Blacks and the Priesthood

[Sariah_Gift]

It is speculation and one of the apostles (can't remember who) spoke on the television show on pbs and said that's mormon folklore and we should not continue repeating those things.

[TheMark]

Rather than formulate an opinion from an authoritarian standpoint (because the Authorities opinions are far from unanimous) I'm going to take this question from a theoretical standpoint.

To deny a family the great blessing and privilege of the Holy Priesthood based solely on the genetic quality of pigmentation creates a great schism within the human soul.  On the one hand, a Saint has a righteous desire to reach out and bring their fellow men into the Covenant; while on the other, they must deny it to certain men because of their race even if they are in all other ways qualified for it.  The denier suffers as well as the denied.  If the Lord made that law, and if the Lord is good, then all those made to suffer the law deserve to be given a just explanation as to why they must suffer.

It was said by some that it is not merely the color of the skin that is the grounds for the denial, but rather the cursed blood line that it represents.  The Bible and the Book of Mormon apparently support the idea that dark skin is a curse as seen in the marking of Cain and the Marking of the Lamanites (I wonder who was the cursed progenerator of the Asian race).  Is it not written in the Articles of our Faith that "man shall be punished for his own sins?"  The article does not merely mean that it is only Adam's sin that we are not guilty of, but that we are not guilty of any of our ancestor's sins.  A man is his own man and will be judged for his actions alone.  Nothing else is reconcilable with that article and nothing else is reconcilable with the human heart.

How could it be that God would allow a race to be punished for the sin of an ancestor then 5000 years deceased?

Some may say that the denial of the priesthood is not punishment at all, it is merely the withholding of blessings.  Is there a difference?  The priesthood, which includes the temple ordinances, is only the sole power by which a family can obtain the blessings of exaltation.  How could denying that be punishment?

Some may say that it is only a temporary withholding of blessings, that they will have the priesthood ordained to them in the next life.  What good can God do by denying them those blessings in the present?  We can not allow ourselves to justify injustice in this life by saying that it will be justified in the next.  Why deny a family the assurance of exaltation in this life when they fully deserve it?

Having not been given an adequate explanation for the need of our suffering, and in defense of the Goodness of God, I propose that the doctrine denying the priesthood to the blacks did not come from the Lord.  It's source could only be the prejudice of those at the head of the church in it's younger days, propagated and perpetuated by tradition and deference to authority.  I don't believe it to be the case that the early church leaders had a particularly strong prejudice against the blacks.  In fact, the opposite seems to be true.  But, prejudice was the norm in American society and I doubt they were able to fully overcome it.  No doubt, upon observing the indentured and debased condition of the blacks as a race, a theological reason was sought after.  Why did God allow it?  Connecting this condition with the accounts of cursing in the scriptures, I'm sure, was natural.  It would have seemed reasonable to believe that the blacks were still subject to that curse.  The doctrine of a preexistence helped to explain how spirits are dispersed among the  various peoples.  Those less worthy spirits must be the blacks.  How could the early church leadership justify giving the Holy Priesthood to a cursed race?  They couldn't.  I don't know of any canonized revelation denying priesthood to the blacks.  I'm sure the church leaders felt that God had already shown so plainly the justification for the doctrine that they felt no direct revelation was necessary.

[Happy_LDS]

TheMark:

The Bible and the Book of Mormon apparently support the idea that dark skin is a curse as seen in the marking of Cain.

Where in the Scriptures does it say the mark of Cain is dark skin? (and please don't quote me Bruce R. Mc Conkie and his "interesting" views on the topic. He is not authority, never has been and really messed up with this topic when he said the Blacks would never have the Priesthood on Earth.)

I propose that the doctrine denying the priesthood to the blacks did not come from the Lord.  It's source could only be the prejudice of those at the head of the church in it's younger days, propagated and perpetuated by tradition and deference to authority.

I agree 100%.

[tubaloth]

If the Lord made that law, and if the Lord is good, then all those made to suffer the law deserve to be given a just explanation as to why they must suffer.

What is the purpose of this site?  To find ways to disagree with the church more and more?  To formulate our own doctrines?  To establish our views are better then the churches?  (better then prophets that we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators?)

