Blacks and the Priesthood

[aranyborju]

I know that this is a touchy subject, and I am not trying to cause contention, but I have a legitimate question, and I am sure that I can gain real insight from your answers.

When, if ever, was a revelation recorded, which denied the priesthood to black people? It is a fact that Elijah Able, a black man, was ordained as a seventy during Joseph Smith's time. So if blacks could have the priesthood when Joseph Smith was prophet, yet the Church had to have an official declaration in the 20th century to allow blacks to have the priesthood, then that means that there must have been a revelation between those two events, which denied the priesthood to blacks. If not then the Church was involved in a racist policy for no reason. (Which I refuse believe)

[Honos]

First and foremost- the Church's official answer to when and how the policy began is "We don't know."

Brigham Young also ordained and set apart African-American priesthood holders.

There may have been revelation, or there may not. No record of such a revelation has been produced, but that doesn't mean there was no revelation. There was a tremendous amount of turmoil between the murder of the Prophet Joseph Smith and properly organizing matters in Utah.

There was a tremendous amount of turmoil during the persecutions over polygamy- with the Church offices and property seized by the government.

There is no record of such a revelation, but lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. The revelation may not have been properly recorded or the record may have been lost in all the persecutions.

The Church's answer is correct: We don't know.

Also, the ban was based on lineage, not race, though the two were often conflated. Neither was the concept a Mormon invention- look at our history.

By comparison, the Mormon Church was and remains downright progressive on matters of race- especially when compared to our Protestant brethren.

Your accusation of racism is misplaced, however popular the sophistry might be.

[aranyborju]

Honos, if you have bothered to read the parenthetical at the end of my post, then it should have been clear that I was not accusing the church of racism. On the contrary, because I am well aware of the church's progressive views pertaining to race, I "refuse to believe" that the church espoused a racist policy. That is why I was asking. I know that it is a sensitive subject in the church, and the reason that I ask is because I happen to live where there is a large African American population, and I have been asked this question from time to time, and don't know the answer. I tried to word my question carefully so as to be clear that I am not accusing the church of racism, but obviously I wasn't careful enough, and I am sorry.

So the official church position is that "we don't know?"

[Elphaba]

Brigham Young also ordained and set apart African-American priesthood holders.

Who did BY ordain and set apart?

Elphaba

[a-train]

All revelation has come to man to lift his understanding from the lack of knowledge to knowledge. When the revelation on the subject of priesthood and lineage came it offered an understanding of the will of God not had previously. We have yet to discover if it was ever the will of God that the priesthood be administered in this dispensation on the basis of lineage as it was. Hinckley was of the opinion that the notion came as an interpretation of scripture.

Could the true Apostles and Prophets of God have a misconception based on the scriptures about who should get the priesthood and who should not? Could they have one that would require a revelation to clear up? OF COURSE! This doesn't mean they were false Prophets before the revelation came.

Peter and the Apostles weren't going to take the gospel to gentiles at all. They were refusing to even baptize gentiles. What happened? God gave a revelation to the First Elder of the Priesthood that His will was that the gentiles receive the gospel.

What I can't help but notice is that the rise of Eugenics seems to parallel the rise of the LDS notion of Blacks and the Priesthood. It would seem that as universities began pushing this notion and as the west became more and more convinced that people with different hereditary traits were inferior or that these traits were signs of weakness and/or inability of physical or mental capacity the racial tensions of the west skyrocketed. Of course, the vivid and startling demonstrations of this falsehood were the genocides such as that perpetrated by the nazis against the Jews. What is most shocking is that eugenics has yet to be extricated from among us, but it has taken new forms.

As free thinking people have rejected the notion and people of various hereditary make-ups have integrated, the falsehood of segregation and eugenics has been made manifest. As it became clearer and clearer to Church leaders, prayers and considerations were made ultimately leading to the 1978 revelation. Speculation has been made as to why the LORD would not have given this revelation until that time, but that is all we have: speculation.

Today there are people in the world to which the missionaries have not yet been sent. In some cases there may require a revelation before the missionaries will go, this is not to be considered a lack of equality in the minds of Church leaders, but it is a manifestation of their desire to protect the welfare of all people and to preach the gospel in the order and manner prescribed by the LORD and given by revelation alone.

-a-train

[Mahonri]

The "policy" came from interpretation of scripture regarding the seed of Cain.

David O. McKay prayed and asked the Lord repeatedly if he could change the policy and received the answer of "No" more than once.

It was reported that Harold B. Lee once told an individual that if he ever became the prophet that the folks with 'black' lineage wouldn't get it during his administration. His administration lasted a year and a half. Four years later Pres. Spencer W. Kimball received the revelation that the time had finally arrived when the priesthood would be extended to include all races.

Perhaps once we pass to the other side we'll find out why the policy came into being.

[Elphaba]

The "policy" came from interpretation of scripture regarding the seed of Cain.

This is only one explanation, and there is no evidence it was the reason for the ban. It would be wrong to continue to claim it is.

