Close Topic Options

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood - Page 15

Zelph:

All these theories have been officially disavowed by the Church recently.

We should try our very best, not to propagate this sort of damaging folklore.

Tubaloth:

You are right, we do not understand things. I wouldn't call it a punishment but I wouldn't try to sweep it under the rug, it is a very sensitive topic where I believe all of us should try to understand the historical context of the time. We tend to judge 19th century old men with our modern standards of thinking.

Young as well as others were product of their time (Leaders and all) and in this particular case, I personally have no doubt that prejudice along with other historical facts that involved Black people played a very important role in the Priesthood ban. Why God allowed such a thing to endured for such a long time, remains a mystery.

I have studied this topic for many years and I feel closely connected to the early black LDS members, I personally dislike when we (Consciously or unconsciously) try to make it sound like it wasn't a big deal. I am not talking about you Tubaloth, but generally speaking. One only has to read the letters or the diaries to know the pain and anguish our African American brothers AND sisters endured when they were denied the blessings of the Priesthood and temple attendance as well as if you happen do adopt a black baby, the baby wasn't allowed to be sealed to you.

So yes, I believe we shouldn't live the past but I also believe we should remember our history and try to make sense of things we do not understand.

In our history, we denied the Priesthood to Black members based solely on genetics. If you was born African-American, you was automatically denied the rights to the Priesthood. In the scripture you cited, it is clearly that this curse they talk about is about behavior, those actively fighting against God rather than race or ethnicity.

Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

Genesis 4 and Moses 5 merely say that Cain was "marked" to distinguish him. It never says that mark was darkness. However, the Book of Mormon does describe the cursing of the Lamanites much more explicitly as the darkening of skin such as in 2 Nephi 5:21. I don't know if there are other references to Cain's descendants being dark skinned.

Bruce R. McConkie didn't make up what he wrote in "Mormon Doctrine." He took it from the sermons of previous leaders. The Journal of Discourses has several references to blacks and their inferior status as a result of their descending from Cain. Inter-racial marriage was especially discouraged. Brigham Young even said it would result in the death of the two who married and that that was the law of God.

I assure you, I am the last person who would quote Bruce R. McConkie as an authoritative source.

We know that Joseph Smith ordained the Melchizedek priesthood to black men. One was even ordained into one of the quorums of the seventy. It wasn't until Brigham Young presided that the policy changed.

Spencer W. Kimball in 1963 admitted that the ban could have been the result of an error by man.

Tubaloth, I need to think a while about what you said before I can respond.

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood Studies Doctrine Mormon

My issue with this topic is the following. There was a Revelation that as Church we voted by common consent and was when in 1978 ALL worthy males regardless of race were allowed to hold the Priesthood. But there is NO such revelation or VOTE in WHEN and WHY the blessing of the Priesthood was not given to our Black members of the Church. Since Joseph Smith DID ordained several black brethren, when and who stopped the practice?

Page 15 Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

I don't expect every answer to be given. Have you ever realized we don't know the date when the Melchizedek priesthood was restored. We actually have no FIRST HAND account of the event happening. (There is one second hand account is about all we have) Every time the account is told it is about the Aaronic Priesthood and how Peter James, and John would come later. (We know the date of May 15, we celebrate it every year). We know Peter, James, and John came later, but we don't know when, we don't know what happen?

Does this mean because we don't have any account of it that we never got the Melchizedek priesthood restored?

There are just some things the church knows that we don't. We know some of what happen with the Temple ordinances. But this isn't going to be something that gets published in the D&C.

I'm reading a book right now about other Revelations that were given to the church that were never part of the D&C, (Even though some are part of Church History) Most of the ones I'm reading aren't to big of deal. There is one that talks about Early saints would later marry indians (Lamanites). I'm guessing this never came to be (For what ever reason). Its not hard to believe that there was a Revelation given about Blacks and the priesthood, but it was more of something given to Joseph Smith, maybe even early on in his life (Like Plural marriage was). I'm sure there was things Joseph Smith learned that he never could teach us. There are a million things we can ask why? But in the end we don't have enough information. And for what ever reason thats the way things are!
We do know the Lord called Joseph Smith (And other prophets), we know Christ Church has been restored (With the priesthood power). Hunting down every answer doesn't do us any good, if anything it adds doubt to our testimony which is probably what satan wants, if he is trying to or not.
This is just one of those questions we aren't going to know the answer in this life (At least I don't expect to hear anything about it and General Conference).

Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

Tubaloth:

I don't think we can even start comparing the two issues.

Well, not in this case. The "official" position at the present time is that they don't know either.

It sounds almost like we shouldn't bother in searching for the answer.

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood

Actually I think we can. Isn't it kind of interesting that we don't know what happen when the Mel Priesthood was given, and we are debating if about blacks and the priesthood. Couldn't some instruction been given when the Mel Priesthood was given?

I don't mind people searching, as long as thats what they are actually doing. Thats not what was happening here. Its was more because there is now answer, lets make one up to the best we can.

I also don't mind people searching if there is actually a place to search. As you said:
Well, not in this case. The "official" position at the present time is that they don't know either.

So do you think we on a message board is going to be able to find some answer the church hasn't found (Or hasn't given)?
Maybe next year it well all make sense!

Blacks & Mormon Priesthood - Page 15

We are all sharing our opinion, nobody claimed their own views are the Church position on this. I don't know the problem you have with that or are you one of those who say we shouldn't bother because is not "necessary" for our Salvation? :

You well said, it is a message board not Sunday School, hence we can discuss anything we want and share our views as long as we keep with the rules of the site. Everyone is free to post or not to post if they don't want to.

Blacks & Mormon Priesthood Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 15

From this, we see that the seed of Cain and the seed of Canaan were black and that Enoch preached to everyone but the blacks, rather like the policy of the Church towards the blacks prior to 1978.

Is this "folklore"? No, it is scripture, voted upon and accepted by the membership of the Church as official Church doctrine and binding upon the Church.

Did we get this from Brigham Young or any subsequent Prophet of Apostle? No, it came from the Prophet Joseph Smith, himself. This is not "folklore," it is official Church doctrine, and it is scripture.

From this, we see that the "king of Egypt" and "all the Egyptians" were descendants of the Canaanites, and in the book of Moses we learned that the Canaanites were black. Thus, Pharaoh all "all the Egyptians" were black.

"Pharoah, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his day, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed ghim with the blessings of the earth, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

From this, we learn that Pharaoh was a righteous man but belonged to that lineage which "could not have the right of the Priesthood." Thus, it is very clear that there was a particular lineage that "could not have the right of Priesthood," and that it had nothing whatsoever to do with either righteousness or worthiness, but it had solely to do with lineage and nothing else. And what lineage was that? It was the lineage of Canaan, which, as we have seen previously, was black.

Again, this is not "folklore." This is scripture! It was voted upon my the membership of the Church and accepted as official Church doctrine and binding upon the Church.

Again, it did not come from Brigham Young or anyone else. It came directly from the Prophet Joseph Smith, himself. Brigham Young has been taking the blame for this for too long. It's time all this silliness stopped.

Why could the blacks not have the priesthood? I don't know, but I do know one thing--the priesthood being withheld from the blacks fits both the scriptures and a pattern that goes back thousands of years.

Abraham had a son named Isaac. Isaac had a son name Jacob whose name was changed to Israel. Israel had twelve sons who founded the twelve tribes of Israel. Hundreds of years later Moses was born into the house of Israel. In the days of Moses, there was only one of the twelve tribes that could hold the priesthood, and that was the tribe of Levi. According to my Patriarchal Blessing, I am a descendant of the tribe of Joseph. That means that my ancestors could not hold the priesthood in the days of Moses, and if I had been born in the days of Moses, I would not have been able to hold the priesthood either. Do I sit around whining and complaining, like a petulent, spoiled, little child, demanding an explanation for why my ancestors could not hold the priesthood? No. It is what it is. I have faith that the Lord had good reasons for not giving the priesthood to my ancestors, even if He has not revealed those reasons to me. That is what faith is all about. If the Lord were to explain everything to us in detail, we would not need faith, and this life would not be a trial of our faith, which it is.

This situation continued for several hundred years. Many generations of Israelites could not hold the priesthood, regardless of the fact that, according to the Articles of Faith, men are punished for their own sins, and not for those of their ancestors. For whatever reason, the Lord saw fit to withhold the priesthood from many generations of Israelites who were not Levites. The Lord has not seen fit to reveal His reasons to us, but we have faith that He knows what He is doing.

