The priesthood and Black african men

[Ruben]

I know this is a sensitive topic and I don't want to be rude or offensive to anyone, my question is simple to understand. 
Since the time of Brigham Young, several theories have emerged to exclude blacks from exercising the priesthood, with the explanation that they were not very courageous in their pre-existence or were descendants of Cain or even descendants of Canan, son of Noah. 
Since none of these theories or explanations are today accepted as official Church doctrine, but merely human theories, why was it necessary for divine revelation to put an end to this practice?

 

[HaggisShuu]

This is just largely speculation on my part, but it makes the most sense to me. The priesthood ban went from 1852-1978. Most Church leaders during this time will have been born after the ban was implemented. The longer the practice goes on, the deeper entrenched it would have become and so I'm willing to bet almost all Church members had no experience of it being any other way, not to mention apartheid in America existed for most this time period as well, so there was probably a large cultural influence. 
 

If you look at the Book of Mormon the Lamanites departed from the truth not long after arriving on the American continent, but the majority of the Lamanites only really converted to Christ after the savior himself visited the American continent. The same question you put forward can be asked, why was it necessary for Christ to visit in the flesh before the people began to accept him? The clues were always there as to what the truth was, but only after a divine visitation did they grasp it. 

Edited November 23, 2024 by HaggisShuu

[Carborendum]

3 hours ago, Ruben said:

why was it necessary for divine revelation to put an end to this practice?

Common wisdom states: You don't go tearing down a fence until you first figure out why it was put up in the first place.  And if it (as far as anyone knew) God was the one who implemented it, you don't just go on second-guessing God.  He has His reasons for lots of things we don't understand.  But we obey until He decides to change things.

Edited November 23, 2024 by Carborendum

[Ruben]

Your explanation actually makes sense however this situation is a little different than the situation you describe. 
In our case the initiative did not come from the Lord but from the leaders of the Church. 
President Spencer W. Kimball found it necessary to ask the Lord to eliminate the practice.  If it was a human error and not a divine one that had continued for 126 years, it would not have been sufficient to admit the human error, apologize and abandon the practice without inconveniencing the Lord. 
Why did leaders believe a revelation from God was necessary to abolish a wrong practice? 

Here is an excerpt from the official statement 2:

"... Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to change this practice and sought guidance in prayer. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was disseminated to other leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. This revelation removed any racial restrictions that once applied to the priesthood. "

[Ruben]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Common wisdom states: You don't go tearing down a fence until you first figure out why it was put up in the first place.  And if it (as far as anyone knew) God was the one who implemented it, you don't just go on second-guessing God.  He has His reasons for lots of things we don't understand.  But we obey until He decides to change things.

Do you mean that President Spencer W. Kimball, prophet of the Lord, really believed that it was a divine doctrine?

[Carborendum]

23 minutes ago, Ruben said:

Do you mean that President Spencer W. Kimball, prophet of the Lord, really believed that it was a divine doctrine?

He believed it was the current "fence" that was in place.  And he didn't know why it was put in place.  No one did.  We still don't know the original purpose/reasoning.  And, no, we don't know if it was just an "error" or if it really was commanded.  We don't know.  We have no original documents that state how or why.  Only a lot of theories and a bunch of records that may or may not have been official.

We don't know.  And when we don't know, a Prophet goes to the Lord for guidance.  And the guidance finally given in 1978.

Edited November 23, 2024 by Carborendum

[Just_A_Guy]

44 minutes ago, Ruben said:

In our case the initiative did not come from the Lord but from the leaders of the Church. 

We don’t know that.  Many assume that, because they just can’t fathom the idea of God acting in a way that they’ve been culturally groomed to believe is universally unjustifiable.

David O. McKay was ready, willing, and able to remove the ban in the 1950s.  He prayed about it requesting permission multiple times, and was repeatedly told “no”; there are multiple accounts of people who heard him tell about this.

Once we admit that the continuation of the ban past 1951 was at God’s instruction, it becomes awfully difficult to argue that the implementation of the ban could not have been at His instruction.  Especially when there is both past and modern precedent for lineage/ethnic/“race”-based bans on priesthood ordination and/or temple blessings.  (Even today, the Church won’t do proxy temple work for Jews in the spirit world except under very rare circumstances.  Is that an error, or a temporary concession that God allowed His servants to make so that other facets of His work could go forward?  We don’t like to think about the work of salvation or the Church’s mission including any kind of cold calculus that advances the work of salvation in one field at the expense of delaying the salvation of other individuals—especially when those individuals are statistical minorities or perceived “outsiders” or victims oof historical oppression—but it absolutely does.)