In fact, in my opinion, it is wrong to discuss any of these theories in any context other than an purely academic one. Just as everyone else has said, “We don’t know.”

Obviously not all of the reasons are true, so some of them are myths, and when one person says it was “_______” and another says it was “__________,” someone is perpetuating a myth, and it is unseemly. I have read many blog posts by black members who are offended by this, and I don't blame them.

http://www.blacklds.org/mauss explains the history of the various explanations for the ban, and some commentary on them.

It was reported that Harold B. Lee once told an individual that if he ever became the prophet that the folks with 'black' lineage wouldn't get it during his administration. His administration lasted a year and a half.

If this is true, it is bothersome to me. How could he possibly know this?

For example, while hiding from federal marshals a few years before the 1890 Manifesto, Wilford Woodruf received a revelation in which God vowed to pour out his judgment on “That Nation or House or people, who seek to hinder my People from obeying the Patriarchal Law of Abraham," referring to plural marriage.

Then in 1890 he had a revelation, and the result was the Manifesto ending civil polygamy.

So how could President Lee know the same thing could not happen with him?

I do not believe those running the Church in the past were as racist as many accused them to be. I also do not believe they were as non-racist as honos says they were. I suspect if President Lee did indeed say the ban would not be lifted while he was president, his comments had a racist element, whether he was conscious of it or not. If indeed, he did say that.

Elphaba

[Moksha]

Elf, have you seen this podcast? I consider to be the best presentation of Blacks and the LDS Priesthood to date.

I would invite all to view this so we could all be on the same wavelength. The information in this podcast may well surprise you, but it is excellently presented.

http://www.mormonstories.org/blacksandtheldspriesthood/

[Palerider]

do visit the above mentioned web sites and you will have all your questions answered......:):)

[aranyborju]

Thank you all for your insight and the links.

[StudMuff]

I believe the cause for the dilemma dealing with blacks and the priesthood is cultural based. The culture of this country, for some time, was that blacks are second class and barely considered people. This may have seeped into the church and gotten confused with actual doctrine. The Lord then cleared up this error through his prophet in 1978.

Just another way to view the situation

:-)

[tubaloth]

The “we don’t know” answer is still probably the best. Was there a revelation that specially explained why blacks didn’t get the priesthood, or what is just the answer of “no.”

Lets more examine what we do know.

In a Revelation that I find really interesting is Section 121. This has nothing to do with blacks, but about the people that were persecuting the saints. Then the Lord says:

(Doctrine and Covenants 121:16-21.)

16 Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.

17 But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.

18 And those who swear falsely against my servants, that they might bring them into bondage and death—

19 Wo unto them; because they have offended my little ones they shall be severed from the ordinances of mine house.

20 Their basket shall not be full, their houses and their barns shall perish, and they themselves shall be despised by those that flattered them.

21 They shall not have right to the priesthood, nor their posterity after them from generation to generation.

Now we really can’t make any fair comparison here with those talked about in this scripture with blacks and not getting the priesthood. What we can draw from this is that there are times when God takes away the right to the priesthood and the posterity after them. Could this same TYPE of thing happen sometime before to somebody else in a lineage. The possibility is yes.

[Moksha]

I believe the cause for the dilemma dealing with blacks and the priesthood is cultural based. The culture of this country, for some time, was that blacks are second class and barely considered people. This may have seeped into the church and gotten confused with actual doctrine. The Lord then cleared up this error through his prophet in 1978.

Just another way to view the situation

:-)

I agree with that part about confusion with actual doctrine. Watch the above podcast and you will understand the precise details.

[BenRaines]

So where is the record of the quote by President Harold B. Lee or is it just rumor too?

If someone can give me a record where he wrote it, where more than one person heard that he said it then I might lean towards believing it. If someone says they heard that someone heard him say that it is hearsay at the most and most likely not true. Lets not be spreaders of rumors.

As mentioned earlier I would rather see a church that states the way they believe and follow it than to practice the segregation that many other churches have practiced for centuries.

Ben Raines

[Elphaba]

As mentioned earlier I would rather see a church that states the way they believe and follow it than to practice the segregation that many other churches have practiced for centuries.

That is a strawman. For all we know, TCOJCOLDS, if it had existed centries ago, would also have followed the segregationionst policies.

To compare TJOJCOLDS to other churches that have been around for centuries is a strawman. The onyl comparison you can make is of the Churches that have existed from 1830 on.

Elphba

[ztodd]

I don't think it's racist for God to deny the priesthood to a certain group of people. "In certain circumstances and for various reasons, God has given certain privileges and responsibilities to certain groups and withheld them" (Blacks and the priesthood - deny based on race? - FAIRMormon)

But that doesn't mean God discriminates against those people. He is no respecter of persons. But His ways are not our ways. His timing is not our timing. Wisdom of God is foolishness to man and the wisdom of man is foolishness to God.

We don't know why the priesthood was withheld. But our heavenly father does. And He's not racist.

