Close Topic Options

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood - Page 3

The people PRESENT voted (not unanimously, BTW) to accept the Manifesto, but there was no revelation that was voted upon, and the Manifesto wasn't voted on as doctrine, but as policy.

I think you are completely right about the Priesthood and blacks.

The Manifesto is one example. It is accepted as doctrine, but it was originally voted in as policy. Now it is doctrine, but contradicts clear revelation that IS doctrine as well as clearly stated previous doctrine.

Another example is the "doctrine" of blacks and the Priesthood. Although it was accepted as doctrine for well over 100 years, yet now we understand that it wasn't. At the moment, I can't honestly say which side of it is truth, although I fully accept the 1978 policy change.

Truth is independent of doctrine, doctrine shouldn't be independent of truth. Unfortunately, sometimes (extremely rare, I hope) we think it is the other way around. Sometimes truth is rejected in favor of doctrine. Adam/God may be one such case, as official doctrine is that Brigham Young was mistaken. But these should be discussed in their own threads.

Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

There are only three places (that I know of) in the scriptures that speak of this subject: Moses 5: 40 (34-41), Moses 7: 8 (6-12) and Abraham 1: 24, 27 (21-27).

All three of these scriptures deal with previous dispensations. Since this is a new dispensation, what is written in previous dispensations is not binding upon us. That is the general rule. However, in this case, the doctrine of blacks being denied the priesthood is actual church doctrine (or was church doctrine prior to '78) in this very dispensation. The reason is this:

The First Presidency has the absolute right to officially interpret scripture. Those passages above have been interpreted by every First Presidency to mean 1) that the "mark" of Cain was a skin of blackness and the characteristics of the negroid race, 2) that Cain and his seed were cursed with this mark and that they were also denied the priesthood in this life and all the blessings of the temple, 3) that the Canaanites were decendents of Cain and partakers of this curse, 4) that the blood of Cain and the Canaanites was preserved through Ham (Ham's wife) and 5) that this curse has never been rescinded by the Lord (until '78.)

When the First Presidency officially interprets scripture we are never presented with their interpretation for a vote. They do not need to present a revelation to us in order to interpret scripture. It automatically becomes official church doctrine. An example of this is the Word of Wisdom. The Lord in the revelation states "hot drinks" which could mean anything, except that the First Presidency has officially interpreted that passage to mean "tea and coffee." This "tea and coffee" interpretation has not been presented to the church for a vote (that I know of), it is merely official church doctrine by virtue of the fact that the First Presidency has this right of scriptural interpretation and they have exercised it.

Every First Presidency has interpreted those passages exactly the same way. Could the interpretation have been incorrect? Possibly. Whenever Joseph had a question about something, he would go to the Lord and ask and the Lord would give a new revelation concerning the matter. It does not appear that this was done with the curse of Cain doctrine. Each subsequent First Presidency re-interpreted or re-affirmed the previous interpretation of prior First Presidencies concerning those passages.

President Kimball, however, felt different. He interpreted those passages just like his predecessors did, but instead of leaving it as it was, he petitioned the Lord constantly to "lift the ban" and he apparently received a revelation that it be lifted. Now, we the people of the Lord's church were never presented that revelation, we were only presented with the results of that revelation: that the ban was now lifted.

Any doctrinal changes have to be approved by the saints through the law of common consent. The saints at that time consented. Had I been a member in '78, I would not have consented. I would have demanded to have the actual revelation received read to the conference for approval. But the saints, in typical "follow the prophet" drone-like behaviour, merely accepted an official declaration instead of the purported revelation it was based on. And that OD is now binding upon us.

I find it strange that the revelation itself was not presented. Could it be that the revelation read something like this?:

Perhaps the revelation was too embarrassing to show to people, since they would have seen the huge blunder the prophets made in their official interpretation?

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood Studies Doctrine Mormon

I would of liked to have been there to witness it if it had been so

Some points come up here...

Are we to say then that prior Prophets never took this to the Lord in prayer, but just took it upon themselves to institute it?

Let us remember how this came about in the first place (the removal that is) it was based on a question of if a person with mixed race was also denied or as I see it... in a world of ever changing values and integrated communities then a lot of people who had a negro in their ancestry would find that they could not have the priesthood no matter how 'white' they looked.

When I was ten years old I wrote the First Presidency about this, and yes, they actually wrote back through the Executive Secretary on official paper using the same scripture in the Pearl of Great Price and mentioning that they do not know why the Lord had it this way. Now are we to say it is not so much that they did not know as much as they 'did not want to know' or did not have a desire to see their negro brothers receive the Priesthood?

Page 3 Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

And I think that's why some members have such a hard time understanding this doctrine. What I don't fully understand as yet is if the early leaders in the Church interpreted the doctrine based on that scripture, then how come until 1958 there were LDS black men that hold the Priesthood???

Summary of Important Dates to remember:

1836: In March, Elijah Abel, a black man is ordained to the office of Elder.

1836: In December, Elijah Abel, is ordained to the office of Seventy.

1844: Walker Lewis, a black man is ordained to the office of Elder.

1846: William McCary, a black man is ordained to the office of Elder.

1900: Enoch Abel, the son of Elijah Abel is ordained to the office of Elder.

1935: Elijah Abel, grandson of Elijah Abel is ordained to the office of Elder.

1958: All black Melanesians (Fijians) are given the priesthood (blacks in the Philippians even earlier)

1978: Revelation on Priesthood give it to all men regardless of color.

https://www.blacklds.org


Edited: LDS_forever on 10th Apr, 2004 - 6:41pm

Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

Thank you for this thread. This issue has been the hardest one in the church for me, and still is. I think they made a mistake and it took over 100 years to admit it. As a caucasion with a mixed child, it has been hard to be a member of a church that had that policy - even though it is no longer there.

When I tried to research it, and was given books written in the 50's about it, I got so angry at their tone and self-righteousness that I threw the books away and didn't go to church for many years. South Africaneers used the same biblical reasons to justify Apartheid.

Because of it, I don't fully trust all the doctrines of the Church.. some issues may come from man and not from God. So I ponder things out in my own mind and ask God if they are true in my own heart... Ironically its been my black friends who have helped the most - they have been the most charitable and helped me see that the church is about our Saviour and his plan of redemption - and not about how some people (mis)interpreted things.

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood

Leilai, in what way did you feel this thread helped you? Those books you were asked to read... do you remember the names by chance?

Blacks & Mormon Priesthood - Page 3

leilai, welcome aboard. I know this issue is a touchy one, and there are several questions that I still looking for the answers but I know if you are really interested, then you can find the answers you are looking for through deep study and Prayer.

Blacks & Mormon Priesthood Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 3

I just came across this article of a newspaper clipping in the Salt Lake Tribune back in 1970 where it quotes Pres. McKay stating the priesthood ban was not and never was doctinal. I assume he thinks the early prophets were mistaken.

https://www.blacklds.org/Mckay.html