Reader comments
Much has changed for LDS blacks since '78

I can personally attest that there are still groups of Africans that are waiting for the Church to make it to their area in Africa. I correspond with two such groups and every e-mail I urge patience. We must grow stong were we are, and slowly expand from areas of strength to those areas. If we baptized people willy-nilly whereever anyone knew of the church and wanted to be baptized then what we would end up with is what happened to the Church in Antioch and Ephesus after Christ's apostles were killed. There must be constant communication and more importantly depth of leadership for the church to grow and stay on track. It is the Lord's church but it is still managed on a day to day basis by man through a chain back to the Prophet. Africa someday will be a juggernaut of wonderful people joining our Father in Heaven's church. And I believe it will have a huge peaceful affect on many places that are now war-torn.

How it fills my heart with joy to see our black brothers and sisters in our temples and chapels! Recently, on a trip overseas, I attended a sacrament meeting where there were gathered saints from 9 different continents including Africa and Asia. We all spoke different languages, had different cultures and skin color but we are all brothers and sisters bound together by a common bond! It was one of the best days of my life to see such a thing in my lifetime!

I meant 9 different countries!

I remember the day that the announcement was made. It was an awesome day! And I really like Gladys Knight she's a super example for anyone to follow. One can be succesful in the entertaining business and still stand up for their beliefs.

All men and women are sons and daughters of the same
God! Did he not form Adam and Eve? And if he created
bodies for them, then it stands to reason, that we are their decendents, the rest is simply genetics.
There is more that unites us, than divides us. :-)

Give credit where credit is due. If you thought the priesthood ban against black males of African lineage was wrong then give the LDS church credit for changing it in 1978.
If you feel the priesthood ban was a temporary yet necessary policy for reasons not yet revealed then lets be happy that it's been lifted so we can all move on in fellowship together.
Either way it's a win win situation.

Darius Gray is a great man. What more needs to be said to prove that.

I love the people of the Church but it's obvious the Church body as a whole wasn't ready to treat those of color as equals until 1978, and even today some still aren't worthy. I knew that entire fence-sitter stuff was garbage when I first heard it living in Arizona in the 60's. To be fair some good hearted people bought it to try and help rationalize. But...

As Pres. McKay wrote, contrary to McKonkie and others, withholding the priesthood from Africans was a "policy", not a doctrine just has Christ holding back the priesthood and the gospel from non-Jews was a policy, not a doctrine. The base had to be built. It took revelation to tell Peter the "policy" had ended and to take the gospel to the gentiles. In the Lord's time in the Lord's way.

Brother Gray has been a patient, faithful steward but is only one of many such patient, faithful people of color that have blessed this great Church and who will continue to do so.

I was raised in the South by parents who judged people by their lives led, not skin color. I left the Methodist church in 1969 to join the LDS. We had in my town a Methodist church AME where only Black Methodists went. There were no Black only LDS units. I knew that for whatever reason the Blacks were being denied the priesthood paralleled the fact that for whatever reason only the tribe of Levi could originally officiate in the priesthood. The Lord put my heart at rest on the "issue". How grand and glorious was the day as I sat there hearing the announcement over the radio, tears of joy streaming down my cheeks. I question not God's timetable and rejoice knowing He is calling the shots. The best players in life will follow the Coach and trust His game plan.

I was driving from High School to work when I heard the announcement on the radio of my car. I was very happy. I had believed that everyone would eventually be allowed full access to the gospel. Through out the old testament, the Lord has targeted certain groups to have or not have the gospel, or the priesthood. After Jacob, the Lord specifically concentrated on Israel. Did he not care about other people, of course not. It was clear that after Adam's time, and especially during and after Noah, that targeting a group was used.

Between Moses and John the Baptist, the Aaronic priesthood was limited to the Levites. Did the Lord not care about others?

We don't always know why the Lord causes, or allows things to happen. Sometimes we try to guess. We may or may not be correct. That is what happened with the Blacks and the priesthood.

The only documented reason for why the Lord targets groups at a specific time, that I know of, is the parable of the Olive Trees, with the best version found in Jacob Chapter 5. After reading that, who is to question the gardener.

