Why did blacks only get the priesthood recently?

[KingintheNorth]

Racism is evil. I think everyone agrees with that now. So do you think the ban on blacks was racist? If so, does that make the church evil? How could it persist for so long if not for racist doctrine?

[Just_A_Guy]

So do you think the ban on blacks was racist?

I'm more interested in whether it came from God.

While the origins of the policy are murky, for me the key factor was that in the 1950s an LDS prophet specifically prayed for permission to rescind the policy, and he received what he took to be a clear and convinving answer from the Lord that the policy was to remain in place for the time being.

Now, it may be that the Lord kept the policy in place because He felt that society, or even the Church as a whole, was to stubborn to accept and implement the fullness of His will. Imperfect mortals are, unfortunately, all God has to work with.

But in this day and age, I think terms like "evil" and "racist" are so loaded as to be basically useless in these types of discussions.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Bini]

I am not a Doctrine guru like some on here but I believe that the Priesthood Ban on Blacks was a racial prejudice at the time.

[NeuroTypical]

Racism is evil.

Ahh, buzzwords. They make a complicated life so easy to live.

King, if you're interested in a thorough treatment of our church's history regarding blacks and the priesthood, there are many sources available. Like this one. Or this one. Or this one.

If you're interested in tossing around soundbytes, you may find your time here unproductive and frustrating.

[skippy740]

Let me add a couple of little things here to add to the discussion.

LDS congregations did not:

- deny membership to blacks

- serve the sacrament to whites first, then blacks

- have separate congregations to segregate whites/blacks

- split into denominations based on race

- promote or defend slavery

So, the reason we get 'singled out' on not ordaining Blacks to the ministry was because most congregations and denominations resolved their stuff by the end of the 60's and early 70's. Most other congregations did the above, while LDS only did one.

Yet, we get to constantly defend or explain it.

Just some food for thought.

[Bini]

Let me add a couple of little things here to add to the discussion.

LDS congregations did not:

- deny membership to blacks

- serve the sacrament to whites first, then blacks

- have separate congregations to segregate whites/blacks

- split into denominations based on race

- promote or defend slavery

Just interested in some clarification on the bold.

Are you referring to the LDS Church? Or the LDS congregation that is made up of individuals?

[Anddenex]

Racism is evil. I think everyone agrees with that now. So do you think the ban on blacks was racist?

No. Our Heavenly Father mentions he is not a respecter of persons. Our Heavenly Father is perfect. He is not a racist.

Although, as I have mentioned before, I believe the priesthood would have been given sooner if Joseph Smith wasn't martyred.

It appears evident in scriptures that some prophets were able to accomplish specific tasks and implement specific practices other were not able to do.

If so, does that make the church evil? How could it persist for so long if not for racist doctrine?

What I find interesting is that people now a days automatically assume racism when any type of discipline happens to a person of color. People now confuse the term "illegal alien" as a racist term. Pretty sad.

Heavenly Father is not racist. The Levites were the only people to hold the priesthood for over 1000 years. I assume now a days, despite the revelation, people (even members of the Church) would consider this racists as well as discriminatory.

You mean to tell me the Lord discriminated against the other 11 tribes of Israel. You mean, because of my birth -- Ephraim -- I would not be able to hold the priesthood. I wouldn't be surprised if we looked back and were able to see visions of the minds of individuals at this time, they would have similar thoughts.

Yet, we find pockets of people other than "Levites" who did hold the priesthood depending on circumstance.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Anddenex

[skippy740]

Just interested in some clarification on the bold.

Are you referring to the LDS Church? Or the LDS congregation that is made up of individuals?

The LDS Church that encompasses all LDS congregations.

Joseph Smith ran for President of the United States on an anti-slavery platform - encouraging the US Congress to buy slaves their freedom from their masters/owners.

[Bini]

The LDS Church that encompasses all LDS congregations.

