As I was looking the through the class readings about blacks and the priesthood, I wasn't really satisfied with the explanation it gave. I looked up what my Mission Prep. teacher, Brother Randy Bott, had to say about the issue on his blog. It's not an explanation, but it brings up some interesting points I hadn't thought about.
Blacks and the Priesthood
I have been asked the "Black and the Priesthood" question for many years. It wasn't until I was a mission president that the issue became much clearer. Let me begin (up front) by saying that I still don't understand all of the ramifications on “Why God gives Priesthood to some and not to others.” However, I have explicit faith that He knows the reasons and when we eventually see as He sees, we'll be completely satisfied that what He has done has been the wisest thing to do.Perhaps an example is the fastest way to teach how I handle the question. I was sitting in the Mission Home one Sunday afternoon waiting to leave for another Stake Conference. The telephone rang and the woman on the other end of the line explained that she was a Stake Missionary and had a Black investigator who wanted to talk with me about the "Black and the Priesthood" issue. I invited them over.The investigator was working on a Master's degree and seemed to be very confident and articulate. After introductions he immediately attacked me with a barrage of questions. "Why are you prejudiced against Blacks?" he asked. "I didn't know I was!" was my reply. He said: "Don't play mind games with me. I understand you have a doctorate degree and I am fairly educated myself, so let's get to the meat of the issue. Until 1978 Mormons withheld the Priesthood from the Blacks and I want to know why?" He was just assertive enough to kindle my combative spirit a little—it wasn't like a bash session but more a spirited exchange.I said: "You seem to be rather bold in coming into my home and attacking me. Would it be alright if I asked you some questions?" He agreed. I asked him what his definition of the Priesthood was. He replied that it was his understanding that it was "the power of God...." and then he continued on. I stopped him and said, "Can we just agree that the Priesthood is the power of God?" He agreed. I asked him if he thought the priesthood was a real power to which he responded in the negative. Then I followed with a rather incredulous question: "Why, then, are you upset with the Mormons keeping a 'non-real thing' away from your people?" He didn't know what to say.I continued. "For sake of discussion, let's assume the Priesthood is a real thing. Who then would control it?" He answered: "Well, I guess God would since it is His power." I asked: "Does He have to account to you on why He does what He does?" To which he recoiled and answered: "Certainly not. That would border on blasphemy!" to which I agreed.Then I asked who held the Priesthood during Old Testament times after the Exodus. He rather proudly demonstrated his understanding that it was only the Tribe of Levi. I asked: "Would you show me in the Old Testament where the other 11 tribes, which include Judah—through whom the Savior was to be born, and Joseph—the new chosen, birthright son, picketed up and down in front of the Tabernacle demanding the Priesthood?" He admitted that he couldn't and stated that he had never looked at it quite like that before. I suggested that God has always "discriminated" with regard to who could hold the priesthood.Then I decided to help him see discrimination from a different perspective. I said: "Since you brought it up, let's talk discrimination for a minute. Up until June 8, 1978 a Black could be a member of the Church, have the Holy Ghost, partake of the sacrament, and serve in the Church in whatever capacity that didn't require the Priesthood. They could be administered to, receive blessings, etc. The instant they died they could have their names submitted to the temple for temple work because there was no reference on the form as to race. Therefore, all the blessings of not only Salvation (which come from Baptism and the Holy Ghost) were available to them, but also the blessings of Exaltation (which require Priesthood for the males and temple endowments and sealings), were also available. However, they could not become "sons of perdition" because the unpardonable sin had to be committed before the dissolution of the body." Since I had just been studying it, I knew the reference, so I excused myself and retrieved my copy of the Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith where Joseph taught: "A man cannot commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, and there is a way possible for escape. Knowledge saves a man; and in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge. So long as a man will not give heed to the commandments, he must abide without salvation. If a man has knowledge, he can be saved; although, if he has been guilty of great sins, he will be punished for them. But when he consents to obey the Gospel, whether here or in the world of spirits, he is saved."A man is his own tormenter and his own condemner. Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. The torment of disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. I say, so is the torment of man."I know the Scriptures and understand them. I said, no man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, nor in this life, until he receives the Holy Ghost but they must do it in this world. Hence the salvation of Jesus Christ was wrought out for all men, in order to triumph over the devil; for if it did not catch him in one place, it would in another; for he stood up as a Savior. All will suffer until they obey Christ himself." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843–44, p.357)I continued: "So up until June 8, 1978, only a white, Melchizedek Priesthood bearing male could be come a son of perdition. Now thanks be to the Lord, since 1978, you too can become a son of perdition." I thought he was turning pale white in front of me.He stammered a little and said: "I had never looked at it that way before!" I assured him that most people hadn't. Then I turned to the Sister Stake Missionary who had brought the Black investigator, and said to her: "Up until this very day, God is still discriminating against 50% of His children in not allowing them to hold the priesthood-- they are women. But (I continued), I vote that women can also hold the priesthood and they too can become sons of perdition!" By this time their entire demeanor had changed.I concluded by explaining that God's stated objective for not only mankind in general but for each individual son or daughter was to give them immortality and eternal life (see Moses 1:39), and that God assured us in 2 Nephi 26:24: "He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation." As our belief in and trust of God increases, we are more content to allow Him to be God and us to be His children.I then explained that mortality (when viewed in God's time, which is that one day with God is equivalent to 1000 years with man—Abraham 3:4) if we lived for 72 years would only constitute a one hour 43 minute and 41 second test away from God. That we had lived with God for countless years before coming here and the God had designed our mortal existence so that, if we would take advantage of it, the time and the condition under which we were born and lived out our lives would enhance our quest for exaltation faster than any other that could possibly be. Therefore, by trying to dictate to God what should happen to us, what powers we should hold, etc. we were actually demonstrating our lack of faith in God's plan for us and placing ourselves in a position of superiority to God—which is blasphemy.The conversation ended on a very congenial note with the Sister Stake Missionary forcefully declining to accept the responsibility of the priesthood and gratefully being content to enjoy the blessings of the Priesthood—just as the Blacks had before 1978.You see, it isn't really an issue of the Black and the Priesthood or anything else. The question is, do we trust God to do the very best for us He possibly can without destroying our agency nor giving us too much too fast and thus enabling us to destroy ourselves.I hope this short explanation will give you some ideas to help all people, no matter what color to understand a little more about how God lovingly works with His children for their salvation and exaltation.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I also was left very unsatisfied by the reading and I could not agree more with this posting. I would also add that there has been discrimination in all ages of the Church, even when Christ Himself was on the Earth. I think that this should be included, or something like unto it, in the readings for Blacks and the Priesthood in the future so that any who might be struggling in their testimonies might not get the erroneous idea that the Church and its leaders are racists who look down on any other race, or having anything but the utmost love and concern for them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alex, though I think in the article it could have touched more upon the cultural pressure the church was feeling in the mid to late 1970's. Is it coincidence that the "revelation" came so soon after the climax of the civil rights movement? Was it a divine intervention, or was it a cultural intervention? Was the refusal of ordaining African descent up until 1978 a divine request or a man made one? I think to ever say the latter option would be very much against the grain in mormonism. Though I find it interesting there has been no apology for its refusal, in contrast there has been no official apology for the mountain meadow massacre which resulted in the deaths of around 180 men, women and children. Was it because apologizing would say that they (mormon officials) were wrong? And in admitting it would discredit their authority from God? Just a couple thoughts
ReplyDeleteHere are a couple of thoughts in regards to Brother Bott's discussion of why blacks didn't/couldn't have the priesthood:
ReplyDelete"Would you show me in the Old Testament where the other 11 tribes, which include Judah—through whom the Savior was to be born, and Joseph—the new chosen, birthright son, picketed up and down in front of the Tabernacle demanding the Priesthood?"
This reverts back to a scriptural argument that shows how God denied the priesthood to other groups throughout time. My question is where in the scriptures does it show that blacks were denied the priesthood?
"The question is, do we trust God to do the very best for us He possibly can without destroying our agency nor giving us too much too fast and thus enabling us to destroy ourselves."
This seems to imply that blacks were not ready to receive the priesthood, whereas whites were. Maybe it had nothing to do with blacks, but everything to do with whites. Maybe whites were the ones not ready for blacks to receive the priesthood. Just a thought.
