February is Black History Month. I recently finished Matthew Harris & Newel Bringhurst’s most recent book, The Mormon Church & Blacks: A Documentary History. The black priesthood ban has been a pet topic of mine; I have written nearly 60 posts on the topic over the past 8 years.
For me, this has been one of the shorter books I usually read–less than 150 pages. In chapter 1, Harris and Bringhurst detail the scriptures from the Books of Mormon and Abraham that many of you are familiar with. Chapter 2 discusses documents relating to church history from 1830-44. Some of the interesting documents include the newspaper article that ignited riots in Missouri in 1833, forcing Mormons to leave Jackson County Missouri. WW Phelps published an article “Free People of Color” in the Mormon newspaper, The Evening and Morning Star. Missouri mobs claimed the article amounted to “tampering” with slaves.
Among other items, Chapter 2 also shows Elijah Abel’s Patriarchal Blessing, in which the black man was acknowledged to have the priesthood, and was an “orphan” of the lost tribes of Israel, as well as Joseph Smith’s presidential platform in which he proposed freeing all slaves by compensating slave owners through the sale of public lands.
Chapter 3 primarily details Brigham Young’s legislative efforts in which he pushed the Utah legislature to legalize slavery under the euphemism of “service”, as well as his famous speech referring to the Curse of Ham, and an interview with Horace Greeley, the famous New York journalist.
Chapter 4 covers the time period of 1877-1949, and covers several of Jane Manning James letters asking the First Presidency for the sealing ordinance. She asked to be sealed to Walker Lewis, as well as to be sealed to Joseph and Emma. As a compromise, she was eventually sealed by proxy to Joseph and Emma as a servant during her lifetime as a white sister participated in the sealing ordinance in her place.
Also of note was Zebedee Coltrin’s false 1879 assertion that Joseph had stated blacks could not be ordained in 1834. Yet Joseph F. Smith produced conflicting evidence, including Elijah Abel’s mnuch later priesthood ordinations, and noted that Coltrin had washed and anointed Abel in the Kirtland Temple just prior to 1840. Coltrin still claimed that Abel had been ordained in error. The Quorum of Twelve in reconciling Coltrin’s conflicting accounts, decided that Abel had “been ordained before the word of the Lord was fully understood.” Two publications came during this time period which justified the ban: “The Negro and the Priesthood” was published in Liahona: The Elders Journal in 1908, as well as Joseph Fielding Smith’s book Way to Perfection in 1931.
Chapter 5 starts out discussing President David O. McKay’s experiences in South Africa regarding the ban. The church had trouble ordaining men because they had to prove they had no “black blood” in their genealogy, even those who appeared white. (The church was also concerned that blood donated by blacks in the US could literally contaminate white members.) The chapter also includes the 1949 First Presidency statement that blamed the ban on pre-mortal actions of blacks who were not valiant. This view that blacks were cursed from the priesthood and temple was confirmed by a 1954 Mark E. Peterson speech, as well as the 1958 publication of Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie, a Seventy at the time. Many of the details of the 1960s were fascinating, as the chapter dealt with civil rights issues as well.
David Gillespie, a black member of the church, wrote a touching letter to President McKay, that seems very similar to the issues surrounding us today. With the ban still in place, Gillespie (an Eagle Scout) wrote of his disappointment as a teen not being able to participate in Aaronic Priesthood activities with his peers. He felt feelings of bitterness when he could not give his child a name and a blessing, and could not bless his family when they were sick, especially when his second child died of a serious illness. He noted that white members “were sealed in the Temple and their children were sealed to them. Since our marriage will dissolve when we die, we’ll not have need for children and our family life.” Gillespie’s 1967 letter continues,
I find myself on my knees, again and again, asking God to free my soul from this canker. But it persists. I see others who have recently been baptized into the Church, and after a few short weeks receive the Priesthood….Men who have been indifferent to the Church, men who have had their nasty little jokes about the Word of Wisdom, about Tithing, and many of the things that have meant so much to me…Now, I see these men suddenly so swept up in a wave of religious revival that after twelve short weeks of special lessons are to be given the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood and take their children and wives to the Temple where they will be endowed and sealed. This, in spite of my faithfulness, I am denied.
After a few more paragraphs, Gillespie concludes with the question, “is this the will of God or the will of man?”
