Blacks and the priesthood is one of the most controversial topics in church history. With more resources available to us today than ever before, let’s examine the historical and doctrinal basis used by early leaders to exclude black members from holding the priesthood. Even today there is still division in the church: some believe Brigham Young made a mistake in implementing the priesthood ban on men with African blood but it was corrected in 1978 via revelation received by President Spencer W. Kimball; others believe that LDS leaders have always been inspired in every decision and policy and no mistakes were made by leaders past or present, therefore it was God who forbade blacks from receiving priesthood prior to 1978 but it has been permitted since for reasons we can’t fully understand.
In this essay we will use a faith-based approach to address two primary questions:
- Did the priesthood ban originate with Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? and
- Is there a scriptural foundation for the priesthood ban on the basis of race, or not?
While we can’t go back in time and ask Joseph to explain this topic to us, we do have more facts available to us today that will help us gain a better understanding.
As we examine the history and the scriptures pertaining to this subject, I will present historical source material and clearly delineate where it ends and my commentary begins. I will also address the strongest arguments on both sides of the issue in the honest pursuit of truth, wherever it may lead. I will be as objective as possible but having gone through this exercise I admit upfront that I have reached very strong conclusions, and there will be times I will express my perspectives and opinions. All are free to disagree, but wherever you may land I believe the historical and scriptural source material must be examined in their totality and the sincere questions and objections addressed on both sides. A southern Baptist minister named Adrian Rogers once said, “It is better to be divided by truth than to be united in error”; while true, I believe this places too much emphasis on division and so I have adapted it to: It is better to be united by truth than to be divided by error. Regardless of outcome, I hope this statement is a principle we can all agree is true and worth pursuing.
A Historical Examination
Did the ban originate with Joseph Smith or Brigham Young?
The primary historical question to address is whether the ban originated with Brigham Young or if Brigham simply carried on precedent previously established by Joseph Smith. Many who have believed in and defended the ban have attributed the origin to Joseph Smith, despite Brigham Young never doing so. Let’s begin by examining various primary source statements on the subject from Joseph one by one, after which we will examine a few other primary sources that are germane to this exercise, and finally we will consider various secondary and tertiary statements attributed to Joseph and others.
Primary statement 1
“At five went to Mr. Sollars’ with Elders Hyde and Richards. Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine of many of those they brush and wait on. “Elder Hyde remarked, ‘Put them on the level, and they will rise above me.’ I replied, if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant and try to rise above me, as did Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, and many others, who said I was a fallen Prophet, and they were capable of leading the people, although I never attempted to oppress them, but had always been lifting them up? Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization.” (Joseph Smith, Jan 1843 HC 5:217-218)
In this quote Joseph stated his opinion that the inequality of the black race in the United States in his day was a result of the circumstances of their birth and not a reflection of inherent or spiritual inferiority. To illustrate his point he went so far as to say that a black man given similar opportunities to a white man and who applied his native gifts could rise just as high as anyone. Orson Hyde’s response could be interpreted as incredulous or possibly affronted, pushing back against such a suggestion; rather than back down Joseph takes it even further, stating that if he had the power he would lift them to equal status. It must also be noted that while some may interpret the phrase “I would confine them by strict law to their own species” as evidence that Joseph was adamantly against interracial marriage or implying the black race was non-human, I would submit that this is not the only way or even the best way to understand the statement. First off to address the implication that Joseph referring to black people as a different “species” from white people, the Webster’s 1828 dictionary (which is a very helpful resource to understand how Joseph and other Americans in that time period would understand the term, given that the meanings of words can evolve over time) defines the word “species” as
SPECIES, noun spe’shiz. [Latin from specio, to see. See Special.]
1. In zoology, a collection of organized beings derived from one common parentage by natural generation, characterized by one peculiar from one common parentage by natural generation, characterized by one peculiar form, liable to vary within certain narrow limits. These accidental and limited variations are varieties. Different races from the same parents are called varieties.
If blacks are the modern “seed of Cain”, and Cain is the son of Adam… they are of the same species as all other races. Secondly, given the heated racism rampant in various parts of America at that time and the very real danger faced by many black people of Joseph’s day both free and enslaved, the word “confine” could easily have been intended solely for their safety and protection. In any case, this statement in its entirety definitively establishes that Joseph did not consider one race inherently inferior or superior to another.
Primary statement 2
“Elder William O. Clark preached about two hours, reproving the Saints for a lack of sanctity, and a want of holy living, enjoining sanctity, solemnity, and temperance in the extreme, in the rigid sectarian style. I reproved him as Pharisaical and hypocritical and not edifying the people; and showed the Saints what temperance, faith, virtue, charity, and truth were. I charged the Saints not to follow the example of the adversary in accusing the brethren, and said, “If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven, and if you will follow the revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load. If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours—for charity covereth a multitude of sins. What many people call sin is not sin; I do many things to break down superstition, and I will break it down;” I referred to the curse of Ham for laughing at Noah, while in his wine, but doing no harm. Noah was a righteous man, and yet he drank wine and became intoxicated; the Lord did not forsake him in consequence thereof, for he retained all the power of his priesthood, and when he was accused by Canaan, he cursed him by the priesthood which he held, and the Lord had respect to his word, and the priesthood which he held, notwithstanding he was drunk, and the curse remains upon the posterity of Canaan until the present day.” (Joseph Smith, 7 Nov 1841 HC 4:445)
Here Joseph states that Noah “cursed him (Canaan) by the priesthood which he (Noah) held,” and despite Noah’s drunken state this “curse remains upon the posterity of Canaan until the present day.” What is noteworthy about this quote is that Joseph does not define the meaning or interpretation of what he understood the word “curse” to mean. Therefore, to cite this quote as evidence that Joseph taught the priesthood ban is textually unsupported and in direct conflict with several subsequent statements he made in reference to the “curse” as applied to black people which we will explore in other primary statements below.
Primary statement 3
“Joseph said he had decided that he would not vote for a Slave holder— it is giving them power & if they could obtain sufficent power & get a religious peak [pique?] against any religionists— they would subdue them & compel our children to mix with their slaves. By Elder [Orson] Hyde. what would you advice a man to do who came in the having a hundred Slaves? Joseph [:] I have always advised such to bring their slaves into a free county— & set them free— Educate them & give them equal Rights.” (Joseph Smith journal 30 Dec 1842)
Joseph declares he would not vote for a slave holder because if such were given power they would destroy and enslave religionists who opposed them. He further advises that slave holders who join the church should “bring their slaves into a free county & set them free”. Not only that, Joseph declares here that people who owned slaves and then became converted and joined the church should immediately free them, then afterward they should also “Educate them & give them equal Rights.” Coupled with primary statement 1, this provides a second witness that Joseph believed in racial equality; also that Joseph considered any other opinion unbecoming of baptized latter day saints.
Primary statement 4
[prior to making the following statement Joseph condemned the incendiary hypocrisy of abolitionists and made a compelling argument for giving the South time and space to choose to abolish slavery of their own free will – not by federal government coercion or abolitionist interference. He then went on to say] “After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt, but those who have been forward in raising their voices against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling, unkind—wholly unacquainted with the gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then to name certain passages from the Bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon the matter as the fact is incontrovertible, that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation, and walked with God. And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude!
‘And he said cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem: and Canaan shall be his servant.—God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem: and Canaan shall be his servant.’—Gen. 8:25,26,27
Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfillment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this singular occurrence is not for me to say; but I can say, the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before Him; and those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel.” (Joseph Smith, 9 Apr 1836, Latter-day Saint’s Messenger and Advocate, 2:289-90 #7; HC 2:438)
This statement could at first glance appear to support that the priesthood ban originated with Joseph, if a person reading it equates the “curse of Canaan” with being ineligible to receive the priesthood. However, in the context of the full sermon this position is completely unsupported – when Joseph uses the word “curse” in this discourse it can only be interpreted as referring to the enslaved condition of American blacks at the time. To say more or less is textually unsupported. The phrase “people who interfere… with the purposes of God in this matter” has been used as a scare tactic against ordaining black men to the priesthood; the assumption being that the “purposes of God” = blacks can’t hold the priesthood. Again, there is no textual evidence Joseph held this position here or anywhere else. Consider the following alternative question and explanation: what if the “purposes of God in this matter” actually refer to God’s intention to destroy the institution of slavery in America? If true, this warning would actually apply to anyone in favor of inequality between white and black Americans. Institutional/racial slavery in America was abolished in 1865 via the Civil War at a high price in blood.
Was the original institution of slavery in America of God?
Was God involved in the abolishment of slavery in America?
Did God have anything to do with the outcome of the Civil War?
If the “curse of Canaan” was, as Joseph taught in this statement, the enslaved condition of black people;
and
Slavery in America ended in 1865 by the will and power of God;
then
Joseph’s statement coupled with the history of America would mean that the “curse of Canaan” was “taken off” the “sons of Canaan” by “as great a power as caused it to come” (the power of God) in America as of 1865.
Primary statement 5
“3. When a congregation assembles in this house (the Kirtland Temple), it shall submit to the following rules, that due respect may be paid to the order of worship, viz.:
1st. No man shall be interrupted who is appointed to speak by the Presidency of the Church, by any disorderly person or persons in the congregation, by whispering, by laughing, by talking, by menacing gestures, by getting up and running out in a disorderly manner, or by offering indignity to the manner of worship, or the religion, or to any officer of said Church while officiating in his office, in anywise whatsoever, by any display of ill manners or ill breeding, from old or young, rich or poor, male or female, bond or free, black or white, believer or unbeliever. And if any of the above insults are offered, such measures will be taken as are lawful, to punish the aggressor or aggressors, and eject them from the house.” (“Rules and Regulations to be Observed in the House of the Lord in Kirtland” drafted by Joseph Smith 14 Jan 1836)
Why would Joseph establish rules and regulations providing for appropriate conduct within the temple and specifically outline that these apply equally to people regardless of race, if Joseph believed/taught/planned to enforce a priesthood ban that would exclude all black saints from participating in temple ordinances? To be fair, the distinction could be made that the ordinances administered in the Kirtland temple were completely different from the ordinances administered in the Nauvoo temple; fortunately, we have the next statement which resolves that potential ambiguity:
Primary statement 6
“If the work rolls forth with the same rapidity it has heretofore done, we may soon expect to see flocking to this place, people from every land and from every nation; the polished European, the degraded Hottentot, and the shivering Laplander; persons of all languages, and of every tongue, and of every color; who shall with us worship the Lord of Hosts in His holy temple and offer up their orisons in His sanctuary.” (Report of the First Presidency given at conference on Monday, 5 Oct 1840, HC 4:213)
Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines the word “Hottentot” as “A native of the southern extremity of Africa.” The word was a pejorative term coined by Danish colonists and used among many germanic and english speakers of the time period to refer to Africans. But in case that wasn’t clear enough, Joseph repeats in plain English that “persons of all languages, and of every tongue, and of every color” were not only invited but prophetically involved in temple worship. This is the “smoking gun.” This statement definitively removes all possibility that Joseph ever believed in or taught a racial priesthood ban. This statement of Joseph definitively proves that Joseph did not believe anyone of any race should be barred from receiving the priesthood or ordinances in the Nauvoo Temple. When we examine some of the secondary statements and affidavits later, the date – late 1840 – is particularly noteworthy.
