The priesthood and Black african men

[mikbone]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

As far as I know, our current leaders do not subscribe to the current fad of calling Brigham Young a racist and saying that the whole Priesthood ban was just a big mistake. I see exactly zero evidence of any such belief.

What do you make of McConkie's quote? 

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.... We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more.... It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.

I'm not saying that Brigham Young was racist. He lived in a different time with different social norms, and we can't judge him based on today's standards.

The Church leadership since Sept 30, 1978 has been clear though.  

On the other hand, when I look through this thread.  I am forced to ask myself.  Are some of the responses racist?  Might a Latter-Day Saint of African descent think that some of the reactions are racist?  Might the current church leadership believe that some of the comments are racist?  Might Jesus Christ think that some of the responses are racist?

I will repeat, no good can come from continuing this discussion. 

2 Ne 26:33

/Mikbone out 

Edited December 3, 2024 by mikbone

[LDSGator]

14 minutes ago, mikbone said:

What do you make of McConkie's quote? 

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.... We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more.... It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.

I'm not saying that Brigham Young was racist. He lived in a different time with different social norms, and we can't judge him based on today's standards.

The Church leadership since Sept 30, 1978 has been clear though.  

On the other hand, when I look through this thread.  I am forced to ask myself.  Are some of the responses racist?  Might a Latter-Day Saint of African descent think that some of the reactions are racist?  Might the current church leadership believe that some of the comments are racist?  Might Jesus Christ think that some of the responses are racist?

I will repeat, no good can come from continuing this discussion. 

/Mikbone out 

Calling the responses racist is a bridge too far for me, but I understand your post 100%. 

[Vort]

23 minutes ago, mikbone said:

What do you make of McConkie's quote? 

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.... We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more.... It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.

Please point out in your above quote where Elder McConkie identified a mistaken policy decision or false revelation by Brigham Young.

23 minutes ago, mikbone said:

On the other hand, when I look through this thread.  I am forced to ask myself.  Are some of the responses racist?  Might a Latter-Day Saint of African descent think that some of the reactions are racist?  Might the current church leadership believe that some of the comments are racist?  Might Jesus Christ think that some of the responses are racist?

You think that Jesus Christ judges comments based on how "racist" they are? Tell me, what does Jesus consider as a "racist comment"? What are the hallmarks of such a comment? Is it possible that Jesus judges individuals rather than comments? Is it possible that the appellation "racist" can ultimately apply only to human beings and not to sequences of sound waves or letters?

23 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I will repeat, no good can come from continuing this discussion.

And yet here you are.

[Maverick]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

The problem in this discussion is that we are not in a court of law.

Exactly. This is historical inquiry not a court of law. And in historical inquiry the sources I provided are all considered evidence. Do they definitively prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the priesthood ban began with Joseph Smith? No, but they do show that this is likely. Especially since multiple sources claim this and the sources are from reliable trustworthy individuals. 

3 hours ago, Vort said:

I will continue to argue, forcefully and vociferously, against the ill-considered and even traitorous practice of labelling our Church leaders as racists and otherwise seeking the approval of the world—ironically and fittingly, an approval that would never come unless we literally left all truth behind and simply bowed to the world's will.

I agree that it’s wrong to accuse past brethren of being racists and to claim that the ban was the result of racism and a mistake, contrary to the will of God. 

In this particular discussion, I question the motivation that some have to try and discredit the evidence that the ban began with Joseph Smith. It seems that the intent is to discredit the validity of the ban as being the will of God and to attribute it to racism by Brigham Young and the other leaders of the church instead. 

[Maverick]

42 minutes ago, mikbone said:

What do you make of McConkie's quote? 

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.... We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more.... It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.

1. This is Elder McConkie’s opinion. Not an official declaration of the church’s official position.

2. Elder McConkie continued to maintain that blacks were descendants of Cain and that the ban was the result of a curse put upon them by God. He believed that God had finally lifted the curse.

3. His statement about forgetting past teachings refers to the timing of the ban being lifted. He believed it had been lifted in 1978 by revelation from God, while Brigham Young and other early leaders had taught that it wouldn’t be lifted until the end of the millennium. He may have also been referring to the teaching that blacks had brought the curse upon themselves due to actions before they were born. 

[Maverick]

6 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

This page seems to be good evidence for a position exactly opposite what you're claiming.   "Elder Hyde enquired the situation of the Negro. I replied they come into the world slaves, mentally & physically. Change their situation with the whites, & they would be like them. They have souls & are subjects of Salvation. Go into Cincinati. or any city, and find an educated negro. who rides in his carriage, and you will see a being who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability."

This quote doesn’t mention the ban. It does however show that Joseph Smith was opposed to interracial marriage and that he believed that blacks came into this world slaves mentally and physically. This could suggest that it was a result of something that transpired before this life. It’s not as if all blacks were slaves at this time, so what was he referring to? What does it mean to come into this world mentally a slave? 

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

What do you make of McConkie's quote? 

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.... We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more.... It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.

