When did the ban on Blacks holding the Priesthood start

[Guest Believer_1829]

Don't be that way Believer. Answer the questions if you can.

Hmmmm... keep you nose out of my business. Thanks, champ!

[Snow]

Hmmmm... keep you nose out of my business. Thanks, champ!

Don't be that way Believer. Please answer the questions.

Why would you not alter your dogmatic views if there were shown to be wrong by the evidence?

[Guest]

My bad, I guess I read your post wrong, sorry. I use the Bible and Book of Mormon as scripture, just so we are clear.

But we really should move it somewhere besides this topic...

Now come here and give me a

You're right tho. This should be another topic. I think there's one there already about evolution and such. I remember posting something about it a while back.

The blacks and priesthood is very interesting to me too. Learning a lot here...

[Moksha]

It began in Nigeria when several groups of black Christians somehow obtained Church books, believed them, organized churches patterned after what they read in the literature, and wrote to Church headquarters asking for missionaries.

Thanks to our cousins the RLDS, who for inexplicable reasons did not feel the same way towards those of African heritage at that point in history. Although their mission was gone by then, the seeds they planted lay dormant till those teaching from the Book of Mormon returned.

[bmy-]

Don't be that way Believer. Please answer the questions.

Why would you not alter your dogmatic views if there were shown to be wrong by the evidence?

Cognitive dissonance. The only medicine.. is well.. more evidence.

[Maxel]

Don't be that way Believer. Please answer the questions.

Why would you not alter your dogmatic views if there were shown to be wrong by the evidence?

Seeing as how science matures and continues to give us different lenses of truth through which to view the world, I don't see how one could be faulted for preferring to use scripture as a source of understanding about certain subjects.

[Snow]

Seeing as how science matures and continues to give us different lenses of truth through which to view the world, I don't see how one could be faulted for preferring to use scripture as a source of understanding about certain subjects.

Sure - if the subjects are soteriology or eschatoloy - but if the subject is plate tectonics....???

[Maxel]

Sure - if the subjects are soteriology or eschatoloy - but if the subject is plate tectonics....???

That's not the point. The point is that science evolves and matures, and as it does so old theories of how the universe operates are proven incorrect and new theories are developed to explain the new level of knowledge. I think this fact is indisputable.

A person, seeing this, may form opinions about how the universe operates (or about Earth's history) based on scriptural accounts that don't jive with current scientific thought (plate tectonics, for example, is not a perfect theory, or even proven- despite its accuracy and usefulness).

The bottom line, however, is that pursuing it and harping on someone for being dogmatic is unhealthy for both parties involved, and it's far from being charitable.

[Hemidakota]

Don't be that way Believer. Please answer the questions.

Why would you not alter your dogmatic views if there were shown to be wrong by the evidence?

If the Lord did not reveal it to President David O McKay, then why should he reveal it to you? Right?

[rameumptom]

Hemi did a favor in the quotes from Pres Kimball. I'd like to note two points from them:

I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation. (6/15/63)

After everybody had gone out of the temple, I knelt and prayed. I prayed with much fervency. I knew that something was before us that was extremely important to many of the children of God. I knew that we could receive the revelations of the Lord only by being worthy and ready for them and ready to accept them and put them into place.

Here we see that Pres Kimball realized that the ban could have been caused by an "error". What kind of error? Perhaps the mistakes and traditions of former prophets.

Why didn't God lift it earlier? Because we had to be worthy and ready for the change, willing to put it into place. Here then, are the key reasons why there was a ban (a possible error), and why we had to wait for it to be lifted (The members had to be ready).

[Guest Believer_1829]

Hemi did a favor in the quotes from Pres Kimball. I'd like to note two points from them:

Here we see that Pres Kimball realized that the ban could have been caused by an "error". What kind of error? Perhaps the mistakes and traditions of former prophets.

Why didn't God lift it earlier? Because we had to be worthy and ready for the change, willing to put it into place. Here then, are the key reasons why there was a ban (a possible error), and why we had to wait for it to be lifted (The members had to be ready).

If it was an error that was only corrected by the Lord when the church became worthy again to receive them into Priesthood roles, the Church would do itself a HUGE favor by admitting that fact.

