Close Topic Options

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood - Page 17

I believe that the Brethren were inspired not to give the Priesthood to the blacks until 1978. I believe that it was the will of the Lord that they NOT receive the Priesthood until that time. It fits with the books of Moses and Abraham and with the overall pattern that we see in the scriptures of gradual expansion of access to the Priesthood over thousands of years. But do we know why the Lord chose to do it that way? No. As far as I know, nobody knows.

I did not give you any third hand accounts, so that is a red herring. Most of what we have from the Prophet Joseph Smith is second hand accounts. Joseph was very much aware of his lack of education and hated to write anything himself, which is why he usually made use of scribes to do his writing for him. If you read The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, most of it is second hand accounts written by people who heard him say this, that, or the other thing. The statement that "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves," is an example of a second hand statement from the Prophet Joseph Smith that is often quoted in the Church. If we limited ourselves to first hands accounts of Joseph's own, personal writings, then we would have very little of Joseph's actual teachings.

No, but what I have given you is quotes from the Prophet Joseph Smith saying that the descendants of Cain were black and that Enoch preached to all the inhabitants of the earth except the blacks. So, if he didn't preach to them, how could he give them the priesthood? I have also given you quotes from the Prophet Joseph Smith saying that Pharaoh belonged to that lineage that was cursed pertaining to the priesthood, a lineage that the book of Moses told us was black. If there was racism in the Church, then the seeds of that racism were obviously planted by the Prophet Joseph Smith, himself.

There may be evidence that the Prophet Joseph Smith ordained one black man to the priesthood. What is never addressed is the following questions: 1.) Was that before he received the revelation, referred to by both Zebedee Coltrin and Abraham O. Smoot, to the effect that blacks were not supposed to receive the priesthood at that time? 2.) Was that an exception to the general rule? Exceptions do not disprove the existence of a general rule. For example, the general rule was "thou shalt not kill." The Lord made an exception to that rule when He told Nephi to slay Laban. Thus, the ordination of Elijah Abel could be an exception to the general rule. Those who doubt the inspiration of our early Church leaders never show how Elijah Abel's ordination could not be explained as an exception to the general rule or as coming before Joseph received the revelation on the blacks that was mentioned by both Zebedee Coltrin and Abraham O. Smoot.

Nor do they explain the following scripture: "and in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (D&C 6: 28) It wasn't just two or three prophets and apostles who said that blacks could not hold the priesthood but ALL of them. They ALL agreed! I do not believe that the general authorities are infallible, but when they all agree on something, then it seems unlikely that they are all making the same mistake or that they are all being deceived by Satan. I think that when they ALL agree on something that it is more likely that they are all inspired by the Lord, just as they were on June 1, 1978. I cannot understand how supposedly good, active members of the Church can think that they are right and that all previous General Authorities were wrong. That seems like the very height of arrogance to me. It is amazing to me that you refuse to even consider the possibility that maybe ALL the General Authorities were right, both with respect to the priesthood ban itself, as well as to the revelation given on June 1, 1978. What's wrong with that explanation? Oh, you don't think that the Lord would discriminate like that? Guess what! The scriptures that I have quoted prove that He did!

As I say, I don't believe that the Prophet is infallible either, but as I said, we are not talking about just one prophet here. We are talking about every prophet from Brigham Young to Harold B. Lee. They all agreed! Not one of them disagreed! Are you saying that they were all deceived by Satan? Are you saying that the Lord allowed so many people to be discriminated against when all He had to do was to tell his Prophet to give them the priesthood? None of this makes any sense. But I'll tell you what does make sense. What makes sense is that the Lord's discrimination against blacks that is explicitly revealed in both the books of Moses and Abraham was continued until 1978. If not, then where is the evidence that the Lord changed His mind prior to 1978? The fact that Joseph ordained one black man to the priesthood? That's it? That's your evidence? So, one prophet, Joseph Smith, was right, and nine other prophets were all wrong? And you call that logical? Remember, "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (D&C 6:28) Joseph Smith is one witness against nine on the other side. You are ignoring the word of the Lord.

