Close Topic Options

Doctrine of Segregation - Page 3

Thanks for your reply,

Perhaps where we differ is our understanding of scripture and revelation. That is not something I think we will reconcile here. The quote from Matthew,has some explanations that satisfy me. 1) Matthew is writing to a Jewish audience, the is trying to prove Jesus' as a Jewish Messiah, so he writes in the context. Luke on the other hand is gentile and writes to show Jesus' universal messianic mission. (this can be seen in the genealogies given by both writers.) Luke unlike matthew, shows Christ going beyond the Jew and into the Gentile. You will not find any reference of Luke having Christ saying what Matthew says. Besides for Jesus to even heal such a person as a canaanites going beyond his customs, and culture. Jesus breaks so many of the cultural restraints of his day. He challenges a lot of those assumption that the Jewish people held. Its hard for us to see sometimes because his challenges of culture have become our assumptions in many ways.
point 2- Remember not much later Christ reveals to Peter to go to the gentiles. The book of acts records that some of the apostles did not like that idea. James in particular was very upset that Paul was teaching to gentiles. Peter was on the fence until his revelation, and then he seems to still struggle with that idea. So even in the days of the early church the apostles struggled over race even after Peter's revelation. So it does not surprise me that Matthew who is writing about this time, or just a little after has Christ saying such things. Also, just because Christ was their to be among the Jews does not mean he is racist or segregates. The key is that he still administers to her, despite his mission to the Jews, despite the cultural contraints. Thus he does not distinguish her value as a child of God.

My point is that I believe as the D&C 1 says and the Book of Mormon alludes too, that we are imperfect beings bound in our culture and its assumptions. New revelation comes when we inquire about problems, and challenge such assumptions then the Lord gives us direction. "ask and you shall receive." If we do not ask about race, and just assume will we get any answers? The Lord also gives truth and knowledge as we are ready to receive it. Take the children of Israel for example. The Lord gave them a lesser law because they were not able to live a higher one. Now was the LDS church ready for such a revelation about african Americans before 1978? Was America ready for such a revelation before the civil rights movement? No they were not. We learn line upon line precept upon precept. Hear a little and their a little. It took change in our culture to allow that revelation to happen. The only official standing is that african americans were not allowed to hold priesthood, the reasoning behind it was speculative

I see scripture as a dialogue between man and God. Sometimes we struggle with it, sometimes we get it right. That is why we should wrestle with the word of God like Enos did. We should digest it, work it out ovr and over. It is not a passive thing. Remember Joseph only received his answers when he challenged the assumptions of the day I.e. the first vision. It think it is nieve to suspect that we do not carry assumptions in the true church of God. Race is cultural, not spiritual. It is a cultural idea and has been formulated and changed as culture changes. It does not make our prophets anymore unprophetic to say that they worked with their assumptions like all men do. Elder Smith's quote is from his book the way to Perfection. Not at a general conference. I guess then a question that arises is when is such things revelation and not. Brigham Youngs' ideas of intelligence and race was given in a conference, so what is opinion and what is revelation? Elder karmack's book "tolerance" takes a different opinion then Smith. I am just not convinced that such statements about race were ever revelation. We talk about our prophets not being infallible, or perfect, but we have a hard time applying this to real issues. Speculation or cultural assumptions does not make him any less a prophet of God.

This quote came from Jeff Lindsay one of the contributors to FAIR:

There is no scriptural foundation for that theory(meaning blacks sins). While scriptures in both the Bible and the Pearl of Great Price document that God has sometimes, for reasons unspecified, withheld priesthood and other Gospel blessings from some of his mortal children, the scriptures say nothing about how skin color may or may not relate to pre-existence. There is no scriptural passage in any of the standard works that states that Priesthood denial was ever based upon pre-existence or that the spirits of blacks were neutral in the war in heaven or that blacks or anybody else were less faithful than other spirits. It is just a theory. It is not scriptural. And I'm happy to reject it.
President of the Church. As Joseph Fielding Smith himself stated,

"My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear.... You cannot accept the books written by authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something that is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member is duty bound to reject it. If he writes what is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted" (Joseph Fielding Smith, in Doctrines of Salvation 3:203-4).

