Blacks, Indians And Questions.

[Fiannan]

Hello. A young woman I know (who has been kinda exploring the Church) asked me the thorny questions about blacks and the priesthood and the Indian skin color thing from the Book of Mormon. I would appreciate someone providing easy to understand explainations on these issues. Being the typical INTP personality type I can go on and on with an answer but maybe that is not the best way to reach her. So if someone asked you for an explaination as to these issues how would you answer in a simple manner that could reach a feministic agnostic with Christian heritage? I promised an answer soon so...

[sixpacktr]

As for the Blacks and the PH, I would explain that we believe in revelation. There was nothing racist or bigoted about it. There were blacks that were members of the church but were not allowed to hold the PH. Why? We don't know, for certain. We believe that they are the descendants of Cain thru Ham's wife, and that the Lord, for his own reasons, withheld the PH authority from them until 1978. Then, Pres Kimball after much prayer was given the "go ahead" to extend to all worthy males. Pres Kimball and others have stated that the church was not giving in to pressure, but that it was the result of much prayer and fasting after being poked at about it from the outside. That, however, had been happening for quite a while. There have been black members of the church since Joseph Smith' day.

As for the Indians, again, to me, it is as it was with Cain. For reasons known to the Lord, he made the Lamanites dark to distinguish them from the Nephites. We know that it didnt' carry with it the same penalty of non-participation in the PH that Cain suffered, but that they were distinct in skin color.

I know that some take those explanations with a pound of salt because we are a "white" church, which is silly. And since I am white I don't see things thru glasses tinged with suspicion of racism in every word or act. I do know that when the announcement was made regarding the PH in 1978, I was a senior in HS and when my mother told me as I walked in the door I said "it's about time!"

I think that the Lord also works in accordance with the ability of his children to handle certain things. Perhaps it couldn't have been done at an earlier time because of the social pressures or individual feelings. Who knows? To cling to that argument now is pointless.

[Gwen]

i've been exploring this link outshined gave in another topic http://blacklds.org it's been very interesting, especially the history section. i learned a lot i did not know.

[the_jason]

It was not just African Americans that could not hold the priesthood, and that race was not referred to when the revelation came about. It merely said that all worthy males would receive the priesthood. There were other races that had not previously held the priesthood as well.

It's important to note that this occurance was not new. There has always been a time when a certain group or groups were withheld from the blessings of the gospel. During the time of Christ, only the Jews could be baptized and become members. The Gentiles were denied. In the Book of Mormon it was the Nephites at first, and then the Lamanites, that held the gospel.

We don't know all the reasons why the Lord withholds the gospel from some people and not others, but we do know that He does everything in wisdom and order. Understanding this history will help this young woman and others understand this revelation. It was never a matter of race. Currently, only males hold the priesthood. It's not a matter of gender either. The Lord grants the priesthood to those whom He chooses. It is our duty not to question it, but rather seek understanding and comfort from it.

[Dr T]

Was she questioning the idea of the skin getting lighter? If so, I'm interested in hearing an answer to that too.

[a-train]

I remember a High Priest in a southern North Carolinian ward I served in as a missionary. He told us of how he became aware of the Church through friends in the military many years before the priesthood was extended to him. He had served our military in several wars and was then retired (in 1996). He had an asian wife that he met on deployment. They were a great old couple.

He told me and my companion one night of his experience joining the Church. This was during some of the most bitter moments of the civil rights movement. He said he actually had black friends and family scorn him for having anything to do with a 'white' Church. He had attended many Churches until he had come to the LDS Church. He explained that the LDS Church was the only one not segregated.

He had tears in his eyes as he told us that on one Sunday a white sister in the ward hugged him in the foyer. He must of noticed that my companion and I didn't seem struck by that. Growing up in such an integrated America perhaps kept us from seeing exactly what he was describing. After a pause, he said: 'You have to understand, I coulda got killed for something like that back then.'

