Blacks and the Priesthood

[Guest tomk]

OFFICIAL DECLARATION—2

To Whom It May Concern:

On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:

June 8, 1978

To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Sincerely yours,

Spencer W. Kimball

N. Eldon Tanner

Marion G. Romney

The First Presidency

Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.

Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.

====================

I don't fully understand why this restriction was in place to begin with?

Did it begin with Joseph Smith?

Who was the first African American member, and when did he join?

Are there any Ensign articles that pre-date the above declaration that talk about this issue?

Is there an official declaration prohibiting Blacks holding the priesthood? Since the restriction ended with one I thought perhaps it began with one.

Was it just African Americans, or where other races also prohibited?

I am a member of the LDS Faith. I love my Jesus and hold myself to the doctrines taught by the Church. These are honest questions. This thread is searching for the official Church response, not speculation. It is not an invitation to criticism or rancor.

[a-train]

Joseph Smith ordained black men to the priesthood. It was later that Church leaders concerned about the priesthood ban spoken of in Abraham were uncertain as to whether this ban had been lifted. Without any revelation the ban became policy. It was in 1978 that this revelation came regarding the matter.

Go to Why This Web Site :: Blacklds.org.

Also, search youtube.com for Gordon B. Hinckley's 1996 answer to Mike Wallace's question on 60 Minutes about why blacks were not allowed the priesthood until 1978. His answer was: 'Because the leaders of the Church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way.'

Hinckley offered no previous revelation. Why? Because there was NONE. It was all based on INTERPRETATION just as the prophet said.

-a-train

[Guest tomk]

Was there a scriptural basis for the interpretation?

[Traveler]

Was there a scriptural basis for the interpretation?

I will give my opinion on this matter. I believe that because of misunderstanding concerning the priesthood and the concepts of linage and the links to past and future concerning such things and because many enemies take every opportunity to misunderstand sacred things (even to the point of violence and harm) that sacred pearls are not cast before swine.

Even among members there is a tendency to doubt and murmur when that which is sacred does not measure up to worldly standards that they have incorporated. Therefore, we are informed of things with a very broad brush of few details.

Much in the world of religion is based on inspiration but the principal concerning the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is based and guided on revelation. Because few can endure the trials associated with revelation – most members and others are allowed to live by the inspiration of faith appointed by their covenants.

The Traveler

[Flyonthewall]

My take on this, is that it was Brigham Young's understanding or interpretation on the subject matter, and as a Prophet of the Lord, the Lord stood by his decision. I don't know of any revelation as the cause of the ban so has to be the interpretation of the prophet.

I have heard reports that David O. McKay wanted to address the ban but that the Lord basically told him "not yet". I wish I had the source on this...I'll see if I can find it.

[DigitalShadow]

<snip>

[Guest tomk]

I don't mean to intrude, but I have often wondered the same thing. I have seen threads on this topic in other forums quickly degenerate which is why I hesitated to bring it up here and will attempt to tread lightly. I am not black, but I am a minority and honestly interested in the church.

From what I've seen Brigham Young made a lot of racist comments:

I don't believe that the current incarnation supports any of these claims or I wouldn't even be here right now, but it does make me wonder. If Brigham Young was a true Prophet of God, why didn't God ever talk to him about his obviously racist viewpoint? God takes the time to clarify on whether or not we should drink hot beverages, why not straighten out something like this?

We weren't ready. Maybe some were, individually, but we weren't collectively.

I didn't post because I wanted "well-meaning, sincere" individuals to cast doubt on the prophetic mantle of Brigham Young or insinuate that he was somehow a racist. Those discussions should be moved to another thread.

This has been answered to my satisfaction.

I am also aware that Joseph Smith had a much more tolerant viewpoint and even gave the Melchizedek priesthood to a black man which is somewhat reassuring but still does not explain Brigham Young's racist statements. Yes he is just a man with his own predjudices, but he is also supposed to be in direct contact with God and receive revelation as well.

I'm not trying to criticize, but I do think it is a valid question that should be addressed, and I would honestly like to know the answer.

[Guest tomk]

...

...

...

...

I am a member of the LDS Faith. I love my Jesus and hold myself to the doctrines taught by the Church. These are honest questions. This thread is searching for the official Church response, not speculation. It is not an invitation to criticism or rancor.

Please respect my wishes.

[DigitalShadow]

We weren't ready. Maybe some were, individually, but we weren't collectively.