[Moksha]

To compare TJOJCOLDS to other churches that have been around for centuries is a strawman. The only comparison you can make is of the Churches that have existed from 1830 on.

Elphba

Depends upon what Churches you compare. For instance, the Quakers were staunchly against such practices, while others were blatantly discriminatory in their practices. BTW, did you know that the Catholics has three African Popes and in America they even ordained a Black priest born before the civil war.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Three African Popes? Which ones were they?

[Moksha]

Three African Popes? Which ones were they?

• Pope Victor I (189 to 199)
• Pope Miltiades (310/311 to 314)
• Pope Gelasius I (492 to 496)

[WillowTheWhisp]

Thank you Moksha. :) I'll have a read up on them. I must admit I don't know very much about the history of the Papacy.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I've been reading from your links Moksha (and links from those links) and come up with the following information:

The first inhabitants of Libya were Berber tribes. In the 7th century B.C., Phoenicians colonized the eastern section of Libya, called Cyrenaica, and Greeks colonized the western portion, called Tripolitania. Tripolitania was for a time under Carthaginian control. It became part of the Roman Empire from 46 B.C. to A.D. 436, after which it was sacked by the Vandals.

Pope Saint Victor I was a Pope (from 189 to 199 (the Vatican cites 186 or 189 to 197 or 201)

So would that mean he could have been or Phoenician or Greek descent?

Pope Saint Miltiades (also called Melchiades, Milciades, or Miltiad[1]) was pope from July 2, 310 or 311 to January 10 or 11, 314.

He appears to have been an African by birth, but of his personal history nothing is known. Even his race is unknown, though some documents say he was not dark skinned.

Pope Saint Gelasius I was the third pope of African origin (more exactly from Kabylie) in Catholic history. Gelasius had been closely employed by his predecessor, Felix III, especially in drafting papal documents.

Kabylie or Kabylia (Kabyle: Tamurt n Leqbayel) is a cultural region in the north of Algeria. It corresponds more or less with the homeland of the Kabyle people.

The Kabyles (Iqvaylyen or Iqbayliyen in Kabyle, pronounced [iqβajlijən])) are a Berber people whose traditional homeland is highlands of Kabylie (or Kabylia) in northeastern Algeria.

So he sounds more Arab than black if he was of Kabylie heritage. Just because someone is born in Africa it doesn't automatically follow that they are black skinned. I have spent time in North African countries (where these three Popes came from) and come across very few actual black people and the ones I have come across there have been from countries further south on the huge continent of Africa.

Thanks for the information. It has been really interesting looking into this. I especially love North African Berber culture and I had never known before that there had been Catholic Popes from that background. I have tended to assume that prior to Islam arriving in those countries they were all followers of the Berber pagan religions.

[Elphaba]

Who did BY ordain and set apart?

Elphaba

I am bumping this up because I am genuinely interested in an answer to my question. I don't know of anyone, and if there is someone, I'd like to know about it.

Thanks,

Elphaba

[Snow]

First and foremost- the Church's official answer to when and how the policy began is "We don't know."

Brigham Young also ordained and set apart African-American priesthood holders.

I've never heard that. Do you have some sources?

Also, the ban was based on lineage, not race, though the two were often conflated. Neither was the concept a Mormon invention- look at our history.

Do you know of any examples where priesthood was not denied on the basis of skin color?

In my experience, lineage was never a criteria that was examined before extending the priesthood. No one asked and no one checked. The white saints just got the priesthood, and the negro saints did not. Period.

By comparison, the Mormon Church was and remains downright progressive on matters of race- especially when compared to our Protestant brethren.

The Church starting giving the priesthood about 25 years after the Protestants. That's not too progressive.

Your accusation of racism is misplaced, however popular the sophistry might be.

Hmmm, I don't know what the point is in denying it. It takes all of about 30 seconds to produce numerous opening and frankly reprehensible racist statements from Church authorities.

Racism was a simply fact of life, even in the LDS Church.

[Guest Malcolm]

Friends:

The Priesthood is the Lord's and he extends it to whom He will. Beyond the historical context and the speculation, we do not know why the Lord withheld the Priesthood from men of African descent at the time. The Lord's words, seemingly harsh, in Matt 15 and Mrk 7 points to a time when the doctrine did not go to certain people for the simple fact that they may not be able to appreciate/understand/value it, among other reasons.

Beyond that all else is just pure speculation.

[a-train]

Friends:

The Priesthood is the Lord's and he extends it to whom He will. Beyond the historical context and the speculation, we do not know why the Lord withheld the Priesthood from men of African descent at the time. The Lord's words, seemingly harsh, in Matt 15 and Mrk 7 points to a time when the doctrine did not go to certain people for the simple fact that they may not be able to appreciate/understand/value it, among other reasons.

Beyond that all else is just pure speculation.

The trouble is that the notion that it was the LORD who withheld the Priesthood from men of African descent is also pure speculation.

-a-train