Primary statement 7
“…the Declaration of Independence ‘holds these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal: that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,’ but at the same time, some two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours… were I the president of the United States, by the voice of a virtuous people, …when that people petitioned to abolish slavery in the slave states, I would use all honorable means to have their prayers granted: and give liberty to the captive; by paying the southern gentleman a reasonable equivalent for his property, that the whole nation might be free indeed!” (Joseph Smith, 26 January 1844 General Smith’s Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States)
These are some excerpts from Joseph Smith’s presidential platform during his candidacy in early 1844. Joseph took a very strong anti-slavery position, yet rather than doing so at the expense of southern slaveholders he proposed selling public lands to fund fair compensation to be paid, and proposed the deadline for the abolishment of slavery by 1850. If he had been successful in implementing his strategy he could have saved over 600,000 American lives that were lost in the Civil War that broke out in 1860 – yet the outcome would have been the same: the end of slavery in America. Due to his previous statements declaring slavery to be the “curse of Canaan”, that black people “had souls and are subjects of salvation”, and that given similar circumstances and opportunity a black man could rise as high as white men – we can confidently conclude that Joseph felt that it was God’s will to remove the “curse” of slavery from black Americans, and Joseph considered himself an instrument/servant of God in seeking to wield His power to accomplish that purpose. It also paints a very consistent picture that Joseph did not consider race as having any bearing on equality and that all people alive on the earth in his day had equal opportunity to approach God. Given this statement among all the others like it, no one can be justified in attributing the policy of excluding black people from priesthood ordination and temple ordinances to Joseph.
Primary statement 8
“by annexing Texas.— I can do away this evil (slavery)— liberate 2 or 3 states. & if that was not sufficient. call in Canada —— Send the negroes to Texas. from Texas to mexico— where all colors are alike” (Joseph Smith, Smith diary 7 March 1844)
“As soon as texas was annexed I would liberate two or three states & pay them for their slaves & let them go to Mexico whare they are mixed blacks &c. I would also receive canida.” (Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff journal 7 March 1844)
These brief statements are somewhat redundant with others we have already examined and need no further analysis; but as contemporaneously recorded primary sources they are worth citing here.
Primary statement 9
“The descendants of Ham, besides a black skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart, have been servants to both Shem and Japheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more power than man possesses to counteract the decrees of eternal wisdom.” (“A Short Chapter on a Long Subject,” Times and Seasons 6:857 #6)
This quote has been attributed to Joseph Smith by some, but note that the publication date is 1 Apr 1845, nearly a year after his death. Far more likely, these words were penned by the editor of the publication, John Taylor, who could have been simply repeating his understanding of the ideas discussed in Primary statement 4 above. While it could be argued that this statement connects ineligibility for priesthood with black skin when it says “black skin…has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood,” the fact that John C. Bennett, William Law, James Strang, William Smith, and dozens of other (white) apostates of the holy priesthood alive in 1845 were still white (and remained white until the end of their natural lives) would self-evidently refute that interpretation as generally applicable. Therefore, I believe a close and honest reading of this text indicates that the concept of black skin is only directly connected with being “servants to both Shem and Japheth” and not eligibility to hold the priesthood.
Primary statement 10
“William McCary[:] I address myself to you as my br[other]s. & my leader—I am satisfied by you—& in some places I am hypocritically abused—[T]he bishops have councillled the p[eo]pl[e] not to suffer such a Str[anger] as me in their Wigwams. [S]ome say, there go the old nigger & his White Wife—to day some of the Sis[ters]. /said/ that is the man that bro Brigham tells his family to treat with disrespect—sev[era]l. …[A]ll I ask is, will you protect me[?]—I[’]ve come here & given myself out to be your servant—
Y.[: I]ts nothing to do with the blood, for of one blood has God made all flesh, we have to repent & regain what we have lost—[W]e have one of the best Elders an African in Lowell—a barber… (Walker Lewis)
McC.[:] I tho[ugh]t. it well to come & report myself to the heads of the Ch[urch]—[I]f I am a darky, I want to serve God—(Amen B. Y.)
McC.[:] I am very much obliged at meeting you in love & gratitude—[T]hose that are not my friends I want them to tell me—if you have any thing if your hearts you may as well tell me as I shall know all in 48 hours… I want you to intercede for me I am not a Pres[iden]t., or an leader of the p[eo]pl[e] but a common bro[the]r.—because I am a little shade darker.
Y.[: W]e dont care about the color.
McC.[: D]o I hear that from all—(Aye) /all/
C. K.[: D]ont you feel a good spirit here bro William[?]
McC.[:] Yes—thank God. (conversation between William McCary and Brigham Young and others in the Twelve from the Quorum of the Twelve meeting minutes, 26 Mar 1847 in Winter Quarters)
The context leading up to this exchange is that William McCary was a man presenting himself as half Native American/half African (he actually had no Native American blood but was the son of a black slave woman and her white master) who came to Nauvoo in 1845, was baptized by Orson Hyde and married a (white) woman named Lucy Stanton (daughter of Daniel Stanton, a former member of the high council and stake presidency), claiming to suffer from racially motivated prejudice and abuse in Winter Quarters. He claimed that some said their actions were guided or at least sanctioned by Brigham Young and the Twelve, so McCary requested an audience and was invited to meet with the quorum. The conversation as recorded above indicate that Brigham and all the others present agreed that race was not a consideration for fellowship or priesthood in the church. Again, note the date, March 1847 – nearly 3 years after Joseph’s martyrdom. In fact, Brigham and the other members of the Twelve present at the meeting personally donated $150 total out of their own pockets to fund McCary’s wagon, team, and supplies to come west to Utah with the saints later that year. Adjusted for inflation that’s well over $15,000 in today’s money.
Tragically, as was discovered soon after this meeting, McCary turned out to be a fraud who seduced many (white) women to plurally marry him outside priesthood channels, and he was excommunicated for the scandal. The first contemporaneously recorded statement regarding race and priesthood by a prominent church leader came from Parley P. Pratt a month later (see Primary statement 11 below).
The reason the minutes from this meeting between McCary and the Twelve are so significant is because the statements above made by Brigham Young in 1847 are of such an opposite character to his later position. The question all must seriously consider is:
1) Are the words and actions of Brigham Young in March 1847 (as documented above) more likely to be consistent with the teachings and pattern established by Joseph Smith;
or
2) Are the words and actions of Brigham Young in 1852 (when he publicly announced the priesthood ban/the curse of Cain/interracial marriage – see Primary statement 13) more likely to be consistent with the teachings and pattern established by Joseph Smith?
Primary statement 11
“(William McCary) was a black man with the blood of Ham in him, which lineage was cursed as regards the Priesthood.” (Parley P. Pratt, General Minutes, April 25, 1847.)
As I mentioned above, this statement from Parley is the first contemporaneously recorded statement from any church leader in this dispensation explicitly linking the concept of racial cursing with the concept of priesthood eligibility. In the context of the betrayal felt by the Twelve and the saints in the immediate aftermath of being exploited by McCary’s duplicity, the reaction is understandable at a human level; however, that does not prove it was right or of God. Betrayal can cause feelings to harden and if not fully processed and healed it can have lifelong impact. I can empathize with Brigham and Parley and the rest, even if I think their reaction was wrong. Nobody at the time suggested that John C. Bennett’s and William Law’s betrayals should mean that their race can’t hold the priesthood; yet William McCary’s betrayal was made about his race rather than his personal wickedness.
Also noteworthy: Parley P. Pratt makes no attribution of this sentiment as originating from Joseph Smith in this statement.
Primary statement 12
“In this Branch (at Lowell, New York), there is a colored brother, (an Elder ordained by Elder William Smith while he was a member of the Church, contrary to the order of the Church or the law of the Priesthood, as the descendants of Ham are not entitled to that privilege) by the name of Walker Lewis. He appears to be a meek humble man, and an example for his more whiter brethren to follow.” (William Appleby Journal, May 19 1847)
William Appleby was the presiding elder in New York appointed by John Taylor before Taylor went west. The date of this entry is nearly a month after Primary statement 11 from Parley P. Pratt, which reinforces my point that April 1847 is the point of origin for the priesthood ban; there are no contemporaneously recorded statements prior to this date. Two other points worth noting in this statement are:
1) William Smith was kicked out of the Quorum of Twelve and excommunicated 19 Oct 1845 and had become a significant rival to the leadership of Brigham and the Twelve, so it was not uncommon for people loyal to Brigham and the Twelve to call into question things William had done or been involved with; and
2) despite the novel declaration that Walker Lewis was not entitled to hold the priesthood due to his lineage, William Appleby himself acknowledges that Walker Lewis’s character appears to be unimpeachable and he is an “example for his more whiter brethren to follow.”
Primary statement 13
[excerpts an 1852 address by Brigham Young formally announcing the policy chance to deny blacks the priesthood; original spelling preserved] “…I (God) will put a mark upon you (Cain). What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his see[d], until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon the[m], until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. Then Cain’s seed will be had in rememberance, and the time come when that curse should be wiped off.
Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has has the Affrican blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of preisthood; Why? because they are the true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it, men cannot. the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure, and not one partical of power can that posterity of Cain have, until the time comes the says he will have it taken away.
…But let me tell you further. Let my see mingle with the seed of Cain, that brings the curse upon me, and upon my generations, – – we will reap the same rewards with Cain.
In the preisthood I will tell you what it will do. Where the children of God to mingle there seed with the seed of Cain it would not only bring the curse of being deprived of the power of the preisthood upon themselves but the[n] entail it upon their children after them, and they cannot get rid of it. If a man in an ungaurded moment should commit such a transgression, if he would walk up and say cut off my head, and kill man woman and child it would do a great deal towards atoneing for the sin. Would this be to curse them? no it would be a blessing to them. -it would do them good that they might be saved with their Bren. A man would shuder should they here us take about killing folk, but it is one of the greatest blessings to some to kill them, allthough the true principles of it are not understood.
…Again to the subject before us; as to The men bearing rule; not one of the children of old Cain, have one partical of right to bear Rule in Government affairs from there own transgressions, and I cannot help it; and should you or I bear rule we ought to do it with dignity and honour before God. [note: the context of these remarks is that they were delivered by Brigham Young as the Utah territorial governor to the Utah territorial legislature]
I am as much oposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term, it is abused. I am opposed to abuseing that which God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants, but those they serve should use them with all the heart and feeling, as they would use their own children, and their compassion should reach over them, and round about them, and treat them as kindly, and with that humane feeling necessary to be shown to mortall beings of the human species. Under these sercumstances there blessings in life are greater in proportion than those who have to provide the bread and dinner for them
We know there is a portion of inhabitants of the earth who dwell in Asia that are negroes, and said to be jews. The blood of Judah has not only mingled almost with all nations, but also with the blood of Cain, and they have mingled there seeds together; These negro Jewes may keep up all the outer ordinenances of the jewish releigeon, they may have there sacrifices, and they may perform all the releigeous seremonies any people on earth could perform, but let me tell you, that the day they consented to mingle their seed with Cannan, the preisthood was taken away from Judah, and that portion of Judahs seed will never get any rule, or blessings of the preisthood until Cain gets it. Let this Church which is called the kingdom of God on the earth; we will sommons the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishoprick, and all the elders of Isreal, suppose we summons them to apear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed, with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with with us and be pertakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the preisthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to desstruction,–we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the preisthood untill that curse be removed.