He laughed and went on to say that he remembered hearing that the time had arrived that had been so long awaited that the priesthood could be extended to all men regardless of lineage. He mentioned how it seems that those same naysayers who attended the segregated Churches and scorned his assimilation with a 'white' Church now make accusations regarding priesthood bestowal.

Regardless, he had a testimony that the Restoration was true and passed no judgement against those who had been so good to him for many years before civil rights were extended. We went out on many splits with him. He was great.

Most of those who I baptized on my mission were black Americans.

-a-train

[Fiannan]

Thank you all -- your responses were forwarded to her (so you all just did some missionary work). :)

[Outshined]

Great story, a-train. B)

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

As for the Blacks and the PH, I would explain that we believe in revelation.

There was never a revelation denying the priesthood to anyone, just a revelation opening it up to all worthy males.

There was nothing racist or bigoted about it.There were blacks that were members of the church but were not allowed to hold the PH. Why? We don't know, for certain. We believe that they are the descendants of Cain thru Ham's wife, . . .

Actually, we now know the practice of denying the priesthood to men of color was based on a severe, but extremely common, racism of the period. It started with Brigham Young, (not Joseph Smith), whose racism was so insidious his followers believed it to be doctrine. In fact, there is no doctrinal basis for denying the priesthood to any worthy male.

From devout Mormon Armand Mauss, Professor Emeritus, Washington State University:

"I am aware that the official "explanation" offered these days for denying the priesthood to blacks is that "we don't know." That response to questions about the past is perhaps technically accurate, since very few members or even leaders know much about the history of our black members or of their part in our larger history. It is true also that we can't be sure of all that lay behind Brigham Young's 1852 declaration that "descendants of Cain" could not have the priesthood. In the absence of all such knowledge, certainly the safest thing for a Church member or leader to say today is that "we don't know." It is also a good public relations tactic, since it has the effect of changing the subject before it gets complicated. Yet it is also somewhat disingenuous to say that we don't know, and it is certainly an unsatisfactory response to any of our converts, investigators, or youth who are conscientiously troubled by this chapter in our history, especially if they are black. The fact is that we do have a lot more relevant historical knowledge than would be indicated by the we-don't-know response. This knowledge, furthermore, is based on authoritative historical research by responsible scholars, to which I have alluded in the hypothetical conversation just summarized."

I've included a link to Mauss' article below.

The following is one of Young's many racist statements. I've only included one because I want to give a valid example of his racism, but I don't want to make this all about Young. The racism, begun by Young, continued through the church presidencies until President Kimball's anxiety about it caused him to go before the Lord and ask whether the priesthood ban should be lifted. And again, this racism was common to the entire country, not just Mormons.

From Brigham Young:

“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the 'servant of servants;' and they will be, until that curse is removed."

Again, please keep in mind that, while his words are abhorrent to our sensibilities, in his day and age they were actually quite common.

Below is an explanation of how the priesthood ban came to be, again by Armand Mauss:

“Indeed, it was apparent to many of us even four decades ago that certain scriptural passages used to explain the denial of priesthood to black members could not legitimately be so interpreted without an a priori narrative. Such a narrative was gradually constructed by the searching and inventive minds of early LDS apologists. With allusions to the books of Genesis, Moses, and Abraham, the scenario went something like this : In the pre-existence, certain of the spirits were set aside, in God's wisdom, to come to Earth through a lineage that was cursed and marked, first by Cain's fratricide and obeisance to Satan, and then again later by Ham's lèse majesté against his father Noah. We aren't exactly sure why this lineage was set apart in the pre-existence, but it was probably for reasons that do not reflect well on the premortal valiancy of the partakers of that lineage. Since the beginning, the holy priesthood has been withheld from all who have had any trace of that lineage, and so it shall be until all the rest of Adam's descendants have received the priesthood, or, for all practical purposes, throughout the mortal existence of humankind.

