"By the time they were singing the song's fourth and final stanza, the
congregation Â consisting mostly of black Latter-day Saints Â was
standing and swaying as the spirit of the moment moved them."---That would have been interesting to see and quite unlike the
normal boring LDS meeting.
It is indeed a welcome trend, one long in coming. But today the attitudes of
past generations die hard, and live often in their kids. Having my child
referred to an Oreo in Sunday school class, and if you understand the
significance of that statement, still boggles the mind. And while visiting a
ward in Utah, having all the small children in the pews ahead of us turned
around staring at my family as though they had never seen something like so odd,
you can tell that much of the church isn't used to a diverse congregation.
Fortunately my kids are used to it, and find it almost funny.... as a parent I
find it less so. But hopefully, inside the church and out, we will
get to the point where we judge people based on their charter, and understand
that this is driven by far more than ones skin color, this will all become a
moot point. But this is all headed in the right direction.
A lot of wisdom in Tamu's quotes. I am thankful that most people are like her
and appreciate other's mistakes and are able to forgive and look beyond.
Unfortunately many don't. Having lived in the south and northeast I have had the
opportunity to have many close black friends. They truly are no different than
anyone else and I am grateful for those that accept the Gospel and it's
teachings. Good article.
To "UtahBlueDevil" unfortunately the US in their efforts to eliminate
racism have made us hyper sensitive to it.If you go to South America
the people don't care about being called something that a person in the US would
find derogitory.It is good to see that your kids can laugh it off,
and hopefully they won't fall into the trap of allowing their race to define
@atl134"Here's the sticking point. Forgiveness for the LDS
priesthood ban will not be extended by many until the LDS church explicitly
condemns the priesthood ban which they haven't done."The
condemnation that you seek will never come because for people, like yourself, it
would never be enough. The church could issue whatever proclamation or
condemnation one could think of, and it would never satisfy the feelings of
vengeance and retribution on the part of those calling for it. For people like
LValfre, nothing less than rubbing the churches collective nose in it will ever
do. And even then, he wouldn't forgive.The announcement ending the
ban on blacks holding the priesthood cam 34 years ago this June. The church has
several operating temples in Africa with African priesthood holders helping to
run those temples. What, exactly, would you hope to accomplish by tearing open
the past and having the church condemn its past presidents? Nobody is arguing
that there weren't racist attitudes among members of the church. But either you
believe the President of the Church is called and inspired by God, or you don't.
It's not both ways.
Re:atl134BingoYou hit the nail on the head, except is
the Church really saying it was the right policy for the time? I guess since
the Church isn't explicit in that regard then it is up to interpretation.
Therein lies the problem. Continued confusion. Continued confusion whether the
practice was a policy or doctrine. Whether the Church considers it a
unfortunate practice that got institutionalized for a time or whether we are to
believe it is what God intended communicated in some manner to his prophets.
The reason this issue persists is the Church continues to
communicate in unclear terms. My guess is this will continue to be debated.
Some members will believe it a policy that mistakenly become institutionalized,
and others will believe it doctrine communicated to prophets without an
One more thing.This is all being discussed on Deseret News and in
other sources but there are many people/church members who will remain in the
dark on this issue. There will still be people who will continue to hold onto
past beliefs, teaching them to their family members or in classroom settings,
unaware. The Church needs to make sure the record is set straight whether a
statement read in General Conference or disseminated via local leaders to
congregations. The statement needs to be absolutely clear ie this was a policy,
not doctrine, without interviewing those who put it into place, we believe it
probably wasn't correct but at least we know any attempt to justify or explain
it is wrong.
BlueDevil, in my ward your family would not be stared at except for people
approaching you to welcome you. My ward is very diverse, and I wouldn't have it
any other way!
@A1994"The church could issue whatever proclamation or condemnation
one could think of, and it would never satisfy the feelings of vengeance and
retribution on the part of those calling for it."You are
definitely speculating about what kind of person I am. I'm not after vengeance
or retribution. Sure I left the church but I don't hate it. I'm just saying that
as long as the church claims that the priesthood ban came from God (albeit for
unknown reasons) there's going to be problems because to many people this
suggests that the LDS view is that God was endorsing something along the lines
of Jim Crow laws for whatever reason. If the church were to say that the policy
was instituted by man, not God, and that it was a result of bigotry... then I'd
be plenty happy and satisfied, but I don't think the church will do that since
it would also mean admitting that Prophets can lead the church astray. "would you hope to accomplish by tearing open the past and having the
church condemn its past presidents?"Closure on the issue.
