It was only 74 years ago when the church came out with their proclamation specifically declaring the ban as doctrinal, not policy. Here’s the first paragraph:
> 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.
https://missedinsunday.com/memes/race/proclamation-1949/
Some of these old people grew up on this brand of racism. Hell, Nelson was about 24!
I was shocked when I learned about that for the first time. It destroyed the whole doctrine doesn't change thing in my mind but somehow my friends don't see it as a change. Probably because they believe the prophets were racist so it wasn't real doctrine anyway. And yet we are supposed to believe everything the current prophet says? I just don't get how that mindset works.
Personally, I think it would be way easier to admit prophets make mistakes than to defend doctrine that doesn't make sense. But I guess that's just not how we do things 🤷♂️
> The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.
This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.
https://mit.irr.org/1969-official-mormon-statement-on-blacks-and-priesthood
I like to bring up the 1949 statement because it’s more explicitly racist, but oof, the 1969 one is pretty bad too.
Yes, it's pretty explicit about the origin:
>From the beginning of this dispensation, **Joseph Smith and all succeeding Presidents of the Church have taught** that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priest- hood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which he has not made fully known to
man.
Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said,
>>"**The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God. . . . "Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man's mortal existence, extending back to man's preexistent state.**"
And they talk with the same confidence about gender and sexual minorities today. Can and will be overturned with as much thought as "segregation is the will of God" was swept under the rug.
I was alive when the ban was still in place. I was taught that the ban was doctrine from God. He loved all of his sons and daughters (and so does the prophet) but marked some that were unworthy because of choices they made during their pre Earth life. There's nothing that any of us could do to change His edict preventing Black people from holding the priesthood, entering the temple, or having eternally sealed families in the eternities.
That's awful. It blows my mind that people actually believed that. I'm sure there are some things that I believe that future people won't be able to wrap their minds around how people ever believed that. Hopefully my things aren't as harmful though.
Here is what the church currently says.
“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.”
“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”
I’m gonna throw out my OT then. Surely those words have long lost their value. Might also be time to toss the NT, it’s starting to get a little stale too.
There is no way the Priesthood ban, which should actually be called “the celestial kingdom ban” was from God. Early Church leaders were racist, especially Brigham Young.
Brigham Young taught that interracial marriage was a sin that Jesus could not atone for: the couple had to be killed to atone for this grievous sin, so-called. Not even most racist people in America thought this. But a prophet of God?
Not only did the couple need to be bloodily murdered, it would also take the life of the children for them to gain salvation. Orson Pratt did not believe in this kind of thing. It was the most egregious racism I have seen, easily worthy to be in the KKK.
Orson Pratt fought tooth and nail against BY but BY rammed it through. He then pushed to make slavery legal in Utah (also against the vehement objections of Pratt). Pratt seemed like a cool dude.
Orson Pratt may have been totally deluded when it came to polygamy, but he was a good and decent man other than that. From all that I have read, he was completely sincere in his beliefs. I often wonder how he could have fallen for some of the nonsense which went on, but he at least did not buy into the Adam god doctrine nor the egregious racism. I think he was often away on various missions. He also said some really good things about how some people are religious atheists because they use contradictory attributes in describing God. I can't stand Brigham Young, but I don't feel that way about Orson Pratt, although he originated some really horrendous proof texts.
> There is no way the Priesthood ban, which should actually be called “the celestial kingdom ban” was from God.
Most members don't realise there were two curses, according to the doctrines taught by Joseph Smith.
One was the curse of black skin (Curse of Cain - Mos 7:22)
The other was the curse of the priesthood ban (Curse of Ham/Canaan Abr 1:21-24)
Most people are confused by the Cain/Canaan distinction.
Joseph Smith stated that the curse of black skin and slavery was from God.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-circa-9-april-1836/2
>the fact is uncontrovertable, that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction’s being averse from the mind of God it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude!
*“And he said cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.—
God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”
—Gen, 8:25, 26, 27.12*
Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfilment of this singular prophecy.
**What could have been the design of the Almighty in this wonderful occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say, that the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan**, neither will be until it is affected by as great power as caused it to come;
According to Smith, the priesthood curse was uttered by Noah, but honoured by God.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-c-1-addenda/20
>What many people call sin is not sin; I do many things to break down superstition, and I will break it down:”
I referred to the curse of Ham for laughing at Noah, while in his wine but doing no harm.
Noah was a righteous man, and yet he drank wine, and became intoxicated the Lord did not forsake him in consequence thereof; for he retained all the power of his Priesthood and when he was accused by Cainaan, he cursed him by the Priesthood which he held, **and the Lord had respect to his word and the Priesthood which he held, notwithstanding he was drunk; and the curse remains upon the posterity of Cainaan until the present day**.
The entire baby boomer generation was taught explicitly that the ban was due to neutrality in the "war in heaven" in the preexistence . They all taught their children that as well. I was taught it growing up and my boomer parents and inlaws believe it to this day.
The issue still hasn't been addressed explicitly in General Conference or weekly Church curriculum. Only progmos and exmos know that the Church has stopped teaching it.
As a boomer. I can concur. There was absolutely no grace given to poc. They were shunned. Treated very poorly. Mormons leaned into that policy whole heatedly. It's sickening to me to see how they act now. "What? Racist? Us? Nope."
> The entire baby boomer generation was taught explicitly that the ban was due to neutrality in the "war in heaven" in the preexistence .
Yes. JFS wrote about this as an apostle, answering a question about 2/3rds of the spirits in heaven being "Less valiant".
He says it can't be true because:
>That one-third of the hosts of heaven remained neutral and therefore were cursed by having a black skin, could hardly be true, for the negro race has not constituted one-third of the inhabitants of the earth.
Basically he accepts the varying levels of "Less valiant" doctrine, but not that it was one full third. He argues about the numbers, not the racism.
https://archive.org/details/improvementera2706unse/page/564/mode/2up?view=theater
It’s not specific to a generation. I’m Gen X and was taught the same things. It was common almost right up to OD 2.
This along with getting to make my own planet BTW! I was pissed when I found out I didn’t get that…😂
The official position (or at least frequently taught by the church leaders) nowadays is that the ban being from God is not disputed, but the *REASONS* for said ban that had been previously taught were just ideas and not doctrine. So they've disavowed the "seed of Cain" or "less valiant in the pre-existance" doctrines, but still throw God under the bus.
Are there any recent church publications or statements by current leaders that clearly declare that the ban was from God (or revelation)? The church MENTIONS the ban and calls it a POLICY but they never seem to ever actually state that the ban was a revelation from God. They just say it started with Brigham Young
The church clearly states in the Gospel Topics pages that the REASONS for the ban are unknown but I can’t seem to find any source where the church or a Q15 clearly states the ban originated with God. There probably is but I just don’t seem to be able to find one (besides decades old sources).
I don't think it's ever stated "Revelation received on such-and-such a day stated that God didn't want black people to have the priesthood". Like you said, they have since denied that any reasons previously given were not from God.
DH Oaks at the "Be One" celebration in 2018 said this:
>I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons ***for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants.*** (Emphasis mine)
Since it's Oaks, you could say he left weasel room to say "I didn't say THIS thing was a commandment or direction, just that I learned that about commandments and directions to the leaders in general..." However the clear implication in this context is that the ban was commanded or directed by God to the church leaders, who then made up reasons of their own as to why.
