Elijah Abel (a black man) was ordained an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints March 1836, his son Enoch was ordained an Elder November 1900 and Enoch’s son also named Elijah was ordained an Elder in September 1935. In addition to Elder Abel and his descendants there were several other black men who held the priesthood early in the churches history.
Abby,that was a nice article,but why exactly were worthy black men excluded from the preisthood for those years?
It makes it seem that God changes His mind often.But why would He?
Blacks have always been “qualified” to hold a preisthood position.
I am curious and I guess you are the one to answer my honest question.
vanilla I don’t know. There is no “official” statement or position from the church leadership on why it was done.
While I happen to be faithful practicing member of the church, I am in no way considered a scriptorian or church historian and I certainly do not have the authority to form or state a reason or official position on behalf of the church or other members on how or why the church took the position it did from the 1920’s to the 1970’s.
I have, however, over the years through my own personal studies developed my own opinion of how and why things regressed for a time. I have shared my thoughts and feelings on the matter with face to face friends and acquaintences and a couple of internet friends who asked questions similiar to yours. My feelings and opinion on the matter have been well received.
I am hesitant to have that conversation in this thread on the board because it would be my own thoughts, conclusions and interpretations based on what I have learned. While I am happy to answer questions to the best of my abilities and share my thoughts, understanding and feelings with regards to what it means and what it’s like to be someone trying to live within the gospel of Jesus Christ; I am not a debater. My personal beliefs on my faith are mine and are not up for debate.
I will however give you a few things to think about. They are of course my own understanding and opinions and in no way should they be construed as an official position or doctrine of the church. I am not interested in debating them. I am sharing some of the thoughts that help me see how the exclusion might have gradually become practice and tradition. A tradition that frankly, I am glad we are done with.
[ul]
[li]Elijah Abel and his family was loved and respected of the Smith family and received his priesthood from Joseph Smith. [/li][li]Prior to the move west the membership of the church took heat for being abolitionists. “Proof” included charges that we were teaching freedmen and women to read at a time when it was forbidden to do so. (Literacy has always been important in the church.)[/li][li]The westward migration of the early saints was led by Brigham Young after Joseph Smith’s murder. They were trying to get out of the country (which oddly enough was supposedly founded by people looking for religious freedom) which had allowed a state government to declare war on them because of their religious beliefs. Yes. War. With an extermination order from the Governor of Missouri, an extermination order which was not rescinded until the summer of 1976 by the way. They were going west to get out of the United States of America so they could live their faith in peace. [/li][li]We believe all people are flawed and imperfect and commit sin. (That’s the neat thing about repentance and the atonement of Jesus Christ, it’s for everyone.)[/li][li]Prophets are people, called of God, but not perfect.[/li][li]We believe God calls the right prophet for the time. [/li][li]Not all prophets have agreed with each other on all issues. [/li][li]Consider the bigoted attitudes in this country even after 1865. In addition to black people, how were the native Indians, Mexicans, Irish, Chinese and women treated in the late 1800’s? Going on through the 1920’s to the 1970’s how were the Japenese, Italians, Germans, and Jews among others treated? Clearly it’s not right, it is however what it was.[/li][li]I was a young teen at the time that the priesthood and temple blessings were extended to all members of the church. My feeling then was that most members, especially if they grew up during the civil rights movement were pleased and welcomed the announcement happily. [/li][/ul]
WHY does the MARRIOTT HOTEL CO. include a “Book of Mormon” along with every Gideon Bible in their hotel rooms? Are they free?
Seriously, I was on a business trip once, and wound up in a marriott Hotel (some where east of Bumfuck, Montana). I left my reading materials in the airport, so i picked up the Book Of Mormon…and to my suprise, some previous reader had highlighted passages, and added his own commentary. Evidently, the man was a bible scholar of some erudition, because he had added citations from the real Bible.
His conclusion was that most of the BOM was a rewritten version of the New testament. Why would God have bothered writing two versions of the same book?
He wouldn’t have.
He also wouldn’t have written books that taught exactly the opposite of what He had written in the Bible.
“Hey, remember where I wrote that I am the only God?Well,I changed my mind.”
and etc.
Well, it’s pure speculation on my part. The only scripture I can point to that would suggest it is here. However, given the fact that Joseph Smith did ordain a black man, that suggests more than scriptural interpretation was involved. Most likely IMHO it was a policy adopted because of [ul] [li]racial tensions leading up to the civil war, especially while in Nauvoo, Missouri (a slave state) []common contemporary belief among Christians that black skin was the mark of Cain (as duality72 mentioned) []scriptures like the one above[/ul]After the move to Utah, LDS were still villified and concerned for their safety. Policy became entrenched and mingled with culture, and it finally took a revelation to change it.[/li]
In researching this post I ran across a document I hadn’t seen before. I was looking for a letter from the leadership of the LDS church which states, “We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in the due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in his wisdom, and in his tender mercy.” I found it, along with a more exhaustive analysis of the whole issue. The site also includes a letter dated August 17, 1949 which says that the issue was doctrinal, not policy (which is new to me). I have another reference to the same document which dates it as AUgust 17, 1951, so I’ll have to look into it further. Incidentally, the site I linked to is written by someone who I’m familiar with from Usenet (I’ve verified that he actually wrote it), and I generally trust what he’s written.
emarkp, I am aware the church as a whole did not consider themselves abolitionists. However both the church and individuals within the church were accused of it while in Missouri and Illinois. Please pardon the clumsy phrasing. I guess rather than “… took heat for being…” I should have said, “were accused of being…”
Remember, though, the term “abolitionist” had a bad reputation at the beginning of the 20th century. The prevailing view then was that “Everything was hunky-dory, until evil abolitionists with their radical views that blacks and whites were equal, incited slaves and started the civil war to destroy the noble south.” So, even if Joseph Smith had abolitionist leanings, a pro-Mormon writer or speaker in 1907 probably wouldn’t have said so.
Sorry for misunderstanding Abby. Regarding the whole abolition issue, Joseph Smith and others expressed contempt for the institution of slavery, but disagreed with the abolitionists on the solution. In addition, it appears that the criticism of LDS as abolitionists was just another excuse:
vanilla, do you want to comment on the link you posted? The link which has nothing to do with the topic? The link to a page which has dubious “research” and misleading quotes?
It was the only one I could find.
Is anything written in official Mormondom that deals with who claimed first that worthy blacks couldn’t hold the preisthood
and was it official practice or just tradition?
Nonetheless,they can nowadays and thats a good thing.
Do you think women ever will be able to?
The prophets get lots of New revelations,so it could happen theoretically.
Could a black man ever hold the position of prophet?
I am unaware of contemporary evidence either way. As far as I know there is no doctrine that forbade it. To me it appears to have been practice.
No and yes maybe, but mostly No, not in the “traditional sense” or in the manner you are probably thinking. I have never met a woman inside the church that seriously wanted to hold the priesthood. In my personal opinion, women who envy the priesthood holders role in the church and the home, do not fully understand their divine destiny and their innate spiritual strength as women.
**Could a black man ever hold the position of prophet? ** Yes.