[breecatasnana]

Hemi did a favor in the quotes from Pres Kimball. I'd like to note two points from them:

Here we see that Pres Kimball realized that the ban could have been caused by an "error". What kind of error? Perhaps the mistakes and traditions of former prophets.

Why didn't God lift it earlier? Because we had to be worthy and ready for the change, willing to put it into place. Here then, are the key reasons why there was a ban (a possible error), and why we had to wait for it to be lifted (The members had to be ready).

It depends on how one interprets President Kimball's statement. He could have meant human error here on earth, or he could have meant an error made in the pre-earth life by those born into the black race. Let's not put words into a prophet's mouth. Only he can tell us what he meant by that statement.

Penny

[Moksha]

Why didn't God lift it earlier? Because we had to be worthy and ready for the change, willing to put it into place. Here then, are the key reasons why there was a ban (a possible error), and why we had to wait for it to be lifted (The members had to be ready).

Ah, if only the members had been ready for the teachings regarding this accepting African-American members that the Prophet Joseph Smith had placed before them 132 years earlier. We live and we learn.

[Snow]

Hemi did a favor in the quotes from Pres Kimball. I'd like to note two points from them:

Here we see that Pres Kimball realized that the ban could have been caused by an "error". What kind of error? Perhaps the mistakes and traditions of former prophets.

Why didn't God lift it earlier? Because we had to be worthy and ready for the change, willing to put it into place. Here then, are the key reasons why there was a ban (a possible error), and why we had to wait for it to be lifted (The members had to be ready).

That would suggest that the membership of the Church is less prepared than the general population to follow God's precepts since most others started integrating the clergy a generation or so earlier.

It could be that Church members of the 50 and 60 were bigger bigots that member of other churches but if so, that's a sad commentary.

[rameumptom]

If it was an error that was only corrected by the Lord when the church became worthy again to receive them into Priesthood roles, the Church would do itself a HUGE favor by admitting that fact.

The problem is determining what is Fact, and what is plausible. For all we know, the Lord still has not given the Prophet the full reasoning behind all of this. This is why we can admit that it is a potential error, but perhaps not know for certain.

As it is, it definitely would make things easier if someone were to come out and say "mea culpa" and apologize completely for it. Reality, though, most things are not as black and white (no pun intended) as we wished they were.

[rameumptom]

That would suggest that the membership of the Church is less prepared than the general population to follow God's precepts since most others started integrating the clergy a generation or so earlier.

It could be that Church members of the 50 and 60 were bigger bigots that member of other churches but if so, that's a sad commentary.

Well, given the many things written by General Authorities concerning the "curse", and the insistence in having it well established, it would make things much harder to change in the Church than in others.

After all, for a long time, and still true for many today, members have viewed the prophets as infallible. Look at how hard it was for members to leave off polygamy after 1890: a couple of apostles were excommunicated, and a second Manifesto had to be issued. Clearly, once the saints get something stuck in their head, it takes a large club to pound it out of them.

[Vooduguru]

Well this will be my first post on this site. Here are some statements that I'd like to share:

Given the flagrant throwing of the term "racist" around people of the LDS faith, and its history, I fail to see where the empirical evidence to such a claim rests.

From my own study on the matter, beginning with Joseph Smith, he was an abolitionist, who's ideas (correct me if I'm wrong) were even more "extreme" than President Lincolns desires 20 + years later. For example, again, correct me if I'm wrong, but JS called for not only the abolition of slavery, but for blacks to OWN property AND vote.

If this is true, then Joseph Smith does not fit the moniker of "racist" by his actions.

From what I can gather, BY made some very questionable statements pertaining to having carnal relations with a black person, that a curse or instant death would follow. Personally from what I can gather, is that the "death" refers to spiritual death, and out of wedlock intercourse would also bring about a curse in the sense that all sin would bring with it some form of consequence (curse) and also, someone correct me, but wasn't it not even permitted for a white person to marry a slave or "negro"?

*I'm using the term correctly for the period of history where the term "negro" was as "African-American" is used today.