I didn't post because I wanted "well-meaning, sincere" individuals to cast doubt on the prophetic mantle of Brigham Young or insinuate that he was somehow a racist. Those discussions should be moved to another thread.

This has been answered to my satisfaction.

I was not attempting to cast doubt, only to allow others to possibly shed light on the doubt that was already cast in my mind. If this discussion is not welcome here, I will take it to another thread or even forum if this is not the place to discuss it. I apologize once again.

[Flyonthewall]

In that case, a-train's response contains an official response by Gordon B. Hinckley.

[Guest tomk]

I was not attempting to cast doubt, only to allow others to possibly shed light on the doubt that was already cast in my mind. If this discussion is not welcome here, I will take it to another thread or even forum if this is not the place to discuss it. I apologize once again.

No big deal. I just want to keep it focused. This is not about the validity of Brigham's Young's prophetic mantle or his racist remarks, but about the Church's collective decision to disallow / allow "Blacks" to have the priesthood -- the actual origins. If you are to provide quotes, provide links as well.

I was only 8 years old when this announcement was made. I've grown-up never really understanding it.

Since it ended, I assume it had to BEGIN at some point as well. I was just trying to understand the OFFICIAL, ACTUAL beginning of this "policy" by the Lord. Did it come through revelation? Was it cultural?

I know for many years African Americans, and I think other minorities, have been dealt with in a manner repugnant to the tender feelings of God (for which there will be an accounting). Was it merciful on God's part to withhold the priesthood for a season, given the cultural climate in America?

Once again -- my questions are filled with faith. I am not interested in any negative commentary regarding the leadership of this Church or it's policies. I ask in faith, and I want faith-filled answers in return -- ideally with links to where I can verify the statements made.

Thank you,

Tom

[Guest tomk]

For example:

1832: Elijah Abel Baptized by Ezekiel Roberts

Elijah goes on to become the first black man to be given the priesthood in the LDS Church.

answers one of my questions.

[JLFuller]

FAIR Topical Guide: Blacks and the Priesthood does a good job explaining the issue.

[Guest tomk]

Apparently there were some exceptions:

1836: In March, Elijah Abel, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.

1836: In December, Elijah Abel, is ordained to the office of Seventy.

1844: Walker Lewis, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.

1846: William McCary, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.

1900: Enoch Abel, the son of Elijah Abel, is ordained to the office of Elder.

1935: Elijah Abel, grandson of Elijah Abel, is ordained to the office of Elder.

1958: All black Melanesians (Fijians) are given the priesthood (blacks in the Philippines even earlier)

1978: Revelation on Priesthood gives the priesthood to all worthy men regardless of color.

1990: Helvecio Martins becomes first black General Authority Seventy.

Additional blacks were ordained in the early years of the church.

For more information see the History Timeline.

[DigitalShadow]

No big deal. I just want to keep it focused. This is not about the validity of Brigham's Young's prophetic mantle or his racist remarks, but about the Church's collective decision to disallow / allow "Blacks" to have the priesthood -- the actual origins. If you are to provide quotes, provide links as well.

I was only 8 years old when this announcement was made. I've grown-up never really understanding it.

Since it ended, I assume it had to BEGIN at some point as well. I was just trying to understand the OFFICIAL, ACTUAL beginning of this "policy" by the Lord. Did it come through revelation? Was it cultural?

I know for many years African Americans, and I think other minorities, have been dealt with in a manner repugnant to the tender feelings of God (for which there will be an accounting). Was it merciful on God's part to withhold the priesthood for a season, given the cultural climate in America?

Once again -- my questions are filled with faith. I am not interested in any negative commentary regarding the leadership of this Church or it's policies. I ask in faith, and I want faith-filled answers in return -- ideally with links to where I can verify the statements made.

Thank you,

Tom

All the quotes I posted were found here and I believe they have refernces cited and you can verify the validity of the statements yourself. The page also has an extensive history of the policies of the church regarding blacks and those have references cited too. If you're still curious I suggest visiting the wikipedia page I linked and if there is anything inaccurate I would suggest attempting to correct it so that people don't get the wrong idea.

[Guest tomk]

Blacks and the priesthood:Origin of the priesthood ban? - FAIRMormon

The origin of the priesthood ban is one of the most difficult questions to answer. Its origins are not clear, and this affected both how members and leaders have seen the ban, and the steps necessary to rescind it. The Church has never provided an official reason for the ban.