Claims that black skin is a sign of unworthiness do not have scriptural support. No acting President of the Church has ever claimed revelation for such ideas, whatever his personal opinions may have been. No such revelation has ever been claimed by them or presented to the Church membership for their sustaining vote. Consequently, the statements of several general authorities and other writers or members of the Church are a matter of personal interpretation and speculation and not official doctrine. Given the conflict of such ideas with canonized scripture, we are, as Joseph Fielding Smith himself stated, "duty-bound to reject them."
Again, I make a distinction between an inspired policy and secondary interpretations and uninspired justifications for that policy. Jeff Lidsay-FAIRS

Segregation Doctrine

Thanks for your reply. I really enjoy discussing this topic with you. Actually we agree in a lot of things (even thought it may not seem so )

I do not know if the Church was ready for such revelation BUT if (as you stated in several threads) the notion of the black skin is just a cultural thing and mainly opinion/interpretation of past Prophets, then why has not the Church come forward and said so? Instead, the Church says the reason the blacks could not hold the Priesthood was because of God's decision...so we are saying two different things here. Does the Church holds the opinion that before 1978 the reason the blacks could not hold the Priesthood was only because of a cultural opinion and interpretation of the Prophets? I do not think so.

That's what I do not understand. How can be an "official" standing on something sacred as to hold the Priesthood, yet there are not clear answers for the ban?. As far as I know, there was never an announcement in General Conference that dictated that Blacks could not hold the Priesthood, then if it was not voted by common consent...how could (we as Church) withheld the Priesthood from so many worthy male members of the Church?

You see, we sustain our leaders as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. We trust them. I agree with them not being infallible and perfect, yet I could understand that thinking in terms of them just giving their thoughts about how they perceived the black race at that time but the fact that their thoughts and prejudices became action by banning the Priesthood from our dear brothers who are black (and saying it was God's intention to be that way until 1978) then it becomes an issue.

My husband has a letter from the First Presidency (Pres. Kimball) who answers the question about the Black and the Priesthood and refers him to the Scripture I gave you before in Abraham and Moses. (which you did not give your thoughts about by the way). In no part of such letter it says anything about opinion of past leaders but directly gives scriptural support for the ban.

Doctrine of Segregation Studies Doctrine Mormon

Thanks for your reply,
I really enjoy an honest discussion about the gospel. You are right, I failed address the topics of Abraham and Moses.

I have put some sources here for your reading, that way you can see that its just not my interpretation.

Abraham 1:25-27. Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), eventually offered the explanation that the denial of the priesthood to the pharaonic line had nothing to do with racial lineage but with the claim of the priesthood through the matriarchal rather than the patriarchal line. See esp. page 134. This explanation might have been more helpful if offered a decade earlier, before the lineage issue became moot.

Below I have put an excerpt from an artical by Armand L. Mauss. He is an LDS scholar who has written extensively on LDS racal issues. His books are very insightful into this subject. This article can be found at FAIR.com if your interested in the whole thing. He explains very well the seeming paradox between the scriptures that you have given.
https://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/20..._Issue.html#en3

The LDS Church and the Race Issue: A Study in Misplaced Apologetics
by Armand L. Mauss

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.1

This statement by Elder McConkie in August of 1978 is an apt characterization of the doctrine and apologetic commentary so pervasive in the Church prior to the revelation on the priesthood earlier that year. That is, it was based on limited understanding. Yet, it is not clear how wide an application Elder McConkie intended for his references to "limited understanding;" for ironically, the doctrinal folklore that many of us thought had been discredited, or at least made moot, through the 1978 revelation continued to appear in Elder McConkie's own books written well after 1978, and continues to be taught by well-meaning teachers and leaders in the Church to this very day.2 The tragic irony is that the dubious doctrines in question are no longer even relevant, since they were contrived to "explain" a Church policy that was abandoned a quarter century ago.

