This week marks 40 years since the lifting of the ban on blacks holding the priesthood in the Mormon church. Depending on your view as a Fundamentalist Mormon or a Main-stream Mormon, the 1978 seismic shift is viewed as either "disastrous" or "glorious."
"Blacks" in the priesthood is still a hot topic today for the LDS church even four decades later. The topic can hang around their neck like a millstone as a constant reminder by anti-Mormon antagonists as a reminder of the Church's "racist" origins. Antagonists love to lob historical hand grenades, with the pin already pulled, directed at the testimonies of faithful members as an assault on their naive belief system. There are plenty of grenade-like statements about the negro issue from Brigham Young and other presidents of the Church to seriously shake the foundation of unsuspecting faithful members. Consequently, some can and do become incredibly uncomfortable with their own history and feel like they have been lied to by their Church leaders. Fortunately, the LDS Church is beginning to openly and honestly deal with some of their controversial history through the release of historical documents and scholarly essays.
Like the antagonists, the "Fundamentalist" Mormon community also aim their ire at the main-stream LDS church over the black issue but for a totally different reason. Fundamentalist off-shoot groups like the AUB and FLDS claim the mainstream church abandoned historical precedence and Mormon foundational doctrines in caving to the political pressure of the Civil Rights Movement. The 1978 Declaration actually provided a launching pad for the AUB polygamist group, commonly known as the Allred Group, to build their own "undefiled" temple and endowment house where they could perform their own ordinances. From the fundamentalist point of view the main-stream LDS church had "defiled" the temples and "lost" the priesthood by giving the seed of Cain access to all the gospel privileges.
Ironically, the past couple of weeks have seen the AUB group trying to wrestle with their own "black" problem. If recent rumors are to be believed, there are prominent members of the group who have discovered African markers on their genetic code according to DNA testing. If true, the issue presents a serious problem. For decades the AUB group has preached and adhered to Brigham Young's rule that even having one drop of African blood would be impossible to get rid of and therefore would automatically disqualify an individual and even whole lineage the right to hold the privilege to hold the priesthood. Supposedly, the infected members who have found the wayward African markers on their DNA have prayed about their concerns and have come to the conclusion that the dark ethnic markers actually came from white European settlers living in Africa. I'm certainly no geneticist and cannot argue the validity nor accuracy of current DNA testing, but common sense tells me that's not how genes get passed down.
Regardless of whether or not a family is "infected" with black blood or not, my hope is that other members of the Group will not condemn or exile a good family just because of a genetic marker. However, I have unfortunately heard enough disturbing dialogue from members inside the AUB Group to suggest that a husband or wife would inf fact be obligated to leave a spouse if black blood were discovered in their ancestry. The standard belief and talking point in the AUB is that they are completely safe from African blood infiltrating their holy ranks. They believe that the true keys of the priesthood would be able to detect and deflect anyone of African decent from becoming a member and consequently allowing the seed of Cain to stain the group. Thankfully, the AUB group has full coverage insurance through the unblemished fullness of the priesthood. Other wise just one drop of black blood could wreak havoc on families in the AUB for generations to come and it could take a serious cleansing to rid the white wheat from the dark chaff.
I am actually excited for the renewed interest surrounding the 1978 alleged revelation as well as the lively debate inside AUB circles about black blood. The topic has even made the pages of the Salt Lake Tribune this week (https://www.sltrib.com/news/
Below are two documents for reading and pondering the "Black" issue.
The first is Brigham Young's 1852 gubernatorial address (bad frontier grammar and all) to the territorial legislature where they were debating on whether to allow or deny slavery in Utah. The speech apparently is the first official statement on blacks and the priesthood. I took the liberty to cut out a few parts unrelated to the black issue. Try to read it through the historical lens of the pre-Civil War times instead of our modern day hind-site. Slavery was the incredibly hot topic of the nation as the United States expanded westward and sometimes violently debated over whether new territories should allow slavery.
The Second is an article from the Fair Mormon website. The article attempts to give understanding to the historical origin of the ban and how it has been interpreted and changed by the church and its leaders from Joseph Smith to present.
Document #1(https://archive.org/details/CR100317B0001F0017)
Brigham Young, 1852 February 5. Church History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah
I rise to make a few
remarks. The Items before the house I do not understand.