(Note: Armand tried to comment on the blog, but was not able to, so I am doing so for him...rest assured this is his statement)
ReplyDeleteArmand Mauss said:
The doctrinal excursion offered by Brother Bott might make us feel better about the earlier race issue in the Church, but it does not provide any of the historical information we need, much of which is cited at the end of my FAIR article. Many other FAIR articles could be accessed on the same topic by going to the FAIR Topical Guide and clicking on “Race and Cultural Issues.” In brief, here are some historical realities that need to be taken into account : (1) There is no record of any revelation to the Church withholding the priesthood from black people; (2) Joseph Smith was present for the ordination of at least one black man two different times, and the second time he might even have performed the ordination (Elijah Abel, to Seventy, in Kirtland); (3) The policy of withholding the priesthood is intertwined with the history of early Utah: It was instituted by Brigham Young, who cited no revelation authorizing it; we don’t even have his verbatim statement on the matter but only a second hand account written later by Wilford Woodruff; (4) B. Y. did not announce the policy to the Church but at the opening session of the Utah Territorial Legislature in early 1852; (5) There is no scriptural evidence explicitly tying denial of the priesthood to marks or curses on Cain or Ham, or to anything that happened in the pre-existence; these so-called “explanations” were just the suppositions of certain early apostles and prophets, and modern church leaders have disavowed them on several occasions in favor of the simple explanation that “we don’t know” the reasons for the historic policy; (6) We are not taught that our apostles and prophets are infallible, and they do not claim to be, so why do we resist the idea that this historic race policy might just have been in error – and instead go through all kinds of imaginative doctrinal notions for the “explanation”?
I agree with Armand Mauss. Brother Bott's posting sounds nice, but I don't think it really addresses the issue, but instead does a little happy dance around it. It also assumes that God preferred NOT to give black males the priesthood at that time, which I don't think was ever the case.
ReplyDeleteTo me, it also sounds a little smug. I am sure he didn't mean it that way, and I have high resect for the man, but to me it ignores too many complexities in this issue to satisfy me. It's too simplistic, and I particularly don't like the one-sided portayal of this investigator. I think his concern was more than valid.
I agree with Armand: "Why do we resist the idea that historic race policy might have been in error"?
What should have been emphasized is "We may have had racist policies in the past, but we don't now. Thank heavens for modern revelation through living prophets; isn't it wonderful, and Can I tell you a little more about it?"
My personal belief is that the blacks not having the priesthood was a "white member problem" and not a "black member problem." I don't understand everything about it, but what I do know of the gospel points me to that conclusion.
I see what you mean about it's just "doing a happy dance" around the issue, but I personally prefer a "happy dance" then trying to force an explanation when there isn't any satisfying answers. Like I said this doesn't really answer the questions about blacks and the priesthood, but it gave some insights that made me a little more comfortable with it.
ReplyDeleteI agree that one cannot force an explanation, but that is exactly my point.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like the above excerpt is trying to do just that, and wresting out this doctrinal explanation fails to make me comfortable with it.
I continue to disagree with Armand Mauss. Why is it so inconceivable that the Lord at that point in time, for WHATEVER the reason, chose to not allow Blacks to have the priesthood? The real question here seems to be whether or not the Lord would enact a policy that isn't necessarily perfect. And the answer is that of course He would. He has done so in the past and most likely will do so in the future. He does things with a much broader vision than ours, and maybe having a few of His children not holding the priesthood, but still receiving the blessings thereof, was less important than something else, say maybe gaining Statehood? Or making peace with the U.S. government? Why is that so impossible to conceive? Didn't He do the exact same with Israel by giving them the 10 Commandments and the Law of Moses instead of the fullness of the gospel, because they weren't ready for it? Didn't He cease the act of plural marriage for the time because otherwise the temples would have been seized, which would have left Him with the option of divinely intervening with great power as to remove the need for faith, or lose the temples? So isn't it more likely that a similar situation occurred in this, rather than having a prophet of the Living God, who spoke with Him directly and frequently, as prophets do, to be a racist? And not only racist, but so racist as to enact a policy that deprives members of His Church the priesthood for more than a hundred years? And if it was President Young who was a racist, then why didn't any of the following prophets change said policy afterwards? Were they all so racist also that the Lord couldn't tell them to stop depriving His children of the priesthood? Haven't the leaders of the Church assured us that although other general authorities may go astray, a prophet of God will never be able to lead us astray, or else the Lord will remove him first? I find it much more logical and in accordance with scriptural precedent that certain people were allowed to have the priesthood while others were not, for a time, to further a greater good that the Lord saw and we do not. So whatever the reason may have been, and I don't presume to understand why the Lord did it, I firmly believe that the prophets of this dispensation were not racist.
ReplyDeleteIn a legal matter, it would be up to the plaintiff to provide a preponderance of evidence (50% or more) to prove that the defendant is in the wrong, at least in civil cases. I would propose that the prophet, by nature of being a prophet, more often than not is in accordance with the Lord's will. Especially when it comes to Church policy, even if said policy is later reversed. And unless it can be proven reasonably, that we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was in the right, as prophets almost always are.
