The question of slavery in Missouri was a delicate one. It will perhaps be remembered that it was the application of the territory of Missouri for admission into the Union, 1818-19, that brought the question of slavery into one of its acute stages before the country; and inaugurated a long series of debates in the National Congress on the subject. It was upon the admission of Missouri into the Union in 1821 that the great Compromise which bears the state's name settled, not the question of slavery itself, but, for the time, the agitation of it.
That Compromise consisted finally in this: that while Missouri herself was admitted with a clause in her constitution permitting slavery, and also prohibiting free people of color from immigrating into the state, slavery was forever to be prohibited in all territory of the United States north of the line thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude (the southern boundary line of the state of Missouri); and Missouri was required "by a solemn, public act" of her legislature, to declare that the clause in her constitution relating to the immigration of free negroes into the state, should never be construed to authorize the passage of any law by which any citizen of either of the states in this Union shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immunities to which he is entitled under the Constitution of the United States.
These historical facts are referred to here that the reader may be reminded that slavery was a delicate question in Missouri; that her people were super-sensitive about it since she was the first territory upon which the National Congress sought to impose the prohibition of slavery as a condition precedent to her admission into the Union, which, up to that time, had been a matter left to the people of the territory seeking admission to determine for themselves. Of course this attempt at restriction of slavery was made by northern members of the national Congress.fn All the sentiment for the restriction of slavery was in the North. In 1831 the sentiment for the positive abolition of slavery had made such progress in Massachusetts, that William Lloyd Garrison established in Boston "The Liberator," a paper which advocated "the immediate and unconditional emancipation of every slave in the United States." As a result of this agitation anti-slavery societies were formed and active measures taken to advocate these opinions by means of lectures and pamphlets. These extreme measures against slavery did not meet with the approval of all or even the majority of the people of New England, much less with the approval of the people of other northern states. Still this agitation arose and was chiefly supported in New England. It will not be difficult to understand, therefore, that any considerable number of people from that section of the Union immigrating into a slave state would arouse suspicion; especially when that immigration was into a slave state upon which, when as a territory she had made application for admission into the Union, prohibition of slavery was sought to be enforced by the northern members of the National Congress. Nor will it be sufficient to dispel this suspicion to aver that these particular immigrants from New England, and other northern states are not abolitionists; that they take no part with, and do not share the fanatical sentiments of, the abolitionists; that their objects and purposes are of an entirely different and larger character.
The answer to all this was given in a public document drawn up to voice the sentiment of a great mass meeting of the people of Clay county—a people, be it remembered, who at the time (1836) were not unfriendly towards the Saints, but a people who a few years before had received the Saints into their homes, and given them shelter when they were exiles from Jackson county, and who, at the time of the utterance I am about to quote was published, were in a covenant of peace with the Saints, and the Saints in a covenant of peace with them—I say the answer to all disclaimers on the part of the Saints respecting their not being abolitionists was found in this public utterance: "They are eastern men, whose manners, habits, customs and even dialect are essentially different from our own. They are non-slaveholders, and opposed to slavery, which in this peculiar period, when abolitionism has reared its deformed and haggard visage in our land, is well calculated to excite deep and abiding prejudices in any community where slavery is tolerated and protected."
I call attention to these facts that the student of the history of the Church may appreciate the weight of influence they would have in creating popular sentiment against the Saints; a matter which hitherto, if I may be permitted to say so, has not been fully appreciated. One can readily see what a potent factor this sentiment against New England and other northern states people would be in the hands of political demagogues and sectarian priests seeking to exterminate what they would respectively consider an undesirable element in politics and a religious rival. That both political demagogues and sectarian priests made the most of the opportunity which hostile sentiment in Missouri against abolition and abolitionists afforded, abundantly appears in the pages of the first volume of the Church History. That sentiment was appealed to from the first; indeed in the very first manifesto of the mob—known as "The Secret Constitution,"fn—issued against the Saints in Missouri, it was a prominent feature. This was at Independence, in July, 1833. In that "Manifesto" the following passage occurs: "More than a year since, it was ascertained that they [the Saints] had been tampering with our slaves, and endeavoring to sow dissensions and raise seditions amongst them. Of this their Mormon leaders were informed, and they said they would deal with any of their members who should again in like case offend. But how specious are appearances. In a late number of the Star, published in Independence by the leaders of the sect, there is an article inviting free negroes and mulattoes from other states to become Mormons, and remove and settle among us. This exhibits them in still more odious colors. It manifests a desire on the part of their society, to inflict on our society an injury that they know would be to us entirely insupportable, and one of the surest means of driving us from the country; for it would require none of the supernatural gifts that they pretend to, to see that the introduction of such a caste amongst us would corrupt our blacks, and instigate them to bloodshed."
The article on "Free People of Color" referred to appeared in the Evening and Morning Star for July. The charge of sowing dissensions and inspiring seditions among the slaves, and inviting free negroes to settle in Missouri, had no foundation in truth. Concerning such people the Missouri laws provided that: If any negro or mulatto came into the state of Missouri, without a certificate from a court of record in some one of the United States, evidencing that he was a citizen of such state, on complaint before any justice of the peace, such negro or mulatto could be commanded by the justice to leave the state; and if the colored person so ordered did not leave the state within thirty days, on complaint of any citizen, such person could be again brought before the justice who might commit him to the common jail of the county, until the convening of the circuit court, when it became the duty of the judge of the circuit court to inquire into the cause of commitment; and if it was found that the negro or mulatto had remained in the state contrary to the provisions of this statute, the court was authorized to sentence such person to receive ten lashes on his or her bare back, and then order him or her to depart from the state; if the person so treated should still refuse to go, then the same proceedings were to be repeated and punishment inflicted as often as was necessary until such person departed.
And further: If any person brought into the state of Missouri a free negro or mulatto, without the aforesaid certificate of citizenship, for every such negro or mulatto the person offending was liable to a forfeit of five hundred dollars; to be recovered by action of debt in the name of the state.
The editor of the Star commenting upon this law said: "Slaves are real estate in this and other states, and wisdom would dictate great care among the branches of the Church of Christ on this subject. So long as we have no special rule in the Church as to people of color, let prudence guide; and while they, as well as we, are in the hands of a merciful God, we say: shun every appearance of evil."
Publishing this law and the above comment was construed by the old settlers to be an invitation to free people of color to settle in Jackson county! Whereupon an extra was published to the July number of the Star on the sixteenth of the month, which said: "The intention in publishing the article, "Free People of Color," was not only to stop free people of color from immigrating to Missouri, but to prevent them from being admitted as members of the Church. * * * * * To be short, we are opposed to having free people of color admitted into the State."fn
But in the face of all this the Missourians still claimed that the article was merely published to give directions and cautions to be observed by "colored brethren," to enable them upon their arrival in Missouri, to "claim and exercise the rights of citizenship." "Contemporaneous with the appearance of this article"—the above article in the Star—continued the charge published in the Western Monitor—"was the expectation among the brethren, that a considerable number of this degraded caste were only waiting this information before they should set out on their journey."fn And this base falsehood was used to inflame the minds of the old settlers against the Saints.
I do not refer to this question of slavery in connection with the persecution of the Saints in Missouri in order to set it down as one of the causes of that persecution; because, as a matter of fact, the views of the Saints, and especially of the leading Elders of the Church on that question were such that they could never be truthfully charged with being a menace to that institution. The Prophet Joseph himself, at the time of the Jackson county troubles and subsequently, held very conservative views on the subject of slavery, surprisingly conservative views when his own temperament and environment are taken into account, of which fact any one may convince himself by reading his paper on the subject of abolition in Volume II of the Church History, pages 436-40.
Finally, it was given by the inspiration of God to the Prophet first to utter the most statesman-like word upon this vexed question of slavery, and had the nation and people of the United States but given heed to his recommendations it would have settled the question in harmony with the convictions of the people of the North, and without injustice to the South. Here follows his statesman-like word, published throughout the United States in 1844—eleven years before Ralph Waldo Emerson made substantially the same recommendation, and for which the philosopher received no end of praise:—
"Petition, also, ye goodly inhabitants of the slave states, your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850, or now, and save the abolitionist from reproach and ruin, and infamy and shame. Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of the public lands, and from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress. Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire him to labor like other human beings; for an hour of virtuous liberty is worth a whole eternity of bondage."fn
But now to return to the course of the Missourians in misrepresenting the views of the Saints on the subject of slavery. Notwithstanding the explicit denials through the "Evening and Morning Star," that the article on "Free People of Color" was intended to invite such a class into the state; and the further declaration that the Saints were opposed to such persons coming into the state; as also the fact that it is doubtful if there were any free negroes who were members of the Church—notwithstanding all this, their enemies continued to misrepresent them, and their views on the subject of slavery. They saw in the fact that many of them were from New England, where abolition sentiment was rife, their opportunity to charge them with abolition sentiments and intention to interfere with slavery, with every prospect of having it quite generally believed—hence the charge was made and became a pretext if not a cause of acts of aggression upon the Saints, and as such is a factor that must be taken account of in these pages.
(Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 3: xxvi - xxvii.)
Bibliography
Bringhurst, Newell G. Saints, Slaves, and Blacks. Westport, Conn., 1981.
Carter, Kate B. "The Negro Pioneer." In Our Pioneer Heritage, Vol. 8, pp. 497-580. Salt Lake City, 1965.
Embry, Jessie L. "Separate but Equal? Black Branches, Genesis Groups, or Integrated Wards?" Dialogue 23 (Spring 1990):11-37.
LDS Afro-American Oral History Project. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 1985-1988.
ALAN CHERRY
JESSIE L. EMBRY
(Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 127.)