Therefore I will not consent for one moment to have an african dictate me or any Bren. with regard to Church or State Government. I may vary in my veiwes from others, and they may think I am foolish in the things I have spoken, and think that they know more than I do, but I know I know more than they do. If the Affricans cannot bear rule in the Church of God, what buisness have they to bear rule in the State and Government affairs of this Territory or any others?
…What the Gentiles are doing we are consenting to do. What we are trying to do to day is to make the Negro equal with us in all our privilege. My voice shall be against all the day long. I shall not consent for one Moment I will will call them a counsel. I say I will not consent for one moment for you to lay a plan to bring a curse upon this people. I shall not be while I am here.”
(Brigham Young, speech given to the Joint Session of the Legislature in Salt Lake City, on Thursday, February 5, 1852. Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, dated Feb. 5, 1852, located in the LDS Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah. Emphasis added, original spelling preserved.)
These remarks and the date they were given are an important part of the history and therefore must be considered in this examination. I have bolded certain ideas above for emphasis and to more easily locate them, because a careful reading of this statement reveals two absolutely key points: the phrase “If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you” is an acknowledgement that 1) Brigham Young was creating a new precedent by instituting this policy change, which proves it was a departure from the policies previously established by Joseph Smith and carried forward by Brigham Young until April 1847; and 2) that Brigham was speaking on his own authority, not Joseph Smith’s or anyone else’s. The language “I know they (blacks) are (descendants of Cain), I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain” reinforces that Brigham Young was speaking his own authority and while he was clearly emphatic, he did not directly attribute these ideas to God. Brigham goes on to say “Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has has the Affrican blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of preisthood; Why? because they are the true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it, men cannot. the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure, and not one partical of power can that posterity of Cain have, until the time comes the says he will have it taken away.” This is as close as Brigham comes to attributing these remarks to God, yet a careful reading shows that the only things he directly attributes are that God has denied power to the posterity of Cain and this condition will remain until He, God, removes the restriction. Note also that the date this discourse was given in 1852 was 13 years before the Civil War/slavery ended in America. While Brigham testifies his own belief that blacks (specifically Africans) are the posterity of Cain, that detail is not included in the one place where Brigham directly attributes God is speaking. Additionally, while holding the priesthood could be considered a form of power (especially during this time period where church authority was conflated with civil government), the two are not synonymous; so even if Brigham was truly speaking the truth of God in this statement it still does not prove blacks cannot hold the priesthood. One last thing I find interesting is his use of the phrase “in the kingdom of God on the earth” – which in modern times many in the church conflate with the spiritual organization of the church of Jesus Christ but in Joseph’s and Brigham’s day that phrase distinctly referred to the political government (i.e. the Council of Fifty) and not the church. Which makes sense, given the context that Brigham was the territorial governor and the speech was given to the territorial legislature during a legislative session. However, Brigham himself often conflated these two discrete entities, since he was the presiding authority in both and sometimes changed hats multiple times in the same discourse.
Now: at this point I believe it is safe to say that we have definitively proven that prior to 1847-1852 the policy of the church was that blacks could (and did) hold the priesthood, vs. post 1852 the policy of the church absolutely barred blacks from holding the priesthood. These are irreconcilably opposing policies. Which raises the question: if God is the same yesterday today and forever, how could both policies be of God? If God does not change, which policy was of God and which was not? We will deeply analyze various scriptures in part 2 of this essay to thoroughly address these questions; however I will submit my personal opinion that even if it was wrong for Brigham Young to officially institute the priesthood ban in 1852, and it was wrong to enforce it for the next 126 years until 1978, it does not mean Brigham and all the other church leaders between him and Spencer W. Kimball were evil men or that everything else Brigham said and accomplished was wrong. It just means that Brigham was a man who made a mistake as men often do, which is why we must be very careful to not allow ourselves to think that any mortal leader is infallible. When church members think they can trust “the prophet” or “the brethren” to never make a mistake, they have put their trust in the arm of flesh which is a form of idolatry. I would encourage all reading this essay to avoid all forms of idolatry, especially placing too much trust in mortal leaders; and if that’s something you’ve done in the past, I hope you will repent and from this day forward place all trust in and allegiance to God alone. Then, when even good men in high leadership positions make inevitable mistakes, you can hold to God’s truth and help others do the same.
One last point worth mentioning here is that despite Brigham’s declaration that all black men will be deprived of the priesthood from this point forward, he condemns abuse and unjust treatment of the black race. To his credit, he tried to prevent using this policy as justification for abusing and treating black neighbors or servants uncharitably.
Primary statement 14
[excerpts from a dream about the pre-mortal existence Mosiah Hancock had circa 1855] “The plan of the first was accepted as being the only sure plan for an exaltation. The plan of the second was rejected with great kindness, but the second was not satisfied. Finally, Lucifer openly rebelled against the Father and the Son.
“It seemed that a platform was extended into space, upon which we could operate, by what power I could not tell. We who were faithful to the Father and Son, had a white star upon us, and the others chose a red star; about one third of the males and females would not accept of either star, but withdrew from the conflict, the females taking the males by the arm, said, ‘Come, let us not take part with either side. Let us retire.’ When they were cast out after the manner of spiritual warfare, they had no power to return. When they were all cleared from the platform and Satan and his followers were all cast down, their female companions wept, and we all wept.
“No females took part against the Father and the Son, but all took sides in their favor, except the neutral ones already mentioned. The Great Eternal spoke again and said, ‘Hear, 0 ye my children; his voice penetrating the immensity of space so that all could hear it, ‘It is decreed by the Great Eternal that the females shall not follow their males in their banishment, but for every male that has kept his first estate and fought valiantly for the Father and the Son, there shall be two females. Again it is decreed that those males who have taken no part in this great conflict shall keep their females and a race of servants shall they be. They were again placed in classes, each man having two females in the ranks behind them, ‘Will you obey the Gospel of Jesus Christ when you go to that earth? ‘Some would be asked. ‘Will you obey that law which placed the gods on high?’ And in very few cases I would hear the females say, ‘I want my own mate.’
“Sometimes the question would be asked of a male, ‘Will you obey that higher law?’ And he would answer, ‘I wish to enjoy myself with the females.’ Sometimes when the question would be asked of the female, she would reply. ‘I wish to enjoy myself with the males.’ Again the question would be asked of the males, ‘If you will not join the church of Christ, what do you wish to be?’ He would sometimes say ‘I wish to be a judge, or an officer of high rank among the people.’ I saw there that those who were proficient in their classes, were advanced more rapidly, until they became most perfect in those heavenly teachings, but some males, even there in Heaven, would neglect their females and their classes and not meet with them.
“At last I saw the time when Joseph was to go forth, and the voice of the Great Eternal said, ‘Oh, my neglected daughters, gather around these my faithful servants who have been faithful in teaching you the principles of righteousness, and of our kingdom. That others may come up and have the chance to be glorified.’ I saw many of them gather around Joseph and form a ring with him, and the Savior in the center. They made a covenant with him that they would meet him on the earth and help him establish that great work upon the earth. I saw many of them gather around Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff AND many other notable ones, and around many who have not become so notable. They formed rings around each of them, with Christ in the center each time, for he rehearsed to them the covenant. They would take each other by the hand, in the circle, and bow their faces down to him in the center, and in the most solemn manner agree to meet them here, until every one of those neglected daughters was provided for.” (Mosiah Hancock journal, MSS 1839, Carton: 14, Folder 707. Ernest D. Strack papers, MSS 1839. L. Tom Perry Special Collections)
This dream/vision is of interest for a few reasons. First, it provides a theological explanation and framework for both polygamy and the priesthood ban, two distinguishing aspects of church teachings at the time. Other similar witnesses followed, attempting to reconcile the doctrinal implications of the ban with scripture, reason, and the teachings of Joseph Smith by claiming that some spirits were neutral in the pre-mortal “war in heaven”, so God was not being partial in denying blacks the priesthood in this life but rather was just enforcing the consequences of pre-mortal lack of valiance. Mosiah Hancock’s dream/vision circa 1855 is the earliest documented occurrence of this retroactive attempt to theologically justify the ban; however, it was not written down contemporaneously, it was written and published as an addendum to Mosiah Hancock‘s journal when he published his autobiography in 1865. Later, Anson Call and others would attribute these theological ideas to Joseph Smith (which we will examine in more depth in Secondary statement 1 below).
Other primary sources
while not “statements” per se, there are ordination records or other proof of at least four men with known African ancestry during Joseph’s lifetime.
The most well known, Elijah Abel, was ordained a Seventy and his case will be discussed in more detail when we address some of the secondhand accounts below.
Other notable names include Walker Lewis, a full African man who was ordained an Elder by William Smith as cited in Primary statement 12 and whose ordination was acknowledged by Brigham Young in March 1847 as cited in Primary statement 10; while perhaps less credible given how much later it was recorded, it is worth at least mentioning that in a letter written by Jane Elizabeth James 7 Feb 1890, Parley P. Pratt is named as the man who ordained Walker Lewis.
Joseph T. Ball was a half Jamaican man who served as a missionary companion to Wilford Woodruff in January of 1838, and was baptized for his deceased relatives in Nauvoo 1841.
Peter Kerr was a freed slave who converted to the church and was baptized in the early 1830s, was ordained at least to the office of a priest and performed baptisms for other converts coming into the faith, and who had at least one documented conversation with Joseph Smith about contemplating marriage with Lovina Williams (a white girl age 14 at the time – and while it is documented that Joseph declined to seek revelation for another man’s personal decision to marry, there is no record that Joseph said anything against the proposal on principle).
Secondary statement 1
“Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet – an immortalized being and brought his wife, Eve, with him, and by eating of the fruits of this earth became subject to death and decay and he became of the earth earthly, was made mortal and subject to death.
…In the Grand Council in heaven there were some spirits that did not take part in the great rebellion at all. They were called neutral spirits: they were on the fence, and when Cain killed his brother Able (sic), God placed a skin of blackness upon him as the first of Adam’s race and through the posterity of Ham this seed was propagated through the flood. And the neutral spirits in heaven possess these black bodies. And after the flood no doubt Noah must have found him doing some little low trick for he said: ‘cursed, cainaan, a servant of servants shalt thou be to thy brethren.’ And those neutral spirits in heaven preferred to take the body of a negro rather than have no body at all.’