Then, about 600 B.C., we see that the Nephites held the priesthood, even though they were not of the tribe of Levi. Where, when, and how the Lord gave them the priesthood is not revealed, but we know that they had the priesthood. After all, there were no Levites among them, so they had to have the priesthood, or they would not have been able to offer sacrifice, and thus fulfill the law of Moses.

But wait a minute! Many years earlier, the ten tribes of Israel had been carried away into captivity. They were eventually freed wandered off to the north, never to be heard from again. If we assume that the Lord treated the ten, lost tribes of Israel in the same way that He treated the Nephites, then that means that He would have given them the priesthood also. If that is true, then that would mean that hundreds of years before Jesus was born, eleven of the twelve tribes all held the priesthood, and the only tribe that still had not yet received the priesthood was the tribe of Judah. Why? We don't know. The Lord has not revealed His reasons for that denial to us. But we have faith that He had His reasons.

Then, when Jesus came, He called and ordained twelve disciples to the priesthood, who were all presumably descendants of the tribe of Judah. By that time, then, all twelve tribes of the House of Israel had access to the priesthood. But how was it with the gentiles?

"Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the acoasts of Tyre and Sidon.
"And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
"But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
"But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

From this it is clear that the Savior discriminated. And who did he discriminate "agains"? A woman of Canaan. Remember, they were the ones who were black. She comes begging a blessing from the Lord, and at first, He refuses her the blessing because she was not a member of the House of Israel. She eventually did get her blessing because of her faith, but the point is that Jesus, while He was alive, did discriminate, for whatever reason, saying that He was not sent but the the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Then, after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, He sent a revelation to His prophet, Peter, informing him that it was now time to take the blessings of the gospel to the gentiles. Although the Bible does not tell us this, if we can assume that our modern prophets were inspired of the Lord not to give the priesthood to the blacks, then we can see that the ancient prohibition of the blacks from holding the priesthood, that we saw in the books of Moses and Abraham was still in place, prior to 1978, and that it fits a larger pattern: first the priesthood was available only to the tribe of Levi. Hundreds of years later, it was opened up to eleven of the twelve tribes of Israel. Hundreds of years later, it was finally opened up to the tribe of Judah. After the death and resurrection of the Savior, it was finally opened up to the gentiles, and assuming that all of our prophets and apostles were inspired of God, the Lord did not make the priesthood available to the blacks until 1978. But, as I said, it fits a pattern. For whatever reason, the Lord was gradually expanding access to the priesthood, first to only one tribe of the house of Israel, then to eleven, then to all twelve, then to the gentiles, with the exception of the blacks, and finally to the blacks.

Why were the blacks last? I don't know. Why were the descendants of Judah the last of all the tribes to get the priesthood? Again, we don't know. These things have not been revealed to us. But we have faith that the Lord has His reasons for these things and that, in time, all things will be made known unto us.

One thing I do know: it is not possible to commit the unpardonable sin without holding the priesthood:

Since one cannot receive the new and everlasting covenant without holding the priesthood, it follows that one cannot commit the unpardonable sin without holding the priesthood either. It may be that not allowing blacks to hold the priesthood was actually a blessing that guaranteed them that they could never commit the unpardonable sin, meaning that they were guaranteed at least some degree of glory, but still allowed them them to gain exaltation in the next life. Where's the downside here?

Why were the blacks the last to get the priesthood? I don't know. It has not been revealed. But I do know that, according to the scriptures, the first shall be last and the last shall be first. What does that mean? I don't know, but maybe it applies to the fact that the blacks were the last to receive the blessings of the priesthood.

To me, it seems a little bit like a man who stops by Crispy Creme Donuts on his way home from work and buys a dozen donuts for his children at home. When he gets home, he sees his oldest son and gives him the box of donuts with instructions that he is to share the donuts with his younger siblings. The good son does as he was instructed, but his youngest brother was not at home at the time but was outside playing with his friends. When he comes in, he is given his donut, just as all his other brothers and sisters had been earlier. Does he cry and complain and carry on because he was the last one to get a donut? No. He just rejoices in his donut. So it is with the blacks. They may have been the last ones to receive the blessings of the priesthood, but instead of complaining about the fact that they were the last to receive those blessings, it would behoove them to rejoice in the fact that they live in a day when the blessings of the priesthood have been made available to them.