Why did blacks only get the priesthood recently?

[Suzie]

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?

Yes, we always talk about Elijah Abel being the first black man to be ordained to the Priesthood but it was probably Black Pete who joined the Church around 1830-1831. Quite a few people think Black Pete and William McCary are the same person (but they are clearly not) perhaps the confusion is due to the fact that both of them had a following of white LDS women in Kirtland. One of Black Pete’s followers was Lucy Stanton, who 15 years later would marry William McCary.

Black Pete was quite an odd individual and he is described as such by some early accounts. He described himself as a “revelator” who would often receive “letters from heaven” in one occasion delivered by the hand of a black angel. He also used to brag that he could “fly” so one day he decided to test his “wings” (can you imagine?) and ended up on a treetop some fifty feet below.

He was certainly not the only one with wild ideas back in Kirtland, there were quite a few who even claimed to be Prophets or they should be appointed as such. George A. Smith described this period of time as the cause of a false spirit entering into them. Of course, Joseph Smith came and crushed the party. He spoke against their doctrine and after being tried they were excommunicated, it is believed Black Pete was among them.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Suzie
typos

[Anddenex]

Abraham was racist for not allowing Isaac to marry a Canaanite woman.

What evidence are you able to provide regarding Abraham's racism for not allowing Isaac to marry a Canaanite woman?

Please don't get me wrong, if you believe such, then you believe such, but your statement isn't a "belief" as it is written as a statement of "fact."

Did Abraham not want his son Isaac to marry a Canaanite woman due to their current life style and belief system?

I guess I am asking what evidence do you have that it was racism, and not by some other variable?

[Anddenex]

Spencer W. Kimball becomes Church President (1973)

He says the following about the issue: “I am not sure that there will be a change, although there could be. We are under the dictates of our Heavenly Father, and this is not my policy or the Church’s policy. It is the policy of the Lord who has established it, and I know of no change, although we are subject to revelations of the Lord in case he should ever wish to make a change.”

Upon reading this quote from President Spencer W. Kimball, especially this portion, he is clear "It is the policy of the Lord who established it..."

With regard to racism, I am unsure how anybody (church member) would think the Lord is "racist" as we have witness from our prophet it was "The Lord" who established the policy.

[skippy740]

Speeches

Forget everything that 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.

It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject.

As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

In essence, Bruce R. McConkie is saying to forget anything that was said prior to the revelation in 1978. Any quotes in relation to this issue before 1978... are therefore null and void. They don't matter anymore.

He said that they 'spoke with a limited understanding'. This implies an error of interpretation. This implies an incomplete understanding of what was intended.

I don't believe that the Lord simply said "it's time for those of African ascent". I think the Lord said something more like "It's time and you are ready as a people to accept them... because of your misunderstanding of my intentions." I think the Church was under a condemnation of a kind for having such a policy in place. (Again, that's my opinion.) I think the Lord said "Now my Church is ready to have its own curse lifted from itself from its own pride and prejudice from its early days." A curse is a separation from God due to wickedness or even lack of following the Lord's will.

***All of the above paragraph is my own opinion and has no basis in scriptural or revealed word... except that it appears to 'fit' the circumstances.***

[Suzie]

Personally, I would like to emphasize the latest heading for the Official Declaration 2:

“Book of Mormon teaches that ‘all are alike unto God,’ including ‘black and white, bond and free, male and female’ (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church.

During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.

Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regards to race that once applied to the priesthood.”

[Suzie]

He said that they 'spoke with a limited understanding'. This implies an error of interpretation. This implies an incomplete understanding of what was intended

I believe in another thread a couple of years ago, I provided a quote by President Kimball when he was an Apostle talking about the ban as a "possible error".

[Anddenex]

In essence, Bruce R. McConkie is saying to forget anything that was said prior to the revelation in 1978. Any quotes in relation to this issue before 1978... are therefore null and void. They don't matter anymore.

I am not sure Bruce R. McConkie is suggesting as you share that everything said before is "null and void." It would appear that this statement implies to statements made by previous leaders which weren't true, not necessarily the statement as shared by President Kimball. In other words, statements which were the opinion of a leader not that which was given by the spirit.

President Kimball's words are clear, spoken as a prophet, "It is the policy of The Lord who established it..." The Lord isn't racist. I also believe Bruce R. McConkie was in large part speaking regarding his words.