“Neat and coherent as that scenario might seem, the scriptures typically cited in its support cannot be so interpreted unless we start with the scenario itself and project it retrospectively upon the scriptural passages in proof-text fashion. For if seen through a darkened glass of this contrived scenario, we see that the Book of Abraham says nothing about lineages set aside in the pre-existence, but only about distinguished individuals. The Book of Abraham is the only place, furthermore, that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the pharoahs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any, especially in the modern world, would be covered by that proscription. At the same time, the passages in Genesis and Moses, for their part, do not refer to any priesthood proscription, and no color change occurs in either Cain or Ham, or even in Ham's son Canaan, who, for some unexplained reason, was the one actually cursed! There is no description of the mark on Cain, except that the mark was supposed to protect him from vengeance. It's true that in the seventh chapter of Moses, we learn that descendants of Cain became black, but not until the time of Enoch, six generations after Cain, and even then only in a vision of Enoch about an unspecified future time. There is no explanation for this blackness; it is not even clear that we are to take it literally."

Again, I've included a link to this article below.

And finally, just for the heck of it, I’m including a link about one of my favorite pioneers, Jane Manning James. She was a black woman who went through excruciating pain to follow the call of her prophet, Joseph, finally joining him in Nauvoo with bloody feet. She then took the extraordinarily difficult trek west, eventually becoming a beloved saint among saints in Utah until the end of her days. She often asked Church authorities for permission to be endowed, but was always turned down.

She dearly loved her church and is an incredible inspiration.

Emma

The LDS Church and the Race Issue:A Study in Misplaced Apologetics, by Armand Mauss:

When the Negro Doctrine: A Review of Answers from 10 Years, by Leonard E. Bush, Jr

Jane Manning James

[the_jason]

Emma I'm curious. What's an Agnostic Latter-day Saint?

[CrimsonKairos]

There were blacks that were members of the church but were not allowed to hold the PH. Why? We don't know, for certain. We believe that they are the descendants of Cain thru Ham's wife, . . .

Actually, we now know the practice of denying the priesthood to men of color was based on a severe, but extremely common, racism of the period.

That, and recollections of alleged conversations with Joseph Smith about the issue in favor of a priesthood ban. Nothing official. Nothing recorded in Joseph's own hand.

www.blacklds.org really is a fantastic resource for the history of this most puzzling piece of LDS history.

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

Emma I'm curious. What's an agnostic Latter-day Saint?

Jason, see my new signature. (You're not the first person to ask me that.)

Emma

[Dr T]

I don’t believe in any deity.

That would be atheistic (without belief in God) not agnostic.

[pushka]

Emma, thanks for the link to the story of Jane Manning James, fascinating reading! :)

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

I don’t believe in any deity.

That would be atheistic (without belief in God) not agnostic.

You're right. I edited my sig line to better reflect my agnosticism.

Thanks,

Emma

[Sugarbay]

As for the Blacks and the PH, I would explain that we believe in revelation. There was nothing racist or bigoted about it. There were blacks that were members of the church but were not allowed to hold the PH. Why? We don't know, for certain. We believe that they are the descendants of Cain thru Ham's wife, and that the Lord, for his own reasons, withheld the PH authority from them until 1978. Then, Pres Kimball after much prayer was given the "go ahead" to extend to all worthy males. Pres Kimball and others have stated that the church was not giving in to pressure, but that it was the result of much prayer and fasting after being poked at about it from the outside. That, however, had been happening for quite a while. There have been black members of the church since Joseph Smith' day.

As for the Indians, again, to me, it is as it was with Cain. For reasons known to the Lord, he made the Lamanites dark to distinguish them from the Nephites. We know that it didnt' carry with it the same penalty of non-participation in the PH that Cain suffered, but that they were distinct in skin color.

I know that some take those explanations with a pound of salt because we are a "white" church, which is silly. And since I am white I don't see things thru glasses tinged with suspicion of racism in every word or act. I do know that when the announcement was made regarding the PH in 1978, I was a senior in HS and when my mother told me as I walked in the door I said "it's about time!"

I think that the Lord also works in accordance with the ability of his children to handle certain things. Perhaps it couldn't have been done at an earlier time because of the social pressures or individual feelings. Who knows? To cling to that argument now is pointless.