Showing posts with label Blacks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blacks. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
The Race Question
To clinch the Bering Straits argument, it is usual to point out that the Indians are Mongoloid and therefore cannot possibly be of the racial stock of Lehi. Again an unproven hypothesis is set against a false interpretation of the Book of Mormon. As to the hypothesis, it is fairly well known by now that the predominant blood-type among the Mongols is B, a type which is extremely rare among the Indians, whose dominant blood-type is O, that being found among 91.3 percent of the pure-blooded North American Indians. "Here is a mystery," writes Beals commenting on the disturbing phenomenon, "that requires much pondering and investigation." fn
But if we are to take the Book of Mormon to task for its ethnological teachings, it might be well at first to learn what those teachings are. They turn out on investigation to be surprisingly complicated. There is no mention in the Book of Mormon of red skins versus white; indeed, there is no mention of red skin at all. What we find is a more or less steady process over long periods of time of mixing and separating of many closely related but not identical ethnic groups. The Book of Mormon is careful to specify that the terms Lamanite and Nephite are used in a loose and general sense to designate not racial but political (e.g., Mormon 1:9), military (Alma 43:4), religious (4 Nephi 1:38), and cultural (Alma 53:10, 15; 3:10-11) divisions and groupings of people. The Lamanite and Nephite division was tribal rather than racial, each of the main groups representing an amalgamation of tribes that retained their identity (Alma 43:13; 4 Nephi 1:36-37). Our text frequently goes out of its way to specify that such and such a group is only called Nephite or Lamanite (2 Nephi 5:14; Jacob 1:2; Mosiah 25:12; Alma 3:10;30:59; Helaman 3:16; 3 Nephi 3:24;10:18; 4 Nephi 1:36-38, 43; Mormon 1:9). For the situation was often very mobile, with large numbers of Nephites going over to the Lamanites (Words of Mormon 1:16; 4 Nephi 1:20; Mormon 6:15; Alma 47:35-36), or Lamanites to the Nephites (Alma 27:27; Mosiah 25:12; Alma 55:4), or members of the mixed Mulekite people, such as their Zoramite offshoot, going over either to the Lamanites (Alma 43:4) or to the Nephites (Alma 35:9—not really to the Nephites, but to the Ammonites who were Lamanites who had earlier become Nephites!); or at times the Lamanites and Nephites would freely intermingle (Helaman 6:7-8), while at other times the Nephite society would be heavily infiltrated by Lamanites and by robbers of dubious background (Mormon 2:8). Such robbers were fond of kidnapping Nephite women and children (Helaman 11:33).
The dark skin is mentioned as the mark of a general way of life; it is a Gypsy or Bedouin type of darkness, "black" and "white" being used in their Oriental sense (as in Egyptian), black and loathsome being contrasted to white and delightsome (2 Nephi 5:21-22). We are told that when "their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes" they shall become "a white and delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:6; "a pure and delightsome people,"edition), and at the same time the Jews "shall also become a delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:7). Darkness and filthiness go together as part of a way of life (Jacob 3:5, 9); we never hear of the Lamanites becoming whiter, no matter how righteous they were, except when they adopted the Nephite way of life (3 Nephi 2:14-15), while the Lamanites could, by becoming more savage in their ways than their brother Lamanites, actually become darker, "a dark, filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been . . . among the Lamanites" (Mormon 5:15). The dark skin is but one of the marks that God places upon the Lamanites, and these marks go together; people who joined the Lamanites were marked like them (Alma 3:10); they were naked and their skins were dark (Alma 3:5-6); when "they set the mark upon themselves; . . . the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God," when he said, "I will set a mark on them. . . . I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren. . . . I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee [Nephi] and thy seed" (Alma 3:13-18). "Even so," says Alma "doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation" (Alma 3:19). By their own deliberate act they both marked their foreheads and turned their bodies dark. Though ever alert to miraculous manifestations, the authors of the Book of Mormon never refer to the transformation of Lamanites into "white and delightsome" Nephites or Nephites into "dark and loathsome" Lamanites as in any way miraculous or marvelous. When they became savage "because of their cursing" (2 Nephi 5:24), their skins became dark and they also became "loathsome" to the Nephites (2 Nephi 5:21-22). But there is nothing loathsome about dark skin, which most people consider very attractive: the darkness, like the loathsomeness, was part of the general picture (Jacob 3:9); Mormon prays "that they may once again be a delightsome people" (Words of Mormon 1:8; Mormon 5:17), but then the Jews are also to become "a delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:7)—are they black?
At the time of the Lord's visit, there were "neither . . . Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites," (4 Nephi 1:17;see also 3 Nephi 2:14) so that when the old titles of Lamanite and Nephite were later revived by parties deliberately seeking to stir up old hatreds, they designated religious affiliation rather than race (4 Nephi 1:38-39). From this it would seem that at that time it was impossible to distinguish a person of Nephite blood from one of Lamanite blood by appearance. Moreover, there were no pure-blooded Lamanites or Nephites after the early period, for Nephi, Jacob Joseph, and Sam were all promised that their seed would survive mingled with that of their elder brethren (2 Nephi 3:2, 23; 9:53; 10:10, 19-20; 29:13; 3 Nephi 26:8; Mormon 7:1). Since the Nephites were always aware of that mingling, which they could nearly always perceive in the steady flow of Nephite dissenters to one side and Lamanite converts to the other, it is understandable why they do not think of the terms Nephite and Lamanite as indicating race. The Mulekites, who outnumbered the Nephites better than two to one (Mosiah 25:2-4), were a mixed Near Eastern rabble who had brought no written records with them and had never observed the Law of Moses and did not speak Nephite (Omni 1:18); yet after Mosiah became their king, they "were numbered with the Nephites, and this because the kingdom had been conferred upon none but those who were descendants of Nephi" (Mosiah 25:13). From time to time large numbers of people disappear beyond the Book of Mormon frontiers to vanish in the wilderness or on the sea, taking their traditions and even written records with them (Helaman 3:3-13). What shall we call these people—Nephites or Lamanites?
And just as the Book of Mormon offers no objections whatever to the free movement of whatever tribes and families choose to depart into regions beyond its ken, so it presents no obstacles to the arrival of whatever other bands may have occupied the hemisphere without its knowledge; for hundreds of years the Nephites shared the continent with the far more numerous Jaredites, of whose existence they were totally unaware. fn Strictly speaking, the Book of Mormon is the history of a group of sectaries preoccupied with their own religious affairs, who only notice the presence of other groups when such have reason to mingle with them or collide with them. Just as the desert tribes through whose territories Lehi's people moved in the Old World are mentioned only casually and indirectly, though quite unmistakably (1 Nephi 17:33), so the idea of other migrations to the New World is taken so completely for granted that the story of the Mulekites is dismissed in a few verses (Omni 1:14-17). Indeed, the Lord reminds the Nephites that there are all sorts of migrations of which they know nothing, and that their history is only a small segment of the big picture (2 Nephi 10:21). There is nothing whatever in the Book of Mormon to indicate that everything that is found in the New World before Columbus must be either Nephite or Lamanite. On the contrary, when Mormon boasts, "I am Mormon and a pure descendant of Lehi" (3 Nephi 5:20), we are given to understand that being a direct descendant of Lehi, as all true Nephites and Lamanites were, was really something special. We think of Zarahemla as a great Nephite capital and its civilization as the Nephite civilization at its peak; yet Zarahemla was not a Nephite city at all: its inhabitants called themselves Nephites, as we have seen, because their ruling family were Nephites who had immigrated from the south.
There were times when the Nephites, like the Jaredites, broke up into small bands, including robber bands and secret combinations, each fending for itself (3 Nephi 7:2-3). And when all semblance of centralized control disappeared, "and it was one complete revolution throughout all the face of the land" (Mormon 2:8), who is to say how far how many of these scattered groups went in their wanderings, with whom they fought, and with whom they joined? After the battle of Cumorah, the Lamanites, who had been joined by large numbers of Nephite defectors during the war, were well launched on a career of fierce tribal wars "among themselves" (Moroni 1:2). It would be as impossible to distinguish any one race among them as it would be to distinguish two; there may have been marked "racial" types, as there are now among the Indians (for example, the striking contrast of Navaho and Hopi), but the Book of Mormon makes it clear that those Nephites who went over to live with Lamanites soon came to look like Lamanites. An anthropologist would have been driven wild trying to detect a clear racial pattern among the survivors of Cumorah. So let us not oversimplify and take the Book of Mormon to task for naive conclusions and images that are really our own.
(Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd ed. [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988], 219.)
But if we are to take the Book of Mormon to task for its ethnological teachings, it might be well at first to learn what those teachings are. They turn out on investigation to be surprisingly complicated. There is no mention in the Book of Mormon of red skins versus white; indeed, there is no mention of red skin at all. What we find is a more or less steady process over long periods of time of mixing and separating of many closely related but not identical ethnic groups. The Book of Mormon is careful to specify that the terms Lamanite and Nephite are used in a loose and general sense to designate not racial but political (e.g., Mormon 1:9), military (Alma 43:4), religious (4 Nephi 1:38), and cultural (Alma 53:10, 15; 3:10-11) divisions and groupings of people. The Lamanite and Nephite division was tribal rather than racial, each of the main groups representing an amalgamation of tribes that retained their identity (Alma 43:13; 4 Nephi 1:36-37). Our text frequently goes out of its way to specify that such and such a group is only called Nephite or Lamanite (2 Nephi 5:14; Jacob 1:2; Mosiah 25:12; Alma 3:10;30:59; Helaman 3:16; 3 Nephi 3:24;10:18; 4 Nephi 1:36-38, 43; Mormon 1:9). For the situation was often very mobile, with large numbers of Nephites going over to the Lamanites (Words of Mormon 1:16; 4 Nephi 1:20; Mormon 6:15; Alma 47:35-36), or Lamanites to the Nephites (Alma 27:27; Mosiah 25:12; Alma 55:4), or members of the mixed Mulekite people, such as their Zoramite offshoot, going over either to the Lamanites (Alma 43:4) or to the Nephites (Alma 35:9—not really to the Nephites, but to the Ammonites who were Lamanites who had earlier become Nephites!); or at times the Lamanites and Nephites would freely intermingle (Helaman 6:7-8), while at other times the Nephite society would be heavily infiltrated by Lamanites and by robbers of dubious background (Mormon 2:8). Such robbers were fond of kidnapping Nephite women and children (Helaman 11:33).