He said that they 'spoke with a limited understanding'. This implies an error of interpretation. This implies an incomplete understanding of what was intended.

The question though, which words spoken were from a "limited understanding"? I don't believe President Kimball spoke with a limited understand when he said it was the Lord's policy while a prophet, and I don't believe they are implying "all" their words spoken as "limited."

Thank you for your thoughts.

[Anddenex]

I believe in another thread a couple of years ago, I provided a quote by President Kimball when he was an Apostle talking about the ban as a "possible error".

This would have sway if the statements were made in reverse. We all progress in knowledge. I find it more substantiating that while an Apostle he shared the ban as a possible error, then as a prophet he declares it was established by The Lord.

[Suzie]

This would have sway if the statements were made in reverse. We all progress in knowledge. I find it more substantiating that while an Apostle he shared the ban as a possible error, then as a prophet he declares it was established by The Lord.

Yet in the latest change of OD2 it says that Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.

[Anddenex]

Yet in the latest change of OD2 it says that Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.

I agree, however, this declaration doesn't indicate it wasn't established by revelation or that the Lord didn't establish the ban. It simply declares they do not know of the origin of the revelation, or the origin of how the Lord established it.

President Kimball is clear, the Lord established it.

[skippy740]

Anddenex,

First, I hope you know how much I respect you. And I think it's mutual.

I'm going to share something that I found... and I wish I could post a link, but I think it's 'anti'. However, I don't think the text was made up. It sounds exactly like the views of the past.

An official statement of the LDS Church First Presidency issued on August 17, 1951, reads:

"The position of the LDS Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes....."

"Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgression. If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or alloted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain's transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world."

- William E. Berrett's "The Church and the Negroid People," pp. 16-17

If we were already 'judged' BEFORE we came down to this earth... then what was the point? It may have been that other leaders were continuing to speak based on the "incorrect traditions of our fathers".

No, this is incorrect doctrine and isn't taught anymore.

Edited June 21, 2013 by skippy740

[Anddenex]

First, I hope you know how much I respect you. And I think it's mutual.

Yep, feeling is mutual.

No, this is incorrect doctrine and isn't taught anymore.

I am familiar with this quote or something said in a similar tone. I would specify this is definitely not doctrinal and would be one of the statements Bruce R. McConkie would have been referring to also.

However, with these types of quotes I would like verification that it was actually a First Presidency message rather than a quote from one of the many discourses, or non-Church published materials.

I don't remember where I read it, but it was a statement regarding other statements which sought to clarify policies, like the priesthood ban. The quote mentioned how these statements were more hurtful than helpful, although they were made by sincere truth seekers. The emphasis of the quote, stick with doctrine.

I am simply not convinced the ban was motivated by racism. This would have implications, at least to me, to other doctrines which are sure and true, and if such is the case, then I would need to discover the harmony -- at the moment I am unable to see or recognize.

[Just_A_Guy]

Skippy, the notion that actions in the pre-mortal life have some bearing on the worldly circumstances into which we are born, is still Church doctrine. Exhibit A: President Benson's statement about God reserving, for the last days, some of the most valiant spirits.

Now, I think it's very dangerous and ridiculously over-simplistic to say something like "the good ones go to specific nations, or specific ethnic groups." But, heck-as I understand it, even Darius Gray suggests that specific spirits were singled out, or "called", to particular ethnicities. Does Gray go so far as to suggest what reasons the Lord may have for issuing that kind of "calling" to a given spirit?

[skippy740]

That's fair, and we don't need to beat this dead horse any further. :)

[skippy740]

Skippy, the notion that actions in the pre-mortal life have some bearing on the worldly circumstances into which we are born, is still Church doctrine. Exhibit A: President Benson's statement about God reserving, for the last days, some of the most valiant spirits.

Now, I think it's very dangerous and ridiculously over-simplistic to say something like "the good ones go to specific nations, or specific ethnic groups." But, heck-as I understand it, even Darius Gray suggests that specific spirits were singled out, or "called", to particular ethnicities. Does Gray go so far as to suggest what reasons the Lord may have for issuing that kind of "calling" to a given spirit?

I don't believe that Darius Gray suggested any kind of 'criteria'. 'The Lord calls whomever He calls' - would be my rationalizing and inline with doctrines.