TruthseekerSLO, CARe:atl134 Some members will believe it
a policy that mistakenly become institutionalized, and others will believe it
doctrine communicated to prophets without an explanation.===================== I believe it was policy morphed into
practice."We Believe a man will be punished for his own sins,
and not for Adam's [or anyone else's] transgression."Declaration
2 was just making it absolutely clear .Some members - even with a Prophet,
Pulpit, and Prayer - couldn't accept it.
For a greater understanding of this I recommend reading Keith Hamilton's book,
"Last Laborer- Thoughts and Reflections of a Black Mormon." Great book
with great perspective!
I live in Hawaii and we simply do not put up with that sort of stuff.
@atl134I suppose we could debate doctrine and scripture, but we
wouldn't come to agreement. The Old Testament is rife with stories of what we
call racism at God's command. Israel taking over Canaan comes to mind.It is important to remember that racism and bigotry happened and still happen.
But demanding an official condemnation of the church against itself will do
nothing to improve race relations. It happened. It ended. And now all races
not only can hold the priesthood, but are encouraged to. The church
was driven by government sanctioned mob from Missouri and Illinois. Property
was stolen. People were murdered and jailed on false charges. But the church
doesn't, today, demand reparations. It's counter productive. Why go and tear
open old wounds? It only serves to stir people up against each other all over
again. Why go there? Is it not enough that everyone is welcome and encouraged
to pursue the priesthood?
Dear ATL 134 was Moses a racist? Only, the male Levites were to hold the
priesthood. There was no explanation as to this reasoning other than it came
from God. Quit reading between the lines something that simply does not exist.
God's ways are not our ways and our ways are not Gods ways. I assume you feel
it is bigotry because women do not hold the priesthood.
How can the church leaders tell us why it was a ban when we havent been told
why? Should they just make something up to make everyone happy? What we do know
is that the ban was lifted and it was lifted because God said to lift it. Sounds
like a great idea to be happy for that. Maybe the thing to do now is to
get past it. It is no longer there. It is mote. Whatever the reasons were they
are not in effect anymore. Celebrate! Personally, and yes its just my
opinion, I think it means God has decided we have grown up a bit in our
understanding. How about if we follow through and show Him we have. ^^
I am a U.S. citizen presently living in France where my wife and I are active in
the LDS church. It is such a joy to be with our brothers and sisters from
Guyana, France, Africa, Portugal, French Polynesia, Venezuela, Cambodia, Mexico,
Austria, the U.S.A. and Belgium. We are all different shades here. It is such a
blessing to be in a non-homogenous ward. Not that our previous wards in the
States were not special in their own way, but this is very fulfilling!!!
@A1994"Why go there? Is it not enough that everyone is welcome and
encouraged to pursue the priesthood?"Sometimes festering wounds
need to be opened so that they can drain and heal. As I've said before, the
problem is that there's no condemnation of the racist past. We look at history
and say that slavery was wrong, Jim Crow was wrong, chasing the saints out of
Missouri was wrong... but as long as there's no condemnation of the priesthood
ban, then the church's position still includes the idea that the ban was
correct. That's why this differs from all those other things. I should not and
will not hold the actions of LDS members a century ago against LDS members
today, but if you're going to hold a position that says "yes, that action to
restrict the priesthood for a period of time was correct" then I can and
will hold THAT against you.
UtahBlueDevil,I served a mission in Mexico and I was constantly
stared at by children who were not used to seeing a Gringo amongst them. Little
kids would sit next to me during discussions and feel my arms to see if my skin
felt different than their own. I was stared at all the time during sacrament
meetings and I stuck out like a sore thumb wherever I went. I didn't mind and I
certainly didn't think it a result of any racist feelings towards me or any sort
of "attitudes of past generations". My guess is in the church today, any
feelings of racism are more caused by the beholder than any real intent. My
opinion is we would all be better off if we'd just let these things go and not
let hurt feelings perpetuate where no malice was intended.
One thing I know I'll have to clarify, I know there was condemnation of racism
in the past in that statement by the church. I mean that there was no
condemnation of the priesthood ban itself which I consider to be a racist
atl134,You're free to believe what and how you want but for the
Church Leadership to condemn this of the past is essentially to condemn God,
since it's been stated over and over again by the same Church Leadership that
the revelation from God to give the priesthood to blacks had not been given. Who
are we to question God and his timing and reasons? I'm afraid that those out
there that only seek to hurt the Church would have a field day with such a
statement of condemnation that you are seeking. Hypocricy and sacrilege would be
the key constituents of the mudslinging that would ensue.