But we believe that we will be punished for our own transgressions so why would an entire race of people be punished for one nitwit? This has never made sense to me.

<div class='quotemain'>As for the Blacks and the PH, I would explain that we believe in revelation.

There was never a revelation denying the priesthood to anyone, just a revelation opening it up to all worthy males.

There was nothing racist or bigoted about it.There were blacks that were members of the church but were not allowed to hold the PH. Why? We don't know, for certain. We believe that they are the descendants of Cain thru Ham's wife, . . .

Actually, we now know the practice of denying the priesthood to men of color was based on a severe, but extremely common, racism of the period. It started with Brigham Young, (not Joseph Smith), whose racism was so insidious his followers believed it to be doctrine. In fact, there is no doctrinal basis for denying the priesthood to any worthy male.

From devout Mormon Armand Mauss, Professor Emeritus, Washington State University:

"I am aware that the official "explanation" offered these days for denying the priesthood to blacks is that "we don't know." That response to questions about the past is perhaps technically accurate, since very few members or even leaders know much about the history of our black members or of their part in our larger history. It is true also that we can't be sure of all that lay behind Brigham Young's 1852 declaration that "descendants of Cain" could not have the priesthood. In the absence of all such knowledge, certainly the safest thing for a Church member or leader to say today is that "we don't know." It is also a good public relations tactic, since it has the effect of changing the subject before it gets complicated. Yet it is also somewhat disingenuous to say that we don't know, and it is certainly an unsatisfactory response to any of our converts, investigators, or youth who are conscientiously troubled by this chapter in our history, especially if they are black. The fact is that we do have a lot more relevant historical knowledge than would be indicated by the we-don't-know response. This knowledge, furthermore, is based on authoritative historical research by responsible scholars, to which I have alluded in the hypothetical conversation just summarized."

I've included a link to Mauss' article below.

The following is one of Young's many racist statements. I've only included one because I want to give a valid example of his racism, but I don't want to make this all about Young. The racism, begun by Young, continued through the church presidencies until President Kimball's anxiety about it caused him to go before the Lord and ask whether the priesthood ban should be lifted. And again, this racism was common to the entire country, not just Mormons.

From Brigham Young:

“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the 'servant of servants;' and they will be, until that curse is removed."

Again, please keep in mind that, while his words are abhorrent to our sensibilities, in his day and age they were actually quite common.

Below is an explanation of how the priesthood ban came to be, again by Armand Mauss:

“Indeed, it was apparent to many of us even four decades ago that certain scriptural passages used to explain the denial of priesthood to black members could not legitimately be so interpreted without an a priori narrative. Such a narrative was gradually constructed by the searching and inventive minds of early LDS apologists. With allusions to the books of Genesis, Moses, and Abraham, the scenario went something like this : In the pre-existence, certain of the spirits were set aside, in God's wisdom, to come to Earth through a lineage that was cursed and marked, first by Cain's fratricide and obeisance to Satan, and then again later by Ham's lèse majesté against his father Noah. We aren't exactly sure why this lineage was set apart in the pre-existence, but it was probably for reasons that do not reflect well on the premortal valiancy of the partakers of that lineage. Since the beginning, the holy priesthood has been withheld from all who have had any trace of that lineage, and so it shall be until all the rest of Adam's descendants have received the priesthood, or, for all practical purposes, throughout the mortal existence of humankind.

“Neat and coherent as that scenario might seem, the scriptures typically cited in its support cannot be so interpreted unless we start with the scenario itself and project it retrospectively upon the scriptural passages in proof-text fashion. For if seen through a darkened glass of this contrived scenario, we see that the Book of Abraham says nothing about lineages set aside in the pre-existence, but only about distinguished individuals. The Book of Abraham is the only place, furthermore, that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the pharoahs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any, especially in the modern world, would be covered by that proscription. At the same time, the passages in Genesis and Moses, for their part, do not refer to any priesthood proscription, and no color change occurs in either Cain or Ham, or even in Ham's son Canaan, who, for some unexplained reason, was the one actually cursed! There is no description of the mark on Cain, except that the mark was supposed to protect him from vengeance. It's true that in the seventh chapter of Moses, we learn that descendants of Cain became black, but not until the time of Enoch, six generations after Cain, and even then only in a vision of Enoch about an unspecified future time. There is no explanation for this blackness; it is not even clear that we are to take it literally."