The dark skin is mentioned as the mark of a general way of life; it is a Gypsy or Bedouin type of darkness, "black" and "white" being used in their Oriental sense (as in Egyptian), black and loathsome being contrasted to white and delightsome (2 Nephi 5:21-22). We are told that when "their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes" they shall become "a white and delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:6; "a pure and delightsome people,"edition), and at the same time the Jews "shall also become a delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:7). Darkness and filthiness go together as part of a way of life (Jacob 3:5, 9); we never hear of the Lamanites becoming whiter, no matter how righteous they were, except when they adopted the Nephite way of life (3 Nephi 2:14-15), while the Lamanites could, by becoming more savage in their ways than their brother Lamanites, actually become darker, "a dark, filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been . . . among the Lamanites" (Mormon 5:15). The dark skin is but one of the marks that God places upon the Lamanites, and these marks go together; people who joined the Lamanites were marked like them (Alma 3:10); they were naked and their skins were dark (Alma 3:5-6); when "they set the mark upon themselves; . . . the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God," when he said, "I will set a mark on them. . . . I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren. . . . I will set a mark upon him that fighteth against thee [Nephi] and thy seed" (Alma 3:13-18). "Even so," says Alma "doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation" (Alma 3:19). By their own deliberate act they both marked their foreheads and turned their bodies dark. Though ever alert to miraculous manifestations, the authors of the Book of Mormon never refer to the transformation of Lamanites into "white and delightsome" Nephites or Nephites into "dark and loathsome" Lamanites as in any way miraculous or marvelous. When they became savage "because of their cursing" (2 Nephi 5:24), their skins became dark and they also became "loathsome" to the Nephites (2 Nephi 5:21-22). But there is nothing loathsome about dark skin, which most people consider very attractive: the darkness, like the loathsomeness, was part of the general picture (Jacob 3:9); Mormon prays "that they may once again be a delightsome people" (Words of Mormon 1:8; Mormon 5:17), but then the Jews are also to become "a delightsome people" (2 Nephi 30:7)—are they black?
At the time of the Lord's visit, there were "neither . . . Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites," (4 Nephi 1:17;see also 3 Nephi 2:14) so that when the old titles of Lamanite and Nephite were later revived by parties deliberately seeking to stir up old hatreds, they designated religious affiliation rather than race (4 Nephi 1:38-39). From this it would seem that at that time it was impossible to distinguish a person of Nephite blood from one of Lamanite blood by appearance. Moreover, there were no pure-blooded Lamanites or Nephites after the early period, for Nephi, Jacob Joseph, and Sam were all promised that their seed would survive mingled with that of their elder brethren (2 Nephi 3:2, 23; 9:53; 10:10, 19-20; 29:13; 3 Nephi 26:8; Mormon 7:1). Since the Nephites were always aware of that mingling, which they could nearly always perceive in the steady flow of Nephite dissenters to one side and Lamanite converts to the other, it is understandable why they do not think of the terms Nephite and Lamanite as indicating race. The Mulekites, who outnumbered the Nephites better than two to one (Mosiah 25:2-4), were a mixed Near Eastern rabble who had brought no written records with them and had never observed the Law of Moses and did not speak Nephite (Omni 1:18); yet after Mosiah became their king, they "were numbered with the Nephites, and this because the kingdom had been conferred upon none but those who were descendants of Nephi" (Mosiah 25:13). From time to time large numbers of people disappear beyond the Book of Mormon frontiers to vanish in the wilderness or on the sea, taking their traditions and even written records with them (Helaman 3:3-13). What shall we call these people—Nephites or Lamanites?
And just as the Book of Mormon offers no objections whatever to the free movement of whatever tribes and families choose to depart into regions beyond its ken, so it presents no obstacles to the arrival of whatever other bands may have occupied the hemisphere without its knowledge; for hundreds of years the Nephites shared the continent with the far more numerous Jaredites, of whose existence they were totally unaware. fn Strictly speaking, the Book of Mormon is the history of a group of sectaries preoccupied with their own religious affairs, who only notice the presence of other groups when such have reason to mingle with them or collide with them. Just as the desert tribes through whose territories Lehi's people moved in the Old World are mentioned only casually and indirectly, though quite unmistakably (1 Nephi 17:33), so the idea of other migrations to the New World is taken so completely for granted that the story of the Mulekites is dismissed in a few verses (Omni 1:14-17). Indeed, the Lord reminds the Nephites that there are all sorts of migrations of which they know nothing, and that their history is only a small segment of the big picture (2 Nephi 10:21). There is nothing whatever in the Book of Mormon to indicate that everything that is found in the New World before Columbus must be either Nephite or Lamanite. On the contrary, when Mormon boasts, "I am Mormon and a pure descendant of Lehi" (3 Nephi 5:20), we are given to understand that being a direct descendant of Lehi, as all true Nephites and Lamanites were, was really something special. We think of Zarahemla as a great Nephite capital and its civilization as the Nephite civilization at its peak; yet Zarahemla was not a Nephite city at all: its inhabitants called themselves Nephites, as we have seen, because their ruling family were Nephites who had immigrated from the south.
There were times when the Nephites, like the Jaredites, broke up into small bands, including robber bands and secret combinations, each fending for itself (3 Nephi 7:2-3). And when all semblance of centralized control disappeared, "and it was one complete revolution throughout all the face of the land" (Mormon 2:8), who is to say how far how many of these scattered groups went in their wanderings, with whom they fought, and with whom they joined? After the battle of Cumorah, the Lamanites, who had been joined by large numbers of Nephite defectors during the war, were well launched on a career of fierce tribal wars "among themselves" (Moroni 1:2). It would be as impossible to distinguish any one race among them as it would be to distinguish two; there may have been marked "racial" types, as there are now among the Indians (for example, the striking contrast of Navaho and Hopi), but the Book of Mormon makes it clear that those Nephites who went over to live with Lamanites soon came to look like Lamanites. An anthropologist would have been driven wild trying to detect a clear racial pattern among the survivors of Cumorah. So let us not oversimplify and take the Book of Mormon to task for naive conclusions and images that are really our own.
(Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd ed. [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988], 219.)
Friday, June 15, 2007
Counselor in the First Presidency
A major concern that faced the new First Presidency grew out of the Church's policy on priesthood. The Stanford action was only one manifestation of the problems it created. There were others. On February 5, 1970, there was a near riot at a basketball game in Fort Collins, Colorado, between Brigham Young University and Colorado State University. It was triggered by a group of militant black students from CSU who used this means of protesting the Mormon Church's policy on priesthood. These militants were permitted to offer an invocation before the game, which was little more than a broad indictment of the Church. There also was an overt show of protest during the warm-ups when a group of blacks massed beneath the BYU basket, shouting threats at the players. At halftime vulgar insults were made against the BYU Cougarettes and the players, eggs were thrown onto the playing floor, and an iron object and a lighted torch were thrown toward the floor. Finally, fights broke out in the arena. Order was restored only when the city police were called in.
A few days after this incident in Fort Collins, a militant activist named Jerry Rubin, who was then under indictment for rioting in Chicago, spoke on the campus of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. During his incendiary remarks, the speaker bitterly berated the Latter-day Saints, warning, "We will either integrate the Mormon Church, or we will destroy it." These incidents were symptomatic of broad-based attacks being made on the Church around the country by its enemies and detractors. Adding to the turmoil this created was the upheaval caused by America's involvement in the Vietnam War. At the time, a member of the Church, a Vietnam War veteran, had been speaking in Church meetings, "arousing people to fever pitch," according to President Lee, "with scare stories about impending doom."
(Francis M. Gibbons, Harold B. Lee: Man of Vision, Prophet of God [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1993], 423 - 424.)
A few days after this incident in Fort Collins, a militant activist named Jerry Rubin, who was then under indictment for rioting in Chicago, spoke on the campus of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. During his incendiary remarks, the speaker bitterly berated the Latter-day Saints, warning, "We will either integrate the Mormon Church, or we will destroy it." These incidents were symptomatic of broad-based attacks being made on the Church around the country by its enemies and detractors. Adding to the turmoil this created was the upheaval caused by America's involvement in the Vietnam War. At the time, a member of the Church, a Vietnam War veteran, had been speaking in Church meetings, "arousing people to fever pitch," according to President Lee, "with scare stories about impending doom."
(Francis M. Gibbons, Harold B. Lee: Man of Vision, Prophet of God [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1993], 423 - 424.)
The Church and Public Policy
In the United States the Saints were becoming more visible throughout the nation, and in the 1960s there was more commentary on the involvement of the Church and its leaders in public affairs than in any period since 1920. An unusual number of public issues arose in which the Church seemed to have a direct interest, and for that reason this was not only a period of growth and correlation but also one of controversy and some public criticism.
During the presidential campaign of 1960, the public press seemed insistent upon interpreting the political statements of the President of the Church as somehow reflecting Church policy rather than private opinion. When the Republican candidate, Richard M. Nixon, visited Salt Lake City, President David O. McKay was heard to tell him "we hope you are successful. " This comment was quickly picked up in the national press and interpreted as an official endorsement. President McKay quickly clarified his statement by declaring that he was speaking "as a personal voter and as a Republican, " but certainly not for the Church as a whole. Unfortunately, the correct explanation did not receive nearly as much publicity as the original news story.