We live in a time of entitlement. Therefore many groups of people make martyrs
of themselves for some kind of benefit. Over coming challenges has been replaced
by whining and begging.
I very much appreciated this article. I think Christopher Rich's comments are
well thought out, although I doubt they would change many views. Even though I will be the first to denounce Bott's statements as false and
misguided, I hope we can turn this into a teachable moment that allows us to
move to a better future.
LastStand, I appreciate your comments, but if you understood the context of
calling someone an Oreo, you would understand that it goes way beyond anecdotal
curiosity about someone who is new to the scene. In the South, black people are
not a curiosity, or something new. Inferring that someone is something more
than their skin color would indicate.... along the lines of "you are doing
good for a black person" can only be taken in so many ways. In the context
of a school ground, you would expect such language. in the context of a church
setting, you would expect a little more tact.As far as being stared
at, that is nothing new. I travel the world regularly, including latin America
and Asia. I am more than used to being the odd American. But in Utah, really?
The fact that a mixed race family shows up to church should not be something
that sends small children scurrying to the safety of their mothers. We have
attended church in many corners of the world as my family gets to travel with me
often, and no where is the reaction as strong as it is in my old home state.
I think there are two important things to remember:1) Mormons in
times past held views about blacks that seem astonishingly bigoted by today's
standards.2) So did everyone else.In the 1950s most
states had laws preventing blacks from owning property in certain neighborhoods.
Discrimination was widely practiced if not always legally sanctioned. Violence
against blacks who tried to change these conditions was all too common.These attitudes were inherited from the past. Yet blacks and whites together
altered society to the point that the rising generation can scarcely believe the
actions and attitudes of the recent past could have ever happened. We should not
run from our history. It teaches us that we can change. It affirms the hymn
"We Shall Overcome" continues to be modern-day challenge and attainable
"Henry DrummondSan Jose, CAI think there are two important
things to remember:1) Mormons in times past held views about blacks
that seem astonishingly bigoted by today's standards.2) So did
everyone else."Henry I completely agree. However, this
wasn't about men being racist ... this was about God's discrimination against
blacks getting the priesthood. If this is the only true church and only it's
people are able to be sealed and have eternal life with their spouse and family
... then this is the most important thing in the world to every human being.
Why would God not give that to blacks? We know how people thought
.... but this was supposed to be God's word and was followed wholeheartedly for
a very long time. If it wasn't God's word then the repeal of the ban could have
happened sooner, perhaps before even the Civil Rights movement, due to the
Mormon members own conscious about what's right and wrong.When you
make something God's word to a group of followers of the faith ... they take it
full stride and don't question it. After all it's God's word.I
don't blame the members ... ever.
I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.I
don't judge or generalize people based on their skin color.Please
don't judge me based on my religious beliefs.The LDS Church never
stated that its policies were to punish or to do anything wrong.Please don't put words in the Church's mouth. The church isn't putting words
in yours.The best arguments are often the simplest ones.
I know Thom Reed. Swell guy with central Illinois roots!
LValfre: As you may or may not be aware, God has a history of limiting those who
hold priesthood authority. For example, in the Old testament only the Levites
were allowed to hold the Aaronic priesthood. Was he biased against the rest of
the House of Israel? Mmm . . . I doubt it, but I know he had his reasons which
are at present not known.
Scott Gordon of FAIR stated this:Myth #3: The best example to
explain blacks not having the priesthood comes from the Levites. The Levites
were able to hold the priesthood, while others were not. This shows how God
restricts people of certain lineages from receiving the priesthood just like he
did with blacks.While it may be true that Levites could hold the
priesthood while others could not, it has little to do with this issue. The
ancient practice where only one group is able to exercise the priesthood and
work in the temple has little in common with modern times when everyone is able
to hold the priesthood except for one group. Repeating this claim as an
explanation doesnÂt provide adequate support for the argument, and the
claim completely falls apart when we recognize that Joseph Smith, Parley P.
Pratt, William Smith, and Orson Hyde all ordained blacks to the priesthood in
the 1830s and 1840s. The explanation is not helpful and can be hurtful.
Callmecrazy: The point is that God had his reasons for choosing to do what he
did and more importantly I'm not privy to them.