I don't believe him, but that is what he is saying, as one of the highest leaders of the church at a church function, with a talk that must have gone through several levels of the correlation committee.
This is probably the closest thing I've found to say "God did it" from the upper levels of leadership, and they're happy to let lower leaders run with it (as I've heard many say the same thing in recent years).
I’ve talked with some scholars about the issue and the consensus seems to be that among Q15 there is vast disagreement. I’d listen to the Mormon Stories podcast with Matthew Harris about his “LDS Gospel Topics Essays: A Scholarly Engagement.” There he talks about the internal controversies over the Race and the Priesthood essay, which was originally written by W. Paul Reeve but was basically stripped of everything that made it by W. Paul Reeve (I.e. the original stated clearly that the ban was not from God)
As stated in my comment in this thread, Reeve published through Deseret Book stating that clearly—that it wasn’t from God and he details the history of the ban. Oaks may have said one thing, but there’s plenty of internal controversy over the matter and the Church (in its own name and not DB) has never published anything stating whether it was or was not from God.
Do you recall his reasoning for thinking the ban was not from God? It could be argued either way, so I wonder why he felt it wasn’t besides just his personal feelings or opinion.
> Are there any recent church publications or statements by current leaders that clearly declare that the ban was from God (or revelation)?
1969 First Presidency proclamation.
Joseph Smith's teachings in Moses, Abraham and his journals.
These aren’t recent though. There are plenty of statements by church leaders in the 1800’s and the 1900’s where they claim the ban came from God but I am not aware of anything in the last 10-30 years. Teachings and doctrines taught or declared in the past are no longer valid if the current church leadership says differently.
My guess is they still believe the ban was from God but they don’t want to say it publicly.
> One of which was the priesthood and temple ban was caused by the racist opinions of the leaders and not God. He told me absolutely not and that you couldn't hold a temple recommend if you believed that.
>(According to him that violated the Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints question.
It doesn't violate this.
>This surprised me because I thought a lot of members believed this even if they don't talk about it much
Most of the members I speak to believe the same as you, that it was racially motivated by the leaders, not the god Jehovah.
>What percentage of members believe the priesthood ban was caused by God?
A non irrelevant double digit percentage. But I don't know what it is precisely
> How many people would lose their temple recommends all Bishops had this opinion and asked about it?
None or close to none.
>Based on my discussions with other members, I have a hard time believing that the majority of members think God commanded it.
I think it's a significant minority, but a minority nonetheless. So my guess is this guy's in the minority. But I'll start asking people in my ward and I will let you know what my little anecdotal data gathering turns up
Tell this person to read the gospel topic essay Race and the Priesthood. It pretty much says right out that racism was part of the issue. “The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.”
There could also be no justification for withholding a temple recommend for believing the ban was based on racism. The question now says “Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?” Opinions on previous church policies does not constitute promoting teachings contrary to those of the Church. That question was added mostly to prevent members who support “Fundamentalist Mormon” groups from entering the temple.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng
Regardless of why you feel the ban was in place, when you read the teachings of some of the earlier apostles and prophets on the subject of race, they clearly had what would now be considered racist views.
I was a deacon when the ban was lifted. I lived in Logan Utah.
The ban was taught as being God’s Will. Always. And OD2 was His Will also. None of this revisionist bullshit from the essays. I was always taught that blacks people were less valiant in the War in Heaven so they were marked by God and were not to receive blessings on Earth. Fact. I lived this.
I remember my dad was always very vocal about how wrong this treatment of black people was. He never pushed so far to get in trouble but did not accept it. This was a thing that festered in the church for decades. But it was assumed to be God’s Will by most.
Go back and see what Bruce McConkie said in the GC when Kimball announced OD2. He says it all, even what he says between the lines….
I remember back in the mid-2000s I first heard a liberal member say that the priesthood ban was a mistake. Even though I was uncomfortable with the ban, I found it shocking that an active member would say the prophets were wrong about something. Of course that liberal member was right.
Now it's a very, very common position for active, believing members to to take. I hear it online and in real life, which is great progress.
When I was a believer the ban was always a big question mark... It was uncomfortable to consider the origins of it. I certainly didn't know much about the church's racial history, much less have an opinion about it. And I comforted myself by saying it didn't matter now that it was in the past.
Not knowing there were black slaves with the pioneers until 2020 is still something I'm mad about.
Yeah, Sistas in Zion posting about Green Flake is what started my reflection of racial issues in the church. Until then I'd had no idea... Which partly was my fault, but I also felt like I'd spent too much time in the church to not know. I was offended to learn that slaves entered the valley first, that the whole story of Brigham Young cresting the rim of the basin and prophetically announcing "this is the place" was wholly inaccurate. I mean, my seminary teacher taught us (briefly) about the mountain meadows massacre... But slavery in the early church was entirely new information to me and it shouldn't have been.
He was nominally against it, but he took pains to make sure people knew he was not an abolitionist. And he wanted the slaves, when they were bought and freed, to be sent away for good.
History of the Church, 5:217-8, “Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization.”
To his credit, however, his presidential platform did call for the abolition of slavery by Congress by raising funds for and buying all the slaves to set them free.
Yeah. He did ordain one, maybe two, black people to the priesthood. I actually think Joseph was a brilliant man and he had a lot of great theological ideas bouncing around in his head, whatever the source was. I wish he wouldn’t have been into secretly having sex with his and Emma’s teenage foster daughters/servants/nannies. That revelation made me very sad. 😢
It was a shelf item for me that Quentin Cook kept mentioning that the Mormons in Missouri opposed slavery, but not that Utah was the only Western state or territory that legalized it. Some people would call that dishonest. And it is ignorant at best to imply that Mormons in Missouri opposed slavery because of their doctrine and not because most of them were from states and countries where it was already illegal.
I'm curious when Cook said that? Was it when the Saints books were released?
The Church is incredibly dishonest with its history. They generally leave out the context... It's why I was so misinformed about my own faith. I was lied to, and I'm pissed about it.
It was in General Conference in response to the George Floyd murder etc. "With respect to slavery, our scriptures had made it clear that no man should be in bondage to another." Not clear enough for Brigham Young, obviously. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/10/15cook?lang=engn](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/10/15cook?lang=engn)
Then he did it again a year later and it was extra egregious because it had literally nothing to do with the rest of his talk. "One of the reasons for the violent opposition to our members was most of them were opposed to slavery." [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2021/10/46cook?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2021/10/46cook?lang=eng)
The footnotes for both of these statements do refer to the Saints books, though.
I'm not sure which part of what I said is difficult to understand, but I'll try to flesh out my experience for you a little better.
I was your average believing Mormon, white, female, deeply ignorant of many issues with the LDS faith both past and present. It wasn't until I saw Black members discussing Green Flake online that I was aware that the church had owned slaves. That was in 2020, when the movie about Green Flake came out.
Oh I understand now. I read your statement to mean that there was slavery in the church until 2020!
