Edward Kimball Article on 1978 Revelation

[Just_A_Guy]

In the past I've cited to this article by Edward Kimball about the 1978 revelation ending the ban on people of African descent being ordained to the priesthood.

The article, which used to be accessible only for a $2 charge, can now be downloaded for free from the publisher's website. I highly recommend it.

[HiJolly]

Here's another vote. Wonderful article!!

HiJolly

[Tyler90AZ]

1.That is interesting that it was about lineage rather then color of skin.

2. My heart ached when it said blacks were asked to give up their priesthood.

3. Any worthy African-american that was or is in the church will receive a higher reward in eternity then me(white), God is just. I don't think I would be able to withstand this trial.

[Seminarysnoozer]

1.That is interesting that it was about lineage rather then color of skin.

Just throwing this question out there ... Does the phrase "seed of" as spoken by Brigham young in "“Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane [sic] in him Cannot hold the priesthood & if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it.” have to refer to lineage?

Why is Edward Kimball so sure that the Brigham Young reference is to "ancestry" and not to worthiness? "Thus Brigham Young consistently attributed priesthood denial to a man’s ancestry, not to color, appearance, or premortal delinquency, and he held that any Negroid ancestry, however remote, tainted and disqualified a man for priesthood."

In other uses of the word "seed", as with the seed of Abraham, it is in the obedience that one receives the title or not. Even if a person is the literal seed of Abraham, the promises don't apply unless the person is obedient. So, in that light, why could it not be that Brigham Young is referring to the "seed of Cane" as a "seed" of disobedience and rebellion regardless of race? Maybe those who heard it were applying their own interpretation of race to that phrase. Obviously, if a person has a drop of Cain's blood in them then they also have a drop of Adam's blood, unless the "drop of blood" refers to the love of evil and not the literal ancestry. Even Cain's curse himself is because of the love of evil not because of ancestry.

An additional question is what does mortal lineage have to do with anything as far as rights and privileges anyways? That is something that I have never really understood. As a daughter or son of God, literally, why does it matter who my mortal parents or mortal parents parents etc. were anyways? Yes, I understand how it was viewed in the past under the preparatory laws of Moses. But with the higher law of Christ, the new testament, I don't see any reason to use mortal lineage at all. I don't see where mortal lineage plays a role within the new testament.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[Tyler90AZ]

Just throwing this question out there ... Does the phrase "seed of" as spoken by Brigham young in "“Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane [sic] in him Cannot hold the priesthood & if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it.” have to refer to lineage?

Why is Edward Kimball so sure that the Brigham Young reference is to "ancestry" and not to worthiness? "Thus Brigham Young consistently attributed priesthood denial to a man’s ancestry, not to color, appearance, or premortal delinquency, and he held that any Negroid ancestry, however remote, tainted and disqualified a man for priesthood."

In other uses of the word "seed", as with the seed of Abraham, it is in the obedience that one receives the title or not. Even if a person is the literal seed of Abraham, the promises don't apply unless the person is obedient. So, in that light, why could it not be that Brigham Young is referring to the "seed of Cane" as a "seed" of disobedience and rebellion regardless of race? Maybe those who heard it were applying their own interpretation of race to that phrase. Obviously, if a person has a drop of Cain's blood in them then they also have a drop of Adam's blood, unless the "drop of blood" refers to the love of evil and not the literal ancestry. Even Cain's curse himself is because of the love of evil not because of ancestry.

An additional question is what does mortal lineage have to do with anything as far as rights and privileges anyways? That is something that I have never really understood. As a daughter or son of God, literally, why does it matter who my mortal parents or mortal parents parents etc. were anyways? Yes, I understand how it was viewed in the past under the preparatory laws of Moses. But with the higher law of Christ, the new testament, I don't see any reason to use mortal lineage at all. I don't see where mortal lineage plays a role within the new testament.