I do agree with Armand in that I personally don't believe that any of this had to do with valiance in the pre-existance. As far as we know, maybe blacks were born at a time when they couldn't receive the priesthood because they were valiant enough to endure it while it was necessary for the Church to have such a policy. Nobody knows that except the Lord, and until He says otherwise, I will continue to believe in the actions of the prophets. As Pres. Benson said, the prophet doesn't have to say, "Thus saith the Lord," for it to be revelation. Nor does he have to give reason for his actions, nor have any earthly qualifications or degrees to make a statement about a matter (such as Joseph with the Word of Wisdom). The Lord qualifies whom He calls.
I agree that the prophets and apostles are not perfect. We know that no one on this earth at any time has been perfect except Christ. However, I would propose that the prophets are certainly much closer to perfection than any of us, and if we can avoid racism, I'm sure they could also.
And on a final note, I again don't think that it was due to social pressure that we finally "gave in" and gave blacks the priesthood. Since when has the Church EVER given in to social pressure? See the explanation in the 1st Official Declaration as to the idea of the Church giving in to social pressure. I'm sure a similar one applies. Maybe, just maybe, the time was right, for whatever the reason.
ReplyDeleteWell said Alex. Prophets are not perfect men but the Lord does not make mistakes on who He calls to lead the church, His church. When the prophet speaks as our prophet it is not as if we are free to now dissect his words to determine what part of it is true. It is our responsibility to gain a witness and show our faith that we trust the Lord knows what He is doing even if we, from our limited view, do not understand. Is it not the same whether it is spoken by the voice of the prophet or as spoken by the Lord himself. If there is a question about what a prophet has said perhaps instead of finding fault with the church there could be a better way to get peace about something that troubles you.
ReplyDelete"Modern church leaders have disavowed them on several occasions."
ReplyDeleteThis is true, and it amuses me how so many church members love to ignore it. If one prophet says another was wrong about an issue, how can they both be right on that issue? Believing prophets are perfect is in direct conflict with the doctrine of this religion. People don't think Brigham Young was racist because of an imaginary liberal conspiracy, rather because of statements he made that are racist (please, do some research before you try and act like you know the issue, people). As has been said many times, he was a product of a very racist time, and good historians don't judge people based on ethnocentrism. Nobody has suggested that he was an evil man or that the church has gone astray because of the policy, so nobody needs to be defensive. Dr. Morgan said that many of you will have a moment where you will have to face issues like this, and I can promise you that if you base your testimony on incorrect beliefs, you'll figure it out at some point, and you won't recover.
I think that Nate hit it right in the head. I don't think I could say it any better. And the quote Charlie posted by Brigham Young, how can you read that and deny that he was racist? But realizing that Brigham Young was racist doesn't mean that you are finding fault with the church or it's leaders. And realizing that blacks, not receiving the priesthood could be an error, isn't either. Just because someone you trust and look up to may make a mistake doesn't mean that they're not worthy or that they are leading us astray. I don't think that the denial of the priesthood to blacks (due to a prophet's mistake) would constitute the prophet leading us astray, I think that if the prophet was causing us to sin or lose our future exaltation, then he would be leading us astray, which we have been told will not be allowed to happen. Ad Nate said, there is no need to be defensive, as members of the church we are all working towards the same goal and it's okay if we think differently about certain issues. Thank goodness we don't all have the same opinions. We should work together to be more understanding and tolerant of our differences.
ReplyDeleteModern church leaders have disavowed the incorrect theories for the policy, not the policy itself. At least I have yet to encounter where they said that. All I've seen are blanket apologies that some people presume cover the policy, which I'm unaware of the Church ever apologizing for it's policies, and others assume it's an apology for opinions of leaders, which does happen more frequently. In regards to the racist comments they have said, I honestly haven't come across those all too often. I know that there are some, but since they don't generally print them in the Ensign or other such places, I don't really read them too often. In fact pretty much the only time I've come across those are from baptist friends of mine from back home who were reading anti-mormon literature, since they clearly weren't reading volumes and volumes of journal discourses or church history. In any event, their personal opinions are irrelevant. The topic at hand is whether or not the Lord would allow a policy to be implemented that isn't perfect, but is maybe necessary for a time. Or I guess from the other point of view, if the Lord would allow the prophet to prevent His children from receiving the priesthood for a century and a half because of his imperfections. To me, that's leading the Church astray, if it's preventing blessings and causing people to fall away unnecessarily, or causing people to be racist which Pres. Hinckley said is a sin. That's just much less likely to me, than that the Lord is doing some of the same things He's always done, and restricting the priesthood for a short time.