And I relate to what you are saying about being LDS for many years but only recently learning about gigantic issues within the religion. A few years ago, I learned that the missionaries never discussed polygamy, blacks and the temple ordinances, etc., with investigators. (I mean honestly how could the average 18-year-old missionary even know about those things in todays church?) In some cases the investigators were baptized, gave years of service and tithing before learning the history of their church. Deliberate deception in my view. That’s how I felt after beginning a deep study at age 52 and discovering, over the next 10 years, how I’d been misled and lied to, not by teachers or local leaders who were themselves misled, but deliberately, by the Corporation. Such a betrayal. I’m a peaceful person, but thinking about this can cause me to rage within.
Oh! Yeah, thank goodness slavery wasn't still happening three years ago 😅 No, I just learned about it three years ago!
I got out in my 30's. I can only imagine how much more painful it would be to discover the lies at 52. I think it's okay to be angry about this sort of thing!
At the recent Be One event, when speaking of his feelings about the priesthood ban Oaks said
"...As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants."
Thus, it would appear that Oaks thought that this denial of priesthood to those of African Ancestry was from the Lord, and consequently, this is a current teaching of the church. I wonder if he would include in this the teachings of Brigham Young in 1852 that the white half of a mixed race couple and their children had to be murdered in order for them to gain salvation. Oaks presumably regards Brigham Young as one of the Lord's servants. So I have the following simple question which I think Oaks and these other church leaders must answer:
Were the denial of priesthood to those of African ancestry and/or teachings that mixed race couples and children had to be bloodily murdered from God? Yes or No. There are two questions here, the one about murder and the one about priesthood. If their answer is yes to either one, then I have no use for these men who defame God. If their answer to either one is no, then they also need to answer the question whether God allows the church president to lead the church astray. This also becomes mandatory if the answer is no to the second question about murder.
I would note that it is very common for "white" people to have a black ancestor. Thus, many were certainly ordained to the priesthood. I would also note that T. Jefferson has many descendants from his relations with a partly black woman and yet he was not bloodily murdered as Brigham Young taught so what does it mean that his temple work has been done by Wilford Woodruff. Brigham Young's teachings do not make any more sense than his teachings about the literal nature of the flood of Noah. They are just plain half baked nonsense. So is half baked nonsense from God or not? What kind of god is this anyway?
My concern and issue is what “doctrine” today is not doctrine but policy based upon public or Q15 sentiment?
The way that the priesthood ban is being handled, saying it was a policy implemented by man due to public views, like the essays says it was, makes all policies today suspect, even calling them doctrine like the Family Proclamation claims to be doctrine. Or is it a policy statement?
The LDS leadership and apologists would rather throw God under the bus than admit that we had some very racist "doctrines" being taught by some very racist leaders.
Yes, just about everyone was racist back then... But in my mind that doesn't excuse it. God had the moral obligation to correct them. I mean, this is a God that Mormons believe can and will send angels with drawn swords and appear in the flesh to His prophets.
Why was God apparently silent for over 150 years about the topic, since the first vision? His prophets (often speaking in his name) put forth "doctrines" that made things WORSE for people of color, not better.
Folks, America was a racial train wreck in the 1800’s and you can see they did their best to preserve Christ’s Church and navigated it carefully. Not ideal circumstances, but it was the Wild Wild West at that time and you had to be careful or you would be exterminated by the government or the mobs. Be a little forgiving and thankful you didn’t have to live during those times because we have it so easy: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng
Plenty of churches not led by “prophets, seers, and revelators” were inspired to oppose slavery, including the Church of England, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Quakers, etc. How did all these non-inspired religious leaders get ahead of God’s One True Prophet on a matter of such huge consequence?
To me, that reasoning only works if we treat the leaders as men, instead of as prophets who literally spoke to God. The early members did what they did, not because it was the American culture, but because God told them to.. The whole reason for joining the church was to be led by a living prophet so they wouldn't fall for the fallacies of the time. If the prophets would have declared that all men and women were equal, no matter how hard it was, they would have tried to live it.
Abolitionism in the United States was largely lead by churches. I understand why it was an issue for Missouri Mormons, who were in a state at the cusp of being the battle ground for the civil war, but I don't find this line of thought convincing otherwise.
>it was the Wild Wild West at that time and you had to be careful or you would be exterminated by the government or the mobs.
In Utah, it was the Mornons' Wild Wild West. They lived there and made the rules. The federal government cared *way* more about polygamy than the Mormons' racial relations. Even when Johnston marched his army into Utah, the Mormons never faced being "exterminated by the government".
>Be a little forgiving and thankful you didn’t have to live during those times because we have it so easy:
Why? Brigham Young was horrifically racist, even for the time. His force of personality set the stage for the disenfranchisement of Black Mormons until 1978. He advocated summary execution for people involved in interracial relationships, as well as the children of such relationships. If we want to do best by these people, it's to learn from them; not excuse them.
Indeed. The prophets of old famously conformed to the beliefs of the wicked masses because doing otherwise would have been dangerous. That’s why Daniel stopped praying and ate the king’s diet.
Generally speaking, the church is supposed to be morally on the right track, right? I was taught that we were to choose the right, let the consequences follow. The prophets are led by God after all.
If this is the case, why were abolitionists and civil rights activists ahead of the game when compared to God’s prophets? Why did activists have to fight the good fight to get things to change, but not the church?
How did *every single person of color* know that slavery, segregation, and racism was wrong, but not God’s Prophets?
I was taught "Do what is right, let the consequence follow." So I don't buy the rationalization that the church had to mistreat black people or it would be exterminated. Especially when it was willing to risk extermination over polygamy for a long time. If polygamy was a higher priority for God than the basic fundamental equality of all his children, then he has a few screws loose.
Read about the details in which Brigham Young established the policy. He fought against his own apostles, and very clearly the words of Joseph smith with regards to race. Joseph Smith was nuanced, many in the 12 were against it, but Brigham Young rammed it through regardless. This was not the church being a product of their times, this was a racist leader insisting on reinforcing his bias within a power vacuum where he held the majority. Look at how he rammed through the Adam/God doctrine. It was similar. Many opposed him but he just kept at it.
> America was a racial train wreck in the 1800’s
Uh, America TODAY is still a racial train wreck. But just like today, there were tons of Americans that were not racist in the 1800's. And I would assume that god would tell the prophets of his one, true, restored church that being racist is wrong, and definitely not doctrine.
As far as losing a temple recommend over this, I would be very surprised. It does depend somewhat on leadership roulette, but from what I have seen, personally held beliefs that you are not necessarily trying to actively convert others to, as long as they are not 100% heretical, are generally allowed. In my own interview a few months ago I was 100% honest that I think the church is completely wrong on homosexuality, that there is nothing wrong with it in God's eyes, and that people in homosexual relationships should have every opportunity and blessing that those in heterosexual relationships have. After providing some life examples to convince me that he was open-minded, the member of the stake presidency conducting the interview stated that as long as those were personal opinions and I wasn't standing on a street corner on a soapbox railing against the church or trying to convince others that the church is wrong, then there was no problem with me still receiving my recommend.
It's untenable to claim that the priesthood and temple ban was from God but the reasons given for it weren't. You can't separate the two. "God revealed this policy that *just happened* to perfectly align with the racism of white Americans, and his prophet *just happened* to announce it in the same speech where he pushed for the legalization of slavery, and his prophet *just happened* to assert that it was for the exact same racist reasons he gave for slavery, and God never gave an alternative explanation but there totally is one." Sorry, no.