To me it is clear that Brigham Young was referring to ancestry and not disobedience in general. I would be willing to accept it was about disobedience if it was not just a certain ancestry that was denied the Priesthood. Yes, they were denied the Priesthood because of Cains disobedience, not just because of disobedience in general. If the "seed of cane" refers to anybody who is disobedient it would have been some white, Latino and black people that were denied the Priesthood.

As far as mortal lineage playing a role, I have read and heard from Prophets that if we are righteous our posterity will be blessed. It is essentially covenants made to our forefathers that need to be kept, God keeps his covenants. Off course most of the covenants made depend upon personal worthiness of the posterity. It is also interesting to think about lineage, knowing what we know about genetics.

Correct me where I am wrong please...

[annewandering]

Very good article. It has so much information! I have read most of the points before but this is and excellent compilation of the records of how the revelation came about.

It does not say its about lineage by the way. It was supposed that was the reason by some people. We are still in the position, as the church has stated very recently, of not knowing why then or why it was changed. All are guesses and surmises.

Edited March 14, 2012 by annewandering

[Magen_Avot]

Yes, they were denied the Priesthood because of Cains disobedience, not just because of disobedience in general.

Correct me where I am wrong please...

I don't know if this will help and I'm no expert, but I've always wondered if Cains seed was preserved through the flood? Likely not through Noah. One of his wives? Didn't Japeth get cursed by Noah?

There was so many non-doctrinal statements made back in the day and so much speculation since.

It would be nice if the truth was available though, but annewandering probably nailed it,... "the church has stated very recently, of not knowing why then or why it was changed".

Edited March 14, 2012 by Magen_Avot

[annewandering]

Tyler the information is in that link on the OP's beginning post. You do have to read most of it to get the whole picture.

[Tyler90AZ]

To me it is clear that Brigham Young was referring to ancestry and not disobedience in general. I would be willing to accept it was about disobedience if it was not just a certain ancestry that was denied the Priesthood. Yes, they were denied the Priesthood because of Cains disobedience, not just because of disobedience in general. If the "seed of cane" refers to anybody who is disobedient it would have been some white, Latino and black people that were denied the Priesthood.

As far as mortal lineage playing a role, I have read and heard from Prophets that if we are righteous our posterity will be blessed. It is essentially covenants made to our forefathers that need to be kept, God keeps his covenants. Off course most of the covenants made depend upon personal worthiness of the posterity. It is also interesting to think about lineage, knowing what we know about genetics.

Correct me where I am wrong please...

The real reason, in my mind, for the banning of blacks on the Priesthood was because members were not ready. If they would have been allowed the Priesthood in Brigham Young's time, how many white members would have left or would the blacks be mistreated. It is important to look at this in the context of the era, racism was rampant. As far as why it lasted so long, it was because the Church Leaders did not want to have it as a mark against the truthfulness of the church. They did not want a situation similar to the polygamy removal, where they did it because they had too. No matter which way anybody looks at it, I think we can all agree black members will receive a special blessing for building up Zion.

[Seminarysnoozer]

If the "seed of cane" refers to anybody who is disobedient it would have been some white, Latino and black people that were denied the Priesthood.

Off course most of the covenants made depend upon personal worthiness of the posterity. It is also interesting to think about lineage, knowing what we know about genetics.

Correct me where I am wrong please...

The priesthood is denied to "some white, Latino and black people". To whom is not worthy, the priesthood is denied, regardless of genetics.

All of the covenants made depend upon personal worthiness. Lineage is a non-issue. In reality, if we are to ponder this a bit, it is the circumstances a person is born into or adopted into that provide the blessings, not the genetics or the lineage. If a baby is adopted into an LDS family, does that not speak louder than who the biological parents were? Really, lineage - genetics, means nothing.

Well, that is the question ... knowing what we know about genetics, how does that relate to worthiness of any kind?

If anything, in our religion, we believe if a person is born with "bad" genes (for example - trisomy 21) then they are more worthy, they go straight to the Celestial Kingdom. I tend to believe that there is no linear relationship with the body we are born with in this life and the pre-mortal "worthiness" of an individual. The only relationship between what type of temporary body a person gets in this life and their pre-mortal worthiness has to do with what a person was called to do in this life, or not do for that matter, and the associated set up to make that happen.

