🏎 Essay - Race & Priesthood

Estimated time to read: 15 minutes

Here's the link to the original document: Race and the Priesthood

I'll copy over portions that I have notes attached to, organized under headings that reflect the essay.

 

Notes

Latter-day Saint scripture and teachings affirm that God loves all of His children and makes salvation available to all. God created the many diverse races and ethnicities and esteems them all equally. As the Book of Mormon puts it, “all are alike unto God.”

Well... If we attribute scripture to divine revelation from God, I think I could make an argument that perhaps not all are alike unto God. At least, not the God of the LDS church, as these problematic scriptures are exclusive to the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price. Moreover, if we're to believe that prophets represent God, obtain and disseminate God's will, and speak in God's behalf such that their voices are functionally indistinguishable, I take issue when those prophets say and do some offensively racist things. That makes me think that the God of the LDS church esteems one race over another. Either that, or this given prophet was not called of God. Either way, we have a problem.

 

. . . [F]or much of its history—from the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.

🤨 Didn't we just establish that "all are alike unto God?" Why would God's official restored church exclude a specific race for 126 years? Does God's official restored church not represent His will?

I'd also like to point out this explicit acknowledgement that simply disallowing black men from holding priesthood authority cascades into other matters— if interracial marriage is also forbidden, that means anyone of African ancestry is simply not allowed to participate in saving ordinances. They can't be endowed nor sealed. Their families will not be together forever, explicitly because of Heavenly Father's plan. But don't worry too much, all are alike unto God. ... Maybe.

Let's not overlook the nebulous "mid-1800s" timeframe. We can trace down to the day when this doctrine was established by the prophet of God, to lead His one, true church. It was Thursday, 5 February 1852, and finally reversed on Thursday, 1 June 1978. We're looking at 126 years, 3 months, and 27 days. 46,137 days of God, eternal and unchanging, being either completely oblivious or complacent before ultimately revealing that "actually, black folks are allowed to be saved now." Just a prank, bro.

 

From the beginnings of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity could be baptized and received as members. Toward the end of his life, Church founder Joseph Smith openly opposed slavery. There has never been a Churchwide policy of segregated congregations.

We'll take a win when we can find one, I guess— "We never turned someone away from baptism... based on their race."

"Toward the end of [Joseph's] life" seems to be a big qualifier. How did Smith feel about slavery for the other ~35 years before that nonspecific turning point? Turns out, those years when Smith had something to say on the matter were the same years he was participating in the US presidential elections of 1844. Before then, not much. Oh, except for August 17, 1835, when Smith declared "it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth... but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them[.]" Maybe that time didn't count, even though it's recorded in D&C, the church's standard works of scriptural records. Also moving into Missouri, a slave state, didn't seem to cause anyone's "spidey-senses" to tingle, as it were.

"There's never been a churchwide policy on segregated congregations" sounds like a hefty qualifier as well. It's even got a footnote on that sentence:

At some periods of time, reflecting local customs and laws, there were instances of segregated congregations in areas such as South Africa and the U.S. South.

It wasn't churchwide, though, so I guess we can just ignore the admittance of racial segregation in Mormon wards. 🙄

 

During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Abel, also participated in temple ceremonies [. . .] and was later baptized as proxy for deceased relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime.

So... is there unreliable evidence of that? For an organization with a vested interest in one angle of a narrative to acknowledge and exclude evidence makes me think that evidence is worth examining. It makes me think that the reader should be the one to determine reliability.

Asserting that there's "no reliable evidence" during Joseph Smith's presidency isn't quite the flex you seem to think it is. If we were to excuse him, we still have 11 other acting presidents of God's true, restored church to examine, not to mention their respective apostles and first presidencies, all of whom are called as prophets to bring God's will to us common folk. The easiest example to point to is Brigham Young's presidency, where we find some pretty unambiguous documentation on God's chosen vessel, representative, spokesman, being racist as fuck. Joseph's presidency has some conflicting information about racial dispositions— one day he’s for equality, others not so much. How should I feel about the idea that both men were called of God to be a prophet? I don't like the idea of pinning all of this on Joseph Smith. He's got his own set of issues to sort through, but this doctrine on race persisted well beyond Joseph's lifetime, lasting for an uncomfortably long time.