There are actually only five temples in Brazil. I wish there were seven, but not quite yet.
There is a temple in the Dominican Republic, where virtually everyone has at least some African-Ancestry.

As a missionary in England in the summer of 1978, when news spread of the revelation, myself and everyone I knew within the Church, literally, shed tears of joy with this announcement.

So yes, I do completely relate to Mitt Romney's feelings when he heard the news. He pulled off the side of the road and wept. This "was" the reaction of everbody I knew within the church. The day which was promised, had arrived.

It's an odd thing for some people to understand, but if this was indeed, merely blatant racism, as many have stated, then it seems to me, that there would have been a measurable backlash to this announcement, within the the church membership itself, but there was not.

Because, we were always made aware, as President Kimball stated, that at some point the Priesthood will be extended to all worthy males.

The unbelievable faith and devotion demonstrated by our black brothers and sisters is something most of us can only hope to achieve some day. They have been inspirational examples to us all.

ajarizona

I'm always amazed at how all southerners were Atticus Finch and no one they ever remember was racist. I guess all that news footage showing how southerners behaved during the Civil Rights struggle was filmed in Hollywood, eh?

The Church has a long way to go before they can make up for many of the terrible things its past prophets and apostles have said about the black race. Maybe this is a good start.

The only reason that the blacks were given the Priesthood in 78 was because the Church was pressured to do so! It was purely an Image thing and always will be. In reality their should have never been a distiction of them Not having the Priesthood. The Church was worried about its image, just like they are today. Image is everything, regardless of whether it is true or not. Isn't it sad that the Church of Jesus Christ has turned into worring more about image than really caring for their own? How about taking care of the many Utahn'sthat are hungry and out of food instead of always sending the food elshere? How about the Bishops in this church in Utah be more compassionate? things are not well in Utah in the Church, if you don't believe me Come on down to St. Greed and see! Image is everything, compassion is nothing!

If the Church was "pressured" to do so, then why did the Southern Baptist Convention not change their views until 1995? Didn't the SBC get equal pressure? Have some LDS church leaders been historically racist? Yes, but so too have those atheist and religious.

I'd invite anyone to look at the official statement of the First Presidency to BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson, dated August 17, 1951, quoted in John Lewis Lund, The Church and the Negro, p.89.

The LDS First Presidency clearly stated, and I quote, "It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization..." They go on to say, "The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality..."

Integrity demands an apology and a repudiation, not a weak distancing or a half-baked reversal.

"The only reason that the blacks were given the Priesthood in 78 was because the Church was pressured to do so! It was purely an Image thing and always will be."

As someone who was born in 1960, grew up knowing President Kimball, and knew him in 1978, your statement could not be more wrong. President Kimball's life was dedicated to all members of the church, regardless of skin pigmentation. He was a pure man, not worried about image, and the right man to recieve the revelation and implement it.

Once again, Mr. Troutman, your post is based upon issues in your own life. It is pure speculation, and inaccurate. I guess you have insecurities about living in St. George, but don't let your own issues distort what happened.

To Aaron:
I think I have read John Lewis Lund's book. Despite its title and its year of publicantion (1967) it actually has a very positive position on the whole issue.
I would urge reading this book before making an accross the board statement about church members positions before 1970.
Actually, Aaron I like your comment, it is some others who need to tone down their vitriol.

Whether or not pre1978 LDS members in general can be generalized one way or another, one thing is absolutely clear: the priesthood ban and the theology used to justify it were not only put forth as official doctrine from the First Presidency, but they also functioned as official doctrine in having severe impact on real people.

Mormonism has never been a religion of "sola scriptura".

Actually I think I responded to Aaron too early.
Mainly I think he misunderstands the quote, and maybe I am confused about what book I read. However they are only saying that the standing of people before the Lord in this life reflects what happened to them in the preexistence. They do not indicate how this correlation exists.
Anyway, consider Bruce R. McConkie's statement on the matter after the revelation.
I am just tired of all these people claiming Spencer W. Kimball did not recieve a revelation. He did recieve a revelation. He had been seeking to know the will of the Lord on this matter for years. He knew this was a major action and needed to be taken with deliberation. Unlike some of you people he did not just assume because some people had made mistakes in the past they were false. He did not assume because he did not understand the will of God, that must mean that God is non-existant.