If a person has gotten straight "A's" throughout the semester, so much that the final exam really doesn't count for much, then the final exam for that person may look a lot different than the final exam for the person who really needs to earn the "A" with the final exam. In other words, the tests in this life and the stewardships we carry in this life are not, as a whole, linearly related to how well we did in the previous life. I think that is a highly judgmental stance to suggest that it is. Each person may have some insight as to how well they did in the pre-mortal world based in personal revelation and the patriarchal blessing etc. but as a whole we don't know, just by looking at someone or their circumstances (who are their parents) how well they did before. Only God knows that. Did Lamen and Lemuel do well in the pre-mortal life? Did Cain do well in the pre-mortal life? Did they get their blessed circumstances at birth from their mortal father or the opportunity was based on their own pre-mortal works? We don't know.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[Tyler90AZ]

I agree!

I thought you were saying blacks were denied the Priesthood because they were not personally worthy.

[Just_A_Guy]

All of the covenants made depend upon personal worthiness. Lineage is a non-issue. In reality, if we are to ponder this a bit, it is the circumstances a person is born into or adopted into that provide the blessings, not the genetics or the lineage.

If you're talking about DNA, I agree with you. But I'm not so sure I''d sign on to your statement if you're referring to lineage per se.

As Mormons we believe ourselves to be heirs to salvation. By definition, an heir receives his inheritance through a legitimate and duly recognized lineage. Adoption is certainly a part of that process, and we aren't slavishly bound to each other by mere DNA. But I worry that we lose something when we brashly claim that lineage "is a non-issue" in any Gospel blessing.

Some truly awful stuff was justified by statements about "lineage", and it's probably made us as Mormons somewhat gun-shy about discussing the doctrine. But the fact is that "lineage" is important enough that we a) have our Israelitish lineages declared through a patriarchal blessing, b) seek to cement those lineages through parent-child sealings in our temples, and c) record the priesthood "lineage" (line of authority) for every male in the Church.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[mikbone]

First and Second Comforter

There is two Comforters spoken of [one] is the Holy Ghost the same as given on the day of pentecost and that all Saints receive after faith. Repentance & Baptism. This first comforter or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful in expanding the mind enlightening the understanding & storeing the intellect with present knowledge of a man who is of the literal Seed of Abraham than one that is a gentile though it may not have half as much visible effect upon the body for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the Literal Seed of Abraham it is calm & serene & his whole soul & body are only exercised by the pure spirit of Intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile is to purge out the old blood & make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost, in such a case there may be more of a powerful effect upon the body & visible to the eye than upon an Israelite, while the Israelite at first might be far before the Gentile in pure intelligence

Joseph Smith, Jr., June 27, 1839, as recorded in the Williard Richards Pocket Companion

Edited March 14, 2012 by mikbone

[annewandering]

Sometimes I think that the inheritance of a bad environment, bad parents, incorrect teachings is more what is meant than actual DNA. Remember back then they didnt KNOW what was involved in genetics. They were just starting to learn all that stuff. Mendel was only born in 1822! Sometimes we forget that, when we think concerning the early teachings in religion of inheritance.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Sometimes I think that the inheritance of a bad environment, bad parents, incorrect teachings is more what is meant than actual DNA. Remember back then they didnt KNOW what was involved in genetics. They were just starting to learn all that stuff. Mendel was only born in 1822! Sometimes we forget that, when we think concerning the early teachings in religion of inheritance.

Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about. Thanks for saying it more clearly than I did.

I think what you said should be placed in the "one drop of the blood of Cain" perspective. To me, the idea that we are all spirit children of our Heavenly Parents outweighs any possible effect from mortal lineage. ... As Moses said, man is nothing.