What a welcome statement this week. For the life of me I have never understood
how people in our day, and especially in the Church, can judge any person by
the colour of their skin, their nation of birth, their sexual orientation, their
physical stature or any other external features. I have always chosen my
friends by the way they make me feel when I am around them. If they were purple
and green, and came from Mars I would want them as friends if they make me feel
good to be around them. For me, the Lord said it all in 1 Samuel
16:7. "7 But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his
countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for
the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but
the Lord looketh on the heart."If that is how the Lord looks at
folks, and we are told in Alma 7:48, "But charity is the pure love of
Christ, and it endureth forever;" surely we should look upon each other with
that same love that the Saviour has for each of us.
I am a Member of this group by E-Mail, They are in my Fav Web Sites and I check
in at least Monthly. If for some unknown reason I leave my rock and go to SLC
and its meeting time I will go to a meeting.Living in Hawaii we
don't put up with that stuff, The Islanders had the Priesthood the Micronesian
sometimes did not. I do not think this is so much about Racism in
the Church as much as it is to bring attention in a Negative way to Mitt's Faith
Group in General.There is some Racism in all faith groups, this is
why you have the AME and other Black Churches and the lift up their hands and
sing Gospel Songs and the Whites go ah and point their finger and make
comments. instead of just enjoying the music.My Institute Professor
told me in 1990 that the Church was right then and it is right now. I accepted
that answer. The problem is that we talk to people who do not
understand or have even a concept of Revelation. There was one I head it and I
believe the people who told me.
When we try to decide the ways and reasons of God, we're trying to measure
infinity with a yardstick. A fairly presumptuous endeavor. There are some things
we just aren't going to understand this side of Heaven. We should accept that
fact and concern ourselves with the present, with things we can indeed
understand. Want to know if the Church is racist? Go visit a ward
meeting. Chances are you'll find a more diverse congregation than you'll find in
any protestant church, and I was a protestant for 44 years. What
announcement from the Church would satisfy anti-or-ex Mormons? None. Whatever
the Church said about pre/post 1978 would be picked apart and criticized,
because their agenda goes way deeper than concern for the treatment of
minorities, if such concern really exists, which is highly doubtful. I find
soap-boxers are generally more concerned with being heard than helping. The Church spends millions of dollars helping people without regard to
race, and many minorities are recipients of that assistance. This speaks louder
than crocodile tears over the past.
I see people commenting that the Church needs to come out and state whether the
ban was right or not, or explain it in sacrament meetings across the world so
that every member understands the doctrine. But where would it stop? What other
doctrines would the Church need to clarify for everyone over the pulpit? We don't come to church each week and discuss the deep doctrines of the
gospel, or try to interpret God's reasoning behind HIS decisions. And why is
that? Because not everyone is on the same level spiritually, and while some
people would have no trouble understanding certain doctrines/concepts, others
would not be able to comprehend them, which would lead to confusion. The Church teaches correct doctrines and principles that are essential for
salvation, and then asks for members to apply those doctrines CORRECTLY in their
own lives so that we can work out our own salvation. We should definitely gain
all the knowledge we can in this life, but trying to hash out deep doctrines
during our 3-hour block on Sundays with everyone will not lead to greater
clarity on these issues.
To : John Pack Lambert , I will be the first to denounce Bott's statements as
false and misguided. Are they?Among the prophets and teachers of the
church at Antioch of Syria were Barnabas, Simeon (called the black man), Lucius
(from Cyrene), Manaen (the childhood companion of King Herod Antipas), and
Saul.(Acts 13:1 NLT) For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile,
the same Lord is Lord of All and richly blesses All who call on him, for,
Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord WILL BE SAVED(Roman 10: 10-12). God is Â¦ the King eternal, immortal, INVISIBLE, the only God, be
honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (1Tim 1:17). Skin color is not an
issue.(Genesis 7:10 JST), And there was a blackness came upon all the
children of Cainan, that they were despised among all people. And (Genesis 7:22
JST) ,..all the seed of Adam save it were the seed of Cain; for the seed of Cain
were black and had not a place among them. Now, Pharoah being of that lineage by
which could not have the right of PriesthoodÂ¦(Abraham 1:27).
The issue of blacks and the priesthood has long been a "PR" problem for
the church. George Albert Smith thought that LDS primacy ought to be readily
apparent; it was not sufficient to appear "as good as" everyone else.
