness of the Son of God.

I don't know what to think about the above statement.

[rameumptom]

I don't know if I buy the "It was a matter of survival for the church." reason...

All of the other churches that believe in the Book of Mormon gave blacks the Priesthood in the 1800's, and they were based in the very heart of were the persecution and mobs happened, and they have somehow managed to survive.

Most of the others did not have polygamy to worry about, and were not persecuted for it.

James Strang did practice polygamy, and due to it and a few other things he was doing, was murdered. His Church has dwindled down to almost nothing since then.

Had the LDS had both polygamy (which nearly destroyed us) and a stronger black presence given the racist tendencies of much of 19th century America, I do not believe the Church would have survived.

[Guest Believer_1829]

Most of the others did not have polygamy to worry about, and were not persecuted for it.

James Strang did practice polygamy, and due to it and a few other things he was doing, was murdered. His Church has dwindled down to almost nothing since then.

Had the LDS had both polygamy (which nearly destroyed us) and a stronger black presence given the racist tendencies of much of 19th century America, I do not believe the Church would have survived.

You don't think they were persecuted for the mere tie to "Utah Mormonism"? And then they gave blacks the priesthood on top of that... come on now.

James Strang was murdered by a couple disgruntled ex-followers, not a mob of Wisconsin dairy farmers. And he did a crappy job of setting up a system of church leadership to lead after he died, that is their main problem.

[Misshalfway]

I think I am coming to the conclusion that the "ban" was not official. I am not really seeing anything official that states the OT dictates of lineage or that talk to the policial/social issues of the time. I think all these "explanations" from BY weak attempts (surely the social conditioning of his time) to the modern thinking are perhaps the best we can do to try and figure this thing out.

In the end, I am glad that the brethren had the experience and that the church or the Lord or the circumstances were finally ready to expand the blessings to every family and individual. I really do think this is how JS intended it to go based upon his views of things.

[rameumptom]

James Strang was murdered by a couple disgruntled ex-followers, not a mob of Wisconsin dairy farmers. And he did a crappy job of setting up a system of church leadership to lead after he died, that is their main problem.

While it was some ex-followers who killed him, he had the feds staking out his location, as well. It would have only been a matter of time before the feds would have done to the Strangites what they did to the Utah Mormons.

[dnc76v22]

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,....

Not only between blacks and whites, but also between native Americans and whites, or even Asians and Whites.

[dnc76v22]

I don't know if I buy the "It was a matter of survival for the church." reason...

All of the other churches that believe in the Book of Mormon gave blacks the Priesthood in the 1800's, and they were based in the very heart of were the persecution and mobs happened, and they have somehow managed to survive.

How many black Elders do you suppose would survive doing ordinance work in the southeast United States before 1978?

[breecatasnana]

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.

This is something I would like to know more about too. My knowledge about the priesthood is limited to when it is talked about in the Book of Abraham. Evidently there weren't many who held the priesthood back then, and it was denied to the descendants of Ham. Next is in the Old Testament only those who descended form Aaron could hold the priesthood. Not to much was mentioned about the priesthood in the New Testament. It seems to me the priesthood has been pretty limited in the past and not until the restoration was it given so freely to everyone. The priesthood seems to have grown more and more from the time of Joseph Smith until today when for the first time in history all male members who are worthy can hold the priesthood. To my knowledge this is something that has never happened before. Until now it has always been limited.

Penny

[Maxel]

I don't know if I buy the "It was a matter of survival for the church." reason...

All of the other churches that believe in the Book of Mormon gave blacks the Priesthood in the 1800's, and they were based in the very heart of were the persecution and mobs happened, and they have somehow managed to survive.

And how many of those churches come close to matching the LDS church in size, scope, or presence in the world? The Church is to bring the Gospel to the four corners of the earth- all the other Restoration branches are doing a pretty abysmal job of it when compared to the mainstream LDS church.

The Church didn't just need to survive, it needed to thrive- which it has, but may have not if the priesthood ban been lifted. I don't know- I wager only God does.

[breecatasnana]

I don't know if I buy the "It was a matter of survival for the church." reason...

All of the other churches that believe in the Book of Mormon gave blacks the Priesthood in the 1800's, and they were based in the very heart of were the persecution and mobs happened, and they have somehow managed to survive.