[Seminarysnoozer]

First and Second Comforter

There is two Comforters spoken of [one] is the Holy Ghost the same as given on the day of pentecost and that all Saints receive after faith. Repentance & Baptism. This first comforter or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful in expanding the mind enlightening the understanding & storeing the intellect with present knowledge of a man who is of the literal Seed of Abraham than one that is a gentile though it may not have half as much visible effect upon the body for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the Literal Seed of Abraham it is calm & serene & his whole soul & body are only exercised by the pure spirit of Intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile is to purge out the old blood & make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost, in such a case there may be more of a powerful effect upon the body & visible to the eye than upon an Israelite, while the Israelite at first might be far before the Gentile in pure intelligence

Joseph Smith, Jr., June 27, 1839, as recorded in the Williard Richards Pocket Companion

How does this relate to the Priesthood?

Then why wouldn't it be that an African descent member of the church who was baptized, received the Holy Ghost and otherwise worthy, who, by this description would have had the seed of Abraham purge out the old blood, not be able to have the priesthood before 1978?

[Seminarysnoozer]

If you're talking about DNA, I agree with you. But I'm not so sure I''d sign on to your statement if you're referring to lineage per se.

As Mormons we believe ourselves to be heirs to salvation. By definition, an heir receives his inheritance through a legitimate and duly recognized lineage. Adoption is certainly a part of that process, and we aren't slavishly bound to each other by mere DNA. But I worry that we lose something when we brashly claim that lineage "is a non-issue" in any Gospel blessing.

Some truly awful stuff was justified by statements about "lineage", and it's probably made us as Mormons somewhat gun-shy about discussing the doctrine. But the fact is that "lineage" is important enough that we a) have our Israelitish lineages declared through a patriarchal blessing, b) seek to cement those lineages through parent-child sealings in our temples, and c) record the priesthood "lineage" (line of authority) for every male in the Church.

That is my point, or question, that the "lineage" we are discussing has nothing to do with genes passed on at birth. It is a different kind of lineage, one of passing on the covenants and learning associated with those covenants. So, the word "lineage" is a bit misleading to someone who doesn't understand the use in the gospel. It really has nothing to do with our genes or genetics or race, at least in the mortal sense of those terms. Right?

I am not sure why we don't use terms like, line of authority, or something similar instead of lineage. I think lineage is very misleading in that way.

[mikbone]

How does this relate to the Priesthood?

Then why wouldn't it be that an African descent member of the church who was baptized, received the Holy Ghost and otherwise worthy, who, by this description would have had the seed of Abraham purge out the old blood, not be able to have the priesthood before 1978?

That is the point. Joseph Smith did not deny the Priesthood to Africans. It seems to me that it was a policy put into place without revelation.

[Traveler]

That is the point. Joseph Smith did not deny the Priesthood to Africans. It seems to me that it was a policy put into place without revelation.

Be very careful about what seems - We live in an era of restoration of all things. In ancient Israel the priesthood was not given to all worthy males but only to those of the linage of Levi. Also, President Kimball was not the first presiding high priest (prophet president) to seek understanding concerning Blacks and the priesthood.

I believe it is most important that we do not make assumptions based on what “seems” to be the case. This kind of speculation may in some cases be helpful but it is also a means of being misled.

I have lived through the era of change - I have seen the difficulties that many have with change - even to the point of individuals on “both sides” of the issue falling into inactivity. I believe we still live in a era of change and will see other issues affect our lives and our faith. There are some issues that I have personally posted much concerning my personal understanding and experience - even that I oppose.

The process I believe is important is what I understand of intelligence - that is that intelligence is the ability to learn, improve and change. I believe that G-d is intelligent and has that ability to learn, improve and change. I am not sure I believe in the all knowingness of G-d - without exception I have had problems with every individual I have known that reached a all knowing status of anything - the most difficult problems have been with myself when I thought I knew all that was necessary about something. Thus I believe it is better to be willing to learn than to be knowledgeable. Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven is made up of “children” willing to learn. I also believe that the great flaw of Satan was thinking himself so smart that he did not need to continue to learn and change.