ReplyDeleteMy point is this. There is no evidence that states that the policy was racist. It's been said that it's "amusing" the great lengths we go to prove that it wasn't racist, I say the same. Except it's not amusing, it's sad. It's sad the great lengths that some people go to, to try and prove that it was a racist policy. They just can't accept the fact that maybe the Lord had a reason to institute such a policy. My point is that if he's done it before in the scriptures, why can't we at least accept the fact that it's probably the case today? And I am not referring to blacks specificly in the scriptures, but am referring to the restrictions on who was and wasn't allowed to hold the priesthood. Restrictions were made in other dispensations, ergo, they could be made in this dispensation.
I'm sorry, Alex, but it's definitely amusing to me how you think we should "accept the fact" that God only giving the priesthood to Levites has anything whatsoever to do with God giving the priesthood to every man EXCEPT blacks. Somehow, you think it's impossible for a church policy to be racist, but you have no problem whatsoever with any number of racist, disavowed statements being made about the policy. I said it's wise to avoid ethnocentrism, and you applied President Hinckley's comments on racism being sinful to people of the past. That's an odd way to defend Brigham Young. What, in your mind, is the difference between doctrine and policy if both are infallible and come directly from God? Why were 7+ black men allowed to have the priesthood before (and after) the policy?
ReplyDeleteI said people should educate themselves before talking, and you said you only read what's in the Ensign. You might want to ask yourself if you are comfortable with your friends knowing more about your religion than you do.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't just the Levites having the priesthood that I'm referring to. You'll see that in the Old Testament those who were descended through Moab and Ammon were ban (Deuteronomy 23:3). The reason for the ban on Moab and Ammon? Because they refused to give Israel food or drink, and because they had hired a prophet to curse Israel (Deuteronomy 23:4) And yet you'll also see some major exceptions to this, I'm sure you well know that David and Solomon came from a Moabite bloodline, yet they were allowed to have the priesthood. In the New Testament we have a delayal of blessings. During His Galilean ministry, Jesus instructed His twelve disciples that they were not to go to any of the Gentile nations or to the Samaritans to preach the Gospel, and that they were to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Yet it’s not because Christ was “ethnocentric” and only believed that the Jews were righteous and going to Heaven. It was simply a church policy at the time. One that was later reversed. I hope you are able to see the similarity.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the "racist comments" by church leaders, they sought to explain a policy that they didn't understand. Their explanations and ideas as to why it was instituted turned out to be wrong. Just as many people have wrongly made assumptions as to why the Lord instituted polygamy. When we are given a commandment or a policy without an explanation, people frequently try to figure out why since we know that the Lord only does things which are for our salvation....we often try to see why things are the way they are. And mistakes can be made on that front.
I didn't say I only read the Ensign, I said, "the Ensign or other such places," by which I meant church authorized writings on the matter. Books like Jesus the Christ, the scriptures, and places where the leaders who made this policy have spoken out on the matter. Quite frankly I don't consider it education to read anti-Mormon literature. We have been told time and time again, that it's not good for the soul to read such things, and quite frankly I trust what the inspired leaders of the Church have to say on the matter. It's never education to listen to those who write what Satan tells them to write, because it's always lies mingled with truth to make it seem more appealing. And trying to argue that my friends are know more about my religion than I do by reading anti-Mormon literature is a faulty argument that doesn't need to be addressed. So I will just quote Christ on how to know about your religion, "If any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine."
I thought this was an interesting presentation given at a FAIR conference by Renee Olson, a black member of the church, on myths about blacks and the priesthood. She also talks about perceptions of culture differences in the church in general; I think she makes several great points.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.blacklds.org/black_myth
another thing i've noticed about this is that even David O. Mckay was even pressing the issue of allowing blacks to receive the priesthood, and I think even would have had it not been for a couple of the men in the counsel of the Apostles such as Harold B. Lee, and Joseph Fielding Smith, both have very racially categorized quotes as did Brigham Young. I find it interesting that it wasn't until after the deaths of both these men that Spencer W. Kimball was able to proceed forth into this new phase of mormonism.
ReplyDelete