From what I've read the LDS faith never denied membership but restricted certain progression based on lineage, and not necessarily "skin color" because IF the accusation was true, that the ban was strictly based on skin color, then the Melanesians would have never received the priesthood in the 50's. Furthermore, from what I've gathered, the Hamites were not singly black skinned. They were both. Given the reference in Abraham 1:26, I see the blessing of wisdom to the black culture. But the denial of ALL priesthood benefits until was akin to God cursing the land for their sakes. Also, the reference to "black skin" from what I've read had more to do with geographic location as the descendants evolved a darker skin to protect themselves from the hotter, less dense foliage forest. Personally I believe in some aspects of evolution, as it pertains to the animal kingdom. I will never believe that it's possible that man evolved from some ape-like creature then we became human.

I'd like some feedback on my comments, specifically from HemiDakota. I ain't talked with him in like forever!

[Hemidakota]

Well this will be my first post on this site. Here are some statements that I'd like to share:

Given the flagrant throwing of the term "racist" around people of the LDS faith, and its history, I fail to see where the empirical evidence to such a claim rests.

From my own study on the matter, beginning with Joseph Smith, he was an abolitionist, who's ideas (correct me if I'm wrong) were even more "extreme" than President Lincolns desires 20 + years later. For example, again, correct me if I'm wrong, but JS called for not only the abolition of slavery, but for blacks to OWN property AND vote.

If this is true, then Joseph Smith does not fit the moniker of "racist" by his actions.

From what I can gather, BY made some very questionable statements pertaining to having carnal relations with a black person, that a curse or instant death would follow. Personally from what I can gather, is that the "death" refers to spiritual death, and out of wedlock intercourse would also bring about a curse in the sense that all sin would bring with it some form of consequence (curse) and also, someone correct me, but wasn't it not even permitted for a white person to marry a slave or "negro"?

*I'm using the term correctly for the period of history where the term "negro" was as "African-American" is used today.

From what I've read the LDS faith never denied membership but restricted certain progression based on lineage, and not necessarily "skin color" because IF the accusation was true, that the ban was strictly based on skin color, then the Melanesians would have never received the priesthood in the 50's. Furthermore, from what I've gathered, the Hamites were not singly black skinned. They were both. Given the reference in Abraham 1:26, I see the blessing of wisdom to the black culture. But the denial of ALL priesthood benefits until was akin to God cursing the land for their sakes. Also, the reference to "black skin" from what I've read had more to do with geographic location as the descendants evolved a darker skin to protect themselves from the hotter, less dense foliage forest. Personally I believe in some aspects of evolution, as it pertains to the animal kingdom. I will never believe that it's possible that man evolved from some ape-like creature then we became human.

I'd like some feedback on my comments, specifically from HemiDakota. I ain't talked with him in like forever!

In the early days of the church, Joseph Smith life was a learning curve and known to make mistakes on specific issues; we see it today in his journals where the Lord corrects him time after time. One of those mistakes was not confiding in Lord in allowing the lineage of Ham in receiving saving ordinances. We could review and patternizing past received revelations between these two great men; the relationship between them was more than cordial, it was overwhelming affection the Savior had for Joseph. During a translation of specific scrolls found, Joseph must have realized the mistake made and did not openly admitted to this gross error. More or less, there is no further journal explanation on why he stopped. As we also seen, there was no further baptism from this point on from Joseph or any of them allowed further saving ordinances. Even one of the brethren was ordained a Seventy but was not allowed to later to have his temple ordinance complete. He simple failed to consult the Lord. We can assume there was a silent correction made by the Lord on this issue. Using my own life, even I at times have been ‘corrected by the Lord’ and have not recorded it for a purpose.

Moving forward in time, we do see other prophets, who strong affection for this blood lineage of brother and sisters, asked the Lord in allowing them to receive saving ordinance all received the answer – NO! Example of one was President David O MacKay asked the Lord and was also told – NO!

Finally by time we reached President Kimball, one day, he felt a overwhelming bearing of the Spirit with the regards of the children of Ham in receiving saving ordinances of the Gospel. He met with the brethren and presented his feelings and asked each of them to ponder this for time [almost a year] in allowing this bar to be removed.

Looking in the scriptures why the Lord selects a specific prophet on a special event, vision, or dream to be shared with the world, we can see where Nephi received the same vision as John witnessed on the Isle of Patmos. Yet, the Lord commands him in not to write it. It was given to John when he sojourned in mortal life to write what was also seen by Nephi. The Lord specifically assigned this special vision to John only. Using this method of the Lord choosing His servants to administer His will, I assume it was given to Spencer W. Kimball for his day to reinstate the children of Ham.