In introducing the letter, the editors note that
A. Hamer Reiser, the First Presidency secretary, also reached out to Gillespie, acknowledging receipt of the letter to President McKay but also to express his “deep respect” for the “valiancy” and “faith” of black people in the church.”
I feel that a similar situation is arising today with justifications like Elder Christofferson’s recent statement that “nothing is lost” for children gay members who won’t be baptized or ordained. Certainly these children will feel the sting that Gillespie felt, and to deny this is beyond comprehensibility to me.
In reacting to the great inactivity of black church members, when Joseph Fielding Smith became president in 1970, he organized the Genesis Group, a group to promote activity among black church members in Salt Lake County. The chapter concludes with notes from Michael Marquardt’s notes of an interview with Eugene Orr, a charter member of the Genesis Group. Orr noted “Through baptism your sins are remitted and yet you are told that you have a sin which was not remitted which was committed before earth life.” I guess it’s strange to me that church leaders denied both the atonement of Christ, as well as baptism’s power to wash away all sins with the black ban.
Chapters 6-7 detail events from 1978 onward. Most fascinating to me was some events in 1998 of which I was not familiar. David Jackson, in researching a talk on blacks and the church, discovered the unsettling words of Bruce R. McConkie in Mormon Doctrine, which was still being published as late as 2010. He was so concerned that he wrote President Hinckley a letter in 1995, asking for a statement to
“handle this type of problem. I have drafted the following:
OFFICIAL DECLARATION–3
(To be added to the next printing of the Doctrine and Covenants)
To Whom It May Concern:
I therefore, as president of teh Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges of practicing or teaching racism are false. we are not teaching racism through our scriptures nor permitting any person to enter into this practice. Some cases have been reported in which the parties allege that racism was taught in the scriptures were interpreted negative to people of African descent. There is nothing in my teaching to the Church that employs racism to any people of color based on racial characteristics of any kind to spiritual conditions or spiritual worthiness in this life or in the preexistence. {italics in original}
I believe this letter contains the work of the Lord in these latter days, please set the member of the Church free from this racist stigma so we can work together in God’s great kingdom for the salvation of all….
The editors, in introducing the letter, gave some fascinating details.
Hinckley did not respond directly to Jackson, but in a letter to Jackson’s bishop, a letter which Jackson himself was not allowed to read. Jackson was offended. The bishop, Sterling Brennan, asked Jackson if he could read Hinckley’s letter to him, but Jackson refused. His position “was not to let anyone read something to me that I could not receive a copy of.” Nevertheless, Jackson’s bishop later summarized the contents of the letter, in which Hinckley insisted that the church’s doctrine’s were devoid of racism. The matter did not end there. Gladwell {Jackson’s home teacher}, with Jackson’s encouragement, contacted an acquaintance from law school, Marlin Jensen, of the First Quorum of Seventy who also oversaw the public affairs department of the church.
The editors then summarize a series of meetings among Jensen, Armand Mauss, Bill Evans of the LDS public affairs, and others in which Jensen would use “as a basis for a formal proposal to be sent through channels to the First Presidency.” Mauss wrote a five page document listing demeaning references in LDS literature, and asked church authorities to write
an authoritative article in the church’s magazine, The Ensign, or Church News, “or both, reiterating this repudiation and explaining the potential harm such doctrines can cause to any people of color who join the church, and to the public image more generally.
The funny thing to me is that if President Hinckley had made such a statement outlined by Jackson in 1995, it would have prevented the Randy Bott incident in which Bott claimed the ban was pre-mortal in origin and referred to the Book of Abraham to justify this in the Washington Post on 2012. But church leaders simply do not like to be counseled, and it seems, felt the Bott affair was preferable to Jackson’s and Mauss’s ideas.
The editors continue,
The committee’s work was abruptly compromised in May 1998 when someone informed Los Angeles Times reporter Larry Stammer about the “Gladwell-Jensen” project. Stammer’s article, “Mormons May Disavow Old View on Blacks,” provoked a firestorm at LDS Church headquarters. The day the story broke, a church spokesman told a reporter at the news station KSL Channel 5–owned and operated by the LDS Church–that the story was “totally erroneous.” A church press release on the same day noted that church leaders had “read the story” and were “surprised at its contents. The matter it speaks of has not been discussed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.” The press release then went on to explain that “the 1978 declaration continues to speak for itself.”
