African-Americans and Priesthood

[jinc1019]

I realize this is a sensitive subject for a variety of very obvious reasons, so let me start by saying definitively: I don't think Mormons are racist.

However, I am having a very, very hard time understanding why the "Restored" church, which should really be better than the church that came before it, would prevent African-Americans from the priesthood.

If the "priesthood" in Mormonism meant the same thing as it did in virtually every other denomination, this could be understood SOMEWHAT better, but given just how important the priesthood is in the LDS Church, why in the world would God want African-Americans to be denied a better place in the afterlife?

Further, and really the larger issue at this point in time (since blacks were allowed to become priesthood holders in 1978), doesn't this make the claim that the LDS Church's leadership is a modern day prophet harder to believe?

I know this is a tough question to deal with and I promise to be fair about it, but I am having a very difficult time understanding the seemingly convoluted position of the LDS Church on this issue.

[jerome1232]

why in the world would God want African-Americans to be denied a better place in the afterlife?

I would like to note that to my knowledge, that has never been taught. We don't believe God will hold you accountable for something you could not attain to.

Although I do have an opinion on this, I'll let someone much more articulate and knowledge than I answer. It is note worthy that there were a few black men ordained to the church prior to the ban. In particular there is Elijah Abel, his posterity was also ordained to the priesthood.

I remember finding a really cool write up on Elijah Able that went into depth about a number of things around that time frame, I'm having trouble finding it atm.

[estradling75]

In the church we make a big difference between what you will not do and what you can not do. What you can't do the Lord promises to make it right at some point. What you will not do... well that is totally on you. For example: Being baptized by one who holds the priesthood and is authorized is a requirement. If you could but choose not to that is on you, but if you can't because its not on the earth or unreachable for you then the lord promises that he will take care of it.

African-Americans could not hold the priesthood. They therefore have the promise that the Lord will make it right. That is pretty powerful promise, even though we don't know how it will be fulfilled.

As for why it happened we simply don't have the record. Was it a revelation, was it a policy, was it something someone thought was a good idea at the time? With out a record we have myth, hearsay and opinion. Add to it that the membership and the leaders are also products of their time.

With that as the background the modern day leaders were in a bit of a bind. If it was a policy or someone's good idea at the time they could simply reverse it. But they can't simply decide to go counter to a revelation (if that is what it was). So they had to wait on the Lord. Until that revelation came they could not undo it.

[Just_A_Guy]

However, I am having a very, very hard time understanding why the "Restored" church, which should really be better than the church that came before it, would prevent African-Americans from the priesthood.

If the "priesthood" in Mormonism meant the same thing as it did in virtually every other denomination, this could be understood SOMEWHAT better, but given just how important the priesthood is in the LDS Church, why in the world would God want African-Americans to be denied a better place in the afterlife?

Remember, Mormonism believes that rituals--ordinances--can be done for the dead by proxy. Those rituals include not only baptism and temple rites; but ordination to the priesthood itself. So on a collective and even an individual basis, priesthood denial was not a "never"; it was a "not yet"--and no less an authority than Brigham Young, who originated the ban, said as much.

The simple fact is, modern Mormonism still prohibits some groups from receiving the priesthood--or baptism at all, for that matter. We will not baptize people in countries where our activities are prohibited--not even surreptitiously. We will not baptize minors without their parents' consent. It used to be that we wouldn't baptize a married person without the consent of his/her spouse (not sure if that's still the case). We have entered into an agreement with Jewish organizations that we will not do proxy ordinances for Holocaust victims except in very limited circumstances (remember, from our theology's point of view, these people--though dead--are as conscious and as anxious for the fulness of the Gospel, as any living black person ever was).

Why? Frankly, because we believe God's a pragmatist. We believe (and believe that God believes) that having specific individuals or groups of people wait for the Gospel--even their whole lives, in some cases--is a fair price to pay if it creates goodwill in the right places or otherwise facilitates conditions that will enable us to reach larger groups of people in the long run.

[skippy740]

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/45876-scriptures-church-history-racism-blacks-scriptures.html

[bytebear]

I would like to note that to my knowledge, that has never been taught. We don't believe God will hold you accountable for something you could not attain to.