Again, I've included a link to this article below.

And finally, just for the heck of it, I’m including a link about one of my favorite pioneers, Jane Manning James. She was a black woman who went through excruciating pain to follow the call of her prophet, Joseph, finally joining him in Nauvoo with bloody feet. She then took the extraordinarily difficult trek west, eventually becoming a beloved saint among saints in Utah until the end of her days. She often asked Church authorities for permission to be endowed, but was always turned down.

She dearly loved her church and is an incredible inspiration.

Emma

The LDS Church and the Race Issue:A Study in Misplaced Apologetics, by Armand Mauss:

When the Negro Doctrine: A Review of Answers from 10 Years, by Leonard E. Bush, Jr

Jane Manning James

Okay. But, I thought the Lord would remove a prophet from his place for wrong teachings. If Pres. Young was a bigot, which isn't very Christlike at all, why was he allowed to remain as a prophet? Perhaps that is why Emma Smith stayed behind...

This is a tough issue for me to deal with.

[CrimsonKairos]

But we believe that we will be punished for our own transgressions so why would an entire race of people be punished for one nitwit? This has never made sense to me.

I don't believe that the priesthood ban was about lineage or Hamitic descent. However, to find an example of a whole people being denied the priesthood based on the sins of their ancestors, we have only to look at Mt. Sinai and the exodus from Egypt.

In Exodus 32:26-28, Moses comes down from speaking with the Lord and finds the people worshipping a golden calf. He demands to know who is on the Lord's side. Only the sons of Levi gather around him. Moses commands them to slay the wicked, and that day they kill about 3,000 of their fellow Israelites. From that day until Jesus's resurrection, only Levites could hold the priesthood in Israel (referring to the people, not the land).

But wait, surely there were grandsons and great-grandsons from the other eleven tribes who were righteous! Why would the Lord punish them with a priesthood ban just because of something their ancestors did or didn't do?

Just because we may not perfectly understand the why, that doesn't mean that the what is not of God.

Again, I don't necessarily believe the modern priesthood ban on blacks up until 1978 had anything to do with lineage or anything like that. But I did want to provide an example of where God instituted a priesthood ban on members of His chosen people based on what their ancestors did.

NOTE: Perhaps the most interesting thing about the story in Exodus involving the golden calf is that the one who directed it to be made was Moses's brother Aaron (he confesses in Ex. 32:24). But Aaron wasn't among the 3,000 Israelites who were killed for worshipping an idol, even though he made it for them! Instead, Aaron went on to become High Priest and his direct descendants within the Tribe of Levi were the only ones who could hold the office of High Priest in Israel!!! To me, that's more confusing than the priesthood ban in our day!

[LukeAir2006]

I don't think the Lord would ever allow any man to become President of the Church who would lead the church astray. The Lord watches over these men as they are tried, tested and schooled to the point where he can leave his church in their hands. The Lord is at the helm. We have seen men such as Ezra Taft Benson who at the close of his life suffered from the severe effects of old age; but he never lead the church astray, did he? Even in that incapacitated state. I respect Emma's stand. She doesn't believe in the divinity of the LDS church. Or in other words, she has no testimony. I can understand that.

What is more dangerous is those who profess to be active and strong members of the church but infer that Brigham Young taught false doctrine and attempted to lead the church astray, but somehow remained a Prophet and didn't affect the line of authority. These doctrinal teachings were not casual, careless comments but were spoken from the pulpit of the Tabernacle in conference and church meetings. Pres. Hinckley has a portrait of Brigham Young above his desk and has said that he often looks up and asks himself: 'what would he do? Do you think Pres Hinckley believes that anything that Brigham said was false or misleading or corrupt. I don't think so!