However, to the outsider, this historical question has the appearance of
plain-old bigotry.Speculation will always be problematic so long as
the official answer is "we don't know." This is what the outsider hears:
"We don't know why blacks couldn't hold the priesthood at a time when blacks
were also denied many other things in this country, but be assured that _our_
reasons came from God and were therefore righteous, unbigoted, and beyond
questioning." We suffered it, now we ought to know the reason
for it. We are here for a purpose, not for the mysterious whims of a capricious
God. Why don't we ask Him and find out? Then we can answer our critics. Oh, but
the fear is that we are "unprepared" to accept the answer. Why? In the
realm of possible answers, we can't conceive of any that don't sound like
plain-old bigotry. Simple fact: something related to race once disqualified
blacks from the priesthood.
@atl134,God was the one who put the ban in place, not us. So if you
have an issue with it, take it up with Him, not us. A1994 is right; you either
believe and trust in God, or you don't. It seems in this case that you believe
God and the LDS church to be liars.
"Riverton CougarRiverton, UT"God was the one who put
the ban in place, not us."That's if you believe every prophet,
including BY, ONLY spoke God's words and never let any of their own beliefs slip
@Sharrona,The LDS Church released a statement the day after
BottÂs comments were published that they ÂabsolutelyÂ do not
reflect the ChurchÂs doctrine. To ask whether his comments were wrong is
to ask whether the Church is wrong to denounce them.
annewandering: How can the church leaders tell us why it was a ban when we
havent been told why? Should they just make something up to make everyone happy?
Moontan: There are some things we just aren't going to understand
this side of Heaven.Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing,
but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.Matthew
7:7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door
will be opened to you.Moroni 10:5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost
ye may know the truth of all things.Measuring eternity with a
yardstick or not, these promises have been made. If Brigham Young asked God why
the priesthood restriction was put in place, then we have the answer (he was
quite vocal). If the current prophet wants to know the reason, he only needs to
ask. Or do I misunderstand these verses?James 1: 5 If any of you
lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and
upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Much ado about nothing.
to annewandering - do you really think the ban was lifted due to a commandment
from God - or a law of the people? Open your eyes and ears. And I do agree, it
would have been great to have had that singing like took place today, in a ward
meeting. We need it. Even when the Tabernacle Choir tries singing a black
gospel song, it just isn't moving. The African American soloists they use are
great and moving and sing the songs like they were meant to be sung.
I have been a member since 1959. I have never heard a racist statement from the
pulpit in ward meeting, stake meeting, general conference or for that matter in
the various ward meetings. In 1963 there was one black family in Utah Co. Now
we have two mixed families in our ward and they are well loved. Isn't it time we
tried to get over this stuff and keep harping on it. These black members in the
article are absolutely wonderful.
BYU leaders need to crack down on professors giving their own opinions like
Randy Bott did to the media. He clearly is NOT a spokesperson for the LDS
church.. If it were my decision, professor Bott would be fired over his
incredibly rascist comments which give an extremely poor perception of Church.
And we still don't know how or why the LDS church banned blacks from getting the
Giantfan,How do you know that "Church Leadership" speaks for
God? Who says so? You?What about the Pope? What about Billy
Graham? What about Joel Osteen, what about other preachers and church and
religious leaders?See that is the whole point of this argument.
Every one believes their respective church's leaders speak for God.It is clear to me that the policy to ban blacks from having the priesthood was
in fact DOCTRINE of the LDS church that was followed very closely and taught
even in Sunday School classes and seminary and institute classes as DOCTRINE and
not as a policy. Whether it was a policy or doctrine however
doesn't matter. The fact is, the LDS church banning blacks from the priesthood
was bonafide racism.
So God put the ban in place and not men who run the church?Or was it
men who put the ban in place and blame God for putting it in place?Either way, it is a racist doctrine (or policy if you want to make it seem
@Searching ... Good reply. Challenging. I'm not sure the quotes you refer to
promise complete knowledge of anything asked, else we'd have the potential to
know everything in totality, all at once, which is neither possible nor
desirable. God's ways are not our ways. He reserves the right to
forgive anyone He chooses, for example, but demands that we forgive everyone. I
don't know why He can but I can't, but practicing that admonition takes most of
my time when the subject is forgiveness. No, you don't misunderstand
the quotes at all, it seems to me. But maybe a bit more context is required. I'm
not certain. Your post requires more thought still. Bravo.