(‘Reflections of John M. Whitaker B.Y.U. Lib. Call # Mar. M270.1 W58r)
The primary theological argument used to rationally justify and defend the racial priesthood ban is that God was not violating agency or being partial/preferential to some of his children over others because of the premortal choices and actions of those individuals. That some were valiant in the premortal existence (i.e. people born white), others were less so (e.g. Asians) and others were neutral (e.g. Africans). At first glance the above quote does appear to be compelling evidence that this doctrine originated from Joseph; however, before reaching such a conclusion, an honest inquirer must take into account that the above statement was not made in writing by Anson Call until 1877, over 30 years after Joseph’s death. In addition, we must account for the following statement by Brigham Young:
Secondary statement 2
“I attended the School of the Prophets. Many questions were asked. President Young answered them. Lorenzo Young asked if the spirits of Negroes were neutral in heaven. He said someone said Joseph Smith said they were. President Young said no they were not. There were no neutral spirits in heaven at the time of the rebellion. All took sides. He said if anyone said that he heard the Prophet Joseph say that the spirits of the Blacks were neutral in heaven, he would not believe them, for he heard Joseph say to the contrary. All spirits are pure that come from the presence of God. The posterity of Cain are black because he committed murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity. But the spirits are pure that enter their tabernacles and there will be a chance for the redemption of all the children of Adam except the sons of perdition.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, entry 25 Dec 1869, Church Archives)
So we have Anson Call’s testimony in 1877 that Joseph did teach the “neutral spirits” doctrine, and Brigham Young’s testimony in 1869 that Joseph did not teach the “neutral spirits” doctrine but rather taught the opposite. Mosiah Hancock’s dream (see Primary statement 14) did not attribute this teaching to Joseph, but rather purports to be a new and original theology that came by vision/dream. There are other later secondary and tertiary accounts which support or parallel Anson Call’s testimony that Joseph taught it, but again: one must decide whether these decades-later accounts are more or less credible/authoritative than Brigham Young’s emphatic testimony against it in 1869, because both cannot be true.
Secondary statement 3
“It is true that the negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been the case, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine.” (Joseph F. Smith, Improvement Era 27:564)
Joseph F. Smith was 5 years old when his father Hyrum and his uncle Joseph were martyred. So this attribution is very unlikely to be firsthand but rather based on testimonies he heard from other men. As such, I do not believe it should be considered a primary source on what Joseph said and I have categorized it as a secondary or possibly tertiary source.
Secondary statement 4
“I understood that the Prophet Joseph had said during his lifetime, that there would be a great wrong perpetrated if the seed of Cain were allowed to have the Priesthood before Abel should have posterity to receive it, and this curse, therefore, was to remain upon the seed of Cain until the time should come that Abel should beget spirits in the eternal worlds and those spirits obtain tabernacles.” (statement of George Q. Cannon, George Albert Smith Papers, Manuscripts Division, Marriott Library, University of Utah, as cited in Nate Allred, A Compendium of the Fullness of the Gospel, 121)
George Q Cannon attributes these ideas as originating from Joseph, but the language he used in the phrase “I understood that the prophet Joseph had said during his lifetime” makes clear that he did not hear it from Joseph firsthand. Not surprising, considering George Q. Cannon was a convert from England and only came to Nauvoo in 1843 at age 14 and Joseph was killed a year later.
One other thing to point out from this statement is that George Q Cannon states that Abel had no posterity therefore the “seed of Cain” could not have the Priesthood until Abel was exalted and initiated his own creation cycle, which contradicts Brigham’s teachings that Abel did have children prior to being murdered by Cain and that his posterity could receive the priesthood at the end of the Millennium (see Primary statement 13).
Secondary statement 5
“I was on my return from Richmond landing with a span of mares and wagon, belonging to B. Jones, and on the wide prairie I saw a man walking behind me. I reined in the team to let him overtake me, and who should it be but Orson Hyde, who had apostatized in the fuss. But had seen a vision in which it was. Made known to him that if he did not make immediate restitution to the Quorum of the Twelve, he would be cut off and all his posterity, and that the curse of Cain would be upon him.” (“A vision given to Orson Hyde, somewhere outside of Richmond, Missouri, probably in February 1939, as related by Allen Joseph Stout some time later.” Autobiography and Journal of Allen Joseph Stoute, p. 9-10 typescript, Utah State Historical Society; Unpublished Revelations 2, part 162)
Unless Orson Hyde was suggesting that he was actually a literal descendant of Cain or could be adopted into that lineage, the doctrinal implication of this statement is that any individual is capable of committing sin and rebellion that will result in cursing regardless of race/lineage. If true, why wouldn’t the corollary apply: that any individual who repents and obeys the laws of God can obtain God’s blessings regardless of race/lineage?
Secondary statement 6
“President [John] Taylor said it seemed that in his case it was probably like many other things done in the early days of the Church, such as baptism for the dead; at first, persons were baptized without records being taken and as the Lord gave further light and revelation things were done with greater order; but what had been done through lack of knowledge, that was not altogether correct in detail, was allowed to remain. He thought that probably it was so in Brother Abel’s case; that he, having been ordained before the word of the Lord was fully understood, it was allowed to remain. The matter [was] then dropped” (June 4, 1879 Minutes of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles)
The words/language chosen by John Taylor here are very significant. “Seemed,” “probably,” “He thought,” all indicate that John Taylor was not speaking in the name of the Lord, but rather as a man. In other words, this statement does not prove John Taylor’s administrative decision not to overturn the precedent of the nearly 3 prior decades was based on direct revelation, but is actually evidence that the decision was not based on revelation. Since this issue was very limited in scope and impact during John Taylor’s presidency (given that there were really only two or three black families in the church at the time); also given the fact that President Taylor went into hiding shortly after this date and lived the remainder of his life on the underground because of the anti-polygamy persecution, I do not believe John Taylor ever took the issue to the Lord or got revelation on this subject because when he received other revelations he used very strong language and in this case he most certainly did not.
Secondary statement 7
“After meeting Prest. Taylor invited me to accompany him to Bro. Smoot’s. Where with others, the subject of the Negro being ordained to the Priesthood was considered, whereupon I wrote the following statements. At the house of Pres. A. O. Smoot, Provo City, Utah County, Utah, 5 P.M., President John Taylor, Elders Brigham Young, A. O. Smoot, Zebedee Coltrin and L. John Nuttall met, and the subject of Ordaining Negro’s to the Priesthood was presented. Prest. Taylor said, some parties have said to me that Zebedee Coltrin had talked to the Prophet Joseph Smith on this subject, and they said that he (Coltrin) thought it was not right for them to have the priesthood, whereupon Joseph Smith said to him that Peter on a certain occasion had him a vision wherein he “saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descended unto him. As it had been a great sheet caught at the four comers, and let down to the earth. Wherein all manner of four footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him. Rise, Peter! Kill and eat But Peter said. Not so Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean, and the voice spake unto him again the second time. What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common”. And that the Prophet Joseph then said to Bro. Coltrin, as the Angel said to Peter; “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common” (speaking of the Gentiles).
Prest. Taylor asked Bro. Coltrin, Did the Prophet Joseph Smith ever make such a statement to you? Bro. C, No sir, he never said anything of the kind in his life to me. Pres. T., What did he say? Bro. C, The spring that we went up in Zion’s camp in 1834 Bro. Joseph sent Bro. J. P. Green and me out south to gather up means to assist in gathering out the Saints from Jackson County, Mo. On our return home we got in conversation about the Negro having a right to the Priesthood and I took the side he had no right. Bro. Green argued that he had. The subject got so warm between us that he said he would report me to Bro. Joseph when we got home for preaching false doctrine. Which doctrine that I advocated was that the Negro could not hold the priesthood. All right said I, I hope you will. And when we got home to Kirtland we both went in to Bro. Joseph’s office together to make our returns and Bro. Green was as good as his word and reported to Bro. Joseph that I had said that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood. Bro. Joseph kind of dropped his head and rested it on his hand for a minute, and then said Bro. Zebedee is right, for the spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood. He made no reference to scripture at all, but such was his decision. I don’t recollect ever having any conversation with him afterwards, but I have heard him say in public, that no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood. Bro. Coltrin further said, Bro. Abel was ordained a Seventy, because he had labored on the temple (it must have been into the 2nd Quorum), and when the Prophet Joseph learned of his lineage, he was dropped from the quorum and another was put in his place.
I was one of the first seven Presidents of the quorum of Seventies at the time he was dropped. Prest. Taylor, Bro. Zebedee you are not one of the seven Presidents now. What have you been doing? Bro. C, I was acting then as one of the 1st Seven Presidents of Seventies and was ordered back into the quorum of High Priests. I can tell you how that thing first started. Bro. Winchester and Bro. Jared Carter, while on the brick yard at Kirtland, Bro. W., a Seventy, and Bro. Jared, a High Priest, got to contending which held the highest office. Carter was rebuking him on account of his folly, which he said he had not right to do. As he held a higher Priesthood than he did and Jared contended he didn’t because (he) was a High Priest. This thing came to the ears of Uncle Joseph Smith, and then they went to the Prophet Joseph with it. The Prophet then inquired of the Lord, and he afterwards directed that we be put back into the Quorum of High Priests, and other men (five) were then ordained to the Presidency of the Seventies, and three out of that five apostatized. Bro. Joseph Young and Levi Hancock were retained and the other five filled the number. In the washing and anointing of Bro. Abel at Kirtland, I anointed him, and while I had my hands upon his head, I never had such unpleasant feelings in my life, and I said I never would again anoint another person who had Negro blood in him. Unless I was commanded by the Prophet to do so. (Saturday 31 May 1879, Journal of L. John Nuttall 1:290-293)
Zebedee Coltrin’s testimony is that Joseph stated in 1834 that blacks cannot hold the priesthood; yet in the very same testimony Coltrin admits that Elijah Abel was ordained an Elder in 1836 and then later in December of the same year he, Zebedee Coltrin, was the man who personally anointed and ordained Abel a Seventy. It is significant to note that this statement was made 35 years after the martyrdom and over 45 years after the alleged instruction from Joseph Smith. The only credible part of this testimony (since it’s corroborated by contemporaneous documentation in the Minutes of the Seventies Journal dated 20 December 1836) is that Coltrin was indeed the man who ordained Elijah Abel a Seventy under Joseph’s direction, and Abel was sustained as a “duly licensed minister of the Gospel” to serve as a missionary in Ohio. Also that during Elijah Abel’s mission to New York in 1838 he baptized and confirmed people converted by his teachings (see the final statement in this historical section below).