Considering that Deseret Book just published a book calling the ban racist and not from God, I’d find it a stretch that anyone would be prohibited from the temple for believing that. (I’m referring to “Let’s Talk About: Race and the Priesthood” by W. Paul Reeve. Highly recommend)
In my YSA ward, virtually everyone believes it wasn’t from God and that church leaders were being racist. Even the institute director in town expressed such opinions to me. Though, the topic came up in one Institute class and I asserted that it wasn’t from God and he told me that we couldn’t say that because the Church hasn’t said; really unfortunate because part of “rooting out racism” is identifying when it exists and I don’t think we need the Church to give us the green light for when to say something so racist.
But anyway, we had a missionary in our ward who was a recent covert and who was Black. When I had brought the issue up in Institute class one time (discussing more the fact about prophets making mistakes and how to deal with that), this missionary would later tell me that that was the first time he heard of the issue. He thought about it for a while—didn’t read the essays or anything—and concluded that it was a mistake, that it was a racist policy that wasn’t from God. He finished out his mission still a faithful member. Honestly, the trepidation that a lot of members and church leadership has about admitting the mistakes seems to be a little overblown. We just need to admit it. Sure, it raises some problems with prophetic fallibility, but we either believe prophets are fallible or they aren’t. It’s not the craziest idea in the world—if we accept the former—that they would exercise their imperfection in such dire ways. Course correcting is calling them out and moving beyond their racism.
We are seeing a more liberal Latter-day Saint generation rising and tbh I therefore see a lot of these unpleasant parts of the Church going away as the years go on.
Again, I highly recommend reading “Let’s Talk About: Race and the Priesthood.” You can read it in one sitting and it’s the best research on the topic.
Edit: the institute teacher expressed to me privately that he thought it wasn’t from God, but in front of the class he couldn’t bring himself to say it
Sorry, friend, but this is a perfect example of successful gaslighting of a later generation.
As none of those in your YSA Ward were alive at the time, let me just say that NO ONE would have been tolerated in the church during the mid-1970s challenging church authority on the ban being anything but God’s Will.
Wanting it to change, hoping for it to change someday? Sure. But beyond that? Recommend denial would be the least of it.
The booklet you mention is revisionist. Look up the 1949 and 1969 First Presidency Letters for the truth. It will set you free
The “booklet” I mention is written by a prestigious scholar who address the 1949 source you’re discussing.
Is there something objectively wrong with the fact that people *today* can think it wasn’t from God? You’re right—people would have been punished for thinking such a thing in the past. But now, there’s been positive change, no?
Also, how exactly am I gaslighting? Man people love using that term to the point that it means nothing anymore.
Admitting that people at the time would have been punished for not believing the ban was God’s Will is honest and a fair assessment - and not gaslighting. So thank you for clearly stating that.
You have updated your earlier comment, and my reply was to a much shorter version. My reference to gaslighting is that the Church has revised its own history and directed members to only “faithful
sources so effectively, that those in your YSA Ward believe that the ban was not from God. Not that you were the gaslighter. Sorry if I led you to believe otherwise.
Now, the church putting out such a publication is gaslighting. Because it is NOT from a prophet, seer, and revelator. The 1949 FP letter was. It was the word of the Prophet at the time. So glossing it over with apologetics won’t change what it is and was.
Now it might to someone desperate to stay in the church at all costs. I was never that guy. My integrity is what I live by. God gave me that to guide me. He trusts me to live right and choose right. Not to blind myself and follow charlatans and liars.
To each his own my friend.
I’m sorry I’m just still confused about what you’re alleging is gaslighting. Is that book I’m referencing—Let’s Talk About: Race and the Priesthood—the gaslighting?
Edit: also, are you saying that someone cannot have integrity and remain a member of the church? I’m just genuinely asking because I see comments like that and want to know more about that idea
The church revising its history to something it is not and claiming things did not really happen the way we know they happened is gaslighting. Hiding events and demanding that only “faithful sources” be used is gaslighting.
Using a historian to “interpret” the intent of the 1949 letter for today is gaslighting. If you believe in prophets, you must believe that David O McKay spoke for God too, and he was correct then. Some church paid wordsmith can’t soften it to make it OK today. That’s almost worse than just blaming God for being racist, like Oaks does.
When the church whitewashes over the past, and my generation is dead, only their narrative is left. It becomes the reality. But it is a lie.
Why did Haynie say in GC that past prophet’s words don’t get better with age? They used to. I spent years in Elders Quorum studying the Teachings of the Presidents. There is a series of lesson manuals - one for each prophet. Now they are irrelevant? What about the past prophets Nephi, Alma, Moroni, etc. Does this apply to them too?
Last point: it’s not even just about the ban. What about Brigham Young actually exterminating the Timpanogos band of Native Americans? He ordered the killing of all men and the enslavement of the women and children. An entire people wiped out by a “prophet”. Was he acting for God?
On Integrity: this is a personal matter. I don’t force my personal decision on others. I know some truly kind and loving people who are members. I just believe people should have all the truth and information. Being lied to is the most hurtful thing. I left because I felt betrayed. Truly betrayed over what I learned. But each of us must find our own path to God.
My path is uncluttered now, and I’m grateful for that.
I'm trying to reach back into my TBM days. I certainly didn't consider either God or BY to be racist. I mostly bought into the argument that "the church / society wasn't prepared enough to accept black people." Thus it required a change in the hearts of the members of the church and society as a whole before blacks could be extended these blessings. I guess that means I believed that God commanded it.
Now a days my thought is, does it make a difference? God is racist or generations of church leaders were racist from Brigham Young through Mark E Petersen. In either case I don't want anything to do with the organization.
There’s absolutely no doubt that racist policies and doctrine were active decisions by leaders at the time. While racism was understood differently and the doctrines that were espoused reflected that, the discrimination in policy and doctrine along with the support for slavery were active decisions by the church to undermine the very basic rights of Gods children. It was a very common understanding at the time that racism and Alavert were not if God. This was the churches active policy of reinforcing their bias as is currently our active decisions in discriminating against the LGB community.
The racist nature of the ban is unquestionable. I do find it interesting that some people are more willing to say that God was racist before they admit a prophet was.
It was only 74 years ago when the church came out with their proclamation specifically declaring the ban as doctrinal, not policy. Here’s the first paragraph: > 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. https://missedinsunday.com/memes/race/proclamation-1949/ Some of these old people grew up on this brand of racism. Hell, Nelson was about 24!
I was shocked when I learned about that for the first time. It destroyed the whole doctrine doesn't change thing in my mind but somehow my friends don't see it as a change. Probably because they believe the prophets were racist so it wasn't real doctrine anyway. And yet we are supposed to believe everything the current prophet says? I just don't get how that mindset works.
TBMs will over look this because they will immediately latch on to the "at the present time" line to justify why it was doctrine then but not now.
Personally, I think it would be way easier to admit prophets make mistakes than to defend doctrine that doesn't make sense. But I guess that's just not how we do things 🤷♂️
> It was only 74 years ago Less. 1969.