More controversial was the debate over what methods should be employed to combat the growth of communism. Latter-day Saints along with other Americans were convinced that communism posed a threat to the American economic and political system, as well as to religion, and that communists were involved in various subversive activities. President McKay affirmed that the Church was opposed to communism, and encouraged the Saints to help prevent its spread. But a number of nationally prominent Saints were also active in anti-communist groups that seemed to go too far in making unproven accusations and defaming the character of other Americans by implying they were involved in subversive activities. Such groups also tended to oppose any extension of the power of the federal government, on the grounds that this would lead inevitably to communism. Some Saints even created the impression, perhaps unintentionally, that the Church officially endorsed conservative political causes. The First Presidency continually issued statements reiterating that the Church took no position on partisan politics, prohibiting the use of church buildings for political purposes, and making it clear that even though the Church opposed communism, it could not condone the methods sometimes employed by anti-communist individuals and groups.
Despite its efforts to remain aloof from partisan politics, the Church nevertheless took sides on a few significant political issues in the 1960s. In each case Church leaders felt a moral obligation to take a stand, though they were occasionally criticized for "dabbling in politics. " One issue was liquor by the drink, which came before Utahns in 1968. The Church not only took a public stand against it but openly used its priesthood organization to distribute literature and circulate petitions. Significantly, opposition to the Church's stand was not construed as disloyalty to the Church. The First Presidency also supported Sunday closing laws, upheld the spirit of civil rights legislation (although it did not take sides on specific bills), and favored the protection of state right-to-work laws.
Perhaps the most delicate public issue involving the Church in the 1960s was civil rights. In the United States racial strife reached a peak as black citizens demanded an end to racial discrimination in every form. Prejudice and the tradition of segregation led to violence in many parts of the country, though in the long run considerable constructive legislation provided a legal basis for an end to discrimination in housing, education, employment opportunity, and all other public aspects of American life. In the turmoil every institution in America was reexamined, and for the first time many people became aware of the Church's policy of not ordaining blacks to the priesthood. This was interpreted by some people in the 1960s as a sign of racial prejudice and discrimination, and the Church quickly came under fire in national periodicals and from civil rights groups. In the late 1960s protest rallies were held in Salt Lake City, and delegates from many civil rights groups sought audiences with Church leaders in an effort to get them to change the policy. Brigham Young University athletic teams were picketed and harangued while on road trips, and at some games anti-Mormon riots broke out. Some schools severed athletic relations with BYU.
The new Church Office Building, completed in 1972. (LDS Church)
The Church's response was that it could not change the policy without divine revelation authorizing it to do so. Church leaders reminded critics that the issue was a matter of religious faith and that those who did not share that faith should not attempt to dictate policy to the Church. The priesthood policy had nothing to do with the position of individual members on the matter of civil rights; the Saints were duty-bound to support the principle of full civil rights for all people. In 1963 President Hugh B. Brown of the First Presidency declared in October general conference:
We believe that all men are the children of the same God, and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny any human being the right to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience. . . .
We call upon all men, everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God's children.
On December 15, 1969, partly because protests still continued, the First Presidency issued another official statement. It said, "We believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see these rights are held inviolate. " fn
(James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed., rev. and enl. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1992], 621 - 622.)
During the presidential campaign of 1960, the public press seemed insistent upon interpreting the political statements of the President of the Church as somehow reflecting Church policy rather than private opinion. When the Republican candidate, Richard M. Nixon, visited Salt Lake City, President David O. McKay was heard to tell him "we hope you are successful. " This comment was quickly picked up in the national press and interpreted as an official endorsement. President McKay quickly clarified his statement by declaring that he was speaking "as a personal voter and as a Republican, " but certainly not for the Church as a whole. Unfortunately, the correct explanation did not receive nearly as much publicity as the original news story.
More controversial was the debate over what methods should be employed to combat the growth of communism. Latter-day Saints along with other Americans were convinced that communism posed a threat to the American economic and political system, as well as to religion, and that communists were involved in various subversive activities. President McKay affirmed that the Church was opposed to communism, and encouraged the Saints to help prevent its spread. But a number of nationally prominent Saints were also active in anti-communist groups that seemed to go too far in making unproven accusations and defaming the character of other Americans by implying they were involved in subversive activities. Such groups also tended to oppose any extension of the power of the federal government, on the grounds that this would lead inevitably to communism. Some Saints even created the impression, perhaps unintentionally, that the Church officially endorsed conservative political causes. The First Presidency continually issued statements reiterating that the Church took no position on partisan politics, prohibiting the use of church buildings for political purposes, and making it clear that even though the Church opposed communism, it could not condone the methods sometimes employed by anti-communist individuals and groups.
Despite its efforts to remain aloof from partisan politics, the Church nevertheless took sides on a few significant political issues in the 1960s. In each case Church leaders felt a moral obligation to take a stand, though they were occasionally criticized for "dabbling in politics. " One issue was liquor by the drink, which came before Utahns in 1968. The Church not only took a public stand against it but openly used its priesthood organization to distribute literature and circulate petitions. Significantly, opposition to the Church's stand was not construed as disloyalty to the Church. The First Presidency also supported Sunday closing laws, upheld the spirit of civil rights legislation (although it did not take sides on specific bills), and favored the protection of state right-to-work laws.
Perhaps the most delicate public issue involving the Church in the 1960s was civil rights. In the United States racial strife reached a peak as black citizens demanded an end to racial discrimination in every form. Prejudice and the tradition of segregation led to violence in many parts of the country, though in the long run considerable constructive legislation provided a legal basis for an end to discrimination in housing, education, employment opportunity, and all other public aspects of American life. In the turmoil every institution in America was reexamined, and for the first time many people became aware of the Church's policy of not ordaining blacks to the priesthood. This was interpreted by some people in the 1960s as a sign of racial prejudice and discrimination, and the Church quickly came under fire in national periodicals and from civil rights groups. In the late 1960s protest rallies were held in Salt Lake City, and delegates from many civil rights groups sought audiences with Church leaders in an effort to get them to change the policy. Brigham Young University athletic teams were picketed and harangued while on road trips, and at some games anti-Mormon riots broke out. Some schools severed athletic relations with BYU.
The new Church Office Building, completed in 1972. (LDS Church)
The Church's response was that it could not change the policy without divine revelation authorizing it to do so. Church leaders reminded critics that the issue was a matter of religious faith and that those who did not share that faith should not attempt to dictate policy to the Church. The priesthood policy had nothing to do with the position of individual members on the matter of civil rights; the Saints were duty-bound to support the principle of full civil rights for all people. In 1963 President Hugh B. Brown of the First Presidency declared in October general conference:
We believe that all men are the children of the same God, and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny any human being the right to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience. . . .
We call upon all men, everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God's children.
On December 15, 1969, partly because protests still continued, the First Presidency issued another official statement. It said, "We believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see these rights are held inviolate. " fn
(James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 2nd ed., rev. and enl. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1992], 621 - 622.)
Racial Challenges tothe Church
The United States underwent severe racial disruption during the 1960s, and the Church was pointedly singled out for charges of discrimination against blacks. This caused many tense moments, tremendous debate, and unrest among the membership, particularly in the Church leadership ranks.
The most memorable events to typify this stressful period were the racial riots at Los Angeles in 1965. On August 14 there were massive black riots in South Los Angeles: four hundred or more fires were started, scores of stores were looted, and numerous whites were attacked.
Elder Lee had been scheduled to hold a conference in Los Angeles that weekend, but after the explosive situation was explained he conferred with President Hugh B. Brown of the First Presidency and they decided to adjourn the conference after only the leadership meeting had been conducted. The days that followed showed the wisdom of that decision as rioting continued and the situation remained tense. The National Guard was in "ready combat" at every block within a forty-two-mile radius.
Before that, on Sunday, March 7, a group of three hundred protesters marched to the Church Office Building in Salt Lake City, demanding that the Church speak out in favor of civil rights for blacks. The march was repeated also the next day.
There were rumors of blacks invading Salt Lake City to take vengeance upon the Saints and the Church. In 1962 the Salt Lake Temple east doors were bombed. The vandalism was never totally ascribed to racial problems, although it appeared a possible act of racism.
The peak of the challenge on racial issues came in 1969. Late in October Elder Gordon B. Hinckley came to Elder Lee to express his concerns about current issues and struggles. Prominent among his worries were the difficulties facing Brigham Young University because of the protests blacks made against their athletic teams. Of course, the problem had its roots in the long-standing doctrine relative to restricting the priesthood from those of black descent. Now there were strong pressures being placed on the Church Board of Education to permit the recruiting of black athletes to appease those who were protesting against the university.
Three days later the Brethren assembled for their weekly meeting in the Salt Lake Temple. Elder Lee described this temple meeting as characterized by an unusually deep spiritual atmosphere. Elder Lee was called on to pronounce the opening prayer at the temple altar. He was strongly impressed to pray for a oneness such as the Master prayed for with his disciples long ago in Jerusalem. He prayed that God would safeguard the portals of the temple and, if necessary, send the protective agency of those personages translated, but not yet resurrected, who were reserved to protect the Lord's work on earth. He pleaded for direct intervention to give the leadership of the Church divine guidance in decisions that must be made within the week and would determine the course of action the Church would take to meet the racial issue. The ramifications of such an important decision could stay with them as long as they lived.