Although I do have an opinion on this, I'll let someone much more articulate and knowledge than I answer. It is note worthy that there were a few black men ordained to the church prior to the ban. In particular there is Elijah Abel, his posterity was also ordained to the priesthood.

I remember finding a really cool write up on Elijah Able that went into depth about a number of things around that time frame, I'm having trouble finding it atm.

I was going to say the same thing. The priesthood ban was temporary. There are some church leaders who speculated that blacks would be servants in the afterlife, but others claimed that God would bless them even more greatly for being faithful in this life. Regardless, proxy ordination and temple marriage makes the blessings complete and whole for all.

[skippy740]

BTW, for clarification, it wasn't "African-Americans"... but anyone that had African ancestry. That was the old policy.

The new intro to Official Declaration 2 really helps clarify the doctrine, but not how the practice was originated:

Official Declaration 2

The 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 regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

Look at the footnotes on 2 Nephi 26:33. Black and white may not mean what you think it means:

Compare with Alma 11:44

44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

Compare with Alma 1:30

30 And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need.

The link I posted above has links to various video segments that really help clarify the correct doctrines and build testimony. I think you'll find them intriguing.

[jinc1019]

I appreciate all of your responses. Apparently, I was incorrect in saying that certain benefits would be denied based on the inability for a man of African ethnicity to receive the priesthood because, as many of you pointed out, this could be offered after death and your theology states that God doesn't punish those who are in a position where a true choice is impossible.

However, while I can understand the difficult position the church is in, it seems incredibly odd to me that God would choose NOT to withhold equal rights to African men in many other churches throughout the world prior to 1978 but would choose to keep Africans from enjoying the full life of the church in his one true restored church.

I suppose God has his reasons for doing everything, but I will be honest...This issue really makes me doubt the validity of that claim. Whether that's fair or not, I don't know. What I do know though is that Jesus himself often ignored and deliberately violated certain commonly held social conventions in his day. It seems strange that God wouldn't do the same in his own church while it was happening in so many others.

[estradling75]

I suppose God has his reasons for doing everything, but I will be honest...This issue really makes me doubt the validity of that claim. Whether that's fair or not, I don't know. What I do know though is that Jesus himself often ignored and deliberately violated certain commonly held social conventions in his day. It seems strange that God wouldn't do the same in his own church while it was happening in so many others.

Which is why we don't start out with that... The scriptures teach that we learn line upon line precept upon precept. If you demand to eat the whole elephant at once you are going to fail. Start with the Book of Mormon... it is independent and self contained. If it is true then you can move on. If you say it is not then you can stop.

Please also remember that God's thoughts are not Man's thoughts (or yours) nor are God's ways Man's ways (or yours). Yet you are struggling with the idea of God not matching your expectations and therefore rejecting it. Please note that is the same argument that Atheist use. God isn't what they expected so God must not exist.

Please also note that your sensibilities are very modern and unusual in world history. For the majority of human history God allowed slavery. To the point where the Old Testament has instructions on how to handle and treat them. And yet you are balking because God wasn't quite fast enough to get with the modern times and match your sensibilities

[jinc1019]

Which is why we don't start out with that... The scriptures teach that we learn line upon line precept upon precept. If you demand to eat the whole elephant at once you are going to fail. Start with the Book of Mormon... it is independent and self contained. If it is true then you can move on. If you say it is not then you can stop.

Please also remember that God's thoughts are not Man's thoughts (or yours) nor are God's ways Man's ways (or yours). Yet you are struggling with the idea of God not matching your expectations and therefore rejecting it. Please note that is the same argument that Atheist use. God isn't what they expected so God must not exist.

Please also note that your sensibilities are very modern and unusual in world history. For the majority of human history God allowed slavery. To the point where the Old Testament has instructions on how to handle and treat them. And yet you are balking because God wasn't quite fast enough to get with the modern times and match your sensibilities

Those are all fair points, but the difference I think is that...not only did the LDS Church clearly have a policy which was racist (whether it was supported by God or not), but they didn't receive a revelation to fix it until well after most other churches had. If the LDS Church is the restored church of God, why would God wait so long to restore a clearly false teaching?