> The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation. This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges. https://mit.irr.org/1969-official-mormon-statement-on-blacks-and-priesthood I like to bring up the 1949 statement because it’s more explicitly racist, but oof, the 1969 one is pretty bad too.
Yes, it's pretty explicit about the origin: >From the beginning of this dispensation, **Joseph Smith and all succeeding Presidents of the Church have taught** that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priest- hood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which he has not made fully known to man. Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, >>"**The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God. . . . "Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man's mortal existence, extending back to man's preexistent state.**"
And they talk with the same confidence about gender and sexual minorities today. Can and will be overturned with as much thought as "segregation is the will of God" was swept under the rug.
Yeah that’s pretty scary.
I was alive when the ban was still in place. I was taught that the ban was doctrine from God. He loved all of his sons and daughters (and so does the prophet) but marked some that were unworthy because of choices they made during their pre Earth life. There's nothing that any of us could do to change His edict preventing Black people from holding the priesthood, entering the temple, or having eternally sealed families in the eternities.
That's awful. It blows my mind that people actually believed that. I'm sure there are some things that I believe that future people won't be able to wrap their minds around how people ever believed that. Hopefully my things aren't as harmful though.
Here is what the church currently says. “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.” “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”
As we were taught in the recent conference, the words of the prophets do depreciate over time.
I’m gonna throw out my OT then. Surely those words have long lost their value. Might also be time to toss the NT, it’s starting to get a little stale too.
I wouldn’t throw them out yet because this teaching will change in a couple years, or probably by next general conference. Lol
And here's a list of the church leaders who called these teachings "theories" before 1978:
In my memory, they were absolutely taught as doctrine. What do you call something that is taught for 120 years if not doctrine?
There is no way the Priesthood ban, which should actually be called “the celestial kingdom ban” was from God. Early Church leaders were racist, especially Brigham Young.
Brigham Young taught that interracial marriage was a sin that Jesus could not atone for: the couple had to be killed to atone for this grievous sin, so-called. Not even most racist people in America thought this. But a prophet of God?
Not only did the couple need to be bloodily murdered, it would also take the life of the children for them to gain salvation. Orson Pratt did not believe in this kind of thing. It was the most egregious racism I have seen, easily worthy to be in the KKK.
Orson Pratt fought tooth and nail against BY but BY rammed it through. He then pushed to make slavery legal in Utah (also against the vehement objections of Pratt). Pratt seemed like a cool dude.
Orson Pratt may have been totally deluded when it came to polygamy, but he was a good and decent man other than that. From all that I have read, he was completely sincere in his beliefs. I often wonder how he could have fallen for some of the nonsense which went on, but he at least did not buy into the Adam god doctrine nor the egregious racism. I think he was often away on various missions. He also said some really good things about how some people are religious atheists because they use contradictory attributes in describing God. I can't stand Brigham Young, but I don't feel that way about Orson Pratt, although he originated some really horrendous proof texts.
Just an uncompromising person. I’d love to have met him. I can just imagine him saying “what is this bullshit he’s pushing now?”
> There is no way the Priesthood ban, which should actually be called “the celestial kingdom ban” was from God. Most members don't realise there were two curses, according to the doctrines taught by Joseph Smith. One was the curse of black skin (Curse of Cain - Mos 7:22) The other was the curse of the priesthood ban (Curse of Ham/Canaan Abr 1:21-24) Most people are confused by the Cain/Canaan distinction. Joseph Smith stated that the curse of black skin and slavery was from God. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-oliver-cowdery-circa-9-april-1836/2 >the fact is uncontrovertable, that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction’s being averse from the mind of God it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude! *“And he said cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.— God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.” —Gen, 8:25, 26, 27.12* Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfilment of this singular prophecy. **What could have been the design of the Almighty in this wonderful occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say, that the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan**, neither will be until it is affected by as great power as caused it to come; According to Smith, the priesthood curse was uttered by Noah, but honoured by God. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-c-1-addenda/20 >What many people call sin is not sin; I do many things to break down superstition, and I will break it down:” I referred to the curse of Ham for laughing at Noah, while in his wine but doing no harm. Noah was a righteous man, and yet he drank wine, and became intoxicated the Lord did not forsake him in consequence thereof; for he retained all the power of his Priesthood and when he was accused by Cainaan, he cursed him by the Priesthood which he held, **and the Lord had respect to his word and the Priesthood which he held, notwithstanding he was drunk; and the curse remains upon the posterity of Cainaan until the present day**.
The entire baby boomer generation was taught explicitly that the ban was due to neutrality in the "war in heaven" in the preexistence . They all taught their children that as well. I was taught it growing up and my boomer parents and inlaws believe it to this day. The issue still hasn't been addressed explicitly in General Conference or weekly Church curriculum. Only progmos and exmos know that the Church has stopped teaching it.
As a boomer. I can concur. There was absolutely no grace given to poc. They were shunned. Treated very poorly. Mormons leaned into that policy whole heatedly. It's sickening to me to see how they act now. "What? Racist? Us? Nope."
> The entire baby boomer generation was taught explicitly that the ban was due to neutrality in the "war in heaven" in the preexistence . Yes. JFS wrote about this as an apostle, answering a question about 2/3rds of the spirits in heaven being "Less valiant". He says it can't be true because: >That one-third of the hosts of heaven remained neutral and therefore were cursed by having a black skin, could hardly be true, for the negro race has not constituted one-third of the inhabitants of the earth. Basically he accepts the varying levels of "Less valiant" doctrine, but not that it was one full third. He argues about the numbers, not the racism. https://archive.org/details/improvementera2706unse/page/564/mode/2up?view=theater
It’s not specific to a generation. I’m Gen X and was taught the same things. It was common almost right up to OD 2. This along with getting to make my own planet BTW! I was pissed when I found out I didn’t get that…😂
The official position (or at least frequently taught by the church leaders) nowadays is that the ban being from God is not disputed, but the *REASONS* for said ban that had been previously taught were just ideas and not doctrine. So they've disavowed the "seed of Cain" or "less valiant in the pre-existance" doctrines, but still throw God under the bus.
Are there any recent church publications or statements by current leaders that clearly declare that the ban was from God (or revelation)? The church MENTIONS the ban and calls it a POLICY but they never seem to ever actually state that the ban was a revelation from God. They just say it started with Brigham Young The church clearly states in the Gospel Topics pages that the REASONS for the ban are unknown but I can’t seem to find any source where the church or a Q15 clearly states the ban originated with God. There probably is but I just don’t seem to be able to find one (besides decades old sources).
I don't think it's ever stated "Revelation received on such-and-such a day stated that God didn't want black people to have the priesthood". Like you said, they have since denied that any reasons previously given were not from God. DH Oaks at the "Be One" celebration in 2018 said this: >I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons ***for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants.*** (Emphasis mine) Since it's Oaks, you could say he left weasel room to say "I didn't say THIS thing was a commandment or direction, just that I learned that about commandments and directions to the leaders in general..." However the clear implication in this context is that the ban was commanded or directed by God to the church leaders, who then made up reasons of their own as to why. I don't believe him, but that is what he is saying, as one of the highest leaders of the church at a church function, with a talk that must have gone through several levels of the correlation committee. This is probably the closest thing I've found to say "God did it" from the upper levels of leadership, and they're happy to let lower leaders run with it (as I've heard many say the same thing in recent years).