When modern Church leadership says “we don’t know the ‘why’, and it’s best not to speculate”, they don’t mean “LDS progressives get to make all kinds of inferences and accusations and extrapolate links to modern-day issues, and LDS conservatives are bound not to offer any pushback”.  They mean “we don’t know the ‘why’, and it’s best not to speculate”.

Edited November 23, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

5 hours ago, Ruben said:

why was it necessary for divine revelation to put an end to this practice?

Hi and welcome Ruben.

FYI to all, our church website grows beefier every year with increasing resources on sensitive topics like this one.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/content/perspectives-on-church-history/revelations-in-the-summer-of-1978?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2021-01-0080-struggling-with-the-history-of-race-and-the-priesthood-his-grace?lang=eng

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Ruben said:

I know this is a sensitive topic and I don't want to be rude or offensive to anyone, my question is simple to understand. 
Since the time of Brigham Young, several theories have emerged to exclude blacks from exercising the priesthood, with the explanation that they were not very courageous in their pre-existence or were descendants of Cain or even descendants of Canan, son of Noah. 
Since none of these theories or explanations are today accepted as official Church doctrine, but merely human theories, why was it necessary for divine revelation to put an end to this practice?

 

I believe it was a simple matter of faith on the part of those who asked. Faith brought the revelation forth, as it always has. In this dispensation, the demonstration began with Joseph's faith to pray in the grove.

[laronius]

7 hours ago, Ruben said:

I know this is a sensitive topic and I don't want to be rude or offensive to anyone, my question is simple to understand. 
Since the time of Brigham Young, several theories have emerged to exclude blacks from exercising the priesthood, with the explanation that they were not very courageous in their pre-existence or were descendants of Cain or even descendants of Canan, son of Noah. 
Since none of these theories or explanations are today accepted as official Church doctrine, but merely human theories, why was it necessary for divine revelation to put an end to this practice?

 

Saying something is not official church doctrine is not the same thing as saying it is not true. Many people receive personal revelation about truths that have been established as official church doctrine. Now that doesn't mean those particular theories are true. It just means that there has been no official explanation. 

We know that Jesus put restrictions on to whom the gospel should be preached to during His mortal ministry. To me this is an even bigger restriction than withholding the priesthood. The Jews mistakenly believed it was because Christ had only come to save those of Israel. They were wrong of course and through revelation that restriction was eventually rescinded. But I don't think we ever really got a good explanation for it in the first place. In time all will be revealed.

[estradling75]

Blaming Brigham Young for the priesthood ban is easy, simplistic, and completely misses the point.

The scriptures and historical record are full of prophets and apostles making mistakes, getting things wrong, and generally screwing things up.  They also show God correcting his prophets, and apostles.  Rebuking, calling to repentance, and otherwise correcting course.  

If you want to believe that Brigham Young made up the priesthood ban for whatever reason... More power to you.  But that just punts the question down the road to being... Why did the Lord wait so long to correct it?  If it was indeed an error of Brigham Young... God owns that gap.  If it was not an error of Brigham then the question becomes what purpose was the Lord accomplishing if it was not?  Those are the hard questions that we do not have clear answers to.

[Vort]

4 hours ago, Ruben said:

In our case the initiative did not come from the Lord but from the leaders of the Church.

This is false. If you insist it's true, please provide evidence that the Priesthood ban did not originate from God, as the Church clearly taught for over a century.

The fact that a revelation was required to change the practice is strong evidence that the practice was indeed divinely inspired.

4 hours ago, Ruben said:

Why did leaders believe a revelation from God was necessary to abolish a wrong practice?

They did not. They believed a revelation from God was necessary to abolish a Church practice.

[LDSGator]

16 hours ago, Ruben said:

know this is a sensitive topic and I don't want to be rude or offensive to anyone, my question is simple to understand. 

You are being fine bro. It’s a topic that members are used to discussing. As NT said, the church is getting more open to discussing it to. 

[LDSGator]

I highlighted an important part of the essay. The modern church has no problem with members marrying outside their race, and rejects that they did something immoral in the pre mortal world. 

Edited November 24, 2024 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

The racial issues can still be a bitter/uncomfortable pill to swallow. From my experience, the leaders seem more “open” to discussing it and admitting the past wrongs that the church did on this issue then they were in the past. 

[Vort]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I highlighted an important part of the essay. The modern church has no problem with members marrying outside their race, and rejects that they did something immoral in the pre mortal world. 

No, the Church does not reject that doctrine. It disavows that doctrine, meaning it does not recognize that doctrine as one taught by the Church. Big difference.

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

No, the Church does not reject that doctrine. It disavows that doctrine, meaning it does not recognize that doctrine as one taught by the Church. Big difference.