I know you would say that I have no right to question God...and I'm not. But the teaching that African men should be kept from the priesthood must have ALWAYS been false since African men did in fact occupy the priesthood early in church history. How it could be valid then and then not valid for over 100 years and then valid again? And all without any official revelation?

[Just_A_Guy]

Jinc, if you have two kids, and you tell one to stay away from matches but then tell the other one to please go light a candle--are your instructions to either one of those kids "false"? Or are your instructions "true", but tailored to the circumstances of each individual audience?

We want to believe that God thinks like us 21st-century Westerners do. In many ways, He does. But not in all. Our secular discourse--and even some portions of the scriptures, as Skippy demonstrates--are full of egalitarian discourse about how all are alike. But the fact is, God doesn't treat everyone exactly the same. Because frankly, we humans have fallen natures, and some of us have done a better job of overcoming those fallen natures than others; and God instructs and rewards His children accordingly. Sometimes, the innocent will have to suffer because of that; as in the examples I cited above.

[estradling75]

Those are all fair points, but the difference I think is that...not only did the LDS Church clearly have a policy which was racist (whether it was supported by God or not), but they didn't receive a revelation to fix it until well after most other churches had. If the LDS Church is the restored church of God, why would God wait so long to restore a clearly false teaching?

That is a good question... Why don't you ask him? For me the answer gets summed up in the term "Trial of Faith". By holding a position that was growing more and more socially unpopular the Lord could test his Saint and see who would follow him and who would follow the world. He could also use that to see who would distort his teachings to try to justify their own racism. Then the church flips 180 on it and Trial continues. Only in this case who is following the Living Oracles and who is not.

The Lord promises that he will gather the Wheat from the Tares. I see this as a part of that and fully expect more to come

I know you would say that I have no right to question God...and I'm not. But the teaching that African men should be kept from the priesthood must have ALWAYS been false since African men did in fact occupy the priesthood early in church history. How it could be valid then and then not valid for over 100 years and then valid again? And all without any official revelation?

You forget the simple fact that God allows us to grow line upon line precept upon precept. We try, we make mistakes, the Lord makes corrections in his own due time. Right now we have the most current research and revelation. From that it is very easy to conclude, as you have, that is was a mistake of man. However before the revelation, and the most recent research, we have records of people taking the position that the Ban was correcting and earlier mistake. Some even stating that they believed Joseph Smith did the correcting of his prior action. Back then it wasn't as clear-cut as people would like to assume it was. Which brings us back to question of why God waited and for that I refer to the top part of my post

[jinc1019]

Jinc, if you have two kids, and you tell one to stay away from matches but then tell the other one to please go light a candle--are your instructions to either one of those kids "false"? Or are your instructions "true", but tailored to the circumstances of each individual audience?

We want to believe that God thinks like us 21st-century Westerners do. In many ways, He does. But not in all. Our secular discourse--and even some portions of the scriptures, as Skippy demonstrates--are full of egalitarian discourse about how all are alike. But the fact is, God doesn't treat everyone exactly the same. Because frankly, we humans have fallen natures, and some of us have done a better job of overcoming those fallen natures than others; and God instructs and rewards His children accordingly. Sometimes, the innocent will have to suffer because of that; as in the examples I cited above.

The analogy doesn't work for one very important reason...Your church has never once stated that this position was Divinely mandated. At least that's what I have read so far...So the reality isn't that God said, "Black people can't be priesthood holders," but instead that the church created the policy itself. Now you could argue that it was revealed to them but no one ever stated that or wrote it down. Correct?

The problem is that the LDS Church did adopt this position, it just took them until 1978 do it, well after almost every other Christian church in the Western hemisphere abandoned such policies. If the LDS Church is the restored and true church, why would it be so LATE to adopt this position?

[jinc1019]

That is a good question... Why don't you ask him? For me the answer gets summed up in the term "Trial of Faith". By holding a position that was growing more and more socially unpopular the Lord could test his Saint and see who would follow him and who would follow the world. He could also use that to see who would distort his teachings to try to justify their own racism. Then the church flips 180 on it and Trial continues. Only in this case who is following the Living Oracles and who is not.