Joseph Smith ran for President of the United States on an anti-slavery platform - encouraging the US Congress to buy slaves their freedom from their masters/owners.

I understand that Joseph Smith was on the anti-slavery platform, I think I saw a movie on it at the Visiting Centre once upon a time but congregations are made up of individuals. Weren't there members that had black slaves? My own observation, perhaps while the Prophet knew better, the people weren't ready for such diversity. So allowing blacks to pass sacrament was postponed.

[skippy740]

Yes, there were. And this was one reason why when Utah was admitted to the union, it was a 'slave state'.

I'm trying to separate the Utah state government from the doctrines of the gospel.

We didn't promote slavery as the way things should be. Nor did we defend slavery as an acceptable way of life.

However, we did allow those converts who had slaves to still be within the faith and even keep their slaves through the trek to Utah. Why? I don't have all the answers and right now, I can't think of it all.

I try to keep my focus on the doctrines of Christ... and not necessarily on what imperfect people did in days past to adapt and adjust.

[Bini]

Thanks for your response, Skippy.

I guess what I'm getting at is that the Priesthood Ban existed because the general public and members of the LDS Church were not ready for such diversity -- like you said, imperfect people. Again, those are just my own conclusions.

[Suzie]

Joseph Smith himself was was the one who ordained Elijah Abel ( Seventy) to the Priesthood and there were other black members who held the Priesthood prior to 1978 such as “Black Pete”, Isaac van Meter , Walker Lewis and son Enoch Lewis, William McCary, Enoch Abel, Elijah Abel (grandson) and Joseph T. Ball (who was also a Branch President back in the 1840’s in Boston and a High Priest).

I do not believe the Lord was behind the placement of the ban. There are at least two events in Church history which probably caused the prohibition. One is William McCary.

He joined the Church and he held the Priesthood but he was also a scammer. He introduced himself as an Indian prophet even though he didn’t really have native American ancestry and he was treated and seen as black.

He was accepted at first by leaders and members but within a year things started getting ugly when he started using his talent as a musician and ventriloquist to claim supernatural powers of transmigration, Brigham Young wasn’t happy. They kicked him out from Winter Quarters by (1847) but the man didn’t give up and had quite a few Church followers even though after they expelled him, a few leaders gave sermons to attack his “doctrine” one of them being Orson Hyde who perhaps fell responsible for the whole affair since he was the one who baptized Mc Cary and ordained him to the Priesthood.

Now, the whole thing got really ugly when he started preaching his own Plural Marriage doctrine. Several white LDS members fell and believed him and were “sealed” to him. These “sealings” would take place in his own home and in the presence of his wife (the daughter of the Nauvoo Stake President). Basically, the women had to go to bed with him three times during the day for the sealing to be “fully”. Of course, he was excommunicated.

During that same year, Parley P. Pratt said that McCary had the blood of Ham in him which his lineage was cursed as regards to the priesthood. DURING THAT SAME YEAR also, Brigham Young declared that Blacks are ineligible for certain temple ordinances which could be the consequence of Mc Cary’s actions, there was a lot of pressure. Quite a few members threaten to kill Mc Cary and others if they didn’t stop him and I think the whole thing got out of control.

The other contributor factor to the ban was Enoch Lewis (son of Walker Lewis) marrying a white LDS woman. His father Walker, was ordained to the Priesthood by the youngest brother of Joseph Smith and even Wilford Woodruff makes mention of him on his journal. He mentions that he is an Elder and he is black but again, there is no questioning on his right to hold the Priesthood. Other apostles also visit the city where Brother Lewis live and none of them mention a problem with Brother Lewis’s race with regards his ordination. He is well respected by Church leaders including Brigham Young who during 1847 (a hectic year) stated that that it has nothing to do with the blood and mentioned one of the best elders the Church had, an African (Walker Lewis) in Lowell.