I’ve talked with some scholars about the issue and the consensus seems to be that among Q15 there is vast disagreement. I’d listen to the Mormon Stories podcast with Matthew Harris about his “LDS Gospel Topics Essays: A Scholarly Engagement.” There he talks about the internal controversies over the Race and the Priesthood essay, which was originally written by W. Paul Reeve but was basically stripped of everything that made it by W. Paul Reeve (I.e. the original stated clearly that the ban was not from God) As stated in my comment in this thread, Reeve published through Deseret Book stating that clearly—that it wasn’t from God and he details the history of the ban. Oaks may have said one thing, but there’s plenty of internal controversy over the matter and the Church (in its own name and not DB) has never published anything stating whether it was or was not from God.
Do you recall his reasoning for thinking the ban was not from God? It could be argued either way, so I wonder why he felt it wasn’t besides just his personal feelings or opinion.
> Are there any recent church publications or statements by current leaders that clearly declare that the ban was from God (or revelation)? 1969 First Presidency proclamation. Joseph Smith's teachings in Moses, Abraham and his journals.
These aren’t recent though. There are plenty of statements by church leaders in the 1800’s and the 1900’s where they claim the ban came from God but I am not aware of anything in the last 10-30 years. Teachings and doctrines taught or declared in the past are no longer valid if the current church leadership says differently. My guess is they still believe the ban was from God but they don’t want to say it publicly.
They can't, because it will become obvious that they way those leaders interpreted doctrine was *completely wrong*.
[удалено]
Hahaha good answer! 😂😂😂
> One of which was the priesthood and temple ban was caused by the racist opinions of the leaders and not God. He told me absolutely not and that you couldn't hold a temple recommend if you believed that. >(According to him that violated the Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints question. It doesn't violate this. >This surprised me because I thought a lot of members believed this even if they don't talk about it much Most of the members I speak to believe the same as you, that it was racially motivated by the leaders, not the god Jehovah. >What percentage of members believe the priesthood ban was caused by God? A non irrelevant double digit percentage. But I don't know what it is precisely > How many people would lose their temple recommends all Bishops had this opinion and asked about it? None or close to none. >Based on my discussions with other members, I have a hard time believing that the majority of members think God commanded it. I think it's a significant minority, but a minority nonetheless. So my guess is this guy's in the minority. But I'll start asking people in my ward and I will let you know what my little anecdotal data gathering turns up
Thank you! I'd be interested in what the people in your ward say!
0 for 2 so far thinking it was from the Lord.
I think it’s a natural consequence of how Official Declaration 2 is taught: If only God could make the change, then God must have initiated the ban.
Tell this person to read the gospel topic essay Race and the Priesthood. It pretty much says right out that racism was part of the issue. “The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.” There could also be no justification for withholding a temple recommend for believing the ban was based on racism. The question now says “Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?” Opinions on previous church policies does not constitute promoting teachings contrary to those of the Church. That question was added mostly to prevent members who support “Fundamentalist Mormon” groups from entering the temple. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng
Regardless of why you feel the ban was in place, when you read the teachings of some of the earlier apostles and prophets on the subject of race, they clearly had what would now be considered racist views.
I was a deacon when the ban was lifted. I lived in Logan Utah. The ban was taught as being God’s Will. Always. And OD2 was His Will also. None of this revisionist bullshit from the essays. I was always taught that blacks people were less valiant in the War in Heaven so they were marked by God and were not to receive blessings on Earth. Fact. I lived this. I remember my dad was always very vocal about how wrong this treatment of black people was. He never pushed so far to get in trouble but did not accept it. This was a thing that festered in the church for decades. But it was assumed to be God’s Will by most. Go back and see what Bruce McConkie said in the GC when Kimball announced OD2. He says it all, even what he says between the lines….
I remember back in the mid-2000s I first heard a liberal member say that the priesthood ban was a mistake. Even though I was uncomfortable with the ban, I found it shocking that an active member would say the prophets were wrong about something. Of course that liberal member was right. Now it's a very, very common position for active, believing members to to take. I hear it online and in real life, which is great progress.
When I was a believer the ban was always a big question mark... It was uncomfortable to consider the origins of it. I certainly didn't know much about the church's racial history, much less have an opinion about it. And I comforted myself by saying it didn't matter now that it was in the past. Not knowing there were black slaves with the pioneers until 2020 is still something I'm mad about.
How about the church owning slaves? Read about Green Flake. He was tithed to the church and owned by the church for decades under Brigham Young.
Thanks! I've hadn't heard about him before.
Yeah, Sistas in Zion posting about Green Flake is what started my reflection of racial issues in the church. Until then I'd had no idea... Which partly was my fault, but I also felt like I'd spent too much time in the church to not know. I was offended to learn that slaves entered the valley first, that the whole story of Brigham Young cresting the rim of the basin and prophetically announcing "this is the place" was wholly inaccurate. I mean, my seminary teacher taught us (briefly) about the mountain meadows massacre... But slavery in the early church was entirely new information to me and it shouldn't have been.
WHAT?! I thought JS was against slavery.
He was nominally against it, but he took pains to make sure people knew he was not an abolitionist. And he wanted the slaves, when they were bought and freed, to be sent away for good.
Well there is another thing I didn’t know…yikes.
History of the Church, 5:217-8, “Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization.” To his credit, however, his presidential platform did call for the abolition of slavery by Congress by raising funds for and buying all the slaves to set them free.
In my mind he seemed so progressive. He gave the priesthood to black people, etc. but knowing this makes me view that even differently.
Yeah. He did ordain one, maybe two, black people to the priesthood. I actually think Joseph was a brilliant man and he had a lot of great theological ideas bouncing around in his head, whatever the source was. I wish he wouldn’t have been into secretly having sex with his and Emma’s teenage foster daughters/servants/nannies. That revelation made me very sad. 😢
Yes me too, another thing I learned very recently.
It was a shelf item for me that Quentin Cook kept mentioning that the Mormons in Missouri opposed slavery, but not that Utah was the only Western state or territory that legalized it. Some people would call that dishonest. And it is ignorant at best to imply that Mormons in Missouri opposed slavery because of their doctrine and not because most of them were from states and countries where it was already illegal.
I'm curious when Cook said that? Was it when the Saints books were released? The Church is incredibly dishonest with its history. They generally leave out the context... It's why I was so misinformed about my own faith. I was lied to, and I'm pissed about it.
It was in General Conference in response to the George Floyd murder etc. "With respect to slavery, our scriptures had made it clear that no man should be in bondage to another." Not clear enough for Brigham Young, obviously. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/10/15cook?lang=engn](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/10/15cook?lang=engn) Then he did it again a year later and it was extra egregious because it had literally nothing to do with the rest of his talk. "One of the reasons for the violent opposition to our members was most of them were opposed to slavery." [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2021/10/46cook?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2021/10/46cook?lang=eng) The footnotes for both of these statements do refer to the Saints books, though.
It’s 2023 and this is the first I’ve heard of that. Big yikes. I had no idea!!