The principle of slavery I understand, at least
I have self confidence enough, and confidence enough in God to beleive I do. I
beleive still further that a great many others understand it as I do. A great
portion of this community have been instructed, and have applied their minds to
it, and as far as they have, they agree preciesly in the principles of slavery.
My remarks in the first place will be upon the cause of the introduction of
slavery. Long ago mama Eve our good old mother Eve pertook of the forbiden
fruit and this made a slave of her. Adam hated very much to have her taken out
of the garden of Eden, and now our old daddy says I beleive I will eat of the
fruit and become a slave too. This was the first introduction of slavery upon
this earth; and there has been not a son or daughter of adam from that day to
this but what where slaves in the true sense of the word.
That slavery will continue, untill there is a
people raised up upon the face of the earth who will contend for righteous
principles, who will not only beleive in but operate, with every power and
faculty given to them to help to esstablish the kingdom of God, to overcome the
devil, and drive him from the earth, then will this curse be removed. This was
the starting point of slavery. Again after adam, and Eve had pertook of the
curse, we find they had two sons Cain and Able, but which was the oldest I
cannot positively say; but this I know, Cain was given more to evil practices
than Abel, but whether he was the oldest or not matters not to me. Adam was
commanded to sacrifise, and offer up his offerings to God, that placed him into
the garden of Eden. Through the faith and obedience of Able to his heavenly
father, Cain became jealous of him, and he laid a plan to obtain all his
flocks; for through his perfect obedience to father he obtained more blessings
than Cain; consequently he took it into his heart to put able able of this
mortal existance. after the dead was done, the Lord enquired to able, and made
Caine own what he had done with him. Now says the grand father I will not
distroy the seed of michal and his wife; and cain I will not kill you, nor
suffer any one to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that mark?
you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the
face of the earth, or ever will see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark
was put upon Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord told
Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his see,
until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the
redemtion of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus
Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called
negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot
bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon the,
until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the
blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and
hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the restitution shall come,
and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. Then Cain's
seed will be had in rememberance, and the time come when that curse should be
wiped off.
Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a
man who has has the Affrican blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of
preisthood; Why? because they are the true eternal principals the Lord Almighty
has ordained, and who can help it, men cannot. the angels cannot, and all the
powers of earth and hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal I am,
what I am, I take it off at my pleasure, and not one partical of power can that
posterity of Cain have, until the time comes the says he will have it taken away.
That time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the
privelege of and more. In the kingdom of God on the earth the Affricans cannot
hold one partical of power in Government. The the subjects, the rightfull
servants of the resedue of the children of Adam, and the resedue of the
children through the benign influence of the Spirit of the Lord have the
privilege of seeing to the posterity of Cain; inasmuch as it is the Lords will
they should receive the spirit of God by Baptisam; and that is the end of their
privilege; and there is not power on earth to give them any more power.
You talke of the dark skin, I never saw a white
man on earth. I have seen persons whoes hair came pretty nigh being white, but
to talk about white skins it is something intirely unknown, though some skins
are fairer than others; look at the black eye and the jet black hair, we often
see upon men and women who are called white, there is no such things as white
folkes. We are the children of Adam, who receive the blessings, and that is
enough for us if we are not quite white.
But let me tell you further. Let my see mingle
with the seed of Cain, that brings the curse upon me, and upon my generations,
- - we will reap the same rewards with Cain.
In the preisthood I will tell you what it will
do. Where the children of God to mingle there seed with the seed of Cain it
would not only bring the curse of being deprived of the power of the preisthood
upon themselves but the entail it upon their children after them, and they cannot
get rid of it. If a man in an ungaurded moment should commit such a
transgression, if he would walk up and say cut off my head, and kill man woman
and child it would do a great deal towards atoneing for the sin. Would this be
to curse them? no it would be a blessing to them. -it would do them good that
they might be saved with their Bre[thre]n.
Again to the subject before us; as to The men
bearing rule; not one of the children of old Cain, have one partical of right
to bear Rule in Government affairs from there own transgressions, and I cannot
help it; and should you or I bear rule we ought to do it with dignity and
honour before God.