In the first week of November a spirited Church Board of Education meeting was held. The Brethren met under the backdrop of a recent meeting of the athletic directors of the Western Athletic Conference universities, which ended in a brawl when a delegation of blacks forced themselves into the meeting. At that meeting, the BYU representative had read a policy statement rebutting the charge of racial discrimination at the Church school. Now at the Church Board of Education meeting the subject of prime concern was the adoption of a policy permitting recruiting of black athletes at BYU. Obviously, only the Church Board of Education could discuss the real issue, the long-standing prohibition of black male members from holding the priesthood.
Knowing that a policy statement would be necessary from Church headquarters, Elder Lee had spent several days documenting his own thinking on this weighty subject. He then asked G. Homer Durham and Neal A. Maxwell, prominent educators, to do likewise. Placing their texts with his own he delivered the three approaches to Elder Gordon B. Hinckley and asked him to formulate out of their combined thinking the most satisfactory statement that could be read by the critics of the Church, as well as the Church members, to make the Church's position clear.
The background to that position, which President McKay had always reaffirmed, was that the priesthood restriction was not merely a practice or a policy but was based upon a principle handed down by divine order; and that therefore a change could be made only by a revelation from the Lord through his prophet. After two or three drafts and revisions, the statement on the Church and the blacks was ready.
Although misleading announcements in the media caused much confusion during the Christmas holidays of 1969, the statement, which earlier had been circulated to Church leaders in missions, stakes, and wards, was released nationally. It appeared in print for the Latter-day Saints to read in the Church News, on Saturday, January 10, 1970, signed by all members of the First Presidency.
The Church tried to take some positive steps to give black baptized members an improved status in the Church as a social organization. Under date of June 10, 1971, President Lee recorded in his diary his concerns and action: "I spent considerable time in the temple meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve considering what could be done with our black members locally who want to be more fully fellowshipped. More meetings will be held with these members."
A study was made by three members of the Quorum of the Twelve, Elders Howard W. Hunter, Thomas S. Monson, and Boyd K. Packer, which resulted in the organization of a social group of black members known as Genesis. In deciding how to implement this organization, which met in addition to the customary involvement in local wards, where they participated in Primary Association, Relief Society and social activities, President Lee, according to the recollection of Elder Monson, gave this counsel, after deep and solemn pondering and prayer: "I can see where we should not have Sunday School included in the program, but my feelings are, however, that we should extend to our black brethren every blessing up to the holding of the priesthood, and then the Lord will show us the next step."
The subject was not easily put to rest, however. But when it was finally handled and resolved, eight years later, it was done so as a divine principle requiring a revelation from God to his prophet on earth. President Spencer W. Kimball's historic announcementfn on June 8, 1978, declaring that all worthy male members of the Church, regardless of race, may be ordained to the priesthood brought joy and happiness to almost everyone and ended a social issue which had been a divisive and burdensome trial to many people in and outside the Church.
(L. Brent Goates, Harold B. Lee: Prophet and Seer [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1985], 381.)
The most memorable events to typify this stressful period were the racial riots at Los Angeles in 1965. On August 14 there were massive black riots in South Los Angeles: four hundred or more fires were started, scores of stores were looted, and numerous whites were attacked.
Elder Lee had been scheduled to hold a conference in Los Angeles that weekend, but after the explosive situation was explained he conferred with President Hugh B. Brown of the First Presidency and they decided to adjourn the conference after only the leadership meeting had been conducted. The days that followed showed the wisdom of that decision as rioting continued and the situation remained tense. The National Guard was in "ready combat" at every block within a forty-two-mile radius.
Before that, on Sunday, March 7, a group of three hundred protesters marched to the Church Office Building in Salt Lake City, demanding that the Church speak out in favor of civil rights for blacks. The march was repeated also the next day.
There were rumors of blacks invading Salt Lake City to take vengeance upon the Saints and the Church. In 1962 the Salt Lake Temple east doors were bombed. The vandalism was never totally ascribed to racial problems, although it appeared a possible act of racism.
The peak of the challenge on racial issues came in 1969. Late in October Elder Gordon B. Hinckley came to Elder Lee to express his concerns about current issues and struggles. Prominent among his worries were the difficulties facing Brigham Young University because of the protests blacks made against their athletic teams. Of course, the problem had its roots in the long-standing doctrine relative to restricting the priesthood from those of black descent. Now there were strong pressures being placed on the Church Board of Education to permit the recruiting of black athletes to appease those who were protesting against the university.
Three days later the Brethren assembled for their weekly meeting in the Salt Lake Temple. Elder Lee described this temple meeting as characterized by an unusually deep spiritual atmosphere. Elder Lee was called on to pronounce the opening prayer at the temple altar. He was strongly impressed to pray for a oneness such as the Master prayed for with his disciples long ago in Jerusalem. He prayed that God would safeguard the portals of the temple and, if necessary, send the protective agency of those personages translated, but not yet resurrected, who were reserved to protect the Lord's work on earth. He pleaded for direct intervention to give the leadership of the Church divine guidance in decisions that must be made within the week and would determine the course of action the Church would take to meet the racial issue. The ramifications of such an important decision could stay with them as long as they lived.
In the first week of November a spirited Church Board of Education meeting was held. The Brethren met under the backdrop of a recent meeting of the athletic directors of the Western Athletic Conference universities, which ended in a brawl when a delegation of blacks forced themselves into the meeting. At that meeting, the BYU representative had read a policy statement rebutting the charge of racial discrimination at the Church school. Now at the Church Board of Education meeting the subject of prime concern was the adoption of a policy permitting recruiting of black athletes at BYU. Obviously, only the Church Board of Education could discuss the real issue, the long-standing prohibition of black male members from holding the priesthood.
Knowing that a policy statement would be necessary from Church headquarters, Elder Lee had spent several days documenting his own thinking on this weighty subject. He then asked G. Homer Durham and Neal A. Maxwell, prominent educators, to do likewise. Placing their texts with his own he delivered the three approaches to Elder Gordon B. Hinckley and asked him to formulate out of their combined thinking the most satisfactory statement that could be read by the critics of the Church, as well as the Church members, to make the Church's position clear.
The background to that position, which President McKay had always reaffirmed, was that the priesthood restriction was not merely a practice or a policy but was based upon a principle handed down by divine order; and that therefore a change could be made only by a revelation from the Lord through his prophet. After two or three drafts and revisions, the statement on the Church and the blacks was ready.
Although misleading announcements in the media caused much confusion during the Christmas holidays of 1969, the statement, which earlier had been circulated to Church leaders in missions, stakes, and wards, was released nationally. It appeared in print for the Latter-day Saints to read in the Church News, on Saturday, January 10, 1970, signed by all members of the First Presidency.
The Church tried to take some positive steps to give black baptized members an improved status in the Church as a social organization. Under date of June 10, 1971, President Lee recorded in his diary his concerns and action: "I spent considerable time in the temple meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve considering what could be done with our black members locally who want to be more fully fellowshipped. More meetings will be held with these members."
A study was made by three members of the Quorum of the Twelve, Elders Howard W. Hunter, Thomas S. Monson, and Boyd K. Packer, which resulted in the organization of a social group of black members known as Genesis. In deciding how to implement this organization, which met in addition to the customary involvement in local wards, where they participated in Primary Association, Relief Society and social activities, President Lee, according to the recollection of Elder Monson, gave this counsel, after deep and solemn pondering and prayer: "I can see where we should not have Sunday School included in the program, but my feelings are, however, that we should extend to our black brethren every blessing up to the holding of the priesthood, and then the Lord will show us the next step."
The subject was not easily put to rest, however. But when it was finally handled and resolved, eight years later, it was done so as a divine principle requiring a revelation from God to his prophet on earth. President Spencer W. Kimball's historic announcementfn on June 8, 1978, declaring that all worthy male members of the Church, regardless of race, may be ordained to the priesthood brought joy and happiness to almost everyone and ended a social issue which had been a divisive and burdensome trial to many people in and outside the Church.
(L. Brent Goates, Harold B. Lee: Prophet and Seer [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1985], 381.)
Blacks, Encyclopedia of Mormonism
The history of black membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be divided between the era from 1830 to June 1978 and the period since then.
HISTORY. Though few in number, blacks have been attracted to the Church since its organization. Early converts (such as Elijah Abel) joined during the 1830s; others (such as Jane Manning James) joined after the Saints moved to Illinois. Among those who came to Utah as pioneers were Green Flake, who drove Brigham Young's wagon into the Salt Lake Valley, and Samuel Chambers, who joined in Virginia as a slave and went west after being freed. Throughout the twentieth century, small numbers of blacks continued to join the Church, such as the Sargent family of Carolina County, Virginia, who joined in 1906; Len and Mary Hope, who joined in Alabama during the 1920s; Ruffin Bridgeforth, a railroad worker in Utah, converted in 1953; and Helvecio Martins, a black Brazilian businessman, baptized in 1972 (he became a general authority in 1990). These members remained committed to their testimonies and Church activities even though during this period prior to 1978 black members could not hold the priesthood or participate in temple ordinances.
The reasons for these restrictions have not been revealed. Church leaders and members have explained them in different ways over time. Although several blacks were ordained to the priesthood in the 1830s, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith authorized new ordinations in the 1840s, and between 1847 and 1852 Church leaders maintained that blacks should be denied the priesthood because of their lineage. According to the book of Abraham (now part of the Pearl of Great Price), the descendants of Cain were to be denied the priesthood of God (Abr. 1:23-26). Some Latter-day Saints theorized that blacks would be restricted throughout mortality. As early as 1852, however, Brigham Young said that the "time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more" (Brigham Young Papers, Church Archives, Feb. 5, 1852), and increasingly in the 1960s, Presidents of the Church taught that denial of entry to the priesthood was a current commandment of God, but would not prevent blacks from eventually possessing all eternal blessings.