Secondary statement 8
“Prest. A. O. Smoot said, W. W. Patten, Warren Parrish and Thomas B. Marsh were laboring in the Southern States in 1835 and 1836. There were Negro’s who made application for Baptism, and the question arose with them whether Negro’s were entitled to hold the Priesthood, and by those brethren it was decided they would not confer the Priesthood until they had consulted the Prophet Joseph, and subsequently they communicated with him, and his decision, as I understood, was they were not entitled to the Priesthood, nor yet to be baptized without the consent of their masters. In after years when I became acquainted with Joseph myself, in Far West, about the year 1838, I received from Joseph substantially the same instructions, it was on my application to him what should be done with the Negro in the South as I was preaching to them? He said I could baptize them by the consent of their masters, but not to confer the Priesthood upon them. These two statements were duly signed by each of these brethren.” (from the same meeting with Zebedee Coltrin in Secondary statement 7, Saturday 31 May 1879, Journal of John L. Nuttall 1:293)
In case anyone reading is unaware, Abraham Smoot owned slaves in Utah until at least the mid 1860s. This conflict of interest alone calls into question the reliability of such a recollection. Add to that the fact that it came nearly 45 years after Joseph allegedly said it, and we must be very cautious before accepting this testimony at face value. However, even if we give Abraham Smoot every benefit of every doubt and presume that his recollection is accurate, let us take into account the circumstances (i.e. the time period, location, and socio-political reality) in which this instruction was allegedly originally given – namely, the pre-Civil War American South and directly dealing with black slaves. In that context it is very plausible that Joseph would instruct missionaries to not interfere with a slave/slave-owner situation even if the slaves had a testimony and desired baptism. But to apply this instruction universally or to any degree beyond this scope is unsupported and defies all logic and reason.
Secondary statement 9
“President George Q. Cannon remarked that the Prophet [Joseph] taught this doctrine: That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood, nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain’s offspring.” (22 August 1895, Minutes of Meeting of General Authorities, The Way to Perfection (1931), Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 110.)
George Q Cannon was born and raised in England and was 15 when he came to Nauvoo in 1843. I find it very unlikely that he heard the alleged statement firsthand, and was far more likely repeating secondhand alleged statements 60 years after the fact in 1895.
Secondary statement 10
“It was manifested to the Prophet Joseph that the seed of Cain would not come in remembrance before the Lord for their final redemption until the seed of Abel the righteous should all have their opportunity.” (Franklin D. Richards, October 5, 1896 sermon, recorded by Charles L. Walker in `Sayings of the Prophet Joseph Smith by those who heard him at different times and places. #2.’ See also Collected Discourses, Volume 5, Sermon by Franklin D. Richards, October 5, 1896, third to last paragraph).
Here Franklin D. Richards attributes the origin of the ban to Joseph Smith and repeats the concept that it would stand “until the seed of Abel the righteous should all have their opportunity” in 1896 – over 5 decades after Joseph’s martyrdom. While it is technically possible that he could have heard Joseph make such a statement, one must consider how credible a recollection 50+ years after the alleged fact is. It’s very possible that he misremembered, misunderstood, exaggerated, or even sincerely/unintentionally fabricated the recollection given his age at the time (75yo) and hard frontier life.
Secondary statement 11
“President Young held to the doctrine that no man tainted with Negro blood was eligible to have the Priesthood; that President Taylor held to the same doctrine, claiming to have been taught it by the Prophet Joseph Smith.” (George Q. Cannon, Council Minutes, 22 August 1900)
I find George Q Cannon’s statements like this where he claims John Taylor heard Joseph Smith teach the priesthood ban very suspect, given that every single one of them came after president Taylor’s death and there is no statement from John Taylor himself declaring he heard Joseph say such a thing. If true, why did John Taylor never say it himself during the many recorded public and private meetings he was present at during his presidency in which this issue was discussed at length? Why did John Taylor visit men like Zebedee Coltrin and Abraham Smoot to obtain their signed affidavits? Why did John use non-authoritative language when giving his views about it?
Secondary statement 12
“Monday, 26 Oct. 1970: Priesthood Answer. Editor, Tribune:
What then is the reason for the continued racial exclusion?
The answer is simple. The Prophet Joseph Smith was commanded by God to withdraw the priesthood from Elijah Able [sic], and revoke the ordination. There is no exception. The continued church’s policy over the years is an evident fact that Presidents Young, Taylor, Woodruff and Snow, as well as Heber C. Kimball, William Clayton, and other leaders of the time, all knew of this excluding doctrine and continued to abide by it. Although there is no official Church record as to the revocation, Elijah Able affirmed the fact to father, Thomas A. Shreeve, when both were living in the Salt Lake 10th Ward, during 1872-1877. At the time, Bro. Able told young Thomas, who baptized Able’s grandchildren that the Prophet Joseph “came to him with tears in his eyes one day, and told him [Able] that he had been commanded by the Lord to withdraw the holy priesthood from him.”
Patriarch Shreeve, testified many times before his death in 1931, of the facts in the case, and of his close relationship with Brother Able. As of this date there are still living three members of the Shreeve family, who know of the facts to which their father testified Elijah Able told him.” (Caleb A. Shreeve, Sr., The Salt Lake Tribune, “Forum,” 26 Oct. 1970)
So let me get this straight: in 1970, Caleb Shreeve said that three living members of the Shreeve family said that their dad Thomas Shreeve (who died in 1931) said that Elijah Abel said that Joseph Smith said that Elijah’s priesthood was revoked (despite Joseph sending Elijah Abel on a mission after he was ordained a seventy, and Elijah Abel regularly requesting to receive his endowment until his death). This is, by its own admission, a fifth-hand account of something Joseph Smith allegedly said 150+ years prior to the time this statement was published (1970). Rational minds might question if this statement was fabricated out of whole cloth, due to the fact that in 1970 the church had not yet lifted the ban and was doubling and tripling and quadrupling down in an attempt to justify the policy to its members. If this alleged occurrence did in fact happen, is it unreasonable to expect it should have been recorded much earlier, or that there would be other witnesses?
Primary statement about Elijah Abel but not recorded in writing until Sept 1891
“In the spring of 1838 I heard the first Gospel sermon by a latter-day Saint.
His name was Elijah Abel; he was ordained by Joseph, the martyred prophet. I was then living in the town of Madrid, Lawrence County, New York. We had never heard of the latter-day Saints until Elder Abel came into the place. I, with my husband, went and heard him preach. Abel was a man without education; it was difficult for him to read his text but when he commenced to preach, the Spirit rested upon him and he preached a most powerful sermon. It was such a Gospel sermon as I had never heard before, and I felt in my heart that he was one of God’s chosen ministers, and I verily thought that all those who ever were under the sound of his voice were impressed with the same views. But I soon learned by mistake; when the sermon was ended he gave liberty to anyone that wished to express their feelings either for or against the subject that have been set before him. My husband rose and opposed that bitterly and said many hard things.
After the meeting was closed, the Elder came to my husband putting his hand on his shoulder, says, “Brother where do you live?” My husband told him. He then said to my husband, “tomorrow I will come and see you and have a little chat.” He came as he said and he and my husband were soon in conversation. Abel set forth the claims of Joseph Smith to the prophetic office, showing the necessity of the everlasting gospel being restored to prepare a people for the coming of the Son of Man. So the time was drawing near for His coming but He would not come till God had a people prepared to receive him, with all the gifts and blessings that adorned his Church anciently.
My husband opposed him, said that he was under no obligation to receive his message without seeing some sign or miracle performed. Abel then said, ” is it a sign that you require for to make you belief?” He said “yes.”
Abel says, “you shall have what you asked, but it will make your heart ache. A curse from God will follow you from this time forward. You will be cursed in your going out and coming in and everything that you put your hand to do will be cursed, and sore affliction will follow you until you repent and humble yourself before God.”
Well, I have only to say that all was fulfilled to the very letter. The last affliction that came our little boy of three years was taken with the croup. The doctor said that he was in the last stage of the disease and [there] was no hope in his case. My husband then gave up, said that it was enough, burst into a flood of tears, acknowledging his faults saying that he knew that he had been under the influence of evil spirit. He then humbled himself under the mighty hand of God, praying God to forgive him and restore our child, in all things as it should be made known to him.
Suffice it to say that the child about well, and when Elder Abel came again we both went down into the water and was buried with Christ in baptism. When confirmed, great blessings were predicted upon our heads. My husband was to preach the gospel was to become mighty in causing many to believe and obey it. He was also to have the gift of tongues and the interpretation, also the gift of prophecy and the gift of healing the sick. All these things were fulfilled in due time.
But soon after I was baptized I became severely tempted by the power of darkness, and the glorious light that had reflected upon my understanding a short time before had now become darkness, and how great was that darkness! Now, in my view The Book of Mormon was a romance and Joseph was a false prophet and the Elder the baptized me was one of the devil’s ministers transformed into a minister of righteousness. And I soon found myself in overwhelming doubts, fears and despair; no language could express the keen anguish that I and word. For one week I could neither eat or sleep. I thought that if I could only see the Elder I would say many hard things to him.
One Sunday morning very unexpectedly into my great surprise Elder Abel came. As soon as either the house, my feelings that I had somewhat changed. After a little conversation, I made an effort to express the feelings and trials that I had had since I was baptized, but I was spellbound. I could not utter the words that I had previously imagined. He only said, “Sister, you have not been tempted as long as the Savior was after he was baptized. He was tempted one way and you in another.”
He then said to my husband, “I wish would circulate an appointment for preaching at three o’clock in the afternoon at the schoolhouse.” It was done as he requested. At first I thought I would not go, but when the appointed time came I said to my husband, “I will go and see the coming out of it.”
His text was “Think it not strange, brethren, concerning the fiery trials which are to try you as though some strange thing had happened unto you.” I thought the text very appropriate.
While he was preaching, a great and marvelous change came over me. All the doubts and fears and unbelief and the powerful darkness that had so distressed me fled before the light of God’s truth like the dew before the Sun. The Holy Spirit can upon me and I was in a glorious vision. It was then and there made known to me by the power of God the Joseph Smith was a true Prophet of God, and The Book of Mormon was a sacred record of divine origin, and Elijah Abel was a servant of the most high God. I’ve never had a doubt of these things from that day to this, and when I think of that glorious event it fills my heart with joy and gratitude to my Heavenly Father for such an expression of his goodness.” (letter from Eunice Kinney, of Flintville, Wisconsin, to Brother Watson, of Bay Springs, Michigan dated September 1891 – original can be read in full at http://www.blacklds.org/kinney)
After the death of Joseph Smith, Eunice Kenny joined the branch of the Church that was led by James J. Strang and she did not go west with Brigham and the Twelve and that body of the saints. However, as she had personal dealings with Elijah Abel in his calling as a missionary and she and her husband received both baptism and confirmation at his hand, I believe her testimony is worth considering in relation to the question.