Unless you can give me a quote from the Prophet Joseph Smith saying that all black men were entitled to the priesthood, then I will not believe it. I see the hand of the Lord in both the priesthood ban and in the revelation of June 1, 1978. I don't think that the Brethren are infallible, but I think that they are closer to the Spirit of the Lord than you are.

Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

Why do you keep saying ONE? There were several as stated in this thread (Read previous posts).

Dramatics aside, it has nothing to do with being right or wrong. It's about having a brain and think outside the box rather than to just believe whatever is dish out to you.We have a mind and we have the Spirit and whether or not we will know the answer for this in this life, there is absolutely nothing wrong with considering all angles.

YOUR opinion.

What are you so amazed about? I never said I did not consider the possibility of them being right, however as stated before it is not convincing to ME, it is okay if it is convincing to YOU.

You mean than WE are or are you a General Authority?

Anyhow, it seems like you feel quite passionate about this topic. My view is simple. Having read the accounts from all angles, including the perception about blacks back then (Including quotes from early leaders) then it seems to me that this was nothing but a mistake of men. I will stick to this opinion until I see something significant that changes my mind about it.

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood Studies Doctrine Mormon

I read every post, and if there is any evidence that the Prophet Joseph Smith ever ordained any blacks other than Elijah Abel, I didn't see it on any of those posts.

Saying that using one's brain has nothing to do with being right or wrong is a very strange statement, indeed.

I encourage everyone to consider all angles, including the possibility that ten prophets of God may actually have been inspired of the Lord, especially since there is very clear proof in the scriptures that the Lord did, indeed, discriminate on the basis of lineage in the past, which naturally raises the question, why would He not discriminate in our day?

Yes, but I doubt that I am alone in that opinion. I suspect that most members of the Church would also consider it rather arrogant to think that you are right while all the General Authorities are wrong. Oh, it's not about being right or wrong, is it. I forgot. But that is essentially what you are saying--that all the Prophets who denied the blacks the priesthood were wrong.

So, you did consider the possibility that ten prophets might possibly have been right, and then concluded that they were all wrong together, while you, alone, were right. Is that about the size of it?

I am passionate about truth, the Church, and the gospel.

Let me ask you a few questions--do you accept the evidence from the scriptures that the Lord discriminated on the basis of lineage in the past? If so, then why is it so inconceivable that He might discriminate on the basis of lineage in our own day? If you don't believe that prophets are infallible, is it possible that ten prophets of God were all right and that the Prophet Joseph Smith was the one who was wrong?

Page 17 Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

Even President Holland in the PBS show admitted a lot of folklore involved in the whole issue. The church will never admit racism feelings however I think when they asked Pres. Hinckley if the racist view on blacks and the priesthood stopped he said yes without clarifying that they were never racist in the first place.

Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

Note: All posts from the former LDS-Doctrine site related to Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood has been transferred. The latest entries are actually Source 2 by Tragular and Source 6 by CheekyMormon as they added that during the transfer.

Related topics:
* Black Mormon Women And The Temple Denial
* Darius Gray
* Priesthood: Blacks & Slavery
* Doctrine of Segregation
* Association of Righteousness with Color

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood

Tragula:

Tragula, let me start by asking: Are you aware of the latest statement of the Church disavowing past doctrines with regards to this issue?

Second, the weight of your whole post and theory seems to be based mostly on your interpretation of Moses 7:8, 12 and 22. However, there are quite a few issues with that analysis.

As you know, the Book of Abraham is the only LDS scripture that talks about any sort of ban concerning the Priesthood to any lineage, as a matter of fact it is only ONE lineage being mentioned and it is Pharaoh's lineage. We are not giving any details as why the restriction or the length of it and it doesn't say anything about any sort of Pre-mortal Priesthood ban either. Neither in Moses or Genesis we are giving any information or hints with regards to this "Mark" The Lord placed upon Cain, and it doesn't talk about any sort of skin color change happening on Cain's part neither Ham or even his son who was the actual one "Cursed".