One last point - most of us think change has to do with everything but us. We want to change the world and make it better - but if we are not willing to change our self to bring about improvements - I believe we fail.

The Traveler

[mikbone]

Be very careful about what seems

Thought I was...

Seems - Used to make a statement or description of one's thoughts, feelings, or actions less assertive or forceful. (Merriam-Webster)

Also, President Kimball was not the first presiding high priest (prophet president) to seek understanding concerning Blacks and the priesthood.

Yet President Kimball was the only Prophet to receive direct revelation concerning this question that became canonized...

Edited March 15, 2012 by mikbone

[Vort]

That is the point. Joseph Smith did not deny the Priesthood to Africans. It seems to me that it was a policy put into place without revelation.

You cannot base this conclusion on the evidence. The evidence is insufficient.

[mikbone]

You cannot base this conclusion on the evidence. The evidence is insufficient.

I based my conclusion on the following...

Abel was born in Maryland as a slave, and is believed to have escaped slavery on the Underground Railroad into Canada. He was baptized into the Church of Christ in September 1832 by Ezekiel Roberts, and he married Mary Ann Adams, another African-American.

Abel was ordained an elder on March 3, 1836 in Kirtland, Ohio by Joseph Smith. In 1839, Abel was made a member of the Nauvoo Seventies Quorum. While living in Nauvoo, Illinois, he worked as a mortician at the request of Joseph Smith.

Elijah Abel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joseph Smith's views of the true nature of the African American, according to the modern view, may be seen in the following exchange (as recorded in History of the Church, Volume 5, p. 216):

Elder Hyde inquired about the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine of many of those they brush and wait on.

Edited March 15, 2012 by mikbone

[Vort]

I based my conclusion on the following...

Abel was born in Maryland as a slave, and is believed to have escaped slavery on the Underground Railroad into Canada. He was baptized into the Church of Christ in September 1832 by Ezekiel Roberts, and he married Mary Ann Adams, another African-American.

Abel was ordained an elder on March 3, 1836 in Kirtland, Ohio by Joseph Smith. In 1839, Abel was made a member of the Nauvoo Seventies Quorum. While living in Nauvoo, Illinois, he worked as a mortician at the request of Joseph Smith.

Elijah Abel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not sufficient to support your conclusion, that Joseph Smith did not deny the Priesthood to Africans. Brigham Young is said to have claimed the restriction originated from the Prophet's mouth. Brigham may have misspoken (or been misquoted, or if you're an antiMormon, lied) in saying that, but that certainly qualifies as evidence to the contrary.

If you take that position because Joseph Smith is your personal hero and you refuse to believe he might have done any such thing, then you may of course believe whatever you choose. But if you are intellectually honest, at some point you must grapple with the question: Did God himself institute the ban, as a great many prophets have believed and taught over the years? And if so, how does that affect your views of God?

[MarginOfError]

Personally, I believe God was just as involved as declaring that blacks could not hold the priesthood as he was in declaring that menstruating women are too unclean to be full participants in worship.

[mikbone]

This is not sufficient to support your conclusion, that Joseph Smith did not deny the Priesthood to Africans. Brigham Young is said to have claimed the restriction originated from the Prophet's mouth. Brigham may have misspoken (or been misquoted, or if you're an antiMormon, lied) in saying that, but that certainly qualifies as evidence to the contrary.

If you take that position because Joseph Smith is your personal hero and you refuse to believe he might have done any such thing, then you may of course believe whatever you choose. But if you are intellectually honest, at some point you must grapple with the question: Did God himself institute the ban, as a great many prophets have believed and taught over the years? And if so, how does that affect your views of God?

It combined with my personal belief is sufficient for me...

I do not require it to be sufficient for you...

My conclusions are my own.

Do you believe that every comment that Brigham Young made was direct revelation from God? Have you read the Adam-God Theory?

And yes Joseph Smith is a personal hero of mine.

Amen.