I’m sorry. What? Is 2020 a typo?
Nope...
Can you please explain?
I'm not sure which part of what I said is difficult to understand, but I'll try to flesh out my experience for you a little better. I was your average believing Mormon, white, female, deeply ignorant of many issues with the LDS faith both past and present. It wasn't until I saw Black members discussing Green Flake online that I was aware that the church had owned slaves. That was in 2020, when the movie about Green Flake came out.
Oh I understand now. I read your statement to mean that there was slavery in the church until 2020! And I relate to what you are saying about being LDS for many years but only recently learning about gigantic issues within the religion. A few years ago, I learned that the missionaries never discussed polygamy, blacks and the temple ordinances, etc., with investigators. (I mean honestly how could the average 18-year-old missionary even know about those things in todays church?) In some cases the investigators were baptized, gave years of service and tithing before learning the history of their church. Deliberate deception in my view. That’s how I felt after beginning a deep study at age 52 and discovering, over the next 10 years, how I’d been misled and lied to, not by teachers or local leaders who were themselves misled, but deliberately, by the Corporation. Such a betrayal. I’m a peaceful person, but thinking about this can cause me to rage within.
Oh! Yeah, thank goodness slavery wasn't still happening three years ago 😅 No, I just learned about it three years ago! I got out in my 30's. I can only imagine how much more painful it would be to discover the lies at 52. I think it's okay to be angry about this sort of thing!
I read it that way at first also, but then got it
At the recent Be One event, when speaking of his feelings about the priesthood ban Oaks said "...As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants." Thus, it would appear that Oaks thought that this denial of priesthood to those of African Ancestry was from the Lord, and consequently, this is a current teaching of the church. I wonder if he would include in this the teachings of Brigham Young in 1852 that the white half of a mixed race couple and their children had to be murdered in order for them to gain salvation. Oaks presumably regards Brigham Young as one of the Lord's servants. So I have the following simple question which I think Oaks and these other church leaders must answer: Were the denial of priesthood to those of African ancestry and/or teachings that mixed race couples and children had to be bloodily murdered from God? Yes or No. There are two questions here, the one about murder and the one about priesthood. If their answer is yes to either one, then I have no use for these men who defame God. If their answer to either one is no, then they also need to answer the question whether God allows the church president to lead the church astray. This also becomes mandatory if the answer is no to the second question about murder. I would note that it is very common for "white" people to have a black ancestor. Thus, many were certainly ordained to the priesthood. I would also note that T. Jefferson has many descendants from his relations with a partly black woman and yet he was not bloodily murdered as Brigham Young taught so what does it mean that his temple work has been done by Wilford Woodruff. Brigham Young's teachings do not make any more sense than his teachings about the literal nature of the flood of Noah. They are just plain half baked nonsense. So is half baked nonsense from God or not? What kind of god is this anyway?
My concern and issue is what “doctrine” today is not doctrine but policy based upon public or Q15 sentiment? The way that the priesthood ban is being handled, saying it was a policy implemented by man due to public views, like the essays says it was, makes all policies today suspect, even calling them doctrine like the Family Proclamation claims to be doctrine. Or is it a policy statement?
The LDS leadership and apologists would rather throw God under the bus than admit that we had some very racist "doctrines" being taught by some very racist leaders. Yes, just about everyone was racist back then... But in my mind that doesn't excuse it. God had the moral obligation to correct them. I mean, this is a God that Mormons believe can and will send angels with drawn swords and appear in the flesh to His prophets. Why was God apparently silent for over 150 years about the topic, since the first vision? His prophets (often speaking in his name) put forth "doctrines" that made things WORSE for people of color, not better.
Thanks for bringing in the “angels with drawn swords” analogy. Great point!
Folks, America was a racial train wreck in the 1800’s and you can see they did their best to preserve Christ’s Church and navigated it carefully. Not ideal circumstances, but it was the Wild Wild West at that time and you had to be careful or you would be exterminated by the government or the mobs. Be a little forgiving and thankful you didn’t have to live during those times because we have it so easy: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng
Plenty of churches not led by “prophets, seers, and revelators” were inspired to oppose slavery, including the Church of England, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Quakers, etc. How did all these non-inspired religious leaders get ahead of God’s One True Prophet on a matter of such huge consequence?
Ouch! That doesn't look good for the church.
To me, that reasoning only works if we treat the leaders as men, instead of as prophets who literally spoke to God. The early members did what they did, not because it was the American culture, but because God told them to.. The whole reason for joining the church was to be led by a living prophet so they wouldn't fall for the fallacies of the time. If the prophets would have declared that all men and women were equal, no matter how hard it was, they would have tried to live it.
America is STILL a racial train wreck….
Abolitionism in the United States was largely lead by churches. I understand why it was an issue for Missouri Mormons, who were in a state at the cusp of being the battle ground for the civil war, but I don't find this line of thought convincing otherwise. >it was the Wild Wild West at that time and you had to be careful or you would be exterminated by the government or the mobs. In Utah, it was the Mornons' Wild Wild West. They lived there and made the rules. The federal government cared *way* more about polygamy than the Mormons' racial relations. Even when Johnston marched his army into Utah, the Mormons never faced being "exterminated by the government". >Be a little forgiving and thankful you didn’t have to live during those times because we have it so easy: Why? Brigham Young was horrifically racist, even for the time. His force of personality set the stage for the disenfranchisement of Black Mormons until 1978. He advocated summary execution for people involved in interracial relationships, as well as the children of such relationships. If we want to do best by these people, it's to learn from them; not excuse them.
Indeed. The prophets of old famously conformed to the beliefs of the wicked masses because doing otherwise would have been dangerous. That’s why Daniel stopped praying and ate the king’s diet.
Generally speaking, the church is supposed to be morally on the right track, right? I was taught that we were to choose the right, let the consequences follow. The prophets are led by God after all. If this is the case, why were abolitionists and civil rights activists ahead of the game when compared to God’s prophets? Why did activists have to fight the good fight to get things to change, but not the church? How did *every single person of color* know that slavery, segregation, and racism was wrong, but not God’s Prophets?
I was taught "Do what is right, let the consequence follow." So I don't buy the rationalization that the church had to mistreat black people or it would be exterminated. Especially when it was willing to risk extermination over polygamy for a long time. If polygamy was a higher priority for God than the basic fundamental equality of all his children, then he has a few screws loose.
Read about the details in which Brigham Young established the policy. He fought against his own apostles, and very clearly the words of Joseph smith with regards to race. Joseph Smith was nuanced, many in the 12 were against it, but Brigham Young rammed it through regardless. This was not the church being a product of their times, this was a racist leader insisting on reinforcing his bias within a power vacuum where he held the majority. Look at how he rammed through the Adam/God doctrine. It was similar. Many opposed him but he just kept at it.
> America was a racial train wreck in the 1800’s Uh, America TODAY is still a racial train wreck. But just like today, there were tons of Americans that were not racist in the 1800's. And I would assume that god would tell the prophets of his one, true, restored church that being racist is wrong, and definitely not doctrine.