Summarizing, any further clarity of this topic, we simple do not have all the answers at this time to the mystery on why the Lord waited so long having the last of those of the past denied blood lineages in receiving saving ordinances and why he selected one prophet to open that door again.

[TheJoker]

I'm not bothered that their was a time when black people couldn't hold the priesthood. As we have learned from the mistakes of all the racism that was involved decades ago.

I just do not understand two thing:

1. The LDS church was the last major religion to give black members the same exact rewards and blessings of being a member than any other major religion.

2. Brigham Young's clear racism. Say what you want. But Brigham Young said some things about Black people which was totally out of line.

[Just_A_Guy]

1. The LDS church was the last major religion to give black members the same exact rewards and blessings of being a member than any other major religion.

Joker, I'm sure I don't need to remind you about how well an "appeal to other religions' practices" argument would go over with Mormons.

2. Brigham Young's clear racism. Say what you want. But Brigham Young said some things about Black people which was totally out of line.

I agree; but just because the bathwater is murky doesn't mean there definitely isn't a baby in there somewhere.

[bytebear]

I'm not bothered that their was a time when black people couldn't hold the priesthood. As we have learned from the mistakes of all the racism that was involved decades ago.

I just do not understand two thing:

1. The LDS church was the last major religion to give black members the same exact rewards and blessings of being a member than any other major religion.

2. Brigham Young's clear racism. Say what you want. But Brigham Young said some things about Black people which was totally out of line.

I don't know that the LDS Church was a major religion in the 1960s. I think the church had just over a million members, and only 5 or 6 temples, four of them built by pioneers. Two of the reasons for the lifting of the ban was expansion of the church in Brazil and western Africa (unofficially by black natives), both areas with large black populations.

As to your second point, you are looking at the words of Brigham Young through the microscope of modern values. You need to realize that at the time of Young, blacks were property. They were thought of by many as nothing more than a horse or an ox. Most other religions were just starting to debate whether the negro had a soul and was redeemable. Young had no problem with blacks being baptized, and spoke of them as being in a state of repression and if given the chance, would be equal to whites.

You really need to read ALL of Young's (and other early church leaders) views on blacks before condemning him. And you need to read the "racist" comments by other religious and secular leaders of the day. Abraham Lincoln spoke out against interracial marriage, for example.

So, was Brigham Young "totally out of line?" Not really. He was right in line with the rest of society, if not a bit more progressive.

Edited October 14, 2009 by bytebear

[HiJolly]

As to your second point, you are looking at the words of Brigham Young through the microscope of modern values. You need to realize that at the time of Young, blacks were property. They were thought of by many as nothing more than a horse or an ox. Most other religions were just starting to debate whether the negro had a soul and was redeemable. Young had no problem with blacks being baptized, and spoke of them as being in a state of repression and if given the chance, would be equal to whites.

Just so.

Presentism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis)) causes most beginning history scholars -- and a few professionals -- to stumble.

HiJolly

[Vooduguru]

In the early days of the church, Joseph Smith life was a learning curve and known to make mistakes on specific issues; we see it today in his journals where the Lord corrects him time after time. One of those mistakes was not confiding in Lord in allowing the lineage of Ham in receiving saving ordinances.

So are you saying that Smith made a mistake in giving Elijah Abel the priesthood?

We could review and patternizing past received revelations between these two great men; the relationship between them was more than cordial, it was overwhelming affection the Savior had for Joseph. During a translation of specific scrolls found, Joseph must have realized the mistake made and did not openly admitted to this gross error. More or less, there is no further journal explanation on why he stopped. As we also seen, there was no further baptism from this point on from Joseph or any of them allowed further saving ordinances. Even one of the brethren was ordained a Seventy but was not allowed to later to have his temple ordinance complete. He simple failed to consult the Lord. We can assume there was a silent correction made by the Lord on this issue. Using my own life, even I at times have been ‘corrected by the Lord’ and have not recorded it for a purpose.