 

I recognize the sensitivity of this topic, and hope I can present it diplomatically— we can point to Elijah Abel as being among the first black men to receive priesthood ordination, but...

Little is known about Able’s early life. He was born in Maryland sometime between 1808 and 1812 to Andrew and Delilah William Able. Able had one black great-grandparent, apparently on his father’s side.

Huh. I wonder what the footnote in that paragraph says.

Able was characterized as octoroon (one-eighth black) according to nomenclature used at the time.

😐

But we'll gladly point to Elijah as our mascot for racial equality during Joseph Smith's day. Smith was definitely not racist, see?

I've encountered numerous references to Brigham Young revoking Abel's authority, but have yet to find a satisfying source for that claim. Maybe it happened. Sounds about on-brand for Young to do that. Speaking of...

 

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

The prophet, seer, revelator, spokesman for God, God's mouthpiece, the one for whom God's voice is manifest through, "publicly announced" that these human beings can't be given priesthood authority. Was that revelation? I guess we can drive by that point, since in the same sentence, we read that black people did still continue to join and be baptized, so I guess it's all good and fine then.

Unless things changed more than I realize, being "restricted" from being endowed or having a temple marriage is a direct result of being restricted from priesthood authority. To clarify that this happened "following the death of Brigham Young" does pass some of the blame from Young to Taylor et al., but it also presents us with a different challenge. If we're to believe that Joseph Smith was agreeable enough to grant black men priesthood authority, and "subsequent Church presidents" made things progressively worse, can I conclude that the modern LDS church is far displaced from what Joseph restored?

Why would leaders & members alike "[advance] many theories to explain" the restriction? Was it not presented by the prophet of God? Are there more examples of leaders & members advancing theories to explain what other church president have said? Why are we framing it as "advancing many theories?" It's either from God, or it isn't. Isn't this the same Skin of blackness that is a curse from God? How much room for interpretation is there?

 

The Church in an American Racial Culture

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah. According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel. Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father. Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.

 

Stop distancing your history from these offensive ideas. Don't even try that shit, Brigham Young is on record as teaching this exact idea as LDS doctrine. Once again, if God's voice and His prophet's voice are the same, that means that God is the one advocating for slavery in Utah. If it's going to be "soon abolished," why did God, eternal and unchanging, allow His representative to enact it in the first place? What was the turnaround time for that change? Any common ground with an LDS policy doctrine from 2015 that got reversed?

As I recall, a big part of why Young led the LDS church all the way to Utah was to get away from America's "laws" and "culture." In the second half of the nineteenth century, they were very much isolated from "American racial culture." Could have been a bastion of freedom and equality, but I guess God had other plans.

 

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah. . . Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father. Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.

In the source document for this paragraph, you'll find footnotes 10, 11, and 12. Each of those are citations for contemporary writings, to rationalize this awful idea of religious justification for servitude in the 18th & 19th centuries. What this paragraph does not mention, though, are the scriptural Standard Works accounts that also promulgate this idea. To me, this further weakens the explanation that "Early Utah Mormonism was just as racist as the rest of America in those decades!" Why are 18th & 19th century views in scriptures, translated from ancient writings?

Reminding us that "slavery was soon abolished" makes me want to see a timeline for when it was instated, and then abolished. How soon is "soon?" The "restriction on priesthood ordinations remained," so I'm not sure if we should really count this one as a win. That's the whole premise of this essay— justifying why this happened in the first place.

 

Removing the Restriction

Even after 1852, at least two black Latter-day Saints continued to hold the priesthood. ...