Whomever is linking Cain being black to the scriptures, is just pure speculation on their part but NOT official LDS doctrine and I would consider it "Folklore". And you can say "But hey, in Moses says that the descendants of Cain became black" But let's not forget that it occurred six generations after and it was a vision. The scriptures do not disclose a specific time frame and just like we do not have an explanation of why they turned "Black" (And what exactly it means), we don't even know if we should take it literally.

As you see, very little information we are giving with those scriptures you mentioned to work on a plausible "Theory" But a lot of personal interpretation is being done.

Who is "Everyone"? If you are referring to Zebedee Coltrin for instance, I don't think he is a reliable witness. He said that in 1834, Smith received a revelation that blacks are not to be ordained to the Priesthood. It is funny because he said that in 1879, more than 40 years after but he seems to have forgotten that Elijah Abel was ordained on March 3rd, 1836 by Joseph Smith Jr. Himself and Abel was able to get his washing and anointing in Kirtland.

As a matter of fact, two years later from the date Coltrin claimed Smith said blacks were not supposed to be ordained to the Priesthood (1836), Abel is ordained a Seventy and by whom? By Coltrin himself! His claims are absurd.

That's not accurate. In 1839, there was a meeting that discussed Elijah Abel, but his priesthood was not questioned by the Prophet. If Coltrin was right, this wouldn't have been the case.

However, in 1843 three Apostles restricted Elijah's missionary work but again, his priesthood was not questioned at all.

That's correct but this took place after Joseph Smith's death and under the Presidency of Brigham Young.

I am not sure what you mean by they were in the same area, they certainly weren't. You have black Elders such as Walker Lewis. Samuel Chambers and Edward Leggroan who were ordained deacons and also Elders such as Joseph T. Ball who even served as Boston Branch President from 1844 to 1845.

Prove it. And if you say you know, do you claim to know more than the Church? Because their present position is that we "do not know" so why do you claim "We know"?

I like to discuss this issue from a historical context but you are going beyond that and seems to give interpretations that the modern LDS Church is not giving. Your theories have been recently disavowed.

It doesn't match history. Smith was alive when Abel and others were ordained to the Priesthood, Smith himself ordained Abel, if what Call says is accurate, it wouldn't have been the case.

I explained about Coltrin and why his statement makes no sense, same applies with Smoot who was actually talking about policies concerning slaves since he himself had two slaves. There is no need for a quote from Smith stating that Blacks could hold the Priesthood because as I repeatedly stated, Smith himself ordained a Black man to the Priesthood.

Is there an statement from Smith himself that he received a revelation that black men are not to hold the Priesthood? Abel wasn't the exception, they were other black Priesthood holders at the time of Joseph Smith. The witnesses you presented as proved are not reliable.

What more proof you need when there is no statement concerning the ban and Smith himself ordained a black man and allowed the others to have the Priesthood?

You seem to want to paint this issue as quite simply but I believe it is more complicated than that and there is certainly many confusing statements with little or no explanation and more questions than answers.

A year after Abel's missionary service is restricted, there was another black man ordained to the Priesthood by the youngest brother of Joseph Smith himself, even Wilford Woodruff made mention of him (Walker Lewis) on his journal. I find it interesting that Woodruff does mention his race but there is no questioning with regards to Lewis holding the Priesthood. As a matter of fact, several apostles visited Lewis and none of them mention a problem with him or his priesthood.

You see, there was never an issue with Black men holding the Priesthood until 1846, when William McCary came to the picture. He was a black man ordained by Orson Hyde, and he was certainly an eccentric. He thought of himself as a "prophet", introduced himself as an "Indian", believed to be possessed by some sort of "Indian spirit" (There is much more to say about his eccentric ways but we can discuss that later if anyone is interested) and he was married a white woman.

When he arrived, some of the Saints did not like him and they made sure to let him know (He used to ask young girls to kiss him along with other things) and the fact that he was married and to a white woman did not help either. However, he had a crowd of followers and they were mainly LDS women. He was able to seduced a number of them into polygamy where he would claim to have the authority and all they had to do was to sleep with him while his wife watched. Of course, this whole situation caused a huge uproar and he was immediately excommunicated.