I am as much oposed to the principle of slavery
as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term, it is abused. I am opposed
to abuseing that which God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of
it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for
servants, but those they serve should use them with all the heart and feeling,
as they would use their own children, and their compassion should reach over
them, and round about them, and treat them as kindly, and with that humane
feeling necessary to be shown to mortall beings of the human species. Under
these sercumstances there blessings in life are greater in proportion than
those who have to provide the bread and dinner for them
We know there is a portion of inhabitants of the
earth who dwell in Asia that are negroes, and said to be jews. The blood of
Judah has not only mingled almost with all nations, but also with the blood of
Cain, and they have mingled there seeds together; These negro Jewes may keep up
all the outer ordinenances of the jewish releigeon, they may have there
sacrifices, and they may perform all the releigeous seremonies any people on
earth could perform, but let me tell you, that the day they consented to mingle
their seed with Cannan, the preisthood was taken away from Judah, and that
portion of Judahs seed will never get any rule, or blessings of the preisthood
until Cain gets it. Let this Church which is called the kingdom of God on the
earth; we will sommons the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the
Bishoprick, and all the elders of Isreal, suppose we summons them to apear
here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed, with the black race
of Cain, that they shall come in with with us and be pertakers with us of all
the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so,
the preisthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our
fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go
to desstruction,--we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the
seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs
to the preisthood untill that curse be removed.
Therefore I will not consent for one moment to
have an african dictate me or any Bren. with regard to Church or State
Government. I may vary in my veiwes from others, and they may think I am
foolish in the things I have spoken, and think that they know more than I do,
but I know I know more than they do. If the Affricans cannot bear rule in the
Church of God, what buisness have they to bear rule in the State and Government
affairs of this Territory or any others?
I the Government affairs of States and
Territorys and kingdoms by right God should Govern. he should rule over
nations, and controle kings. If we suffer the Devil to rule over us we shall
not accomplish any good. I want the Lord to rule, and be our Governor and and
dictater, and we are the boys to execute, I shall not consent for a moment to
give way to a Gentile Spirit of contention, which is the cause of
angry--------Difference to the alinations of every Good feeling. It is for you
and I to take a course, to bind our feelings together in an everlasting bond of
union inasmuch as we love the Lord, which we ought to do more than selves.
Consequently I will not consent for a moment to have the Children of Cain rule
me nor my Bren. No, it is not right.
But say some, is there any thing of this kind in
the Constitution, the U.S. has given us? If you will allow me the privilege
telling right out, it is none of their damned buisness what we do or say here.
What we do it is for them to sanction, and then for us to say what we like
about it. It is written right out in the constitution, "that every free
white male inhabitant above the age of twenty one years" &c. My mind
is the same to day as when we where poreing over that constitution; any light
upon the subject is the same, my judgement is the same, only a little more so.
Prahapes I have said enough upon this subject. I have given you the true
principles and doctrine. No man can vote for me or my Bren. in this Territory
who has not the privilege of acting in Church affairs. Every man, and woman,
and Child in this Territory are Citizens; to say the contrary is all nonsense
to me. The indians are Citizens, the Africans are Citizens, and the jews than
come from Asia, that are almost entirely of the blood of Cain, It is our duty
to take of them, and administer to them in all the acts of humanity, and
kindness, they shall have the right of Citizenship, but shall not have the
right to dictate in Church and State matters. The abolishonists of the east,
have cirest them them, and their whol argument are callculated to darken
Counsel, as it was here yesterday.
As for our bills passing here, we may lay the
foundation for what? for men to come here from Africa or else where; by
hundreds of thousands. When these men come here from the Islands, are they
going to hold offices in Government No. It is for men who understand the
knowlege of Government affairs to hold such offices, and on the other make
provisions for them to plow, and to reap, and enjoy all that human beings can enjoy,
and we protect them in it. Do we know how to amilerate the condition of these
people? we do. Supose that five thousands of them come from the pacific
Islands, and ten or fifteen thousands from Japan , or from China, not one soul
of them would know how to vote for a Government officer, they therefore ought
not in the first thing have anything to do in Government afairs.
What the Gentiles are doing we are consenting to
do. What we are trying to do to day is to make the Negro equal with us in all
our privilege. My voice shall be against all the day long. I shall not consent
for one Moment I will will call them a counsel. I say I will not consent for
one moment for you to lay a plan to bring a curse upon this people. I shall not
be while I am here.