Concluding thoughts on the historical examination
I know that there are other historical accounts not cited here, but I believe the ones I’ve compiled above are fully representative of all other accounts we have on record on either side of the question. If anyone reading this feels I have missed one or more of significance on either side of the question, please let me know and I will be happy to consider adding it to the list. I will also acknowledge that the historical accounts are conflicting; I believe they are far less conflicting when carefully analyzed as I have above, but I can respect those who have studied these accounts and are not comfortable taking a strong position on the ban solely based on the history. However, let us consider one last historical point in the context of the social and political climate of the time period:
“I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen.” (Joseph Smith, 21 Jan 1844, HC 6:185)
At this time and place in history it was a very common and pervasive tradition among almost all sectarian Christianity to believe the “curse of Cain” applied to the African race. This is not a unique thing to 19th century Mormons; and since every Mormon in the 1830s and 40s was a convert it is to be expected that they would bring a lot of their sectarian Christian traditions and baggage with them into the church. It wasn’t just Mormons who enforced a priesthood ban on the basis of race – they were part of the majority, one church among many in America. What was revolutionary for that time period was Joseph authorizing and encouraging the ordination of black men like Elijah Abel, Peter Kerr, Walker Lewis, and promising Jane Manning that she could be sealed to him as a daughter. Even the most hardcore abolitionists of the mid 1800s were not promoting the idea of black clergy (outside the occasional exception for 100% black congregations). While the political climate of America had reversed by 1978 and was strongly opposed to the priesthood ban by the time the LDS church abandoned it, during the 1850s such a position was almost universally supported amongst Christianity.
I believe that the closer we can get to the “source” of truth, the more pure and reliable it becomes. I believe that this historical examination definitively proves that Joseph did not teach or enforce a priesthood ban against black saints, nor did Brigham until years after Joseph’s death. Not once in all the years and decades Brigham emphatically taught and enforced the priesthood ban did he ever attribute the priesthood ban to Joseph Smith. The significance of this fact is impossible to overstate. Brigham attributed Adam-God theology to Joseph. Brigham attributed plural celestial marriage to Joseph. Brigham attributed all of the temple ordinances to Joseph. Brigham had no problem whatsoever attributing to Joseph things which came from Joseph. Brigham was one of Joseph’s closest and most trusted inner circle of friends. Brigham is perhaps the equal if not superior of anyone who knew Joseph in mortality to definitively speak on whether a doctrine or policy did or did not originate from Joseph. Once again: Brigham never once claimed Joseph taught the ban.
As we conclude this historical analysis, let’s take a moment to consider things from a psychological perspective. During Joseph’s lifetime he made many statements and recommendations to destroy American slavery and racial inequality, especially among the church membership. For anyone coming into the church and bringing prejudicial or racist baggage with them, it must have been difficult – but out of respect for Joseph they would have kept their opinions to themselves or even made sincere effort to repent and overcome their racist tendencies. However, in the years after Joseph’s death when Brigham came down hard in favor of the priesthood ban, it would have emboldened anyone with racist feelings/tendencies to begin to speak out and justify them. Even for saints who may not have previously held racial prejudice, after the William McCary debacle it certainly could have created and encouraged those feelings. And by the 1860s it seems safe to conclude that church leadership and probably membership had reached a very broad consensus against blacks holding the priesthood. Especially considering Brigham’s language on the subject. Consider the great pressure this consensus would place upon everyone to “get with the program” and conform to Brigham’s position, whether or not each individual actually felt, believed, or had a testimony of it. It’s possible that John Taylor harbored some doubts – since although he did not overturn the precedent set by Brigham, prior to becoming the president of the church he did go around gathering affidavits from people like Zebedee Coltrin and Abraham Smoot to “check receipts” of the status quo.
While we have not yet established whether or not the ban was right (our goal in the scriptural examination), we must at least acknowledge the historical fact that church leaders have taught completely opposing doctrines at various times in our history. This may be difficult for some church members to navigate, due to our tradition that “God will not permit the prophet/brethren to lead the church astray.” But since general authorities or even prophets are mortals who have agency (and we know God has promised He will not violate anyone’s agency), when we learn of historical contradictions like this we can simply refocus our trust in God, not men; in Truth, not an organization. If learning about mistakes made by past church leaders causes a “faith crisis,” I believe that is a sign of misplaced faith – because when we’re built upon the rock of Christ and Truth, the foibles of men won’t shake us. Things may get confusing at times, but if we focus on Christ and the Truth we will eventually succeed in overcoming the temptation to make idols out of church leaders or any other person or idea that isn’t God. We can recognize mistakes without condemning our fellow humans who made them. If we feel angry or betrayed to learn about mistakes made by past leaders, the problem is with us, not them. Let’s use this exercise as a mirror we can look into to discover our need and opportunity to repent of the idolatry of building our testimonies on the foundation of the church, rather than on the foundation of Christ.
A Scriptural Examination
This next step in our investigation consists of determining whether or not the racial priesthood ban is supported in the scriptures. Whether we can definitively settle this question or not, I hope this exercise will be enlightening, and at the very least convince everyone that satisfactory answers must be provided to thoughtful questions raised by the scriptures on both sides of the issue. We must examine all the evidence for our inquiry to be honest and complete. We will begin by looking at scriptures which have been used to support the ban and my best attempt to thoroughly answer all of the points they raise; followed by a look at the scriptures used to oppose the ban and the reasons why I personally believe they refute it.
I would also submit that certain “rules of engagement” should be outlined and respected as we pursue this scriptural examination. There are 2 terms we’ll quickly review and define for anyone unfamiliar with them: exegesis vs. eisegesis. Exegesis is the practice of exercising the discipline and intellectual honesty to never “read into” the text anything which it does not actually say, but only to “draw out” of the text what is actually said after careful, objective analysis. As opposed to Eisegesis which is to interpret a passage of scripture based on a subjective, non-analytical approach, in which one “inserts” or “puts/pushes into” the text things the text does not actually say. My intent is to exercise the discipline necessary to only analyze the following scriptures exegetically, not eisegetically. If I fail in this effort to any degree I welcome criticism so that I can correct the error, because it will not be intentional. I invite all who are reading to hold yourself to the same standard, to avoid the temptation to cherry pick or be intellectually dishonest and hypocritical.
Scriptures used to support the ban
“21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;”
These verses provide the primary scriptural foundation upon which proponents of the ban have built since Brigham Young drew from it when he first announced and instituted the ban. Let us earnestly examine what they do and do not say:
These verses do say:
- The “blood of the Canaanites was preserved” post-Flood through Egyptus, wife of Ham;
- Ham and Egyptus had a daughter, also named Egyptus, who settled the land of Egypt and her posterity became “that race which preserved the curse in the land.”
- Pharaoh was the “eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham” or the grandson of Ham through his mother, and he was “a righteous man” who “established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days”
- Pharaoh was blessed by his father Noah “with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.”
- Lineage is given as the specific reason given for why Pharaoh “could not have the right of Priesthood.”
These verses do not say:
- That the “curse” (of black skin) means black people cannot hold the priesthood.
- The word “curse” is used in 2 different contexts in these verses:
- by “blood” or lineage (i.e. genetic – black skin) – see verses 21, 22, and 24
- Noah “cursed him (Pharaoh) as pertaining to the Priesthood” – see verses 26 and 27
- If the Canaanite blood/lineage had been previously cursed, and Pharaoh was of Canaanite blood/lineage, then why did Noah curse Pharaoh? Wouldn’t Pharaoh have already been cursed, due to his lineage? If the curse is inherent in the DNA, then it cannot be exegetical to claim that this curse from Noah was the same curse referred to in verses 21, 22, and 24 despite the same English word being used in both instances. The only rational and exegetical conclusion we can draw from these verses is that Pharaoh was “double cursed”:
- Verses 21, 22, and 24 define the 1st “curse” of Pharaoh as black skin – i.e. he inherited the blood/genetic/lineage of the pre-flood Canaanites by birth.
- Verse 26 states that Pharaoh was “cursed… as pertaining to the Priesthood” – the meaning of the term “cursed” in this phrase is actually very unclear. It could mean that Pharaoh was barred from holding the priesthood, which is the hardline eisegetical interpretation chosen by Brigham Young and other early leaders but which the text does not explicitly say; alternatively, it could simply mean that Pharaoh “could not have the right of Priesthood” as we read verbatim in the text of verse 27. We will examine this distinction in greater detail in the next point.
- The word “curse” is used in 2 different contexts in these verses:
- (These verses do not say) That a man’s eligibility or ineligibility to hold the priesthood is based upon lineage.
- Verse 27 contains the language “could not have the right of Priesthood”. You may ask what is the difference between having a “right” to the Priesthood vs “holding” the Priesthood? Let’s consider a concept many are familiar with: monarchies in Europe during the middle ages. In most European monarchies, the firstborn son of a king was the heir to the throne – he had a right to the crown. That doesn’t mean he had been crowned yet, just that he was the rightful heir. However, if that son/rightful heir tried to subvert his father’s rule, or betrayed the kingdom, or became mentally insane/incapable of becoming the next king, he could lose his “right” to the throne and the king could name a different heir. So while a natural born son (i.e. “seed”) may have a “right” to the crown, it is always contingent upon him being qualified/worthy of it. And if he becomes unqualified or proves himself unworthy, the king can always choose a different heir to succeed him. When a king chooses an heir who is not a son of his body, he adopts him and he becomes the legal equivalent of a natural born son. In other words, while perhaps not the ideal, the crown/throne of a kingdom can be legitimately passed down to and held by a person who is not genetically of the royal bloodline. This analogy is perfectly appropriate because as we all know, the Kingdom of God is, in fact, a Kingdom. God the Father is the King, Jesus Christ is His great heir, and we all have been given the opportunity to become joint-heirs with Christ. In Matthew 3:8-11, the Pharisees thought they were superior/special because of their lineage/blood/genetics; John the Baptist declared in response “Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.” In other words, the Kingdom of God is a meritocracy; all humans are children of God and have the opportunity to become heirs in His Kingdom if we DO his will and bring forth good fruit.
To finish my answer to the concerns raised in Abraham 1:21-27 I will turn to Abraham 2:9-11. Since this passage is number 1 on my list of “scriptures used to oppose the ban” I will examine them in depth there (or you can skip ahead now by clicking here). Spoiler alert: Abraham and his posterity receive the right to the priesthood, and this concept is fully defined and fleshed out.
2. Alma 13
“2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption.
3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.
4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.
5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared—
6 And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest—
7 This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things—
8 Now they were ordained after this manner—being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order, which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end—
9 Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen.”
These verses beautifully teach the doctrine that the priesthood ordinations/offices/callings that various people attain to in mortality are linked to pre-mortal actions. I completely agree with this doctrine, in fact I have a strong personal testimony of it. However, we have example after example throughout all sacred recorded history, from the days of Cain and Abel (we can’t forget that Cain himself was a literal son of Adam and Eve), to Joseph in Egypt who was sold by his brothers into slavery, to Nephi vs. Laman/Lemuel, to Joseph vs. William Smith, and countless other examples both ancient and modern where we see siblings with the same exact lineage making dramatically different choices and at times some even murdered another or attempted to. How can this be?
