30 Years of Authorized Black Priesthood

Very good time line. Let me know what year Adam and Eve from the temple videos will no longer be depicted as whites from Missouri. First humans came from Africa, so they probably looked much like Africans today.

Thanks for the summary, Jamie.

AdamF- This response is the racism that sadly still exists on a very subconscious level. Of course the ultimate irony is if the first humans were black, that means if there was ever a skin colored curse, it would be the white skin. That seems to make more sense anyways, because think about how many more skin problems white people have. LOL

While on the topic, Jesus wasn’t white either he was Middle Eastern.

John Nilsson- I don’t understand why women don’t have the priesthood. Women never held priesthood leadership positions, but in the early days of the church, women held the priesthood and performed blessings. This was not just some obscure thing either. It is clear from many diaries that women performed priesthood blessings all the time under Joseph Smith.

Darker skin is from higher amounts of Melatonin, which evolves (you know, that pesky thing called evolution ?) from living closer to the equator where there is more sun on average. It has nothing to do with “The Curse Of Cain” or being from “The Loins Of Ham” or any other such nonsense. The fact that the church does not refute these absurd claims says a lot, no ?

Donald,
Huh? The Church’s tax-exempt status is not derived from (or, frankly, related to) the priesthood. It derives from IRC 501(c) (although there is a certain scholarship that thinks it would be unconstitutional to tax churches; I haven’t really read it, so I’m not going to chime in on that). If you’ve got a decent argument for what the church’s tax-exempt status has to do with blacks and the priesthood, I’d love to hear it (but if you’re going to argue Bob Jones University, you’d better make it pretty darn convincing; I haven’t read it in a number of years, but I’m not convinced that that case has any bearing on a church’s tax-exempt status).

Like jjackson, I’m glad the ban was lifted; I don’t believe that it was doctrinal, although I do believe that, as firmly entrenched as it had become, it was necessary that it be ended revelatorially. And I’m really glad that I was 2 when it was ended so that I never had to figure out how to reconcile my faith to a church that limited the priesthood based on race.

Regarding #12, they have refuted it, my bad… doing some research I can find that “white and delightsome” was in fact changed to “pure and delightsome” in the BoM. I guess that counts. >:)

#16 – It has been refuted, clearly and directly.

Bruce R. McConkie was one of the most vocal supporters of the ban. One month after the revelation lifting the ban, he said:

“Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past 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.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

(”All Are Alike unto God” – BYU devotional – August 18, 1978)

It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

I think the clear message of this time line is that the church policy and relation with those of African descent is far more complicated than the:

“They were racists and now aren’t, but refuse to apologize” storyline that gets repeated everywhere.

Very nice timeline.

A member of my ward gave an excellent talk in sacrament meeting last Sunday on some of the historical issues leading up the 1978 revelation in sacrament meeting. The talk is printed here.

#15 Hawkgrrrl–The Ham / Curse of Cain stuff is not uniquely Mormon, BTW. Mormons pilfered that stinky little gem right out of Baptist rhetoric. Since it was never doctrinal nor created by the church, should the church apologize for it?

“The next question: “Was Cain cursed with a black skin?” Technically the black skin was not the curse, but the mark of the curse. The scriptures do not say that Cain was made black, but we read that his descendants were. (Moses 7:22.) We may well suppose that Cain was also black and that this was the mark the Lord placed upon him. (Genesis 4:15.)” (Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 2 Joseph Fielding Smith)

“President Brigham Young, answering a question put to him by Elder Lorenzo D. Young in a meeting held December 25, 1869, in Salt Lake City, said that Joseph Smith had declared that the negroes were not neutral in heaven, for all the spirits took sides, but “the posterity of Cain are black because he (Cain) committed murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity. But the spirits are pure (i. e. innocent. See D. C. 93:38.) that enter their tabernacles and there will be a chance for the redemption of all the children of Adam, except the sons of perdition.”-J. H., Dec. 25, 1869.” (Way to Perfection chapter 16 Joseph Fielding Smith)

“It was well understood by the early elders of the Church that the mark which was placed on Cain and which his posterity inherited was the black skin. The Book of Moses informs us that Cain and his descendants were black. (Way to Perfection chapter 16 Joseph Fielding Smith)
This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith. At a meeting of the general authorities of the Church, held August 22, 1895, the question of the status of the negro in relation to the Priesthood was asked and the minutes of that meeting say:

“President George Q. Cannon remarked that the Prophet taught this doctrine: That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain’s offspring.”

Joseph Smith has left very little on record in his own words outside of the Pearl of Great Price. During the course of a discussion in Nauvoo in 1842, on the question as to whether the negroes or the Indians have received the greater ill-treatment from the whites, the Prophet Joseph said: “The Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes, or sons of Cain.” (D. H. C. 4:501.) But we all know it is due to his teachings that the negro may be baptized and enter the Church; and some of these unfortunate people have been baptized and have proved their faithfulness and worthiness before the Lord, in this their second estate, setting examples in righteousness which many of the sons of Shem and Japheth could emulate with everlasting profit. Surely the Lord will remember their faithfulness and reward them accordingly.” (same as above)

If this doctrine came from the Baptist church, would someone please explain to me why Joseph Smith was teaching this? The PGP is scripture to LDS, correct? Then that means is it (was) a doctrine within the church. While it may not be an original thought to the LDS church, it should apologize for the doctrine anyway. Any church that teaches such things should be ashamed of itself. God isn’t racist…neither should we be. (no, I’m NOT saying that anyone on this message board is a racist).

I stumbled over this article yesterday which made me reconsider my thoughts about the priesthood/blacks issue altogether. Its an interview given by Elder Jefferey R Holland to pbs at: http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

”
Q: I’ve talked to many blacks and many whites as well about the lingering folklore [about why blacks couldn't have the priesthood]. These are faithful Mormons who are delighted about this revelation, and yet who feel something more should be said about the folklore and even possibly about the mysterious reasons for the ban itself, which was not a revelation; it was a practice. So if you could, briefly address the concerns Mormons have about this folklore and what should be done.

A: 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.

Q: What is the folklore, quite specifically?

A: Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don’t know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I’ve been able to live in the period where we’re not expressing or teaching them, but I think that’s the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. … But I think that’s the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. … We just don’t know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. … That’s my principal [concern], is that we don’t perpetuate explanations about things we don’t know. …

We don’t pretend that something wasn’t taught or practice wasn’t pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we’re absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that’s not perpetuated in the present. That’s the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. …
”

Its the closest a high ranking GA has come, to my knowledge, to condemning and refuting the belief of pre-existence shortfalls causing one to be born black.