Document #2
The Origin of the Mormon
Priesthood Ban
(https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Origin_of_the_priesthood_ban )
"Race and the Priesthood," Gospel
Topics on LDS.org (2013):
During the first two
decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the
priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Abel, also participated in temple
ceremonies in Kirtland, Ohio, and was later baptized as proxy for deceased
relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. There is no evidence that any black men were
denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime.
In 1852, President
Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no
longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to
join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted
blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over
time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the
priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted
today as the official doctrine of the Church.[1]
Question: What is the
Mormon "priesthood ban" that was lifted in 1978?
Members
of the Church who were considered to be of African descent were restricted from
holding the LDS Church's lay priesthood prior to 1978. The reason for the ban
is not known. There is no contemporary, first-person account of the ban's
implementation. There is no known written revelation instituting the ban. In
1949, the First Presidency, led by President George Albert Smith, indicated
that the priesthood ban had been imposed by "direct commandment from the
Lord."
The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as
it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of
direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the
Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become
members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the
present time.
—First Presidency statement, August 17, 1949
—First Presidency statement, August 17, 1949
The First
Presidency went on to state that "the conduct of spirits in the premortal
existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances
under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this
principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given
to those who maintain their first estate." Because of this, understanding
the reason for the implementation of the priesthood ban is difficult.
Several 19th
and 20th century Church leaders (most notably Brigham Young, Bruce R. McConkie
and Mark E. Petersen) expressed strong opinions on what they believed was the purpose of the priesthood
ban. Some believed that Church leaders implemented the ban in order to respond
to threats and dangers facing the Church by restricting activities among black
Americans in the pre-Civil War era, and that these policies and procedures
persisted. Upon the lifting of the priesthood ban in 1978, Elder McConkie
stated,
Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or
whomsoever has said...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.[2]
It is
important to understand the history behind the priesthood ban to evaluate
whether these criticisms have any merit and to contextualize the quotes with
which LDS members are often confronted.
This is
complex and sensitive issue, and definitive answers as to why God allowed the
ban to happen await further revelation. There are some things we do not know,
and we rely on faith that God will one day give us the answers to the questions
of our mortal existence. The sub-articles listed below explore various aspects
of the priesthood ban in detail.
Past
church leaders should be viewed as products of their times, no more racist than
most of their American and Christian peers (and often surprisingly enlightened,
given the surrounding culture). A proper understanding of the process of
revelation creates a more realistic expectations of the Latter-day Saint prophet,
instead of assumptions of infallibility foisted on the Saints by their critics.
Previous
statements and scriptural interpretations that are no longer in harmony with
current revelation should be discarded. We learn "line upon line, precept
upon precept," and when modern revelation has shed new light, old
assumptions made in the dark can be done away with.
Question: What do we know about
the origin of the priesthood ban on Church members of African descent?
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, although a number of Church leaders offered
theories as to the reason for its existence. The Church currently provides the
following background information regarding the initiation of the ban in
its Gospel Topics essay "Race and the Priesthood":
In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly
announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the
priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through
baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of
Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving
the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders
and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions.
None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the
Church. [3]
Given that none of
these theories regarding the reason for the ban is accepted today, Church
members have generally taken one of three perspectives:
·
Some members assume
that the ban was based on revelation to Joseph Smith, and was continued by his
successors until President Kimball. However, Joseph Smith did ordain several
men of African descent to the priesthood.
·
Some believe that the
ban did not originate with Joseph Smith, but was implemented by Brigham Young.
The evidence supports the idea that Brigham Young implemented it, but there is
no record of an actual revelation having been received regarding it.
·
Some believe that 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:
·
there is no
contemporary account of a revelation underlying the ban; but
·
many early members
nevertheless believed that there had been such a revelation
·
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.[4] A good timeline can be found at
FairMormon's BlackLDS site: FairMormon
link.
Many leaders have
indicated that the Church does not know why the ban was in place
·
Q: So in retrospect, was the Church wrong in that [not ordaining
blacks]?
A [Pres. Hinckley]: No, I don't think it was wrong. It,
things, various things happened in different periods. There's a reason for
them.
Q: What was the reason for that?
A: I don't know what the reason was. But I know that we've
rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at the time.[5]
·
Elder Dallin H. Oaks:
If you read the scriptures with this question
in mind, 'Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,' you find
that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It's not the
pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When
we do, we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned
out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've
drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and
I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.