However, after he stated this an early LDS member by the name of William Appleby visited Lowell and found out that the son of Walker Lewis, Enoch Lewis married a white LDS woman (Mary Matilda Webster) in 1846 and they had a child during the same year of the Mc Cary incident (1847) and wrote to Brigham Young asking him if our Church allows the ordination of “negroes” to the Priesthood and allow amalgamation.

Brigham Young seemed upset when Appleby meets him in person and tells him about the child the couple had because earlier on, remember it is Young who mentioned Walker Lewis as one of the best elders in Lowell, and here it is …Walker’s son Enoch marrying a white woman and as Young previously stated when they mingle seed (black and white), is death to all.

Young’s beliefs about blacks and their place in the Church hardened very quickly and two years after he declared that it had nothing to do with the blood, he stated that Because Cain cut off the lives (sic) of Abel...the Lord cursed Cain's seed and prohibited them from the Priesthood (1849) and from there, the rest is history until 1978.

Do I tend to believe personal bigotry and 19th century views on race were the contributor factors to the ban? Absolutely.

[Bini]

Suzie, that was a good read. Thanks.

[skippy740]

Thank you Suzie for that synopsis.

With my recent exchange with JAG on another thread, I just didn't want to bring it up myself... and I've had a bit of a headache today, so I didn't want to do the research/type it out, etc.

[KingintheNorth]

This whole period seems complicated. Is anyone here black, or have black friends in the Church? What are your/their opinions on the church nowadays and looking at it in history?

[skippy740]

How would other people's opinions help you determine the truth of the Gospel and the Lord's Church?

[KingintheNorth]

The only way to find out if a restaurant has good food is to eat there, but you can ask your friends how it was before you go so you know exactly how much it will cost and what their best dishes are.

[skippy740]

Let's work with that restaurant analogy for a bit:

What if those you ask never ate their themselves? But they only told you what they HEARD and even presented such rumors as FACTS?

Would you eat there or not based solely on someone else's word?

What I'm getting at, is that we need to experience things for ourselves to make our own decisions. Particularly in matters of faith.

I personally recommend reading Alma 32 in The Book of Mormon and try the 'experiment'.

[Just_A_Guy]

IIRC, Young had left Winter Quarters with the advance party of pioneers by the time McCary started getting really weird; and his excommunication was presented to Young as a done deed on Young's return that autumn. (I seem to remember at one point McCary was claiming to be Adam reincarnated, and even pulled off his shirt demanded that some Church muckety-muck count his ribs--arguing that McCary/Adam would, of course, be missing one.)

One of the things John Turner brings out really well in his biography of Young, I think, is the absolute thorn in the side that pretenders to Joseph Smith's mantle continued to be to Young during the move west. I have a feeling that by the time McCary came along, Young was pretty much out of patience and was happy to embrace anything anyone (Pratt included) had to say that might undermine the credibility of McCary, Strang, Rigdon, William Smith, or pretty much anyone else who might claim leadership of the Church.

Incidentally--that daughter of the Nauvoo Stake President--you're not talking about William Marks' family, are you?

/threadjack (but Suzie started it!!!!)

[Bini]

This whole period seems complicated. Is anyone here black, or have black friends in the Church? What are your/their opinions on the church nowadays and looking at it in history?

You already know what I think, my opinion is that the Priesthood Ban on Blacks was a racial prejudice at the time but as of now, I don't see any obvious discrimination geared towards them. I do have an adopted cousin that is Black but he resides in the UK and we're not in conversing contact but we are networked on Facebook, and from what I gather, he is a happy and thriving Black Latter-Day Saint that has no issues with the Gospel.

[skippy740]

Here are a few Black LDS facebook pages that you may have an interest in:

http://www.facebook.com/groups/blacklatterdaysaints/

http://www.facebook.com/groups/BlackLDS/

http://www.facebook.com/groups/355468294495274/

[Suzie]

IIRC, Young had left Winter Quarters with the advance party of pioneers by the time McCary started getting really weird; and his excommunication was presented to Young as a done deed on Young's return that autumn. (I seem to remember at one point McCary was claiming to be Adam reincarnated, and even pulled off his shirt demanded that some Church muckety-muck count his ribs--arguing that McCary/Adam would, of course, be missing one.)