Members have generally taken one of three perspectives:

• the ban was based on revelation to Joseph Smith, and was continued by his successors until President Kimball
• the ban did not originate with Joseph Smith, but was implemented by Brigham Young by revelation
• the ban began as a series of administrative policy decisions, rather than a revealed doctrine, and drew partly upon ideas regarding race common in mid-19th century America. The passage of time gave greater authority to this policy than intended.

The difficulty in deciding between these options arises because:

a) there is no contemporary account of a revelation underlying the ban; but

b) many early members nevertheless believed that there had been such a revelation; and

c) priesthood ordination of African blacks was a rare event, which became even more rare with time.

The history behind the practice in the modern Church of withholding the priesthood based on race is described well by Lester Bush in a 1984 book.[1] A good timeline can be found at FAIR's BlackLDS site: FAIR link.

[Guest tomk]

All the quotes I posted were found here and I believe they have refernces cited and you can verify the validity of the statements yourself. The page also has an extensive history of the policies of the church regarding blacks and those have references cited too. If you're still curious I suggest visiting the wikipedia page I linked and if there is anything inaccurate I would suggest attempting to correct it so that people don't get the wrong idea.

Thank you.

[Guest tomk]

My personal feelings on this matter have always been:

W of M 1: 7

7 And I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh in me to do according to his will.

[a-train]

Was there a scriptural basis for the interpretation?

Abraham Chapter 1, Genesis 9, Moses 7 (look at verse 11).

While all of these can bring into question the situation, none of these scriptures give us any clear answer as to whether or not the ban had extended into this dispensation or had been lifted. It is possible it was gone in the days of Jesus.

-a-train

[Moksha]

Tom, there is a podcast on Mormon Stories by Darius Gray, Margaret Young and John Dehlin, that answers all your questions.

Mormon Stories Podcast Mormon Stories # 026: Blacks and the LDS Priesthood–An Interview with Darius Gray and Margaret Young

Go down to where it says: To listen directly to this podcast, click here —

No, the ban did not start with Joseph Smith, nor was it from revelation. The podcast has a fairly detailed history of what transpired.

[Guest tomk]

Tom, there is a podcast on Mormon Stories by Darius Gray, Margaret Young and John Dehlin, that answers all your questions.

Mormon Stories Podcast Mormon Stories # 026: Blacks and the LDS Priesthood–An Interview with Darius Gray and Margaret Young

Go down to where it says: To listen directly to this podcast, click here —

No, the ban did not start with Joseph Smith, nor was it from revelation. The podcast has a fairly detailed history of what transpired.

Thank you, one and all, for your time and effort.

[tubaloth]

I post stuff about this topic a month or so anyways. The most interesting part that I don't know why is over looked is a scripture in the D&C. My other post

Quote:

Originally Posted by mightynancy

ska, please refer me to the revelation, if it is written anywhere.

You are correct there is no revelation specifically talking about this ban on the priesthood. But I guess I find it so interesting in the study of banning the priesthood is that we DO have a revelation when the Priesthood was Banned to a group of people.

The problem with sharing this, is the tendency to assume the same thing happen to Blacks (or who ever the ban effected). I think we have to be careful in doing that. We have realized that each situation is different. I share this example to point out that there are times when God does ban his priesthood from people. This revelation was about mob members that had been fighting against the Church and Joseph Smith.

Quote:

(Doctrine and Covenants 121:16.)

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.

I think we can fully agree that God has the power to Curse those that fight against his anointed services. I’m sure there have been different “curses” through out time against people that fight against God.

Quote:

(Doctrine and Covenants 121:18-21.)

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.

What we do learn from this is that there are people that do not have “right” to the priesthood, nor the posterity after them.

Why didn’t blacks hold the priesthood we don’t know.

The key is realizing that you can hold the priesthood of God! It is powerful.

[Hemidakota]

I had a friend who had white skin but had Canaanite blood. He was not allowed to hold the priesthood until President Kimball issued the 1978 Priesthood proclamation

[kona0197]

Regardless of what people say here I am still convinced that the reason blacks were not allowed the priesthood was due to a racist reason.

This opinion will not change.

[Moksha]

I had a friend who had white skin but had Canaanite blood. He was not allowed to hold the priesthood until President Kimball issued the 1978 Priesthood proclamation

Canaanite blood? Is this similar to the racial purity old dictum from south of the Mason-Dixon line, that any black ancestry more than 1/32 rendered one tainted?

I know this was a real problem in consideration of Temple admittance in Brazil where a large percentage of the population were racially mixed.

Never heard the expression Canaanite blood before. Was he a Palestinian?