It seems to me that through out history the priesthood has always been very limited among the "true church". Abraham makes mention of it's limitation saying the descendants of Ham could not hold the priesthood. The Old Testament limited it to the descendants of Aaron. It has never been so widely held by the true followers of God as today in the LDS Church. Did God ever give His reason for His limitations in any of those incidents in the past?

Penny

[Guest Believer_1829]

How many black Elders do you suppose would survive doing ordinance work in the southeast United States before 1978?

Well, there are no reports of black RLDS or black Temple Lot priesthood being killed, so the chances probably would've been fair to middlin', I'd guess.

[Guest Believer_1829]

And how many of those churches come close to matching the LDS church in size, scope, or presence in the world? The Church is to bring the Gospel to the four corners of the earth- all the other Restoration branches are doing a pretty abysmal job of it when compared to the mainstream LDS church.

The Church didn't just need to survive, it needed to thrive- which it has, but may have not if the priesthood ban been lifted. I don't know- I wager only God does.

8 people entered the Ark, numbers don't really mean much to me.

[Moksha]

How many black Elders do you suppose would survive doing ordinance work in the southeast United States before 1978?

Does this have something to do with Satan being in the waters? I am quite certain this does not extend to baptismal fonts. Temples are a house of God. They therefore would have been perfectly safe.

[rameumptom]

Well, there are no reports of black RLDS or black Temple Lot priesthood being killed, so the chances probably would've been fair to middlin', I'd guess.

This is a strawman. First we have to determine when, if ever, either of these Churches had black priesthood holders, and if they ever were sent to the South on missions.

As it is, various white LDS missionaries were shot at, killed, tarred and feathered, etc., in the South during the first century of the Church's existence. Near the turn of the last century, J. Golden Kimball was the mission president, and noted that during a meeting in Tennessee, an angry mob shot into the building they were at (which included Joseph Fielding Smith as his assistant).

[Guest Believer_1829]

This is a strawman. First we have to determine when, if ever, either of these Churches had black priesthood holders, and if they ever were sent to the South on missions.

As it is, various white LDS missionaries were shot at, killed, tarred and feathered, etc., in the South during the first century of the Church's existence. Near the turn of the last century, J. Golden Kimball was the mission president, and noted that during a meeting in Tennessee, an angry mob shot into the building they were at (which included Joseph Fielding Smith as his assistant).

Fine, you are right, God didn't give Blacks the Priesthood because He wasn't powerful enough to keep the church from destruction.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yup. Same reason Pres. Woodruff got the revelation to end polygamy.

[Maxel]

8 people entered the Ark, numbers don't really mean much to me.

Err... I don't think the amount of people going into the Ark is relevant- at all- to the topic of the Lord's church thriving in a world of 2,000,000,000+ people. Non-sequitor.

[Guest Believer_1829]

Err... I don't think the amount of people going into the Ark is relevant- at all- to the topic of the Lord's church thriving in a world of 2,000,000,000+ people. Non-sequitor.

Biblical scholars estimate there were as many or more people on the earth at the time of the flood as there are now.

[Moksha]

Does this have something to do with Satan being in the waters? I am quite certain this does not extend to baptismal fonts. Temples are a house of God. They therefore would have been perfectly safe.

Moksha, perhaps he meant that it is questionable if black elders could have survived the evil actions of men - outside the Temple. Even The Shadow admitted that, "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men".

[soulman200973]

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:

email sent

Edited August 7, 2009 by soulman200973
removed as per senior moderators statement and email sent to him directly on subject.

[beefche]

Let's be careful what we say about temple ordinances.

[bytebear]

Biblical scholars estimate there were as many or more people on the earth at the time of the flood as there are now.

I find everything about this statement highly implausible.

[Guest Believer_1829]

I find everything about this statement highly implausible.

1 Peter 3:18-21

"Other population estimates, using more rigorous mathematical models, range from a low of 235 million people (using extremely low numbers of children per couple) to highs of over 20 billion. Tom Pickett's analysis based upon reasonable assumptions puts the pre-Flood population in the range of 5 to 17 billion. Other reputable estimates put the range of from 5 to 10 billion people.5 The point is that, any way you look at it, the number who perished in the Flood was exceedingly large."

Here is the analysis...

Population of the Pre–Flood World