Now why is this case particularly interesting? Because, a few months after, Brigham Young declared that Blacks were ineligible for certain temple ordinances. Again, the same exact year, just a few months later. Is the timing coincidental? Personally, I don't think so.

It is also interesting to mention that when Orson Pratt was observing these LDS women following McCary, he stated (And I am paraphrasing) why in the world would they follow someone who has no right to the Priesthood? Now, his statement is interesting because until that very moment, black men were still holding the Priesthood and there was no questions about it.

Brigham Young stated after the issue (1847) that "It has nothing to do with the blood for of one blood has God made all flesh. We have one of the best elders, an African (Walker Lewis) in Lowell."

There was also another incident with regards to Walker Lewis's son marrying a white woman and a LDS leader writing Young about it and being concerned over the interracial marriage and finally meeting Young to discuss the issue. I personally believed Young felt stupid when he found out about it because he made a previous statement talking kindly and greatly about his father, Walker Lewis.

But two years later, he seems to have recanted because he declared:(1849)

The whole thing gets more interesting when Elijah asked to receive his endowments but his request is denied by Brigham Young (1853). Now let's keep in mind that Elijah was an Elder, a Seventy, served two missions and there is no possible explanation of why someone who held the Priesthood wasn't allowed to receive his own endowments.

Of course, after Young's death as I mentioned before, Coltrin claimed Abel was dropped from the quorum of Seventy when Joseph smith Jr. Learned that Abel was black which is absurd because even though Abel was biracial, if anyone sees a picture of him would immediately see a Black man however Joseph F. Smith challenged Coltrin's claim and showed TWO certificates of Abel's re-ordination to the office of Seventy but the issue was NOT settled there.

Eleven years after Abel's death (1895) Joseph F. Smith again rejected the idea of him being dropped from the priesthood. And now, one of the most bizarre things occurred in LDS history with regards to the ban, out of the blue and giving no proof or explanation of any sort, Joseph F. Smith who defended Abel's priesthood TWICE, totally reversed his position and declared that Joseph Smith Jr. Stated that Abel's ordination was "Null and void". Really? The same position he refuted before by providing the CERTIFICATES of ordination.

As you can see, there are a lot of things that just doesn't add up and more research needs to be done. However, I don't think it is wise or helpful to propagate theories that have been presently disavowed by the LDS Church. And if shared, they should be shared with a disclaimer that they are just a personal interpretation.

Blacks & Mormon Priesthood - Page 17

Cheeky are you a historian? I'm not so I cannot defend a lot of the points you bring to the table but I need to say this: Not everything is about history, this is the Church of Jesus Christ and as loyal members we believe this Church is led by God, he will never allow his leaders to lead us astray and the priesthood ban was His will as Tragula explained so well on his posts.

Blacks & Mormon Priesthood Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 17

Who made the statement? Was it President Monson? Because no one else on earth has authority to speak for the whole Church other than him. And what was "Disavowed" Precisely? The scriptures? Because that's what I quoted. If they have disavowed the scriptures, then, no, I have not heard of that.

Like what?

As you apparently don't know, the Bible very clearly teaches that for hundreds of years the only ones who could hold the Priesthood were those who belonged to the tribe of Levi, while all the other eleven tribes were banned from holding the Priesthood. Thus, we have at least one other standard work of the Church that also mentions a Priesthood ban based on lineage, and the ban on blacks holding the Priesthood was just another instance of the same thing. But even if it were true that the Book of Abraham were the only LDS scripture that mentioned a ban on any lineage holding the Priesthood, that is still the word of God, and the word of God is all I need to make my case.

More accurately, it is the lineage to which Pharaoh belonged, meaning the Canaanite lineage, which the Book of Moses informs us was black. Thus, black people were banned from holding the Priesthood, and in fact, the great prophet, Enoch, would no even preach to them. This was thousands of years before the prophet, Brigham Young, was even born, so you can't blame him for that.

Actually, we are. If you had been paying attention, you would have learned that in Abraham 1:22-23] the Lord clearly said that he was going to make the noble and great ones his rulers. Who is that if not those who hold the Priesthood? Those who hold the Priesthood in this life were the noble and great ones in the preexistence. Those who do not hold the Priesthood, or were forbidden from holding the Priesthood, were not noble and great in the preexistence. It's not rocket science.