I also believe in the "most valiant spirits" idea as we continue to get closer and closer to the Millenial Reign. I simply don't believe in a pre-earth-life cursing. The only ones 'cursed' won't receive a body.

As far as I could tell, those born with mental and physical disabilities (Special Needs) are special spirits... but I can't back up with doctrine that they were "more valiant" than others... unless it was stated in their patriarchal blessing (but that's personal doctrine/scripture/blessing and not binding upon the whole Church). If someone was to ask me if it was doctrinal, I would have to say that it is widely believed, but I couldn't point to an official doctrinal source to back it up.

[skippy740]

As I was pondering your question, another thought came to me. Perhaps the Lord calls certain sprits within various ethnic groups to be receptive to the gospel message, so they can be the ways and means the doors are opened in their culture? I'm SURE that is going on in various parts of the world.

Yeah Samake running for president of Mali. He may be one of these choice spirits to help bring change in their culture.

From Wikipedia:

Samake and his family are some of the only members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) in Mali. Samake first encountered the church through his work with the Peace Corps and Ouelessebougou Alliance. One Peace Corps volunteer left him an English Book of Mormon, which he read.[4] Later, in the US, he wanted to be baptized, but was initially refused because of the LDS Church's policy on baptizing citizens of Islamic countries. Mali is 90% Muslim, and the church worried that if he converted to Mormonism his life would be in danger. After convincing church leaders that Mali is a country with religious freedom, he was baptized in 2000 in New York.[3] He reports that he faces no discrimination in Mali due to his faith.[32]

[Suzie]

Upon reading this quote from President Spencer W. Kimball, especially this portion, he is clear "It is the policy of the Lord who established it..."

There is no documentary evidence for a revelation establishing the ban and that's a very important point to establish. Joseph Smith's actions (ordaining black men to the priesthood) and statements with regards to blacks holding the Priesthood versus Brigham Young's statements make things even more complicated, and because of that, I wouldn't rush to state that the prohibition was established by the Lord without taking seriously consideration to the historical events prior and around the time Brigham Young instituted the ban. Heck, I wouldn't even call the ban a "policy" but a "practice" that according to our present apostles, the Church doesn't know how or when or why started.

I do not believe Prophets are infallible and to be honest, it is not hard to believe that our modern prophets assumed such a revelation took place, as it was taught by their predecessors but again there is no documentary evidence for such revelation from the Lord but just a lot of opinion with no clear answers.

[Anddenex]

There is no documentary evidence for a revelation establishing the ban and that's a very important point to establish. Joseph Smith's actions (ordaining black men to the priesthood) and statements with regards to blacks holding the Priesthood versus Brigham Young's statements make things even more complicated, and because of that, I wouldn't rush to state that the prohibition was established by the Lord without taking seriously consideration to the historical events prior and around the time Brigham Young instituted the ban. Heck, I wouldn't even call the ban a "policy" but a "practice" that according to our present apostles, the Church doesn't know how or when or why started.

I do not believe Prophets are infallible and to be honest, it is not hard to believe that our modern prophets assumed such a revelation took place, as it was taught by their predecessors but again there is no documentary evidence for such revelation from the Lord but just a lot of opinion with no clear answers.

How do you know these historical accounts weren't taken into consideration? I don't believe President Kimball was rushing into anything when he stated it was an established policy by the Lord.

It also appears from what I have read that Brigham Young was well aware of our African American brothers who received the priesthood. I am not sure how anyone would be able to declare a prophet didn't take seriously the nature of what he was doing in the name of his and our Lord.

I am thinking President Kimball probably thought long and hard about this policy, probably more than you, I, or anybody else. I am sure he didn't rush into anything when he called it a policy.

I agree, I don't believe any prophet is infallible, however to the degree and magnitude of this decision by Brigham Young and other leaders at the time, as I shared with Skippy, "This would have implications, at least to me, to other doctrines which are sure and true, and if such is the case, then I would need to discover the harmony -- at the moment I am unable to see or recognize."

I sincerely disagree with your personal interpretation regarding the mindset of the prophets and what they did and did not take into consideration.

[Suzie]

How do you know these historical accounts weren't taken into consideration? I don't believe President Kimball was rushing into anything when he stated it was an established policy by the Lord.