Ok. 

[mikbone]

11 hours ago, Vort said:

No, the Church does not reject that doctrine. It disavows that doctrine, meaning it does not recognize that doctrine as one taught by the Church. Big difference

Reject - to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use

Disavow - to deny responsibility for, repudiate. To refuse to acknowledge or accept, disclaim.

 

[LDSGator]

21 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Reject - to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use

Disavow - to deny responsibility for, repudiate. To refuse to acknowledge or accept, disclaim.

 

The big picture is that the church no longer practices the teachings they once did, and that’s a wonderful thing. Not that it comes up in casual conversation, but I have zero issue with using “reject” and will continue to do so if the situation comes up  

Edited November 24, 2024 by LDSGator

[mikbone]

Disavow means that anything that was written or spoken from Church leaders that was racist was not doctrine then and is not doctrine now.

Be they Bruce McConkie, Brigham Young, or authors of the Book of Mormon.

Mormon 8:17 And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire.

Edited November 24, 2024 by mikbone

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Disavow means that anything that was written or spoken from Church leaders that was racist was not doctrine then and is not doctrine now.

Be they Bruce McConkie, Brigham Young, or authors of the Book of Mormon.

I’m not sure those of African descent care what word is used.  

[laronius]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

I’m not sure those of African descent care what word is used.  

I think the point that is trying to be made is that there may in fact be some truth in those theories but there has never been an official explanation. That's why terminology matters. Kind of like saying we disavow polygamy but don't say polygamy is a false doctrine because at certain times the Lord has in fact authorized it.

But as a rule we generally don't make that distinction and just let people believe that we have rejected those theories because otherwise they will say "You are still a bunch of racists." The reality though is that we don't know if those theories are right or wrong, God has never said. Some though automatically believe they can't be the right because that would be racist and God isn't racist. But whatever God wants to do is right regardless of how we view it. According to modern beliefs not allowing women to hold the priesthood is in fact sexist. But if God in His infinite wisdom ordains is that way then it is right regardless of what society labels it. And if God had His reasons for not allowing certain races to hold the priesthood then that's His purview and it is right. 

[Vort]

3 hours ago, mikbone said:

Disavow means that anything that was written or spoken from Church leaders that was racist was not doctrine then and is not doctrine now.

Be they Bruce McConkie, Brigham Young, or authors of the Book of Mormon.

Mormon 8:17 And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire.

Your reasoning is circular. A teaching is disavowed. "That's because it's false and racist!" How do you know it was false and/or racist? "Well, it was disavowed, wasn't it?"

Brigham Young was a prophet of God. If Brigham Young instituted a Church-wide policy of such magnitude, then it was clearly the will of God. Those who "blame" Brigham Young for the policy and call him racist are on the wrong side of the issue. I will stand with Brother Brigham, whom I am sure was a true prophet. I don't know why the policy was instituted, and unlike some (even in this venue), I will not pretend to such knowledge.

The prophets at the time of the revelation (1978) did not change their words or deny their teachings (other than those teachings that were manifestly wrong, such as "No black man will receive the Priesthood until every son of Seth has the opportunity to blah blah blah"). They simply said that the time had come.

"Disavow" does not mean "deny" or "proclaim as false". If you say it does, you are wrong.

[LDSGator]

16 minutes ago, laronius said:

You are still a bunch of racists.

it saddens me that people still call LDS “racist.” Like I said before I can’t imagine anyone here being an actual racist. I also like how the church is releasing essays and trying to make amends from it’s past mistakes/misunderstandings. 

16 minutes ago, laronius said:

I think the point that is trying to be made is that there may in fact be some truth in those theories but there has never been an official explanation. That's why terminology matters. Kind of like saying we disavow polygamy but don't say polygamy is a false doctrine because at certain times the Lord has in fact authorized i

Totally fair. 

[mikbone]

25 minutes ago, Vort said:

Your reasoning is circular.

I don’t see it as so.  I’m going to use the following statement to guide my judgements.  And I will not continue to enter debate as to why such and such statement made sense back then but not now.  I will look to the future and love my neighbor.  No good will come from defending past racism.

 

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

Since that day in 1978, the Church has looked to the future, as membership among Africans, African Americans and others of African descent has continued to grow rapidly. While Church records for individual members do not indicate an individual’s race or ethnicity, the number of Church members of African descent is now in the hundreds of thousands.

The Church proclaims that redemption through Jesus Christ is available to the entire human family on the conditions God has prescribed. It affirms that God is “no respecter of persons” and emphatically declares that anyone who is righteous—regardless of race—is favored of Him. The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: “[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”