A germane and interesting conversation between Christ and “Jews who believed” is recorded in John 8:31-47: “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” In verse 37 Christ acknowledges their ancestry as being descendants of Abraham, then just a few verses later starts calling them children of the devil; oh no, Christ contradicted Himself! Haha no. The principle He is teaching is that all are children of God; but whether or not we become heirs has everything to do with our choices and actions – not our genealogy. It’s not about what we are born with or are given in this mortal life – it’s about what we choose to do with it. This brings to mind the words of Christ in Matthew 7:21-23: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Christ warns that even legitimate priesthood won’t do a man one scrap of good if he doesn’t do the will of the Father. Again: the Kingdom of God is a meritocracy, and all of God’s children have an opportunity to become His heirs; but only those who do the will of God will inherit the crown. I would submit that anyone who believes that only men born with white skin are capable of doing the will of God is either ignorant/inexperienced, or defective of character.
One final point on this principle of pre-mortal valiance or lack thereof: as we established in the historical examination, Brigham and Joseph taught there were no neutral people in the premortal life. Therefore every soul born into mortality did choose God’s side to some degree whether greater or lesser; but one thing everyone is certain of is that we all have had a veil placed over us, and have no memory of what we did or did not do in the pre-mortal existence. In such a condition, would it be just for God to essentially say “no matter what you do in this life, if you’re born black you cannot obtain the priesthood or ordinances”? How would that not violate agency, the sacrosanct principle in the plan of salvation?
Did God only give white people agency? Because by definition, if all men have agency then the starting point of this life is irrelevant – all that matters is what each individual chooses to do with what they have in this life. Even if premortal choices explain the self-evident reality of inequitable starting points for spirits born into this second estate, to say that such pre-mortal mistakes cannot be overcome is a denial of the Atonement and the doctrine of repentance and agency.
“For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.” (Alma 34:32)
3. Genesis 9 (Inspired Version)
“29 And Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done unto him; and he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
30 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant, and a veil of darkness shall cover him, that he shall be known among all men.
31 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”
These verses appear to support that generational consequences follow the actions of ancestors, which is another way to express the idea of a “racial curse”. However: exegetically, I must point out that these verses do not connect the curse of the “servanthood” of Canaan’s descendants with the concept of “ineligibility to hold priesthood.” In fact, since the primary responsibility of holding the priesthood is to serve God and our fellow men, an honest person must consider that these verses could reasonably be interpreted to mean that the descendants of Canaan should receive the priesthood so that they could more effectively serve the posterity of Shem and Japheth! As our great law-giver and example Christ once phrased it: “…The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.” (Luke 22:25-27) King Benjamin taught the same principle: “And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.” (Mosiah 2:17)
Being a “servant” is only degrading to a man who thinks he is above it. Consider that our Great High Priest and Exemplar, Jesus Christ, set the example and pattern of washing the feet of the disciples and teaching that “he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.” (Luke 22:26) Christ also condemned the church leadership in his day for binding heavy burdens on others that they themselves weren’t willing to bear (Matthew 23:4), being seen as important and sitting in important places (Matthew 23:5-6), and being called by their titles (Matthew 23:7). From Christ’s description of their character, we can only surmise that the Pharisees loved the idea of being above others by virtue of their race/lineage; in other words it is accurate to say that the priesthood ban is Pharisaical.
4. Genesis 7 (Inspired Version – see also Moses 7)
“29 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam, and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam, save it were the seed of Cain; for the seed of Cain were black and had not place among them.”
This verse occurs pre-flood, a time in history which we have very little information about in either the scriptural canon or in non-canonical sacred history. Exegetically, all that the text says is that:
- Adam’s posterity intermarried freely – except with the posterity of Cain (at least at the point of the history referred to in verse 29).
- Cain’s posterity were black (at least at the point of the history referred to in verse 29).
- Cain’s posterity were unwelcome to the rest of Adam’s posterity; in other words they were separate/segregated (at least at the point of the history referred to in verse 29).
The recurring point made parenthetically above is that it is eisegetic to presume that the conditions described in verse 29 were the same either prior to this point in the history or afterward. Interestingly, a closer examination of the full chapter of Moses 7 actually proves that the posterity of Cain were not always black (as opposed to the common Christian tradition also held in the church between 1852 and 1978 that black skin = “the curse of Cain”). As we read in Moses 7:6-8 “And again the Lord said unto me: Look; and I looked towards the north, and I beheld the people of Canaan, which dwelt in tents. And the Lord said unto me: Prophesy; and I prophesied, saying: Behold the people of Canaan, which are numerous, shall go forth in battle array against the people of Shum, and shall slay them that they shall utterly be destroyed; and the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the land, and the land shall be barren and unfruitful, and none other people shall dwell there but the people of Canaan; For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.“ These verses reveal that the (pre-flood) Canaanites were descendants of Cain, who after slaughtering the people of Shum “divide(d) themselves in the land”, after which the land became hot and barren and “a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan” and they became “despised among all people.” A careful reading of Moses 5 verses 36-40 shows that the “curse of Cain” applies to exactly one individual – Cain. Later, Cain’s posterity – the pre-flood “Canaanites” – committed genocide against the people of Shum, which resulted in
- segregation (which they did to themselves according to the text),
- their skin becoming black, and
- being despised among all people.
With a clear understanding of this context and chronology, Moses 7:29 can finally be correctly interpreted and applied: the curse of Cain ≠ black skin. This careful analysis of the book of Moses timeline overthrows many of the traditions held among early church leaders like George Q. Cannon and even contradicts some of the “curse of Cain” statements made by Joseph Smith himself! To apply the notion of the “curse of Cain” to his descendants is eisegetic, not exegetic. And to equate the “curse of the Canaanites” with “blacks can’t be given the priesthood” is also eisegetic, not exegetic. While I cannot fault sectarian Christians for missing this key point, latter-day saints who profess to believe in and understand the scriptures of the restoration have no excuse.
5. Exodus 34 (Inspired Version)
“1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them.
2 But I will give unto them the law as at the first, but it shall be after the law of a carnal commandment; for I have sworn in my wrath, that they shall not enter into my presence, into my rest, in the days of their pilgrimage. Therefore do as I have commanded thee, and be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning unto mount Sinai, and present thyself there to me, in the top of the mount.”
Have you ever considered that the ancient Israelites were “cursed” as pertaining to the priesthood? God took the priesthood away from them collectively, and they lost access to the holy ordinances thereof. As the next scripture clarifies and confirms, they did not lose all the priesthood – the Levites/sons of Aaron retained the lesser priesthood and were able to officiate in the tabernacle and later the temple of Solomon. However, this raises some very important questions we will consider in the commentary of the next scripture.
6. D&C 84
“24 But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory.
25 Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also;
26 And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel;
27 Which gospel is the gospel of repentance and of baptism, and the remission of sins, and the law of carnal commandments, which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John, whom God raised up, being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb.”
These verses confirm the duration of this “cursed as pertaining to the priesthood” condition of ancient Israel – from the time of Moses up until the ministry of John the Baptist. These facts raise the important question: does a collective curse mean that no individuals in the body can overcome the effects of their collective curse? The sacred history testifies of the exact opposite – the great prophet Elijah who Joseph Smith taught held the fullness of the Melchizedek lived during this period. So did Isaiah, Lehi, and many others. Therefore, even if a group of people are truly cursed by God pertaining to the priesthood, these scriptures clearly attest that there is always an opportunity for each individual to repent, obey the laws, and overcome the curse for themselves personally and even their posterity as in the case of Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, and so on.
Scriptures used to oppose the ban
“9 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee above measure, and make thy name great among all nations, and thou shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations;
10 And I will bless them through thy name; for as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father;
11 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal.”
As already pointed out in our analysis of Abraham 1 above, there is a critical distinction between the phrase having the “right of Priesthood” vs the capacity to “hold the Priesthood”; Abraham 2:9-11 supports the foregoing interpretation over all others. Here we read that Abraham, through his faithfulness, became the lawful heir and obtained the promise that his seed or lineage holds the right to the Priesthood until the end of this world. It also outlines what this right entails: the responsibility to “bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations” (vs 9) and to bless “all the families of the earth… even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal” (vs 11).
From verse 10 we also learn that “as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father” – in other words, all who receive the Gospel are adopted and legally become equals in the family of Abraham, which family possesses the right to the Priesthood until the end of the world. If their conduct is equally honorable, should adopted children be less loved, or of a lesser status, in the eyes of a good parent? (No!) When good parents die leaving both natural born and adopted children of equally honorable conduct, do they leave nothing to their adopted children and everything to their natural born children? (No!) Is Abraham a good father? (Yes!) Is God a good father? (Yes!) Therefore: even if the priesthood was only available to people with a certain bloodline/lineage prior to the time Abraham obtained this promise from the Lord, it must be acknowledged that Abraham 2:9-11 exegetically and emphatically declares that as of that moment – the Abrahamic Covenant – anyone and everyone who exercises faith, repents, receives the Gospel, and receives ordinances, thereby becomes an adopted heir with the natural born descendants of Abraham; an equal in the household of God; and possessing the same right of Priesthood held by Abraham’s natural posterity. To disagree with this conclusion requires one to accuse God of being partial (which He has emphatically denied on many occasions), or to eisegetically propose that it is somehow “just” to treat adopted children and natural born children inequitably (which God has also declared the opposite multiple times).
If verse 10 was not sufficiently clear, in verse 11 the Lord goes on to say that “all the families of the earth (shall) be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal.”
Query: what is “life eternal”?
From the words of Christ in John 17:3 we learn “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” Life eternal means to know God the Father and Christ.
Query: can a person obtain eternal life – in other words “know God the Father and Christ” – without the priesthood? or can a person obtain eternal life without the ordinances of the temple?
On the contrary, Joseph Smith taught that “All men who become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ will have to receive the fullness of the ordinances of his kingdom; and those who will not receive all the ordinances will come short of the fullness of that glory, if they do not lose the whole. If a man gets a fulness of the priesthood of God, he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord.” (Joseph Smith, HC 5:424)
Therefore: Abraham 2 exegetically proves that the priesthood ban is not of God since at least the days of Abraham.
2. D&C 101
“79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.”
Even though God permitted slavery in the past and in fact regulated it in the law of Moses (see Exodus 21), God declared in this revelation that at least in this dispensation slavery is not right. This verse definitively proves that not all ancient scriptures are applicable in this dispensation.
3. D&C 38
“24 And let every man esteem his brother as himself, and practice virtue and holiness before me.
25 And again I say unto you, let every man esteem his brother as himself.
26 For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just?
27 Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.”
Query: Are black people children of God? Or more specifically: can black people who 1) become converted; 2) repent and embrace the gospel; and 3) receive baptism and confirmation by proper authority become numbered among the children of God? Whether or not you believe blacks are natural born children of God (an ironic belief for all Christians given that black lineage is directly linked to Cain who was also a son of Adam), we have definitively established through our analysis of Abraham 2 above that baptized black saints in this dispensation are the children of God. As such, baptized black men are the sons of God, and this parable in D&C 38:26-27 is directly applicable. Also: could it be that the “robes” God references here refer to Priesthood/temple robes?
4. Genesis 41 (Inspired Version)
“45 And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnath-paaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Poti-pherah priest of On.
46 And Joseph went out over all the land of Egypt. And Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh king of Egypt. And Joseph went out from the presence of Pharaoh, and went throughout all the land of Egypt.”