The affair caused considerable embarrassment and quashed any prospect that LDS leaders would repudiate past racial statements affirming priesthood denial.” Armand Mauss, whom Stammer had interviewed for the story, observed that the church “would be seen as bowing to public pressure if they made such a disavowal in the wake of the news stories about secret deliberations on the issue.”
I guess what is so frustrating to me is the complete lack of humility of the leaders on some of these topics. We are counseled to be humble. “Do what is right and let the consequences follow” is one of our hymns. Yet the leaders are so prideful, that they won’t do what is right for fear of bowing to public pressure. It takes a complete accident, like a good church member Randy Bott sticking his foot in the Church’s mouth for the church to finally start to come clean with some of the recent essays (like Race and the Priesthood) where they finally blame the ban not of God, but on “racial distinctions and prejudice” that were “customary among white Americans.” Unfortunately “Mormon congregations generally mirrors that of the wider local community.” (I recently had a discussion with my bishop, and I referenced the essay. It was news to him that the ban was not doctrinal. It’s not in the Ensign, and even current bishops don’t know about these essays.) Yet finally, we got a statement in 2013 with the church specifically disavowed the ban.
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.
Overall, this was a great book, with some good primary sources for those interested in researching the topic of the black ban on priesthood an temple ordinances. I highly recommend it.
What is so unfortunate to me is to be an eyewitness to the unrighteous exclusion of children of gay parents. While I believe our leaders are good men, why do church leaders continue to make mistakes in the name of God? At least they acknowledge that the policy has resulted in an increase in suicides among gays. What are your thoughts on these episodes of the past with regards to blacks? Do you see a parallel with the ban on children of gay parents? Were you aware of some of the scuttling of a disavowal in 1998? Must we pray for more Randy Bott foot in the mouth episodes for real change to happen?
Wheat & Tares 
Interesting review. Thanks MH.
“Hinckley did not respond directly to Jackson, but in a letter to Jackson’s bishop, a letter which Jackson himself was not allowed to read. Jackson was offended. The bishop, Sterling Brennan, asked Jackson if he could read Hinckley’s letter to him, but Jackson refused.”
This really resonated with me. I take in information much more easily if I can read it. In order to listen I find I have to make extensive notes to be able to follow and understand. Simply having a letter read to me wouldn’t cut it at all.
It troubles
me too that the brethren continue to be unable to tell that there is a difference between their prejudices and the gospel.
The response to the suicides you note is an article about a response. Is there an actual response?
You would hope that this policy will not be maintained, because of pride, though as I talk to obedient members, they tell me it is all Gods will, just like racism was, but that there is no comparison.
I do remember Hinckley’s priesthood session talk about how racial discrimination excluded one from being an heir to salvation. That was pretty sharply defining.
I will need to add this to the pile of books to read.
But to your question towards the end of the post. I ABSOLUTELY feel the exclusion of children of gay couples is very provably history repeating itself.
I have just turned 50 and I grew up in the south. I saw racism first hand. I saw grandparents that by today’s definition were very racists. I have thought quite a bit about the civil rights movement and the priesthood and temple ban on blacks within our church. By the time I became an adult the civil rights laws were enacted and the bans were lifted in the church. But I have thought over and over if I would have stood up for what is right and stood by reformers. I worry I would have just been a bystander – neither acting out in a racist way, but being complacent as I watched injustices.
When I think of the policy change I feel that if I want to do what is right, I have no choice but to speak out against this as what I see it being – hurtful, unneeded, and not of God. I have asked him to tell me if it is his will and I have felt no such direction. So I must be true to what I have heard from the Lord in my heart and speak out.
I didn’t know about the 1998 incident until I read Armand Mauss’ autobiography last month. He mentioned that he was involved and what happened, but not the five page document of racist teachings still in our publications. Sigh. We as a people, including leadership, have so far to go.
The reason I had such a hard time with Elder Nelson’s statements is because they elevated a stupid policy change to a “revelation” – it follows thee act pattern of the priesthood ban. Leader says/does something stupid, gets pushback, doesn’t like pushback, claims its directly from God’s mouth as revelation, takes generations for people and leaders to consider it could have been a error and to reverse it, still while not specifically saying it was an error.
I read my scriptures, I know what this is: The PRIDE Cycle.
Great write up MH. Yes, I do think we need more Randy Botts in the church. But in a way, I think that we have an entire leadership with a Randy Botts perspective on homosexuality, so right now, it is not an errant problem that needs to be addressed, but rather a consensus view that will take time to change.