Missionaries avoided proselytizing blacks, and General Authorities decided not to send missionaries to Africa, much of the Caribbean, or other regions inhabited by large populations of blacks. Before World War II, only German-speaking missionaries were sent to Brazil, where they sought out German immigrants. When government war regulations curtailed proselytizing among Germans, missionary work was expanded to include Portuguese-speaking Brazilians. Determining genealogically who was to be granted and who denied the priesthood became increasingly a sensitive and complex issue.
During the civil rights era in the United States, denial of the priesthood to blacks drew increasing criticism, culminating in athletic boycotts of Brigham Young University, threatened lawsuits, and public condemnation of the Church in the late 1960s. When questioned about the Church and blacks, Church officials stated that removal of the priesthood restriction would require revelation from God-not policy changes by men.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS. On June 9, 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball announced the revelation that all worthy males could hold the priesthood (see Doctrine and Covenants: Declaration 2). Following the 1978 priesthood revelation, proselytizing was expanded worldwide to include people of African descent. Between 1977 and 1987, Church membership grew from 3,969,000 to 6,440,000, an increase of 62 percent. Because LDS membership records do not identify race, it is impossible to measure accurately the growth of black membership, except in areas where people are largely or exclusively of African descent. In the Caribbean, excepting Puerto Rico, membership grew from 836 to 18,614 and in Brazil from 51,000 to 250,000 during that decade.
In other areas of Latin America, such as Colombia and Venezuela, increasing numbers of blacks also joined the Church. In Europe, blacks, including African immigrants to Portugal, joined the Church. Moreover, in Ghana, Nigeria, and throughout west and central Africa, missionary work expanded at a phenomenal rate. Excluding South Africa, where the membership was predominantly white, membership grew from 136 in 1977 to 14,347 in 1988, almost all in west Africa (see Africa, the Church in).
The LDS Afro-American Oral History Project, conducted by the Charles Redd Center for Western Studies at Brigham Young University, demonstrated the increasing number of black members in the United States. Through interviews with black Latter-day Saints throughout the country, a symposium on LDS Afro-Americans held at Brigham Young University, and responses to a mailed survey, a more reliable flow of data was generated about the thoughts, feelings, convictions, and experiences of LDS Afro-Americans. The study found that within the Church Afro-Americans experience both high acceptance and, paradoxically, cultural miscommunications. For example, in response to the survey, 81 percent felt their future as blacks in the Church was hopeful. They explained that they experienced more social interactions and more meaningful relationships with Church members of all races, especially whites. At the same time, however, 46 percent said white members were not aware of the "needs and problems of black members." Some felt a lack of fellowship as well as economic and racial prejudice from white members.
Black Latter-day Saints are a nonhomogeneous mix of various "kindreds, tongues, and peoples" emerging from thousands of years of unprecedented religious and cultural exclusions. As with LDS Afro-Americans, many black members outside the United States encounter contrasting circumstances of full ecclesiastical involvement, on the one hand, and general Church ignorance of their respective cultures, on the other hand. Local leaders and members (primarily white Latter-day Saints) often lack a good working knowledge of black members' needs, concerns, and circumstances. Despite the 1978 priesthood revelation and expanded missionary work among blacks, unexplored challenges to their growth and retention remain in counterpoint to their happiness with priesthood inclusion.
Despite the cultural miscommunications that remain, black Latter-day Saints enjoy opportunities in all phases of Church activity, including missionary work, quorum leadership, bishoprics, and stake presidencies, along with other members. The first entirely black African stake was organized in 1988. Indeed, black Latter-day Saints may be an LDS historical enigma that has emerged as a prime example of success in LDS brotherhood and sisterhood.
Illustration
Samuel D. Chambers (1831-1929) and his wife Amanda Leggroan (c. 1908).
Chambers was converted in Mississippi in 1844 and came to Utah in
1870 after the Civil War. For eighty-five years he was faithful and
loyal to the Church. He served joyfully and was deeply respected.
Helvecio Martins, from Brazil, sustained as a
General Authority on March 31, 1990.
Bibliography
Bringhurst, Newell G. Saints, Slaves, and Blacks. Westport, Conn., 1981.
Carter, Kate B. "The Negro Pioneer." In Our Pioneer Heritage, Vol. 8, pp. 497-580. Salt Lake City, 1965.
Embry, Jessie L. "Separate but Equal? Black Branches, Genesis Groups, or Integrated Wards?" Dialogue 23 (Spring 1990):11-37.
LDS Afro-American Oral History Project. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 1985-1988.
ALAN CHERRY
JESSIE L. EMBRY
(Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 127.)
HISTORY. Though few in number, blacks have been attracted to the Church since its organization. Early converts (such as Elijah Abel) joined during the 1830s; others (such as Jane Manning James) joined after the Saints moved to Illinois. Among those who came to Utah as pioneers were Green Flake, who drove Brigham Young's wagon into the Salt Lake Valley, and Samuel Chambers, who joined in Virginia as a slave and went west after being freed. Throughout the twentieth century, small numbers of blacks continued to join the Church, such as the Sargent family of Carolina County, Virginia, who joined in 1906; Len and Mary Hope, who joined in Alabama during the 1920s; Ruffin Bridgeforth, a railroad worker in Utah, converted in 1953; and Helvecio Martins, a black Brazilian businessman, baptized in 1972 (he became a general authority in 1990). These members remained committed to their testimonies and Church activities even though during this period prior to 1978 black members could not hold the priesthood or participate in temple ordinances.
The reasons for these restrictions have not been revealed. Church leaders and members have explained them in different ways over time. Although several blacks were ordained to the priesthood in the 1830s, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith authorized new ordinations in the 1840s, and between 1847 and 1852 Church leaders maintained that blacks should be denied the priesthood because of their lineage. According to the book of Abraham (now part of the Pearl of Great Price), the descendants of Cain were to be denied the priesthood of God (Abr. 1:23-26). Some Latter-day Saints theorized that blacks would be restricted throughout mortality. As early as 1852, however, Brigham Young said that the "time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more" (Brigham Young Papers, Church Archives, Feb. 5, 1852), and increasingly in the 1960s, Presidents of the Church taught that denial of entry to the priesthood was a current commandment of God, but would not prevent blacks from eventually possessing all eternal blessings.
Missionaries avoided proselytizing blacks, and General Authorities decided not to send missionaries to Africa, much of the Caribbean, or other regions inhabited by large populations of blacks. Before World War II, only German-speaking missionaries were sent to Brazil, where they sought out German immigrants. When government war regulations curtailed proselytizing among Germans, missionary work was expanded to include Portuguese-speaking Brazilians. Determining genealogically who was to be granted and who denied the priesthood became increasingly a sensitive and complex issue.
During the civil rights era in the United States, denial of the priesthood to blacks drew increasing criticism, culminating in athletic boycotts of Brigham Young University, threatened lawsuits, and public condemnation of the Church in the late 1960s. When questioned about the Church and blacks, Church officials stated that removal of the priesthood restriction would require revelation from God-not policy changes by men.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS. On June 9, 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball announced the revelation that all worthy males could hold the priesthood (see Doctrine and Covenants: Declaration 2). Following the 1978 priesthood revelation, proselytizing was expanded worldwide to include people of African descent. Between 1977 and 1987, Church membership grew from 3,969,000 to 6,440,000, an increase of 62 percent. Because LDS membership records do not identify race, it is impossible to measure accurately the growth of black membership, except in areas where people are largely or exclusively of African descent. In the Caribbean, excepting Puerto Rico, membership grew from 836 to 18,614 and in Brazil from 51,000 to 250,000 during that decade.
In other areas of Latin America, such as Colombia and Venezuela, increasing numbers of blacks also joined the Church. In Europe, blacks, including African immigrants to Portugal, joined the Church. Moreover, in Ghana, Nigeria, and throughout west and central Africa, missionary work expanded at a phenomenal rate. Excluding South Africa, where the membership was predominantly white, membership grew from 136 in 1977 to 14,347 in 1988, almost all in west Africa (see Africa, the Church in).
The LDS Afro-American Oral History Project, conducted by the Charles Redd Center for Western Studies at Brigham Young University, demonstrated the increasing number of black members in the United States. Through interviews with black Latter-day Saints throughout the country, a symposium on LDS Afro-Americans held at Brigham Young University, and responses to a mailed survey, a more reliable flow of data was generated about the thoughts, feelings, convictions, and experiences of LDS Afro-Americans. The study found that within the Church Afro-Americans experience both high acceptance and, paradoxically, cultural miscommunications. For example, in response to the survey, 81 percent felt their future as blacks in the Church was hopeful. They explained that they experienced more social interactions and more meaningful relationships with Church members of all races, especially whites. At the same time, however, 46 percent said white members were not aware of the "needs and problems of black members." Some felt a lack of fellowship as well as economic and racial prejudice from white members.
Black Latter-day Saints are a nonhomogeneous mix of various "kindreds, tongues, and peoples" emerging from thousands of years of unprecedented religious and cultural exclusions. As with LDS Afro-Americans, many black members outside the United States encounter contrasting circumstances of full ecclesiastical involvement, on the one hand, and general Church ignorance of their respective cultures, on the other hand. Local leaders and members (primarily white Latter-day Saints) often lack a good working knowledge of black members' needs, concerns, and circumstances. Despite the 1978 priesthood revelation and expanded missionary work among blacks, unexplored challenges to their growth and retention remain in counterpoint to their happiness with priesthood inclusion.
Despite the cultural miscommunications that remain, black Latter-day Saints enjoy opportunities in all phases of Church activity, including missionary work, quorum leadership, bishoprics, and stake presidencies, along with other members. The first entirely black African stake was organized in 1988. Indeed, black Latter-day Saints may be an LDS historical enigma that has emerged as a prime example of success in LDS brotherhood and sisterhood.