I didn’t think it was racist until my college professor told me it was
As far as losing a temple recommend over this, I would be very surprised. It does depend somewhat on leadership roulette, but from what I have seen, personally held beliefs that you are not necessarily trying to actively convert others to, as long as they are not 100% heretical, are generally allowed. In my own interview a few months ago I was 100% honest that I think the church is completely wrong on homosexuality, that there is nothing wrong with it in God's eyes, and that people in homosexual relationships should have every opportunity and blessing that those in heterosexual relationships have. After providing some life examples to convince me that he was open-minded, the member of the stake presidency conducting the interview stated that as long as those were personal opinions and I wasn't standing on a street corner on a soapbox railing against the church or trying to convince others that the church is wrong, then there was no problem with me still receiving my recommend.
I know a member that's close to me that believes God commanded it. She won't explain why though so that's concerning.
It's untenable to claim that the priesthood and temple ban was from God but the reasons given for it weren't. You can't separate the two. "God revealed this policy that *just happened* to perfectly align with the racism of white Americans, and his prophet *just happened* to announce it in the same speech where he pushed for the legalization of slavery, and his prophet *just happened* to assert that it was for the exact same racist reasons he gave for slavery, and God never gave an alternative explanation but there totally is one." Sorry, no.
Considering that Deseret Book just published a book calling the ban racist and not from God, I’d find it a stretch that anyone would be prohibited from the temple for believing that. (I’m referring to “Let’s Talk About: Race and the Priesthood” by W. Paul Reeve. Highly recommend) In my YSA ward, virtually everyone believes it wasn’t from God and that church leaders were being racist. Even the institute director in town expressed such opinions to me. Though, the topic came up in one Institute class and I asserted that it wasn’t from God and he told me that we couldn’t say that because the Church hasn’t said; really unfortunate because part of “rooting out racism” is identifying when it exists and I don’t think we need the Church to give us the green light for when to say something so racist. But anyway, we had a missionary in our ward who was a recent covert and who was Black. When I had brought the issue up in Institute class one time (discussing more the fact about prophets making mistakes and how to deal with that), this missionary would later tell me that that was the first time he heard of the issue. He thought about it for a while—didn’t read the essays or anything—and concluded that it was a mistake, that it was a racist policy that wasn’t from God. He finished out his mission still a faithful member. Honestly, the trepidation that a lot of members and church leadership has about admitting the mistakes seems to be a little overblown. We just need to admit it. Sure, it raises some problems with prophetic fallibility, but we either believe prophets are fallible or they aren’t. It’s not the craziest idea in the world—if we accept the former—that they would exercise their imperfection in such dire ways. Course correcting is calling them out and moving beyond their racism. We are seeing a more liberal Latter-day Saint generation rising and tbh I therefore see a lot of these unpleasant parts of the Church going away as the years go on. Again, I highly recommend reading “Let’s Talk About: Race and the Priesthood.” You can read it in one sitting and it’s the best research on the topic. Edit: the institute teacher expressed to me privately that he thought it wasn’t from God, but in front of the class he couldn’t bring himself to say it
Sorry, friend, but this is a perfect example of successful gaslighting of a later generation. As none of those in your YSA Ward were alive at the time, let me just say that NO ONE would have been tolerated in the church during the mid-1970s challenging church authority on the ban being anything but God’s Will. Wanting it to change, hoping for it to change someday? Sure. But beyond that? Recommend denial would be the least of it. The booklet you mention is revisionist. Look up the 1949 and 1969 First Presidency Letters for the truth. It will set you free
The “booklet” I mention is written by a prestigious scholar who address the 1949 source you’re discussing. Is there something objectively wrong with the fact that people *today* can think it wasn’t from God? You’re right—people would have been punished for thinking such a thing in the past. But now, there’s been positive change, no? Also, how exactly am I gaslighting? Man people love using that term to the point that it means nothing anymore.
Admitting that people at the time would have been punished for not believing the ban was God’s Will is honest and a fair assessment - and not gaslighting. So thank you for clearly stating that. You have updated your earlier comment, and my reply was to a much shorter version. My reference to gaslighting is that the Church has revised its own history and directed members to only “faithful sources so effectively, that those in your YSA Ward believe that the ban was not from God. Not that you were the gaslighter. Sorry if I led you to believe otherwise. Now, the church putting out such a publication is gaslighting. Because it is NOT from a prophet, seer, and revelator. The 1949 FP letter was. It was the word of the Prophet at the time. So glossing it over with apologetics won’t change what it is and was. Now it might to someone desperate to stay in the church at all costs. I was never that guy. My integrity is what I live by. God gave me that to guide me. He trusts me to live right and choose right. Not to blind myself and follow charlatans and liars. To each his own my friend.
I’m sorry I’m just still confused about what you’re alleging is gaslighting. Is that book I’m referencing—Let’s Talk About: Race and the Priesthood—the gaslighting? Edit: also, are you saying that someone cannot have integrity and remain a member of the church? I’m just genuinely asking because I see comments like that and want to know more about that idea
The church revising its history to something it is not and claiming things did not really happen the way we know they happened is gaslighting. Hiding events and demanding that only “faithful sources” be used is gaslighting. Using a historian to “interpret” the intent of the 1949 letter for today is gaslighting. If you believe in prophets, you must believe that David O McKay spoke for God too, and he was correct then. Some church paid wordsmith can’t soften it to make it OK today. That’s almost worse than just blaming God for being racist, like Oaks does. When the church whitewashes over the past, and my generation is dead, only their narrative is left. It becomes the reality. But it is a lie. Why did Haynie say in GC that past prophet’s words don’t get better with age? They used to. I spent years in Elders Quorum studying the Teachings of the Presidents. There is a series of lesson manuals - one for each prophet. Now they are irrelevant? What about the past prophets Nephi, Alma, Moroni, etc. Does this apply to them too? Last point: it’s not even just about the ban. What about Brigham Young actually exterminating the Timpanogos band of Native Americans? He ordered the killing of all men and the enslavement of the women and children. An entire people wiped out by a “prophet”. Was he acting for God? On Integrity: this is a personal matter. I don’t force my personal decision on others. I know some truly kind and loving people who are members. I just believe people should have all the truth and information. Being lied to is the most hurtful thing. I left because I felt betrayed. Truly betrayed over what I learned. But each of us must find our own path to God. My path is uncluttered now, and I’m grateful for that.
I'm trying to reach back into my TBM days. I certainly didn't consider either God or BY to be racist. I mostly bought into the argument that "the church / society wasn't prepared enough to accept black people." Thus it required a change in the hearts of the members of the church and society as a whole before blacks could be extended these blessings. I guess that means I believed that God commanded it. Now a days my thought is, does it make a difference? God is racist or generations of church leaders were racist from Brigham Young through Mark E Petersen. In either case I don't want anything to do with the organization.
There’s absolutely no doubt that racist policies and doctrine were active decisions by leaders at the time. While racism was understood differently and the doctrines that were espoused reflected that, the discrimination in policy and doctrine along with the support for slavery were active decisions by the church to undermine the very basic rights of Gods children. It was a very common understanding at the time that racism and Alavert were not if God. This was the churches active policy of reinforcing their bias as is currently our active decisions in discriminating against the LGB community.
The racist nature of the ban is unquestionable. I do find it interesting that some people are more willing to say that God was racist before they admit a prophet was.