Randy Botts, like all those in church leadership, are just trying to do their best with the doctrines, policies, and practices that were handed down to them. They were chosen because they were “defenders of the faith” and their job description is just that. Revelation is based on carefully coming to consensus, not charismatic, JS style revolution. So change will be gradual, incremental, and maybe with a number of setbacks.
Fundamentally, what inspired the change for Blacks (just as polygamy) was the understanding that it was tearing the church apart. Wilford Woodruff’s “revelation” was nothing more than an apocalyptic vision of complete church destruction. The 1979 revelation was probably much the same way. The brethren could feel that the policy was unsustainable and the church was careening towards a breaking point on the issue. And because their job is to defend the faith, they couldn’t let that happen. When they feel that the gay issue will tear the church apart, they will do the same.
Like Nate pointed out, a lot of leaders have old-school views on homosexuality right now. Randy Bott’s race views would not have caused a stir 4 decades ago because those were common views for a majority of leadership/members. They are problematic now because the views of the majority have changed. I’d expect at *least* another decade before current lgbt views among leadership/members become as astonishingly offensive to the majority as Bott’s current views on race.
What irritates me is that the Q12 recognized Abel’s ordination, yet still deemed it unimportant because obviously the Lord’s view on priesthood at the time was just “not well understood.” Elder McConkie also dismissed pre-1978 views about race (including his own) as inconsequential: “It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject.”
The fact is that *any* policy justified by doctrine can be overruled at any point in the future. It just makes me more inclined to wonder, “Okay, what’s the next guy gonna say?”
#2 True Blue – the church’s response is quoted in full about 15 paragraphs down (The Deseret News article was massive. It took up about half a page in the print version.):
“Every soul is precious to God and to the church and the loss of life to suicide is heartbreaking,” church spokesman Dale Jones said. “Those who are attracted to others of the same sex face particular challenges and pressures in this regard, both inside and outside the church. We mourn with their families and friends when they feel life no longer offers hope. Each congregation should welcome everyone. Leaders and members are taught to follow the example of Jesus Christ and to reach out in an active, caring way to all, especially to youth who feel estranged or isolated. The church has repeatedly stated that those who feel same-sex attraction and yet choose to live the commandments of God can live fulfilling lives as worthy members of the church. We want all to enjoy the blessings and safety offered by embracing the teachings of Jesus Christ and living the principles of His gospel.”
Your last paragraph –
“What is so unfortunate to me is to be an eyewitness to the unrighteous exclusion of children of gay parents. While I believe our leaders are good men, why do church leaders continue to make mistakes in the name of God? At least they acknowledge that the policy has resulted in an increase in suicides among gays. What are your thoughts on these episodes of the past with regards to blacks? Do you see a parallel with the ban on children of gay parents? Were you aware of some of the scuttling of a disavowal in 1998? Must we pray for more Randy Bott foot in the mouth episodes for real change to happen?”
1. “What is so unfortunate to me is to be an eyewitness to the unrighteous exclusion of children of gay parents. While I believe our leaders are good men, why do church leaders continue to make mistakes in the name of God?”
It is because most of the Latter-day Saints, at least 99% of them, worship the Lords’ chosen leaders and that’s not the way it’s supposed to be.
D&C 1
19 The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—
20 But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;
When it comes to the leaders of the Church, the only thing that matter to me is that they are chosen of God. That’s His problem.
My problem is that I can speak in the name of the Lord? – and I can’t. So getting into trouble can be easy for me. I think that many times God has been merciful to me. I never forget these two verses. I don’t agree what is said about the Garden of Eden and what is said about Grace by everybody in the Church. In fact, I HATE what they(leaders and members)say. I don’t care much about the members but I never forget that the leaders of the Church are the Lord’s anointed. I might say that most of the members need an extra brain in their hips to run their legs but I won’t say that about the leaders because I know that God put them there.
2.” What are your thoughts on these episodes of the past with regards to blacks?”
(See above – do you see a parallel of the two answers?
3.”Do you see a parallel with the ban on children of gay parents?“
I don’t mind the leaders doing what they did, but I do have a lot of trouble with what the membership did – NOTHING except leave the church—FOOLS!!
Were you aware of some of the scuttling of a disavowal in 1998?
Yes. Not doing anything but brainlessly leaving the Church. IDIATS!
Must we pray for more Randy Bott foot in the mouth episodes for real change to happen?”