Indeed, it was apparent to many of us even four decades ago that certain scriptural passages used to explain the denial of priesthood to black members could not legitimately be so interpreted without an a priori narrative. Such a narrative was gradually constructed by the searching and inventive minds of early LDS apologists. With allusions to the books of Genesis, Moses, and Abraham, the scenario went something like this : In the pre-existence, certain of the spirits were set aside, in God's wisdom, to come to Earth through a lineage that was cursed and marked, first by Cain's fratricide and obeisance to Satan, and then again later by Ham's lèse majeste against his father Noah. We aren't exactly sure why this lineage was set apart in the pre-existence, but it was probably for reasons that do not reflect well on the premortal valiancy of the partakers of that lineage. Since the beginning, the holy priesthood has been withheld from all who have had any trace of that lineage, and so it shall be until all the rest of Adam's descendants have received the priesthood, or, for all practical purposes, throughout the mortal existence of humankind.

Neat and coherent as that scenario might seem, the scriptures typically cited in its support cannot be so interpreted unless we start with the scenario itself and project it retrospectively upon the scriptural passages in proof-text fashion. For if we set aside the darkened glass of this contrived scenario, we see that the Book of Abraham says nothing about lineages set aside in the pre-existence, but only about distinguished individuals.4 The Book of Abraham is the only place, furthermore, that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the pharoahs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any, especially in the modern world, would be covered by that proscription.5 At the same time, the passages in Genesis and Moses, for their part, do not refer to any priesthood proscription, and no color change occurs in either Cain or Ham, or even in Ham's son Canaan, who, for some unexplained reason, was the one actually cursed!6 There is no description of the mark on Cain, except that the mark was supposed to protect him from vengeance. It's true that in the seventh chapter of Moses, we learn that descendants of Cain became black,7 but not until the time of Enoch, six generations after Cain, and even then only in a vision of Enoch about an unspecified future time.8 There is no explanation for this blackness; it is not even clear that we are to take it literally.

Much of the conventional "explanation" for the priesthood restriction was simply borrowed from the racist heritage of nineteenth-century Europe and America, especially from the slavery justifications of the antebellum South.9 Understandable--even forgivable--as such a resort might have been for our LDS ancestors, it is neither understandable nor forgivable in the twenty-first century. It is an unnecessary burden of misplaced apologetics that has been imposed by our history upon the universal and global aspirations of the Church. Until we dispense with it once and for all, it will continue to encumber the efforts of today's Church leaders and public affairs spokespersons to convince the world, and especially the black people of America, that the Church is for all God's children, "black and white, bond and free, male and female."10


I do agree with you that the LORD did withhold the priesthood, that is not my issue. I believe that the reason He had done so was because of the saints unwillingness to accept such a revelation until 1978. The US and Church culture and all protestant religions of the time were not in a place to allow that to happen. Joseph Smith tried to bring it to pass, but it did not hold after his death. So the Lord waited until the church was ready to receive that revelation, and that understanding that God is not respecter of persons. I just think that now in the church we have not dwelt with it completely. We recognize the issue of African American's holding the priesthood, but we have not come to grips as to why that was the case. See by not addressing the pre-existence myth, we are still saying that even though we all have equal claim to priesthood, we whites are still morally superior because of our skin color. Why? because we were more valiant in the pre-existence. Then we can make assumptions that our since of morality, valiance, and direction is inherently better, because we are white, and proved it in a existence that we cannot remember. Do we not see this in US culture today? We have equal rights, but does our culture still lead us to believe that whites are morally better? Look at the amount of black in prison compared to whites, watch the show "cops" why are most of the suspects black? In settle ways this idea is still in our culture.
You are right we have not addressed this idea in the church, and I and others think that it is time to address it. As I mentioned earlier in my posts Elder Packer says we cannot go to the world-meaning africa- with the baggage that we carry with us here. That is my point I guess, is how we understand african americans reflects our ability to take the gospel to them. I think that this idea is part to the issue.

Page 3 Segregation Doctrine

I was five when all worthy members of the church were granted the right to hold the priesthood, so I do not really have any first hand experience with this. I really do not remember a time when any worthy man could not hold the priesthood. It seems like a different era to me

As such the proscription against certain individuals, who are completely worthy, from holding the priesthood seems completely foreign to my sensibilities.