Joseph in Egypt married an Egyptian; not just anyone either, the daughter of an Egyptian priest. Consider the implications for the whole tribe of Joseph: both Ephraim and Manasseh had an Egyptian mother and were half Egyptian. Some scholars have suggested the possibility that the ruling class in Egypt at the time Joseph lived were white (the Hyksos); while possible, it is far from proven – and Abraham 1:22 “From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land” certainly appears to suggest otherwise.
5. Numbers 12 (Inspired Version)
“1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married; for he had married an Ethiopian woman.
2 And they said, Hath the Lord, indeed, spoken only by Moses? Hath he not spoken also by us? And the Lord heard it.
3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)
4 And the Lord spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam: Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out.
5 And the Lord came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they both came forth.
6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I, the Lord, will make myself known unto him in a vision and will speak unto him in a dream.
7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.
8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold. Wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
9 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, and he departed.
10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow; and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and behold, she was leprous.
11 And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us wherein we have done foolishly and wherein we have sinned.
12 Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother’s womb.
13 And Moses cried unto the Lord, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee.
14 And the Lord said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? Let her be shut out from the camp seven days; and after that, let her be received in again.
15 And Miriam was shut out from the camp seven days; and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again.
Many remember the story about Miriam’s leprosy, but may either forget or ignore the context: the reason God smote Miriam with leprosy is because she had criticized Moses for marrying an Ethiopian woman. There is actually more to this, because while some past church leaders have cited this story as evidence in favor of polygamy, many scholars actually believe that this was not necessarily referring to another plural wife but to his wife Zipporah, daughter of Jethro. Jethro is the man from whom Moses received the priesthood; in which case Moses’s priesthood would come through a line that anyone who believes in the priesthood ban would wholly reject.
6. John 1
“11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
Strengthening our analysis and proper interpretation of Abraham 2:9-11. No further commentary seems necessary, these words of Christ truly speak for themselves.
7. D&C 11
“28 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I am the life and the light of the world.
29 I am the same who came unto mine own and mine own received me not;
30 But verily, verily, I say unto you, that as many as receive me, to them will I give power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on my name. Amen.”
8. D&C 45
“7 For verily I say unto you that I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the light and the life of the world—a light that shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not.
8 I came unto mine own, and mine own received me not; but unto as many as received me gave I power to do many miracles, and to become the sons of God; and even unto them that believed on my name gave I power to obtain eternal life.”
It is not possible to obtain eternal life without the priesthood and fullness of the ordinances (see commentary on Abraham 2). Regardless of what may or may not have applied prior to the time of Christ or the Abrahamic Covenant, D&C 45 declares that barring anyone from holding the priesthood on the basis of race is not of God in this dispensation.
9. 2 Nephi 26
“33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”
10. D&C 1
“34 And again, verily I say unto you, O inhabitants of the earth: I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh;
35 For I am no respecter of persons….”
11. 1 Nephi 17
“35 Behold, the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one; he that is righteous is favored of God.”
12. D&C 35
“2 I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one.”
This verse exegetically proves that there are not different “classes” of children in the family of God; because if so Christ would have had to say either “some of you must become one” or “you must become two.” Which the scriptures never say and is kind of absurd to think about.
13. D&C 58
“7 And also that you might be honored in laying the foundation, and in bearing record of the land upon which the Zion of God shall stand;
8 And also that a feast of fat things might be prepared for the poor; yea, a feast of fat things, of wine on the lees well refined, that the earth may know that the mouths of the prophets shall not fail;
9 Yea, a supper of the house of the Lord, well prepared, unto which all nations shall be invited.”
14. Lectures on Faith, Lecture 3:21
“But it is equally as necessary that men should have the idea that he is a God who changes not, in order to have faith in him, as it is to have the idea that he is gracious and long suffering. For without the idea of unchangeableness in the character of the Deity, doubt would take the place of faith. But with the idea that he changes not, faith lays hold upon the excellencies in his character with unshaken confidence, believing he is the same yesterday, today and forever, and that his course is one eternal round.”
Take a moment and honestly try to see through the eyes of a black person: could you exercise faith in a God who would give the blessings of the priesthood to white men in your church, but not you because of a circumstance that you had absolutely no memory of or control over? Would the God you believe in punish the children of Cain/Canaan unto the three hundredth generation? Do we believe as Joseph declared in the second Article of Faith that men will truly be “punished for their own sins” and not another person’s?
15. D&C 112
“28 But purify your hearts before me; and then go ye into all the world, and preach my gospel unto every creature who has not received it;
29 And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not, and is not baptized, shall be damned.”
Query:
- is it possible to avoid damnation without receiving all the ordinances?
- Is anything less than exaltation “eternal progression”, and if one is not progressing is one not technically damned?
- Is it possible to receive exaltation without the ordinances?
- Is it possible to receive the ordinances without the priesthood?
16. Matthew 18
“23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.
25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?
34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.”
This is an appeal and a warning to all who may harbor feelings/belief in racial inequality to repent, become humble, and refrain from indulging in the prideful trap – the gross sin – of thinking you are above your black brothers and sisters in Christ.
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23)
“For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind? And behold, even at this time, ye have been calling on his name, and begging for a remission of your sins. And has he suffered that ye have begged in vain? Nay; he has poured out his Spirit upon you, and has caused that your hearts should be filled with joy, and has caused that your mouths should be stopped that ye could not find utterance, so exceedingly great was your joy.” (Mosiah 4:19-20)
None of us should consider or call ourselves “worthy”.
None of us should consider or call ourselves “entitled”.
None of us should consider or call ourselves “good.”
“And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” (Mark 10:18)
Consider the word “priesthood” less as a Noun, and more as an Adjective. To illustrate: a “neighborhood” is just a “hood” or group of “neighbors” or people who live by each other; a “brotherhood” is just a “hood” or group of “brothers” i.e. men who either share the same parents or feel an equivalent sense of connection. What if “priesthood” just means a “hood” or group of “priests” – men who God has specifically called and ordained to do His will on the earth? And what is God’s will on the earth? To serve and bless mankind. Priesthood = servanthood in God’s holy name. If you don’t want to be a servant for the rest of this life and all eternity, then I would submit that the Priesthood probably isn’t what you want. And I believe that men who do not understand this principle and instead think that receiving priesthood makes them “special” or above any other human, will never obtain power in the priesthood – it will be a curse to them.
“Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God. We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen.” (D&C 121:38-40)
Conclusion
“I believe it is good to investigate and prove all principles that come before me. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good, and reject that which is evil, no matter what guise it may come in. I think if we, as ‘Mormons,’ hold principles that cannot be sustained by the Scriptures and by good sound reason and philosophy, the quicker we part with them the better, no matter who believes in them or who does not. In every principle presented to us, our first inquiry should be, ‘Is it true?’ ‘Does it emanate from God?’ If He is its Author it can be sustained just as much as any other truth in natural philosophy; if false it should be opposed and exposed just as much as any other error. Hence upon all such matters we wish to go back to first principles.” -John Taylor (Journal of Discourses | JD 13:15)
“If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Book of Doctrine and Covenants set him down as an impostor. You need not write to us to know what you are to do with such men; you have the authority with you. Try them by the principles contained in the acknowledged word of God; if they preach, or teach, or practice contrary to that, disfellowship them; cut them off from among you as useless and dangerous branches, and if they are belonging to any of the quorums in the church, report them to the president of the quorum to which they belong; and if you cannot find that out, if they are members of an official standing, belonging to Nauvoo, report them to us.” (Joseph Smith, 1 April 1844, Times and Seasons 6:490-491)
I believe we have established that at least in this dispensation, the racial priesthood ban is not of God and never was. Upon thorough examination it is contrary to the principles of the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, the teachings of Joseph, and even the Pearl of Great Price. If we have succeeded in settling that question, it raises an even greater one: if the ban is not and never was of God, how and why did God permit Brigham Young to institute it? Why did it take 126 years to be corrected? Why didn’t Presidents John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, David O. McKay, or Joseph Fielding Smith correct it sooner? These are heavy questions to consider; but perhaps the heaviest one of all is: if it happened in this case, could God allow a mistake of this magnitude to happen again?
As we’ve discussed previously, putting trust in a man – even a true apostle or prophet – is a form of idolatry. As Brigham Young himself once said, “What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purpose of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders did they know for themselves by the revelations of Jesus that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves whether their leaders are walking in the path the lord dictates or not. This has been my exhortation continually.” (Deseret News, February 12th, 1862)
It would be unfair to pin all the responsibility/blame for this mistake upon Brigham Young. He may have been the one primarily responsible for instituting the policy, but every single person in the church during his lifetime and over the subsequent 100+ years after his death bears at least a small degree of responsibility for sustaining it. In addition, Brigham and those other generations did not have access to the historic records we do, and we cannot truly understand and empathize with the political and social realities of their time either; so while it is important for us to recognize the error it is equally important to withhold condemnation for their part in it, great or small.
“The glory of God is intelligence. Blessed is the man who develops his intellect by reason; because the man who will not reason is a bigot, the man who cannot reason is a fool, and the man who dares not reason is a slave.” (William Drummond, adapted by Joseph Smith)
If a thing is True, it will not fear scrutiny but rather welcome it. If a thing is False it will run from scrutiny but will always get exposed in the end. We as latter-day saints should not care about who is right; we should only care about what is right. We should not outsource the responsibility to learn the will of God to our church leaders, but each of us should acknowledge and embrace our personal responsibility to learn the will of God for ourselves and do it. And if/when church leaders or any other leaders for that matter do things out of alignment with or even directly contrary to the will of God as contained in the scriptures, it is our personal responsibility to hold them accountable. The best way we can sustain leaders who are contemplating making a mistake or who have already made a mistake is first: to recognize it as a mistake; second: to respectfully but clearly communicate and persuade others that it’s a mistake; and third: regardless of what others may or may not do, to obey God not men.
“I shall no longer ask myself if this or that is expedient, but only if it is right. I shall do this, not because I am noble or unselfish, but because life slips away, and because I need for the rest of my journey a star that will not play false to me, a compass that will not lie…. I am lost when I balance this against that, I am lost when I ask if this is safe…. Therefore I shall try to do what is right, and to speak what is true. I do this not because I am courageous and honest, but because it is the only way to end the conflict of my deepest soul. I do it because I am no longer able to aspire to the highest with one part of myself, and to deny it with another. I do not wish to live like that, I would rather die than live like that.” Alan Paton, Cry the Beloved Country
The time to build Zion is fast approaching. The builders of Zion need to be prepared for that labor. I sincerely believe that recognizing and repenting of all modern forms of idolatry – including placing too much confidence and trust in our church leaders rather than every individual taking personal responsibility to obtain and follow the will of the Lord – is a key part of that preparation. If we want to be involved with the establishment of Zion and preparing the world for the coming of Christ, we have a limited window of time and a great need and opportunity to rise up to the challenge.
Drop Me a Line
Like what I shared? Have something to contribute or contest? Feel free to drop me a line