That’s correct, even though I would say things got really weird already when he claimed to be Adam as you said and asked someone to count his ribs or when he claimed to be Thomas. Interesting enough, do you recall Black Pete's experiences?

Incidentally--that daughter of the Nauvoo Stake President--you're not talking about William Marks' family, are you?

No, actually I was referring to the daughter of Daniel Stanton ("Lucy" Stanton). He presided over the Quincy Stake and had Ezra T. Benson as his counselor. Many times, I wondered how is it possible that a girl like Lucy fell for this charlatan (Mc Cary) because her family was one of the first converts in Kirtland but again, it seems like history perhaps proves her naivety or immaturity when she also believed in Black Pete and his unusual approach to Mormonism (but when this happened she was young), quite similar (in some instances) to Mc Cary’s weirdness but not as bad and Black Pete certainly wasn't the only one claiming such things in Kirtland.

Yet again, it wasn’t Lucy’s first marriage it was her second and she already had a few children when she married William.

(but Suzie started it!!!!)

What did I start?

Edited June 20, 2013 by Suzie

[Just_A_Guy]

Interesting enough, do you recall Black Pete's experiences?

The name rings a bell, but I can't connect it to any specific events. He was also ordained to the priesthood, wasn't he?

Many times, I wondered how is it possible that a girl like Lucy fell for this charlatan (Mc Cary) because her family was one of the first converts in Kirtland but again, it seems like history perhaps proves her naivety or immaturity when she also believed in Black Pete and his unusual approach to Mormonism (but when this happened she was young), quite similar (in some instances) to Mc Cary’s weirdness but not as bad and Black Pete certainly wasn't the only one claiming such things in Kirtland.

I get the impression that by late Nauvoo the Church is already moving towards ritual and away from the sort of pentecostal experiences that were a hallmark of Kirtland. I can see how some Mormons of the period would be uncomfortable making that transition, and could be easy prey to a false prophet promising a return to the glory days of Kirtland. The Expositor's publishers certainly felt the Church had evolved into something other than what they'd thought they were signing up for when they first joined--and in some respects, perhaps they were right.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

The only way to find out if a restaurant has good food is to eat there, but you can ask your friends how it was before you go so you know exactly how much it will cost and what their best dishes are.

Understandable. I have two comments:

First, mormons are big on the concept of "By their fruits ye shall know them." So by all means, look at us and our history with a critical eye. (And by critical eye, I do not mean the eye of a critic, but with the eye of someone who is looking for the truth, and will listen to both sides of the story.)

Second, consider for a moment the phrase "The only good reason to be a Mormon, is you believe God wants you to be one." Membership in our church hinges on gaining a personal testimony - direct, unambiguous, unmistakable communication from God to you, that our church is what it claims to be, and the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. With such a testimony, it doesn't really matter what our history looks like. Without such a testimony, it doesn't matter how good we look.

Glad to have you here looking around, King.

[rameumptom]

I personally believe the ban was created due to racism, which was the common view of almost all white people in America (and elsewhere) in the 19th century.

I also believe that the priesthood was limited to the Levites in the days of the Old Testament, partially due to racism. Abraham was racist for not allowing Isaac to marry a Canaanite woman. And, I believe that Jesus and his apostles were racist when they refused to preach or baptize the Gentiles. Or, better, I would say they followed the concepts, beliefs and practices of their day, not knowing what racism really was at the time.

So, if I reject Mormonism over racism, then I also cannot be Southern Baptist (which broke away from the American Baptists over slavery issues). I also cannot be any type of Christian, because there is a history of what today we call racism in the Bible.

OR, I can realize that God uses imperfect people in an imperfect world to bring forth his work as best as possible.