I wasn't referring to President Kimball, I was talking about myself. This is a topic I have researched for many years and still do and even though I am almost convinced that the ban was not established as a revelation from God I must rely on the historical evidence provided and analyze it very carefully. Yet, in this case there is no documentary evidence for the establishing of such ban by the Lord.

It also appears from what I have read that Brigham Young was well aware of our African American brothers who received the priesthood. I am not sure how anyone would be able to declare a prophet didn't take seriously the nature of what he was doing in the name of his and our Lord.

Yes, he was aware and he was the one that said no when Elijah Abel requested to receive his own endowments. Elijah was not stranger to the Church. He was an Elder, he was a Seventy, served two missions and there is no possible explanation of why someone who indeed held the Priesthood wasn't allowed to receive his own endowments. So I'm sorry, I don't believe that every word that a Prophet says is doctrinally bound to us because with that line of reasoning, I could provide a lot of controversial and not so controversial quotes by Brigham Young himself and we can discuss if all of them should be considered to be doctrinal since he said them when he was a Prophet. Or is it that we pick and choose?

I sincerely disagree with your personal interpretation regarding the mindset of the prophets and what they did and did not take into consideration.

It's okay to disagree. I didn't say anything about what they did or did not take into consideration. I shared what *I* call it and not in reference to what President Kimball said. Having said that, we discussed this at length here:

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/36633-issues-brigham-young.html

And thanks for the discussion. :)

[Anddenex]

So I'm sorry, I don't believe that every word that a Prophet says is doctrinally bound to us because with that line of reasoning, I could provide a lot of controversial and not so controversial quotes by Brigham Young himself and we can discuss if all of them should be considered to be doctrinal since he said them when he was a Prophet. Or is it that we pick and choose?

I agree, neither do I believe everything a prophet shares as doctrine. As Joseph Smith shared, they are men with their own opinions and are welcome to share their own opinions.

I honestly believe if Joseph Smith were still alive the priesthood ban would likely not have happened.

However, a lot of what Brigham Young shared was not sustained, accepted, by the rest of the brethren. Thus, it appears pretty clear these thoughts were his opinion. What I find more significant is that the brethren continued the ban, not just a prophet, but the First Presidency and counsel of the twelve apostles.

In light of this, I don't see a single prophets mind dictating a ban. What I read and see is the foundation of the church, apostles and prophets, progressed it forward.

Yes, thank you for the discussion.

[KingintheNorth]

Well 35 years is plenty of time to change. Does anyone have any statistics about Blacks in the church now? Do they have proportional representation in the leadership?

[bytebear]

Well 35 years is plenty of time to change. Does anyone have any statistics about Blacks in the church now? Do they have proportional representation in the leadership?

I would look at how the church started in Nigeria and Ghana. Amazing stories. Blacks were already leading LDS churches unofficially before 1978, and then when the ban was lifted, entire stakes were created. The leadership was there and ready to go.

Leadership and membership reflects the same racial make up of the area. There aren't a lot of black leaders in Wyoming, and there aren't a lot of white leaders in Ghana.

By the way, you might also want to look at Black Mormons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the most prominant black person in the church is Yeah Samake, presidential candidate for Mali and the only LDS family in the mostly Muslim country.

Yeah Samake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edited June 24, 2013 by bytebear

[KingintheNorth]

That Wikipedia is pretty informative "African Americans accounted for 9% of all converts in the United States." Thats pretty close to the percentage of the population of african americans. Ideally I'd like to see a colorless world where race doesn't matter.

When God changed the Lamanites skin black, why is it a curse? Its not a curse to be black surely. Was something else going on here?

[skippy740]

Yes, something else was going on. :)

But to keep it brief, I recommend reviewing this link: http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/45876-scriptures-church-history-racism-blacks-scriptures.html

I recommend reviewing the scripture references and the youtube video segment of

If you have a copy of the LDS scriptures, you'll want to have it handy to reference chapter headings and footnotes.

I refer you to this video segment because I have not seen any other explanation that is based on the scriptures.

JAG may have a different resource to reference, but I offer you this information because I like it. Check it out for yourself.

[KingintheNorth]

Wow that was a great video! There really is no such curse of blackness in the scripture! Why doesn't everyone know about these videos? Its perfect. If there are people lurking here, who had the same thoughts that I had, you must watch that video. I feel so bad that I judged before I knew the truth.