I'm not saying that Brigham Young was racist. He lived in a different time with different social norms, and we can't judge him based on today's standards.

The Church leadership since Sept 30, 1978 has been clear though.  

On the other hand, when I look through this thread.  I am forced to ask myself.  Are some of the responses racist?  Might a Latter-Day Saint of African descent think that some of the reactions are racist?  Might the current church leadership believe that some of the comments are racist?  Might Jesus Christ think that some of the responses are racist?

I will repeat, no good can come from continuing this discussion. 

/Mikbone out 

The quote should be read in the context of his entire talk.

As @Maverick mentions:  McConkie maintained the ban was of divine origin, maintained that the gospel goes to different people at different times, and even speculated that African saints’ place in that sequence had to do with the faith shown in the pre mortal life(!).  And this is after OD-2.  So he clearly didn’t see any of that as being “contrary to the present revelation”.

 

Edited December 3, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[Maverick]

19 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Remember that Abel was only 1/8 black.  He "passed" as a white man.

You bring up an important point here.

Is it possible that when Elijah Abel was originally ordained the brethren, including Joseph Smith didn’t realize that he was partially black? 

This would fit with the statement by Zebedee Coltrin that “when the Prophet Joseph learned of his lineage he was dropped from the Quorum.” 

Could it be that his lineage wasn’t known until he received his patriarchal blessing by Joseph Smith Sr. some time after his ordination to the Melchizedek priesthood and the office of Seventy?

Zebedee Coltrin was one of the presidents of the first quorum of the Seventy from 1835 to 1837. If Elijah Abel’s lineage was discovered when he received his patriarchal blessing in late 1836 and he was dropped from the quorum immediately or in early 1837, this would fit with what Zebedee Coltrin said as well. 

And if this what happened, then it’s quite possible that Zebedee Coltrin really was told in 1834 by Joseph Smith that “the spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right and cannot hold the Priesthood.”

Then after Abel’s lineage of being 1/8 black was discovered and he was told that his ordination wasn’t valid, Joseph Smith told other individuals that “no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood,” as Zebedee Coltrin recalled. 

[mikbone]

[mikbone]

[The Folk Prophet]

On 12/2/2024 at 3:46 PM, Maverick said:

What does it mean to come into this world mentally a slave? 

I don't think it refers to natural state of anything, but the general mental state of the time. 

[Omergideon]

On 5/10/2025 at 11:18 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't think it refers to natural state of anything, but the general mental state of the time. 

I agree. Especially as the second half of the quote is, to paraphrase, if we were in their situation we would be like that too. And they would be perfectly reasonable in ours.

 

As for the topic at hand, skimming the thread it is a hard topic to truly get your head around. Understanding why God would permit, let alone require, such a rule is hard and I don't mind saying that I am uncomfortable with it having been a thing.

For myself, I manage by remembering a few key points.

First, whether I agree with the policy or not Brigham Young as the Prophet did have the authority to make such a declaration and have it be binding. He as President of the Church was authorised to do so. I like to think he would not do so without divine guidance but his authority was there. And once bound it would take a similar prophetic decision to unbind it. So even if Brigham made a mistake (which I do not endorse truly) once done and entrenched it would be hard to reverse.

Second, Brigham young is quoted as saying that the ban was never intended to last forever so even from the start it was taught as temporary.

And third, the world of the Mid 19th Century mid west is very different to mine now. Race relations were a different thing and Slavery was commonplace worldwide. The needs of the church were different.

None of this makes me glad it happened, or any less glad the practice ended. I wish it had sooner.

 

As for official discussions, the most official statement from Church Leaders I know of (First Presidency statements about the priesthood ban - FAIR) reinforces that the ban was never forever. The 1949 statement does suggest that the people affected are descendants of Cain, and does state that our pre-mortal life has something to do with it. It does not however endorse the idea that the reason for the ban was pre-mortal sin, just that our pre-mortal life affects our mortal one and that those spirits who would be born under the ban thought it was worth it to come. Even this is not definitive as to the whys.

It really is for me a matter of faith. Of all the topics in church history this and Polygamy are the big ones. I am glad the ban was lifted before I was born, and I am glad that church leaders are willing to say "we don't know why it was done, but it was and we try to trust God in that". Any apologetics for the ban will feel hollow to someone hurt by it and I get that.

[zil2]

Welcome to ThirdHour, @Omergideon!

[Carborendum]

I have been formulating a theory that seems to touch on many points here.  I have never heard of anything that ties up everything in a nice neat bow.  But here goes...

Phase 1: Patriarchal order
In early days, it appears that not many people were ordained to the priesthood.  Adam was the first.  Some of his sons were ordained, but not all.  And we don't have a complete record of ordinations.  But we do see the line of descent all the way to Noah.  I believe that this was not just a biological line, but a priesthood line.