Illustration
Samuel D. Chambers (1831-1929) and his wife Amanda Leggroan (c. 1908).
Chambers was converted in Mississippi in 1844 and came to Utah in
1870 after the Civil War. For eighty-five years he was faithful and
loyal to the Church. He served joyfully and was deeply respected.
Helvecio Martins, from Brazil, sustained as a
General Authority on March 31, 1990.
Bibliography
Bringhurst, Newell G. Saints, Slaves, and Blacks. Westport, Conn., 1981.
Carter, Kate B. "The Negro Pioneer." In Our Pioneer Heritage, Vol. 8, pp. 497-580. Salt Lake City, 1965.
Embry, Jessie L. "Separate but Equal? Black Branches, Genesis Groups, or Integrated Wards?" Dialogue 23 (Spring 1990):11-37.
LDS Afro-American Oral History Project. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 1985-1988.
ALAN CHERRY
JESSIE L. EMBRY
(Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 127.)
Friday, June 8, 2007
Much has been said of discrimination against African American males and LDS women in regard to holding the priesthood in the LDS Church.
Acting under what he and his people believed to be divine direction, some time late in the 1830s the Prophet Joseph Smith established a position that the blessings of the priesthood should be withheld from black members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This practice continued in the Church through Joseph Smith's successors until the announcement of a revelation received by Spencer W. Kimball, twelfth president of the Church, in June of 1978. There is no statement directly from Joseph Smith himself offering commentary or doctrinal explanation for such an action, though the scriptural basis for a lineage-based granting or denial of priesthood may be found in the Pearl of Great Price. (Moses 7:8, 22; Abr. 1:21-27; see also Gen. 4:1-15; Moses 5:18-41.) Leaders of the Church have repeatedly affirmed that the position of the Church in regard to who does and does not bear the priesthood is a matter of revelation from heaven and not simply social or political expediency.
As to the fact that certain individuals or groups of people have not always had access to the full blessings of the gospel or the priesthood, there is also scriptural precedent. From the days of Moses to the coming of Jesus Christ, the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood was conferred only upon worthy descendants of the tribe of Levi. In the first Christian century, the message of salvation was presented first to the Jews (the "lost sheep of the house of Israel," Matt. 10:5-6; 15:24) and then later, primarily through the labors of the Apostle Paul, to the Gentile nations. Ultimately the blessings of the Lord are for all people, "black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." (Book of Mormon, 2 Ne. 26:33.) At the same time, God has a plan, a divine timetable by which his purposes are brought to pass in and through his children on earth. He knows the end from the beginning and the times before appointed for specific doings and eventualities. (See Acts 17:26.) That timetable may not be ignored, slighted, or altered by finite man. The faithful seek to live in harmony with God's will and go forward in life with all patience and faith.
Women in the LDS Church are not ordained to the priesthood. The leaders of the Church have instructed that men and women have roles in life that are equally important but different. Some roles are best suited to the masculine nature, while women have natural and innate capacities to do some things that are more difficult for men. Because of the sanctity of the family and the home and because of the vital nature of the family in the preservation of society, Latter-day Saints teach that motherhood is the highest and holiest calling a woman can assume. The Mormons believe that women should search, study, learn, prepare, and develop in every way possible—socially, intellectually, and spiritually—but that no role in society will bring as much fulfillment or contribute more to the good of humankind than motherhood.
There is nothing in LDS doctrine to suggest that to be a man is preferred in the sight of God, or that the Almighty loves males more than females. Latter-day Saint theology condemns unrighteous dominion in any form, as well as any type of discrimination because of race, color, or gender. God is no respecter of persons. Women are the daughters of God, are entitled to every spiritual gift, every virtue, and every fruit of the Spirit. Priesthood is not maleness, nor should it be equated with male administration. A man who holds the priesthood does not have any advantage over a woman in qualifying for salvation in the highest heaven. Priesthood is divine authority given to worthy men, as a part of God's great plan of happiness. Why it is bestowed upon men and not women is not known. The highest ordinance of the priesthood, received in the temple, is given only to a man and a woman together.
A Latter-day Saint apostle, James E. Talmage, stated, "In the restored Church of Jesus Christ, the Holy Priesthood is conferred, as an individual bestowal, upon men only, and this in accordance with Divine requirement. It is not given to woman to exercise the authority of the Priesthood independently; nevertheless, in the sacred endowments associated with the ordinances pertaining to the House of the Lord, woman shares with man the blessings of the Priesthood. When the frailties and imperfections of mortality are left behind, in the glorified state of the blessed hereafter, husband and wife will administer in their respective stations, seeing and understanding alike, and co-operating to the full in the government of their family kingdom. Then shall woman be recompensed in rich measure for all the injustice that womanhood has endured in mortality. Then shall woman reign by Divine right, a queen in the resplendent realm of her glorified state, even as exalted man shall stand, priest and king unto the Most High God. Mortal eye cannot see nor mind comprehend the beauty, glory, and majesty of a righteous woman made perfect in the celestial kingdom of God."<#>8
(Robert L. Millet, The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1998], 178 - 179
As to the fact that certain individuals or groups of people have not always had access to the full blessings of the gospel or the priesthood, there is also scriptural precedent. From the days of Moses to the coming of Jesus Christ, the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood was conferred only upon worthy descendants of the tribe of Levi. In the first Christian century, the message of salvation was presented first to the Jews (the "lost sheep of the house of Israel," Matt. 10:5-6; 15:24) and then later, primarily through the labors of the Apostle Paul, to the Gentile nations. Ultimately the blessings of the Lord are for all people, "black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." (Book of Mormon, 2 Ne. 26:33.) At the same time, God has a plan, a divine timetable by which his purposes are brought to pass in and through his children on earth. He knows the end from the beginning and the times before appointed for specific doings and eventualities. (See Acts 17:26.) That timetable may not be ignored, slighted, or altered by finite man. The faithful seek to live in harmony with God's will and go forward in life with all patience and faith.
Women in the LDS Church are not ordained to the priesthood. The leaders of the Church have instructed that men and women have roles in life that are equally important but different. Some roles are best suited to the masculine nature, while women have natural and innate capacities to do some things that are more difficult for men. Because of the sanctity of the family and the home and because of the vital nature of the family in the preservation of society, Latter-day Saints teach that motherhood is the highest and holiest calling a woman can assume. The Mormons believe that women should search, study, learn, prepare, and develop in every way possible—socially, intellectually, and spiritually—but that no role in society will bring as much fulfillment or contribute more to the good of humankind than motherhood.
There is nothing in LDS doctrine to suggest that to be a man is preferred in the sight of God, or that the Almighty loves males more than females. Latter-day Saint theology condemns unrighteous dominion in any form, as well as any type of discrimination because of race, color, or gender. God is no respecter of persons. Women are the daughters of God, are entitled to every spiritual gift, every virtue, and every fruit of the Spirit. Priesthood is not maleness, nor should it be equated with male administration. A man who holds the priesthood does not have any advantage over a woman in qualifying for salvation in the highest heaven. Priesthood is divine authority given to worthy men, as a part of God's great plan of happiness. Why it is bestowed upon men and not women is not known. The highest ordinance of the priesthood, received in the temple, is given only to a man and a woman together.
A Latter-day Saint apostle, James E. Talmage, stated, "In the restored Church of Jesus Christ, the Holy Priesthood is conferred, as an individual bestowal, upon men only, and this in accordance with Divine requirement. It is not given to woman to exercise the authority of the Priesthood independently; nevertheless, in the sacred endowments associated with the ordinances pertaining to the House of the Lord, woman shares with man the blessings of the Priesthood. When the frailties and imperfections of mortality are left behind, in the glorified state of the blessed hereafter, husband and wife will administer in their respective stations, seeing and understanding alike, and co-operating to the full in the government of their family kingdom. Then shall woman be recompensed in rich measure for all the injustice that womanhood has endured in mortality. Then shall woman reign by Divine right, a queen in the resplendent realm of her glorified state, even as exalted man shall stand, priest and king unto the Most High God. Mortal eye cannot see nor mind comprehend the beauty, glory, and majesty of a righteous woman made perfect in the celestial kingdom of God."<#>8
(Robert L. Millet, The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1998], 178 - 179
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Revelation To Ordain Blacks to the Priesthood
Certainly, the most dramatic change instituted under President Kimball's leadership was the revelation to ordain blacks to the priesthood. On 9 June 1978, the First Presidency addressed a letter to the general and local officers of the Church throughout the world. In it, they said that they had been pleading "long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance." The letter went on to declare that the Lord had "heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color."
The New York Times called it "without question the most important shift by the church since it outlawed polygamy." Later, President Kimball recalled that he had prayed over the matter for many days in the temple. "I was very humble. . . . I was searching for this. I wanted to be sure." After his many visits to the temple to meditate and pray, President Kimball called a special meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve and asked them to remain following their meeting.
We considered this very seriously and thoughtfully and prayerfully. . . . I offered the final prayer and I told the Lord if it wasn't right, if He didn't want this change to come in the Church, that I would be true to it all the rest of my life. . . . We had this special prayer circle, then I knew that the time had came. I had a great deal to fight . . . myself, largely, because I had grown up with this thought that Negroes should not have the priesthood. . . . But this revelation and assurance came to me so clearly that there was no question about it.
Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve said that President Kimball "prayed with great faith and great fervor" and when he finished his prayer the "Lord gave a revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost." Elder McConkie noted that the revelation came to the "President of the Church and to each individual present." The result, he said, "was that President Kimball knew, and each one of us knew, independent of any other person, by direct and personal revelation to us, that the time had now come to extend the gospel and all its blessings and all its obligations, including the priesthood . . . to those of every nation, culture, and race, including the black race."