@ Riverton Cougar, please consider two statements:Your
affirmative,"God was the one who put the ban in place, not us. So if
you have an issue with it, take it up with Him, not us. God was the one who put
the ban in place, not us."vs. the LDS Church last week,"At some point the Church stopped ordaining male members of African
descent, although there were a few exceptions. It is not known precisely why,
how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended."You claim to know why the ban came: from God. GodÂs Church says
thatÂs not known. What are we to do about your disagreement with the
@ Searching . . .Since we're sharing scriptures, try this one:
D&C 58:3. "Ye cannot behold with your natural eyes, for the present
time, the design of your God concerning those things..."There
are a great many things that we don't know yet. Heavenly Father always answers
our prayers, but sometimes that answer is "not yet." Sometimes we have
to wait for the answer or explanation to come on the Lord's time. His ways are
not our ways, and judging His ways by 21st Century standards is not fair. We do
not have a perfect knowledge of all things. And when He doesn't see
fit to give us answers yet, all we can do is pray for increased understanding,
so that eventually we can be ready to know the truth, and for increased patience
and acceptance, so that we can endure the wait.I don't know the
origins of the priesthood ban or the reasons behind it, but I know that I'll
find out eventually. I trust in the Lord, and that's all I need right now.
Sarah Nichole, your quote strikes me as a dodge.The problem here is
that the Church leaders admittedly don't know either. My first quote alluded to
that, God reveals his will. Joseph Smith directed the ordination of Bro. Abel,
an African American. However, at that time there was no formal revelation about
racial restrictions to the priesthood. Brigham Young made it clear that there
are restrictions in place, yet there is no formal revelation published for that
either. After Young's death, the subsequent administration faced the question
again. They researched where the ban came from, but like the current
administration, came up empty. Again, no revelation was recorded that directed
their decision. (See "MormonismÂs Negro Doctrine: An Historical
Overview" by Lester Bush in Dialogue Magazine)Amos's promise
about prophets, coupled with the latter-day promise that the prophet won't lead
the church astray, makes me scratch my head on this issue. Even if the ban was
merely policy, it led the Church down a racist path that deprived a large
portion of his children from the blessings of service and participation. How is
that not leading the Church astray?
May I join the speculation? I've sometimes wondered if the ban on blacks holding
the priesthood was a matter of God waiting until we were ready to live up to
our own teachings about race. I am old enough to remember how racist our society
really was even as recently as the 1970s. In those days, we owned a home that
should not have been sold to us, for the restrictive covenants banned ownership
to anyone but "white members of the Protestant faith." We were white,
but no one would think Mormons were Protestant! Of course, court decisions made
the ban unenforcable, but the subdivision was not that old, and located in the
Rocky Mountain west, not the deep south.If God is not in the business of
embarrassing His earthly leadership, He might have thought it prudent to wait
'til the accusations of racism died down. As one who lived through those times,
by 1978, the church could change policy with only the silliest critics shouting
that we were caving in to political correctness.
I am a life long believing member of The LDS Church. Everyone of my ancestors on
both sides of the family came to the Salt Lake Valley in either handcarts or
covered wagons. I do not believe that the priesthood ban was inspired by God.
One of the tenets of our faith is found in the 9th article of faith of our
church,Â ÂWe believe all that God has revealed, all that He does
now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important
things.Â God's work with the Church is an ongoing thing. The priesthood ban
was an unfortunate thing. I believe it was repudiated by the official statement
the church released that says Âwe condemn all racism both within and
without of the church.Â That may not be enough for some, but I believe in a
living church and being up to date and that many things should be relegated to
history due to the fact that we had less understanding in the past. That does
not excuses anyone but there is always a trial of faith. I apologize to my
brothers of African decent for the past of my ancestors.
"I had the promise, years ago, that I never should apostatize and bring an
evil upon this people. God revealed that through Joseph, long before he died;
and if I am not doing right, you may calculate that the lord is going to take me
home." -Brigham Young If any prophet would lead His church
astray, He would take them before they could. There is no way for us to know why
the ban was put in place. But hey, if you believe you're intelligent enough to
question and/or judge a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being, have
at it! I hope it works out for you. THE FOLLOWING IS PURELY
SPECULATION ON MY PART Perhaps allowing blacks to hold the
Priesthood at that time would have brought considerable damage or destruction
upon His church by the considerable number of actual racists in the country?
Wasn't one of the reasons the early saints were driven from Nauvoo because they
accepted and treated blacks as equals? Food for thought.