The Lord promises that he will gather the Wheat from the Tares. I see this as a part of that and fully expect more to come

You forget the simple fact that God allows us to grow line upon line precept upon precept. We try, we make mistakes, the Lord makes corrections in his own due time. Right now we have the most current research and revelation. From that it is very easy to conclude, as you have, that is was a mistake of man. However before the revelation, and the most recent research, we have records of people taking the position that the Ban was correcting and earlier mistake. Some even stating that they believed Joseph Smith did the correcting of his prior action. Back then it wasn't as clear-cut as people would like to assume it was. Which brings us back to question of why God waited and for that I refer to the top part of my post

That's a perfectly fair response.

I don't want to sound like I am denouncing your religious beliefs because of this one issue. I think it's entirely possible that your church made a mistake for over a hundred years, like many churches have on all sorts of issues, and then God finally said, "Enough is enough. Get you act together."

Where I get uncomfortable is with the argument that God WANTED black people to be kept from the priesthood for some unknown reason. While theoretically that is possible, I can't imagine it is true based on logic and everything else we read in the Bible.

[estradling75]

Where I get uncomfortable is with the argument that God WANTED black people to be kept from the priesthood for some unknown reason. While theoretically that is possible, I can't imagine it is true based on logic and everything else we read in the Bible.

Well I am quite sure that God doesn't WANT any of us to go to HELL... Yet what he has decreed and setup is going to make it happen for some of us anyways. Because it happens is it fair to say God WANTED it?

[jerome1232]

If you are uncomfortable with a priesthood ban based on lineage, how do you reconcile that with Abraham's seed being the covenant people? How do you reconcile that with the lesser priesthood being restricted to Levites prior to Christ?

[Just_A_Guy]

The analogy doesn't work for one very important reason...Your church has never once stated that this position was Divinely mandated. At least that's what I have read so far...So the reality isn't that God said, "Black people can't be priesthood holders," but instead that the church created the policy itself. Now you could argue that it was revealed to them but no one ever stated that or wrote it down. Correct?

This goes back to the undertones of some other discussions we've had about what counts as "official" Church teaching and what's the difference between "inspired speculation" versus "inspiration" versus "revelation". The former policy was never canonized; and no text for a formal revelation to that effect exists. But Brigham Young, and a variety of other LDS prophets, were unambiguous in their public statements: it came from God. The historical record is similarly clear that David O. McKay, President of the Church in the 1950s, prayed to God for permission to lift the ban but that permission to do so was denied him.

The problem is that the LDS Church did adopt this position, it just took them until 1978 do it, well after almost every other Christian church in the Western hemisphere abandoned such policies.

They adopted it with respect to a particular group; but we still don't ordain every worthy person--see the exceptions I've already outlined in this thread.

Where I get uncomfortable is with the argument that God WANTED black people to be kept from the priesthood for some unknown reason. While theoretically that is possible, I can't imagine it is true based on logic and everything else we read in the Bible.

I hope you don't think that's what I'm arguing. I'm not saying that it's what He wanted to do; I'm just floating the possibility that the policy really did come from Him because it's what was necessary at the time given the existing circumstances.

It's the difference between "voluntarily" going to the dentist because you like a total stranger scraping and poking around in your mouth, versus "voluntarily" going to the dentist because you know that you're going to have some problems down the road if you don't.

[Vort]

Where I get uncomfortable is with the argument that God WANTED black people to be kept from the priesthood for some unknown reason. While theoretically that is possible, I can't imagine it is true based on logic and everything else we read in the Bible.

Well, what you can or can't imagine is pretty much irrelevant, don't you agree? After all, you can imagine a God who creates ex nihilo, which is a meaningless and (to us) silly idea. That you think you can imagine it doesn't make it so. Similarly, that you cannot imagine something does not make it impossible, or even unlikely.

[mnn727]

While this is not official, this sounds right to me.