Either Brigham Young was a Prophet, and everything that he taught as Prophet was correct, having been passed on by Joseph Smith or received by revelation (My view); or he was a false prophet.(Emmas view) There is no middle ground. Sure, Presidents of the church since then can revise the church's stance, such as President Kimballs revelation on the priesthood. Or they can forbid us from teaching controversial or sacred doctrines so as not to destroy fragile investigators and new converts testimonies. But this doesnt detract from the fact that B Young was a Prophet of the Lord and those doctrines which he taught were from the Lord.

[puterguy01]

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

I think that the whole mark of Cain and Ham thing is ridiculous. Why would the Lord deny blessings to thousands and thousands of black people just because of what a couple of guys did forever ago? That just doesn't make any sense to me.

[CrimsonKairos]

It's a good thing that not everything Brigham Young wrote or spoke about was doctrine.

The man had very interesting opinions and theories that were a product of his times, culture and then-current scientific knowledge.

[Dr T]

You're welcome Emma Hale Smith :)

[Guest mamacat]

there is still a lot of "severe, but extremely common, racism" inherent in today's attitudes and beliefs. i see it all the time, everywhere, esp in people who try to whitewash it in terms of spirituality. it's very subtle. and still quite insidious. Emma Hale Smith highlights the links to the past in this respect very well.

[a-train]

Through Adam's transgression, death came upon all mankind. What is worse? No priesthood or death? Is anything we take in this life a punishment? Who did sin in the man born blind from his birth, the man or his parents? Remember Jesus' answer to that question? Even if there is a 'priesthood ban', should we infer that it is a punishment? Are we to assume that the crack baby is being punished? Were those children born to Jews in Germany during the holocaust being punished?

NOTHING in this life is a punishment. We live in a probationary state here, a time for us to prepare to meet God, a time wherein we are tested to see if we will do all things whatsoever the LORD our God commands us. How many people died before the Restoration? Was that a punishment? Are the Chinese under the rule of communism who have still not been able to receive the Gospel and the priesthood being punished? We are NOT being punished, we are being tested.

-a-train

[sixpacktr]

Trying not to sound too harsh here, but there was a ban on Cain because of his actions. It trickled down to his descendants. Why? We don't know. There is a lot in the pre-mortal realm we have absolutely no understanding of, and God doesn't punish because he wants to mete out hurt, but because he loves us. Perhaps Cain's descendants would have been punished more for having something they couldn't "handle" and would have come under greater condemnation because of that than if they couldn't have it altogether. That doesn't mean that there weren't great and faithful black Saints prior to this. We don't understand all the why's and wherefore's of our HF, and that is okay with me. One day it will be made very clear as to the reasons, and then everyone, I'm sure, will do a great big "OOHH, Okay, Now I understand!" And will feel stupid for 2nd guessing everything that they were taught.

The other thing here is why is everyone so down on Brigham Young? My gosh, there seems to be a lot of second guessing and Monday morning quarterbacking of what he said, etc., and lots of implications that he was a bigoted, shady character that just happened to be the Chief Apostle at the time of Joseph's martyrdom, and so kind of "fell in" to being the Prophet.

You all can't pick and choose who God's prophet is and isn't. He puts people in place that will advance what needs to be done when it is appropriate. Read the BOM, the part where Captain Moroni really lets Pahoran have it. Did that make Captain Moroni any less of a great man, or prophet of God? Heck no! But I'm sure that CM probably wouldn't want his entire life judged upon a letter that went out in a desperate situation, where he was trying to save a country and it seemed that NO ONE, especially the gov't, cared.

Get over it, for crying out loud.

[CrimsonKairos]

He wasn't a shady character.

I believe the priesthood ban was approved of God.

I don't believe Brigham Young and others were correct about the reasons it was approved of God.

The what was right, the why was wrong. That's the great thing about hindsight...20/20.