🙌 𝓗𝓪𝓵𝓵𝓮𝓵𝓾𝓳𝓪𝓱 racism is solved; "at least two" black Mormons kept the priesthood.

... When one of these men, Elijah Abel, petitioned to receive his temple endowment in 1879, his request was denied. Jane Manning James, a faithful black member who crossed the plains and lived in Salt Lake City until her death in 1908, similarly asked to enter the temple; she was allowed to perform baptisms for the dead for her ancestors but was not allowed to participate in other ordinances. The curse of Cain was often put forward as justification for the priesthood and temple restrictions. ...

You know what Jane Manning James did get permission to do in the temple? Get sealed to Joseph Smith as a servant. Wait, let me re-read that... No, Jane didn't even get to do that herself— she was fucking sealed for eternity as a "servant" by proxy to Joseph Smith after he dies. She didn't even get to be present for this ordinance.

I guess they didn't want to mention that in this essay, but focused on how Jane did get to do baptisms for her ancestors, because, you know, who wouldn't want their ancestors in on this action? "You're going to deny me salvific ordinances because of my race? Hot damn, let me get my grandparents in here, I bet they'd love this sort of thing!"

... Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings.

Well golly gee if only we had a spokesperson for God who could obtain and interpret His will, he could clear up these different "explanations" and "theories"

 

Let's not overlook that the premise of this "curse" is to not be enticing to God's white & delightsome people. I guess folks were worried about those with darker complexions getting us all hot and bothered when they put on temple robes?

 

Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.

"We gotta get the okay from God before 'altering' this 'policy.' It just so happens that we are the only ones who can tell you if God wants it changed, so... let me go check. ... Nope, God is still mad at Ham, sorry 🤷‍♂️"

 

The idea of this all being traced back to Ham is so absurd to me. As if what Ham had done was so incredibly egregious that it would have lasting consequences thousands of years later, for an entire demographic of humans to suffer... and for what? Seeing Noah's bare ass? That is what led to all of this injustice? That's the worst thing that happened, to justify such profound discrimination for thousands of years? Forget wars and genocides, Canaan saw his dad's dong once after getting passed out drunk. It wasn't even Ham who incurred such an awful infraction. We do believe that people won't be punished for the sins of their parents, unless it means we can exploit people for labor and servitude.

 

As the Church grew worldwide, its overarching mission to “go ye therefore, and teach all nations” seemed increasingly incompatible with the priesthood and temple restrictions.

...

Brazil in particular presented many challenges. Unlike the United States and South Africa where legal and de facto racism led to deeply segregated societies, Brazil prided itself on its open, integrated, and mixed racial heritage. In 1975, the Church announced that a temple would be built in São Paulo, Brazil. As the temple construction proceeded, Church authorities encountered faithful black and mixed-ancestry Latter-day Saints who had contributed financially and in other ways to the building of the São Paulo temple, a sanctuary they realized they would not be allowed to enter once it was completed. Their sacrifices, as well as the conversions of thousands of Nigerians and Ghanaians in the 1960s and early 1970s, moved Church leaders.

What? The entire world doesn't see race the way America does? ... And the prophet of God for the entire world didn't anticipate that? Crazy how bad PR can really motivate God to change doctrines.

This reminds me of the hand-waving I've encountered for treatment of LGBT folks— "we're not turning them away, they're welcome to attend sacrament meeting!" I mean, yeah, but they still can't participate in all of the requisite saving ordinances. To assert "we never prevented black folks from being baptized" is missing the point. They can't get into the temple, even if they paid money to construct it. What this sounds like to me is God wasn't involved in this decision to put a temple in São Paulo. Building a temple shouldn't result in a logistical problem for allowing demographics of members to even make use of it. Did God get blindsided by this discrepancy, too?

 

The Church Today

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

Yeah? That's what the church does? It "disavows theories advanced in the past?" Scriptures contain incorrect theories? Why are you calling doctrine theories?

Comments