I got this from an African American Mormon about 10-12 years back who wrote it in response to the same kind of question that was posed in the O.P. and I got his permission to share it as I could:

The Priesthood has never been held in bondage. Aaron and his sons weren't allowed to exercise the priesthood until after the children of Israel were free from Egypt and out in the desert for a while. When the nation of Israel was carried away into captivity in Babylon, same thing.

This said, certain groups in modern society have been held in slavery as well. It's not the fault of persons held in slavery, but just the same, the Priesthood cannot be commanded. And, even though the Civil War and related events technically ended slavery in this country, many things didn't change culturally until efforts of the Civil Rights movements in the sixties and seventies. And until all people could regard themselves as free from bondage, they couldn't hold the Priesthood. And now, while efforts continue to advance the rights of all races, we have the responsibility of adhering to the Gospel and using the Priesthood to officiate in the ordinances of that Gospel.

Edited November 15, 2013 by mnn727

[jinc1019]

Well, what you can or can't imagine is pretty much irrelevant, don't you agree? After all, you can imagine a God who creates ex nihilo, which is a meaningless and (to us) silly idea. That you think you can imagine it doesn't make it so. Similarly, that you cannot imagine something does not make it impossible, or even unlikely.

Fair enough.

[jinc1019]

While this is not official, this sounds right to me.

I got this from an African American Mormon about 10-12 years back who wrote it in response to the same kind of question that was posed in the O.P. and I got his permission to share it as I could:

Very interesting view. Thanks for sharing it.

[Blackmarch]

I realize this is a sensitive subject for a variety of very obvious reasons, so let me start by saying definitively: I don't think Mormons are racist.

However, I am having a very, very hard time understanding why the "Restored" church, which should really be better than the church that came before it, would prevent African-Americans from the priesthood.

If the "priesthood" in Mormonism meant the same thing as it did in virtually every other denomination, this could be understood SOMEWHAT better, but given just how important the priesthood is in the LDS Church, why in the world would God want African-Americans to be denied a better place in the afterlife?

Further, and really the larger issue at this point in time (since blacks were allowed to become priesthood holders in 1978), doesn't this make the claim that the LDS Church's leadership is a modern day prophet harder to believe?

I know this is a tough question to deal with and I promise to be fair about it, but I am having a very difficult time understanding the seemingly convoluted position of the LDS Church on this issue.

God does things in his own time... at one point you had to be jewish and depending on what duties, from certain tribes or standing (such as the first son) to have the priesthood.

No idea how other denominations see the priesthood, but for LDS its the authority to do God's work in this world and in the next. no more no less. If God wants us to practice polygamy and authorizes us to do so we will do so, if he says a year later that we should stop then we will stop.

Nor have I really gotten the feeling that the modern organization is better or more improved than any of the other organizations God has created to get his work done, it does what its designed to do (just as the previous ones have done for their times and their people).. if anything there's possibly more responsibilities and burdens than previous ones.

being able to change is rather a reassurance for me, as it means that things can adapt to whatever the current situation is.

On a different subject, if God prevents you from getting something that you had no influence over, then God cannot hold the lack of having that thing against you, or against your progression.

[Irenaeus]

There are different ways you could approach this question. On the one hand, the LDS church generally states that an individual if born into particular circumstances because those circumstances are the most advantageous for their salvation. Counter-intuitively, this could include being born in the great apostasy or some other period or location where the fullness of the Gospel is not available. Temple work resolves the issue of the individual born in such circumstances being barred from receiving the Gospel, so then the circumstances merely reflect the conditions that will most incline that particular soul to be able to receive the truth. It just so happened that there was a need for certain individuals to be in the Church while the barring of African-Americans was still in effect.

On the other hand, I have read some accounts stating the Brigham Young was feeling threatened by an African-American man (who's name escapes me) who was gaining some measure of popularity within the church, and instituted the policy to curtail his assent to power.

I guess what I'm saying is that if you are within the LDS church, you can justify the old position by pointing out that those souls simply needed to be born in those conditions established by the church itself. If you are not LDS, you will probably reject this explanation in favor of simply pointing out the fallen and broken nature of the men involved in the decision.