We do realize the Lord has his own rules. 
Why was only Sons of Aaron able to hold the priesthood in ancient times?  Why was a whole nation denied the Melchizedek Priesthood all together?  Why was the gospel only preached to one nation while Christ was on the earth. Why don’t woman hold the priesthood now?  We don’t second guess any of these decisions by God.  But once it happens in our “modern day” we assume it has to be made up by men? No way God would do that now? 

Does that sound any different then any other religion explain why there isn’t revelation, isn’t any more scripture.  The same answer is given, God doesn’t do that now, He did that back then but he doesn’t do that now. 

Or does he? (see the end)

Some may say that the denial of the priesthood is not punishment at all, it is merely the withholding of blessings.  Is there a difference?  The priesthood, which includes the temple ordinances, is only the sole power by which a family can obtain the blessings of exaltation.  How could denying that be punishment?

Because not holding the priesthood does not stop the blacks from receiving Exaltation.  Meaning even though they don’t receive all that other men got, it wasn’t held against them for not getting the priesthood (it would be pretty dumb of God to do that).

Joseph Fielding Smith taught this.

Therefore if a [Blacks] joins the Church through the waters of baptism and is confirmed by the laying on of hands and then he remains faithful and true to the teachings of the Church and in keeping the commandments the Lord has given, he will come forth in the first resurrection and will enter the celestial kingdom of God.

What other church can make a better promise? Moreover we know whereof we speak, for the gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored with all its powers and divine authority.

The [Blacks] who accepts the doctrines of the Church and is baptized by an authorized minister of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is entitled to salvation in the celestial kingdom or the highest heaven spoken of by Paul. It is true that the work of the ministry is given to other peoples and why should the so-called Christian denominations complain? How many [Blacks] have been placed as ministers over white congregations in the so-called Christian denominations? It appears that a great deal of noise has been made over a problem that does not really exist or is not peculiar to the Latter-day Saints!

Every man whether he seeks office or to maintain a good name in the community should be judged by his devotion and integrity to principles of truth and righteousness, not condemned through rumors, prejudices, or the views of others.

It is strange that so many persons are tried and condemned by well-meaning people because of assumed notions and prejudice without a true knowledge of the facts.
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 4: 172.)

That last paragraph is kind of interesting.  People assume that we understand things when we really don’t!   So was it any type of punishment for the blacks!  No! They were not stopped in there progression (which is why we are on this earth) at all!  They receive all the blessings any other member can obtain. 

How could it be that God would allow a race to be punished for the sin of an ancestor then 5000 years deceased?

I don’t claim to know any of these answers!  There are more questions then answers!  We do know what is taught about pre-mortal life and how assumptions are made.  We know that based off of what we did in the pre-mortal life does affect us here.  What this was we don’t know!  We can’t make that guess, we don’t have enough information.    Years a go I found this scripture interesting!  I leave it for what it is! 

(Doctrine and Covenants 121:16-25.)
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.
17 But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.
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.
22 It had been better for them that a millstone had been hanged about their necks, and they drowned in the depth of the sea.
23 Wo unto all those that discomfort my people, and drive, and murder, and testify against them, saith the Lord of Hosts; a generation of vipers shall not escape the damnation of hell.
24 Behold, mine eyes see and know all their works, and I have in reserve a swift judgment in the season thereof, for them all;
25 For there is a time appointed for every man, according as his works shall be.

So, there is a revelation in the current D&C that states that a people (those that persecuted the early saints) well be cursed.  That they well be cut off from the ordinances.  That they well not have right to priesthood and the posterity after them.    I’m guessing Man must have written that section, because God doesn’t do that now.

[TheMark]

Where in the Scriptures does it say the mark of Cain is dark skin? (and please don't quote me Bruce R. Mc Conkie and his "interesting" views on the topic. He is not authority, never has been and really messed up with this topic when he said the Blacks would never have the Priesthood on Earth.)

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.

[Happy_LDS]

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?

[tubaloth]

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).

[Happy_LDS]

Tubaloth:

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?

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

There are just some things the church knows that we don't.

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

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).

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