I theorize that Cain's great sin that began his fall was the same as what King Saul did.  He took it upon himself to offer up a sacrifice when it was the purview of the Patriarch (i.e. he performed the actual ordinance himself, rather than simply bring the sacrifice to the patriarch).  Yes, he did it because Satan told him so, and all that.  But the physical act that sent the boulder rolling down the hill was that he did something via the priesthood that he had no right to do.  Then he shed innocent blood, and many more things that are not recorded.

Phase 2: The Order of Melchizedek
As of Melchizedek, anyone could be ordained to the priesthood, regardless of lineage. 

"Without father, without mother, without descent" -- meaning, as of (at least) Melchizedek, it is no longer a biologically inherited ordination.  It is done purely through a spiritual line of authority. 

Even so, while it was not necessarily through biological lineage, it was not given to anyone and everyone.  But they needed to be called. No man taketh this honor unto himself.

Phase 3: The Book of Abraham
Abraham sought the priesthood from "The Fathers" (read: The Patriarchs, of which Melchizedek was the last, then the first of the new order).  Abraham was ordained under the hand of Melchizedek.  And we know of the continued line. 

But there was something else that is not clearly delineated in scriptures regarding the "birthright." We don't really know what that was.  But it appears to be something physical.  Otherwise, it could not have been "stolen" by Jacob.

Pharoah also sought the priesthood.  But instead of recognizing the Melchizedek order, he falsely claimed it through the patriarchal order through Ham.  While his intentions were good (he was called a righteous man) he still had no rights to the priesthood.  So, it would be easy to say the curse came because of Pharoah.  It couldn't.

Phase 4: Joseph of Egypt
Joseph married two of Pharoah's daughters.  Undoubtedly, the Pharoah at the time was descended from the original one who claimed priesthood from Ham.  So, those daughters would have inherited any such "curse" if there was one.  But we know most of the priesthood holders of this dispensation are of the line of Ephraim and Manasseh.  So, clearly, the curse was not from that period.

Phase 5: The Unknown
There was something else that has not been mentioned in scriptures (AFAIK) where "someone" did something wrong and was then cursed as well as any descendants.  But as far as we can tell from scriptures:

• It was NOT Cain.
• It was NOT Ham.
• It was NOT any of the Pharaohs (at least, not until after Joseph).
• It must have been sometime/someone else.

For whatever reason, it is apparently wisdom in God that we do not know the origin. 

Phase 6: Young to Kimball

Apparently, the ban began during Brigham's tenure.  I do NOT believe Coltrin's accounts.  Too many holes in his story.  I believe he was more racist that most others of his generation.  And since most everyone of that era weren't all that kind to Blacks, that made him even worse.  I think he took bits and pieces of words said by Joseph and mixed them all up in his head with his own animus towards those of African descent.  And he convinced himself that such a conversation occurred.  I don't believe it ever did.

Upon hearing it from Coltrin, Brigham was convinced of it somehow.  I'm going to assume that he prayed about it. But we have no such record (AFAIK).  Whatever actually motivated it, a prophet of God instituted the ban.

Over the course of over a century, the theories kept changing.  Why?  How?  When?  Unclear.  No doctrine.  Only theories.  I recall one general authority spoke of the "less valiant in the pre-existence" theory.  But then he said something that no one seems to quote:

Quote

We have no way of knowing this is true.

If we have no way of knowing, I wonder why he offered it in GC.  People now take his statement (without the disclaimer) as fact.  Nope.  Not fact.  As per his disclaimer, it was a theory.  I don't see it as too far of a stretch to believe virtually everything said about it was theory.

Every prophet from John Taylor onward wanted to lift the ban.  They thought it must be a mistake.  But as each one individually prayed, the Lord was silent.  No answer that has been recorded for many prophets. 

The very fact that no answers were given to the Prophets should tell us all that EVERYTHING said during that era were only theories.  Not revelation.

Pres McKay then prayed and prayed and prayed until, he finally received an answer:

Quote

Not yet, stop asking.

 -- Paraphrased

This tells us that the Lord confirmed that it was His will to continue, and that it would be temporary.  Still no explanation as to why.

The only wiggle room here is that it might be that the Lord didn't initiate it, but for some reason, He wanted to continue it for a time.  That doesn't really make sense to me.  But logically, I have to admit this possibility.

For whatever reason, it is apparently wisdom in God that we do not know the origin. 

Phase 7: Official Declaration 2
We all know what happened.  All 15 apostles were given a confirmation as bright as the sun at noon day.   The ban was to be lifted.  No explanation given as to why it was there in the first place.  But it is lifted.  No wiggle room for any doubt.  It's gone.  Done.  Finito.  No more.  It's pushing up daisies.  The curtain has been dropped.

Still no explanation as to why.  For whatever reason, it is apparently wisdom in God that we do not know the origin. 

Ever since then, we have heard that all past theories are disavowed (of course people use that word to mean many things for whatever reasons).  And it remains a black mark (no pun intended) on the history of the Church.  Yet, we see the Church growing by leaps and bounds in Africa today.  And none of them seem to care why it was a thing.  Why do we?

I'd be interested in any stories of how people reacted when it was announced.

Edited Monday at 01:44 PM by Carborendum