(Lengthening Our Stride: the Remarkable Administration of Spencer W. Kimball by Dennis L. Lythgoe Fn, BYU Studies, vol. 25 (1985), Number 4 - Fall 1985 12.)
The New York Times called it "without question the most important shift by the church since it outlawed polygamy." Later, President Kimball recalled that he had prayed over the matter for many days in the temple. "I was very humble. . . . I was searching for this. I wanted to be sure." After his many visits to the temple to meditate and pray, President Kimball called a special meeting of the Quorum of the Twelve and asked them to remain following their meeting.
We considered this very seriously and thoughtfully and prayerfully. . . . I offered the final prayer and I told the Lord if it wasn't right, if He didn't want this change to come in the Church, that I would be true to it all the rest of my life. . . . We had this special prayer circle, then I knew that the time had came. I had a great deal to fight . . . myself, largely, because I had grown up with this thought that Negroes should not have the priesthood. . . . But this revelation and assurance came to me so clearly that there was no question about it.
Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve said that President Kimball "prayed with great faith and great fervor" and when he finished his prayer the "Lord gave a revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost." Elder McConkie noted that the revelation came to the "President of the Church and to each individual present." The result, he said, "was that President Kimball knew, and each one of us knew, independent of any other person, by direct and personal revelation to us, that the time had now come to extend the gospel and all its blessings and all its obligations, including the priesthood . . . to those of every nation, culture, and race, including the black race."
(Lengthening Our Stride: the Remarkable Administration of Spencer W. Kimball by Dennis L. Lythgoe Fn, BYU Studies, vol. 25 (1985), Number 4 - Fall 1985 12.)
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Why were blacks denied the priesthood for so long?
QUESTION
Why were blacks denied the priesthood for so long?
ANSWER
A meaningful response to this question rests on an understanding of what the priesthood is. That understanding is generally not had by those asking the question. A typical dictionary definition is "the office and vocation of a priest." For a Latter-day Saint, the priesthood is appreciably more than that. The priesthood embraces the power and authority to act in the name of God. It is the authority to represent Deity in teaching the gospel and in performing the ordinances of salvation. Independent of the Spirit of revelation there can be no priesthood. One can hardly profess to speak for a God who will not speak to him. In legal terms, priesthood can be likened to the power of attorney, which is the legal authority by which one person acts in the name of another.
If one accepts the Latter-day Saint claim to priesthood—that is, that only within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can the authority be found to speak for God—one must at the same time accept what God has said through that priesthood. This was the principle that Christ taught when he told the meridian Twelve, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you" (John 15:16). Thus if one believes that Peter, James, and John did in fact confer the authority they received from the Savior upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, one must also believe that the priesthood is to function as those to whom the apostles entrusted it direct. On the other hand, if a person does not believe that Latter-day Saints have this authority, then he cannot be asking the question out of concern for those denied this priesthood. Such a person should be relieved rather than offended that the Latter-day Saints have not given to others a priesthood in which he does not believe.
Answers to questions about why the Lord, in his wisdom, chooses to withhold certain privileges or blessings from certain people for a period of time are generally not known to us. At the time of Moses, the Melchizedek Priesthood was taken from the children of Israel. In its stead they were given the Aaronic, or Lesser, Priesthood. This priesthood was restricted to worthy males of the tribe of Levi. We are told in a revelation on the priesthood that the higher priesthood was taken because the children of Israel failed to sanctify themselves that they might stand in the presence of God (see D&C 84:19-25). This statement, however, leaves unanswered the question about why unborn generations were denied the priesthood because of the failure of their progenitors. Many similar situations exist. Why, for instance, are some nations required to wait so much longer than others to receive the blessings of the gospel? Or why are some couples who want children so badly unable to have them? Or why are some who desire to find a companion to whom they can be sealed in the temple unable to do so?
Our response to such questions must be one of faith. We simply trust the wisdom of God and accept his timetable. We know that he loves all his children and that the withholding of certain blessings for a time and season will not go unrewarded.
(Joseph Fielding McConkie, Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1998], 30.)
Why were blacks denied the priesthood for so long?
ANSWER
A meaningful response to this question rests on an understanding of what the priesthood is. That understanding is generally not had by those asking the question. A typical dictionary definition is "the office and vocation of a priest." For a Latter-day Saint, the priesthood is appreciably more than that. The priesthood embraces the power and authority to act in the name of God. It is the authority to represent Deity in teaching the gospel and in performing the ordinances of salvation. Independent of the Spirit of revelation there can be no priesthood. One can hardly profess to speak for a God who will not speak to him. In legal terms, priesthood can be likened to the power of attorney, which is the legal authority by which one person acts in the name of another.
If one accepts the Latter-day Saint claim to priesthood—that is, that only within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can the authority be found to speak for God—one must at the same time accept what God has said through that priesthood. This was the principle that Christ taught when he told the meridian Twelve, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you" (John 15:16). Thus if one believes that Peter, James, and John did in fact confer the authority they received from the Savior upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, one must also believe that the priesthood is to function as those to whom the apostles entrusted it direct. On the other hand, if a person does not believe that Latter-day Saints have this authority, then he cannot be asking the question out of concern for those denied this priesthood. Such a person should be relieved rather than offended that the Latter-day Saints have not given to others a priesthood in which he does not believe.
Answers to questions about why the Lord, in his wisdom, chooses to withhold certain privileges or blessings from certain people for a period of time are generally not known to us. At the time of Moses, the Melchizedek Priesthood was taken from the children of Israel. In its stead they were given the Aaronic, or Lesser, Priesthood. This priesthood was restricted to worthy males of the tribe of Levi. We are told in a revelation on the priesthood that the higher priesthood was taken because the children of Israel failed to sanctify themselves that they might stand in the presence of God (see D&C 84:19-25). This statement, however, leaves unanswered the question about why unborn generations were denied the priesthood because of the failure of their progenitors. Many similar situations exist. Why, for instance, are some nations required to wait so much longer than others to receive the blessings of the gospel? Or why are some couples who want children so badly unable to have them? Or why are some who desire to find a companion to whom they can be sealed in the temple unable to do so?
Our response to such questions must be one of faith. We simply trust the wisdom of God and accept his timetable. We know that he loves all his children and that the withholding of certain blessings for a time and season will not go unrewarded.
(Joseph Fielding McConkie, Answers: Straightforward Answers to Tough Gospel Questions [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1998], 30.)
Lineage and Priesthood
In the Book of Abraham as in many ancient versions of the Abraham story, the hero in his youth challenges a king's assertion of divine authority (Abr. 1:5-6), claiming to have the true authority himself (1:2-3). The king takes up the challenge and tries to make a ritual offering of Abraham as the well-known substitute King or tanist. (Abr. 1:8-14 and Fac. 1.) Abraham's miraculous delivery converts the King, who petitions Abraham for his priesthood and offers his own honors in exchange—such is the burden of many legends and of Facsimile No. 3; he also covets Abraham's wife in hopes of establishing a priestly line in the true succession. (233: Apr. 1970, 79ff.)
Why was Pharaoh, "a righteous man, ... blessed ... with the blessings of wisdom" (Abr. 1:26), denied that priesthood which he "would fain claim from Noah, through Ham" (1:27)? Certainly not because of Ham, "a just man [who] walked with God" (Moses 8:27), but rather because he claimed it through the wrong line, "that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood" (Abr. 1:27). What was wrong with it? Simply this: it was not the patriarchal but the matriarchal line he was following. Even while "seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations (what the Egyptians called the pa'at), in the days of the first patriarchal reign" (1:26), he nonetheless traced his descent and his throne to "a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, the daughter of Egyptus" (1:23); this woman "discovered the land" and "settled her sons in it" (1:24). Her eldest son became the first Pharaoh, ruling "after the manner" of the patriarchal order (1:25), which the King sought earnestly to "imitate." Thus the government of Egypt was carried on under the fiction of being patriarchal while the actual line was matriarchal, the Queen being "the Wife of the God and bearer of the royal lineage." (421:47.) But however noble it may be, a matriarchal line cannot claim patriarchal authority, even though all the parties concerned are sympathetically portrayed. In all of which there is no mention of race, though enemies of the Church have declared with shock and outrage that these passages are proof of Mormon discrimination against blacks.
(Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1981], 133 - 134.)
Why was Pharaoh, "a righteous man, ... blessed ... with the blessings of wisdom" (Abr. 1:26), denied that priesthood which he "would fain claim from Noah, through Ham" (1:27)? Certainly not because of Ham, "a just man [who] walked with God" (Moses 8:27), but rather because he claimed it through the wrong line, "that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood" (Abr. 1:27). What was wrong with it? Simply this: it was not the patriarchal but the matriarchal line he was following. Even while "seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations (what the Egyptians called the pa'at), in the days of the first patriarchal reign" (1:26), he nonetheless traced his descent and his throne to "a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, the daughter of Egyptus" (1:23); this woman "discovered the land" and "settled her sons in it" (1:24). Her eldest son became the first Pharaoh, ruling "after the manner" of the patriarchal order (1:25), which the King sought earnestly to "imitate." Thus the government of Egypt was carried on under the fiction of being patriarchal while the actual line was matriarchal, the Queen being "the Wife of the God and bearer of the royal lineage." (421:47.) But however noble it may be, a matriarchal line cannot claim patriarchal authority, even though all the parties concerned are sympathetically portrayed. In all of which there is no mention of race, though enemies of the Church have declared with shock and outrage that these passages are proof of Mormon discrimination against blacks.
(Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1981], 133 - 134.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