My Grandpa and Grandma went to Ghana in the Early 90's and it gave me an interesting perspective on the issue. My Grandfather was not a racist, but he came from a different era. He came back a changed man. His love for different peoples was a stark change. It taught me that anyone can change when exposed to new ideas and people.

When he got back he told me that he had been mistaken in his views before his mission. He likened himself to a Nephite who had views about the Lamanites that were misplaced. He stated there were times when the Lamanites were more righteous then the Nephites. When he went to Ghana he saw a Humble, righteous and wholesome people that he believed were in many ways more righteous then himself. He said he had to ask the Lord for forgiveness for his perceptions about other people.

A very moving account of the Church in Africa
https://www.byui.edu/Presentations/Transcri..._03_LeBaron.htm

Note the Story of Joseph William Billy Johnson a Preacher who saw visions concerning the Book of Mormon and Baptism for the Dead.

I believe that sometimes the Lord works in mysterious ways and I have no doubt that the membership of strong members in Africa may someday outdo that of Members in the US.

Segregation Doctrine

Name: Stanley

Comments: "All men are created equal before God" and Christ sees all men as one, black or white, bound or free, the righteous and the wicked, all are partaker of his blessings and atonement. If anyone segregate then such a person is an anti-Christ.

Doctrine of Segregation

I only ask this out of ignorance, but hasn't God "segregated" his people since the beginning of time. I realize it was a segregation based on Family lineage or righteousness or the lack thereof, but we still have to acknowledge that god separated his people from the General Populations of their time.

He definitely separated the Israelite nations from the surrounding ones and forbade them marry or have business with other cultures (Old Testament). Christ in the New Testament said he came only to the Hebrew nation and limited his teaching to that portion of Humanity (at that time). Why would he do this in light of his love for all mankind?
From our 21st Century perspective this seems kind of outdated.

Do we not have to acknowledge that the Gospel sometimes works within the Cultural limitations that it are found because of the weaknesses of his people?

Doctrine Segregation - Page 3

I do not think God segregates cutlers or races. I think that this is all man's doings projecting there ideals and actions onto god to justify there actions and beliefs. We know through archaeological evidence that the 12 tribes of Israel were not as segregated as much as the bible tells us. There is also a strong argument in biblical studies circles that king David himself was not even Israelite.
most of the ideas of Israel segregation comes into play much after Jewish return from Babylon and continued to get stronger during the Maccabean period. We know that any talk about segregation in the old testament was put into the text at a later date. There enough references where people were accepted into the Hebrew people and assimilated in during the reign of the judges and after. The Hebrews were really a well mixed group of people in there day then we typically acknowledge. I think that God may separate us by our standards but never by race.

Doctrine Segregation Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 3

I do not believe God segregates race, but I definitely believe that he at times segregates Cultures. To god all individuals are seen as his Sons and Daughters, and will have equal access to his blessing based on Faith and their obedience. God does not however view all Cultures as equal. We read throughout the scriptures of instances where God abhors certain Cultural practices (Idol worship, sacrificing children to heathen gods.I am sure that God does not view kindly the cultural practice of Female circumcision) God separated his people from certain cultures that were practicing certain cultural ideals and has punished his people who actively participated in wicked cultural practices of their day.

Does not god want us to stay away from certain cultures (the drug culture, cultures that celebrate sex outside of Marriage, cultures that celebrate death)? God has "segregated" his people at times because he wanted to raise a righteous generation. We often Segregate our families from certain cultures(those mentioned above) to protect them from certain influences.

In my opinion, not all cultures are equally beneficial to mankind's spiritual and physical progress, and we should not hold all cultures as equal. I believe it is a tool of Satan to equivocate all cultures and say they should all be celebrated equally (should radical islam, a distinct culture, be celebrated as much as Western Christian Culture, I would say no.)

God himself will "segregate" people after the the Final Judgement into different cultures, namely Celestial cultures, Terrestrial cultures, and telestial cultures. If God segregates us in the hereafter, why would he not at times do that on Earth?