...I'm referring to reasons given by general
authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole
set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking.
...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been
made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation.
The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what
we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies.[6]
·
Elder Jeffrey R.
Holland:
One clear-cut position is that the folklore must
never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They,
I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the
policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is
however well intended the explanations were… I think almost all of them were
inadequate and/or wrong. It probably
would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and,
[as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis
of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for
a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate
those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that
I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along…we
simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.[7]
·
Elder Alexander B.
Morrison:
We do not know.[8]
Is racial prejudice
acceptable?
·
President Hinckley in
priesthood session of General Conference:
Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am
advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot
understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978
revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that
that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates
that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.
Now I am told that racial slurs and
denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who
makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself
a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with
the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek
Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas
another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is
ineligible?
Throughout my service as a member of the First
Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we
see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to
accommodate that diversity.
Let us all recognize that each of us is a son
or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.
Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred
among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is
inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for
forgiveness and be no more involved in such.[9]
Question: Did Joseph
Smith confer the priesthood on several black men?
Under
these precarious conditions, early missionaries were instructed to not teach or
baptize slaves without their master's consent (see D&C 134:12).
Late, perhaps unreliable, recollections suggest that Joseph Smith received
inspiration that blacks should not be ordained while contemplating the
situation in the South.[12] These accounts must be weighed
against records of free blacks receiving the priesthood such as Black Pete
(1831 OH), Elijah Abel (1835 OH), Joseph T. Ball (1837 MA), Isaac van Meter
(<1837 ME), and Walker and Enoch Lewis (Fall 1843-Nov. 1844 MA). Since Ohio
had a law discouraging Blacks from migrating there, this put a damper on early
proselyting efforts which were largely based on the principle of the gathering.[13] Parley Pratt wrote in 1839
that the Church had less than a dozen Black members.[14]
Those who
hold that the ban had a revelatory basis see the early ordinations as events
which occurred prior to the revelation or without knowledge of it, while those
who see the ban as more of a social/cultural phenomenon point to these
ordinations as an example of the "pragmatic grounds" upon which
decisions about black ordination were made.
Outsiders
do not seem to have regarded members of the Church in the 1830s as sharing
typical American ideas about race. In 1835, a skeptical account of their
doctrines and beliefs noted:
As the promulgators of this extraordinary legend maintain the
natural equality of mankind, without
excepting the native Indians or the African race, there is little reason to
be surprised at the cruel persecution by which they have suffered, and still
less at the continued accession of converts among those who sympathize with the
wrongs of others or seek an asylum for their own.
The preachers and believers of the following doctrines were not likely to remain, unmolested, in the State
of Missouri.
“The Lord God hath commanded that men should not murder; that
they should not lie; that they should not steal, &c. He inviteth them all
to come unto him and partake of his goodness: and he denieth none that come
unto him; black and white—bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth
the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” Again: “Behold!
the Lamanites, your brethren, whom ye hate, because of their filthiness and the
cursings which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for
they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our
father, &c. Wherefore the Lord God will not destroy them; but will be
merciful to them; and one day they shall become [58] a blessed people.” “O my
brethren, I fear, that, unless ye shall repent of your sins, that their skins
shall be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the
throne of God*. Wherefore a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of
God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their
skins,” &c. “The king saith unto him, yea! if the Lord saith unto us, go!
we will go down unto our brethren, and we will be their slaves, until we repair
unto them the many murders and sins, which we have committed against them. But
Ammon saith unto him, it is against the law of our brethren, which was
established by my father, that there should any slaves among them. Therefore let
us go down and rely upon the mercies of our brethren.”[15]
Question: Why did Brigham Young
initiate the priesthood ban?
The
start of Brigham Young's administration saw a continuation of Joseph Smith's
policies. William McCary was baptized and ordained at Winter Quarters in
October 1846. The following March, Brigham acknowledged the validity of the
ordination of Walker Lewis that likely occurred during Joseph's tenure,
"we [have] one of the best Elders an African in Lowell [,MA] -- a
barber." [16]
The
priesthood ban then became more comprehensive to include not only slaves and free
blacks in the South, but all persons deemed to have inherited the curse of Cain through Ham. Three pivotal
events in this development were the apostasy of William McCary, the interracial
marriage of Walker Lewis's son, and the passing of slavery legislation in Utah
Territory.