Moving forward in time, we do see other prophets, who strong affection for this blood lineage of brother and sisters, asked the Lord in allowing them to receive saving ordinance all received the answer – NO! Example of one was President David O MacKay asked the Lord and was also told – NO!

Finally by time we reached President Kimball, one day, he felt a overwhelming bearing of the Spirit with the regards of the children of Ham in receiving saving ordinances of the Gospel. He met with the brethren and presented his feelings and asked each of them to ponder this for time [almost a year] in allowing this bar to be removed.

The common (outsider) reasoning for the lifting of the ban, was that the IRS was threatening to remove the church's status so they hastily made a decision. I think this is a flat out lie by those who make such accusations.

Looking in the scriptures why the Lord selects a specific prophet on a special event, vision, or dream to be shared with the world, we can see where Nephi received the same vision as John witnessed on the Isle of Patmos. Yet, the Lord commands him in not to write it. It was given to John when he sojourned in mortal life to write what was also seen by Nephi. The Lord specifically assigned this special vision to John only. Using this method of the Lord choosing His servants to administer His will, I assume it was given to Spencer W. Kimball for his day to reinstate the children of Ham.

Summarizing, any further clarity of this topic, we simple do not have all the answers at this time to the mystery on why the Lord waited so long having the last of those of the past denied blood lineages in receiving saving ordinances and why he selected one prophet to open that door again.

So what are your comments on that? Honestly I am so tired of all the racist claims when the actions of the earliest leaders of the church were VERY far removed from the racial climate of the day. Ugh!

[rameumptom]

I'm not bothered that their was a time when black people couldn't hold the priesthood. As we have learned from the mistakes of all the racism that was involved decades ago.

I just do not understand two thing:

1. The LDS church was the last major religion to give black members the same exact rewards and blessings of being a member than any other major religion.

2. Brigham Young's clear racism. Say what you want. But Brigham Young said some things about Black people which was totally out of line.

Here are the answers:

1. While other religions base their changes on social change; the LDS Church changes as governed by revelation of God. 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. The Lord waited until both the Church and world were ready for such a change. The Church was ready when it had a temple in Brazi, ready to enter into Africa,l and enough members to manage any external attacks brought on it in the American South.

While other churches supposedly stepped up first, in reality that isn't really the case. Most Protestant churches in the south and in major cities in the USA are still segregated. Meanwhile, most LDS congregations have never been segregated, but are mostly set up geographically.

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.

[Hemidakota]

So are you saying that Smith made a mistake in giving Elijah Abel the priesthood?

Yes...my love for this man still stands this day and would stand on his right hand in supporting him unto his work is complete. We all make a mistake in life and continue to do so at our own choosing. Even Brother of Jared I believe made some bad choices and one time was reprimanded by the Savior in person. I had that happen also…I am least in the kingdom and still prone to make mistakes. I also believe, this is why I am still here. It is quite interesting how many times this year, those across the veil keep me alive in mortality. 

The common (outsider) reasoning for the lifting of the ban, was that the IRS was threatening to remove the church's status so they hastily made a decision. I think this is a flat out lie by those who make such accusations.

You will find, it is the apostates and the evil spirits who seems to start the ball rolling over an issue and the Lord usually intervenes when it happens. I found this over and over in the Book of Mormon as I see it today. What we will find soon, same gender marriages will have it way in this land and then comes the closure of the temples. I suspect, this will only anger GOD’s henchmen to put an end to this land. I believe it is the deciding factor to bring an end to the wicked as it was in the days of Noah. Yet, it will be by those who are apostates will be standing and throwing the stones at the church and its members.

So what are your comments on that? Honestly I am so tired of all the racist claims when the actions of the earliest leaders of the church were VERY far removed from the racial climate of the day. Ugh!

I would not worry over those outside the church but those who claimed to be members of the Christ’s – that is an issue. But I can add this when my daughter asked me, “Dad, remember to remove Las Vegas [after visitation of that city and its lifestyle seen].” I replied, “The Lord will start the ‘cleansing' with His own members first and expect it will be in Salt Lake valley.”

As Saints, we need to ask for direct understanding with those topics which holds great weight in our salvation and maybe beneficial for edification. This is one I do hold as a great weight to my own salvation when I also questioned the Lord back in 79.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Hemidakota