Since there was no time limit specified, the natural assumption would be that this rule would apply indefinitely--those who hold the priesthood in this life were among the noble and great ones in the preexistence, while those who do not hold it were not.

You're right, it doesn't. It just says that the Lord would make the noble and great ones His rulers. I guess He felt that we would be able to figure out for ourselves that if He did not give the Priesthood to certain people, then they must not have been noble and great in the preexistence.

This brings up an interesting point: we know that in the resurrection, there will be four main groups of people--celestial, terrestrial, telestial, and sons of perdition. We know that in the preexistence there were different groups of people and that one of those groups was cast out of heaven. Of those that remained there were some who were called "Noble and great" And some who were not. Based upon the Book of Abraham and the Bible, we know that there must have been another group--those who would come to earth knowing that they would be prohibited from holding the Priesthood in this life--the Canaanites and eleven of the twelve tribes of Israel. Between the noble and great ones and those who were destined to come to the earth under a priesthood ban there was another large group who were not noble and great but would not be banned from holding the Priesthood either. Thus, it would appear that there were four main groups of spirits in the preexistence--those who were noble and great, those who were not noble and great, including some who would be born into lineages that would be prohibited from holding the priesthood, and those who were cast out. Four main groups of spirits in the preexistence seem to correlate roughly to four main groups of people in the resurrection.

Actually we are. We know that the seed of Cain were black. The use of the phrase "Seed of Cain" Would include all generations, even the first one. Since all generations of the seed of Cain were black, it follows that this must have been a genetic characteristic that was passed from one generation to another. That being the case, it seems likely that the seed of Cain inherited that characteristic from their ancestor, Cain. If that's true, then that would support the teachings of former prophets of God that the "Mark" That the Lord put upon Cain was that of a black skin. David W. Patten claimed to have seen Cain personally, and described him as "Very dark." Thus, contrary to what you say, we do have "hints," Even if the scriptures are not really explicit on this point.

Well, if the Lord put a "Mark" Upon Cain, then it would have to be on his skin, because that is what covers our whole bodies.

Ham is a Hebrew word that means "Black." What more do you want?

Actually, the fact that the great prophet, Enoch, would not even preach to the seed of Cain suggests that the curse was already in place and predated both Ham and his son, in which case the curse did not originate with Noah, but Noah was only reiterating a preexistent curse.

Now you are one who is reading something into the scriptures that is not there. The scriptures do not say that the blackness suddenly came upon them six generations later. They only say that they were black.

So that makes it untrue? Yeah, you're right--it was a vision--which means that the blackness was something that Enoch could actually see with his eyes. You can't see what's in a man's heart, but you can see the color of his skin.

Everyone who quotes the Prophet Joseph Smith with regard to blacks and the priesthood agrees that he taught that blacks were not entitled to hold the priesthood.

So what? That makes his memory unreliable? I don't think so. I can remember many things very clearly that happened to me more than forty years ago, including the fact that I was set apart as a missionary by President Joseph Fielding Smith. Just because it happened over forty years ago, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

No wonder he forgot that point--it never happened! Abel was not ordained by Joseph Smith, Jr. But by his father, Joseph Smith, Sr. I think that Zebedee Coltrin's memory is more reliable than yours.

That doesn't prove that the Prophet Joseph Smith approved of it.

So he got the date wrong. Does that prove that his main point about the Prophet Joseph Smith saying that blacks were not entitled to the Priesthood was wrong? No. Who hasn't forgotten a date sometime in their life? I can't even remember the birth dates of my own children. Does that mean that they were not born? Of course not. The Prophet Joseph Smith couldn't remember the date that Peter, James, and John appeared to him and restored the Melchizedek Priesthood to the earth. Does that mean it didn't happen? Of course not. How could anyone forget the appearance of three angels to them? He didn't forget that. He just forgot the date that it happened, just like we all do, and just like Zebedee Coltrin did, that's all.

I would love to respond to all your points, they won't let me.