McCary
approached Brigham Young with complaints that racial discrimination was a
motive behind other Mormon leaders questioning his strange teachings. President
Young satisfied McCary that ideally race should not be the issue. Praising
Walker Lewis as an example, Young suggested "Its nothing to do with the
blood for [from] one blood has God made all flesh" and later added
"we don't care about the color." [17] Shortly thereafter McCary was
excommunicated for apostasy. In April, Brigham Young departed with the vanguard
pioneer company for the Rocky Mountains only to return around December to face
additional race-based problems.
In April,
Elder Parley P. Pratt had warned of the Saints about following schisms led by
those like James Strang and William McCary. Significantly he referred to
William McCary as "this black man who has got the blood of Ham in him
which linege was cursed as regards the priesthood".[18] McCary had married a Stake
President's white daughter and advocated polygamy before his excommunication
and afterward he began drawing away Mormon women to be sealed to him in a
carnal manner.
Also awaiting Brigham
was William Appleby, the president over eastern branches of the Church. He had
encountered the Lewises and suspected William Smith had acted improperly by
ordaining a black elder. He was also alarmed that Enoch Lewis had married a
white wife and had a child. Brigham responded to this news in a manner that is,
by modern sensitivities, quite disturbing. He was adamantly against racial
amalgamation (see Brigham Young on race mixing for more
context). While allowing that interracial couples should not be denied baptism,
he introduced a ban on temple service for them and/or their offspring.
However,
Brigham Young did not present a specific revelation on priesthood or temple
restrictions he imposed. A definitive statement wasn't made by him until 1852
in a legislative, rather than ecclesiastical forum. Governor Young declared
"any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the
priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in
the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it." [19] Like the Missouri period, the
Saints were externally pressured to adopt racial policies as a political
compromise. At the time, this was deemed to be the best pathway to statehood.
Those who
believe the ban had a revelatory basis point to these pivotal events as
examples of a prophet learning "line upon line," with revelation
being implemented more rigorously. Those who see the influence of cultural
factors and institutional practice behind the ban consider this evidence that
the ban was based on Brigham's cultural and scriptural assumptions, and point
out that such beliefs were common among most Christians in Antebellum America.[20]
References
2.
↑ Bruce R. McConkie,
"New Revelation on Priesthood," Priesthood (Salt
Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 126-137.
4.
↑ Lester E. Bush, Jr. and
Armand L. Mauss, eds., Neither White Nor
Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church, (Salt
Lake City, Signature Books, 1984). ISBN 0941214222. off-site
5.
↑ Anonymous, "On
the Record: 'We Stand For Something' President Gordon B. Hinckley [interview in
Australia]," Sunstone 21:4 no.
(Issue #112) (December 1998), 71. off-site
6.
↑ Dallin H. Oaks cited in
"Apostles Talk about Reasons for Lifting Ban," Daily Herald, Provo, Utah (5 June 1988):
21 (Associated Press); reproduced with commentary in Dallin H. Oaks, Life's Lessons Learned: Personal Reflections (Salt
Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Co., 2011), 68-69.
8.
↑ Edward L. Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W.
Kimball (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005), chapter 24, page 4;
citing Alexander Morrison, Salt Lake City local news station KTVX, channel 4, 8
June 1998.. ISBN 1590384571 (CD version)
10.
↑ Neither
White nor Black, 56; citing Editor, "Outrage in Jackson County,
Missouri," Evening and Morning Star 2 (January
1834), 122. off-siteGospeLink (requires
subscrip.)
13.
↑ Newell G. Bringhurst, Saints, Slaves, and Blacks: The Changing Place of
Black People within Mormonism (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press,
1981), ??.
15.
↑ E.S. Abdy, Journal of a Residence and Tour in the United
States of North America, from April, 1833, to October, 1834, 3 Vols.,
(London: John Murray, 1835), 3:57-58 (emphasis added). off-site
16.
↑ Church Historian's
Office. General Church Minutes, 1839–1877, March 26, 1847, in Selected Collections from the Archives of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2 vols., DVD (Provo, Utah: BYU
Press, 2002), 1:18.
20. ↑ For a history of such
ideas in American Christian thought generally, see H. Shelton Smith, In His Image, But...: Racism in Southern Religion,
1780–1910 (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1972), 131.
ISBN 082230273X.
No comments:
Post a Comment