I wonder if we shouldn’t pray more for ourselves in our ways we act and react. If I did that then maybe I wouldn’t be so ticked about things.
The prophets said the day would come when blacks would have the priesthood. That day came. The priesthood ban was lifted by revelation, not only to the prophet but to to a group of apostles/prophets. We have their testimonies.
Those who go about comparing gays who would like to be married in the temple (or receive any sort of recognition that the church should honor their relationships in anyway) to the lifting of the priesthood ban for blacks is nonsense.
There is a difference between “good men” and prophets. The world has numerous good men, but there is only one prophet at a time who has the keys necessary to lead the Lord’s church.
I hope those who have trouble understanding the basic principles of the latter day church will repent while they can.
Jared,
You’ve been gone a while. I guess this post was a little stale with lack of defenders of defenseless positions. I guess you’re here to fill that void. I think you should stick to testimony, because when you start talking history, it is obvious you don’t know what you’re talking about.
“The prophets said the day would come when blacks would have the priesthood.” Let me get you the exact quote. Brigham Young said
Now there are 3 conclusions to this statement.
(1) To the best of my knowledge, there is really no end Abel’s posterity, so how do we know when we get to the end? If Abel’s posterity never ends (which seems to be the scientifically appropriate position) then is it really fair to say “The prophets said the day would come when blacks would have the priesthood?” Because even an optimistic reading of Brigham Young’s statement seems to imply that blacks would never get the priesthood if we have to wait for Abel’s posterity (which never ends) to get it first.
(2) Or did Abel’s posterity magically die off in 1978? If so, could you provide a reference? I wasn’t aware of that. I wish I could have met the last of Abel’s posterity. I would think that would have been newsworthy in all the major world newspapers. Or was the world redeemed in 1978? If so, that’s a new interpretation. Can you expound and bear testimony of your feelings of the earth being redeemed in 1978?
(3) If Abel had no children, then Abel would have been the last of his posterity, and the ban would have ended about 6000 years ago, making Brigham’s statement off by 6000 years.
“Those who go about comparing gays who would like to be married in the temple…”
Nice strawman Jared. I’ve NEVER advocated for gays marrying in the temple, nor did I do so in this post. Here’s what I said.
But I guess you can’t defend denying children baptism/priesthood that so you pick something I didn’t say. Either that or the word *gay* is such a trigger word for you that you can’t rationally read the word without jumping to erroneous conclusions.
Come on Jared. You can do better. You are a better man than that. Stick to bearing testimony because your grasp of history needs great improvement.
Brigham Young said the following in 1852. He didn’t mentioned Abel in the following remarks.
We don’t put chapter and verse to everything a prophet says. It isn’t a canonized pronouncement. The fact is LDS have been told that the priesthood would be extended to all worthy males. That day came. I hope Abel isn’t disappointed. Maybe he changed his mind. Maybe he agitated for Blacks to have the priesthood and that is how the change came about.
“not one particle of power can that posterity of Cain have until the time comes the Lord says have it that time will come they are under curse so are we they will come and have the privilege of all we have the privilege and more.”
Brigham Young, 5 February 1852
Papers of George D. Watt MS 4534 box 1 folder 3; images 142, 140, 138, 136, 134,
Sermon not in Journal of Discourses or in CR 100 317; in Complete Discourses of Brigham Young 1:468
Transcribed by LaJean Purcell Carruth 1 March 2013
I pulled this from the essay located below.
https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng
“I’ve NEVER advocated for gays marrying in the temple, nor did I do so in this post.”
I never said you advocated gays marrying in the temple. I don’t know what you believe about gays, but there are many who are hoping this will come about.
MH-I consider you an internet friend. I don’t always agree or disagree. I look to you for historical information and have learned a lot.
I continue to learn more and more about things I have some expertise in.
I’m pressed for time. adieu
Jared,
I thought I had hyperlinked the 1852 speech in my previous comment. The quote you reference is the same speech I highlighted in my previous comment. If you want to read Lujean Carruth’s work of Young’s speech before the legislature, it is found at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Slavery,_Blacks,_and_the_priesthood
My quote is from the 3rd paragraph. Yours is from the 4th. So, in looking at Brigham Young’s actual quote, he never really advocated that blacks would one day hold the priesthood. Instead he said that blacks would receive preisthood only after “the last of the posterity of Abel had received the Priesthood, until the redemption of the earth.” This really means never (unless Abel’s seed will one day end, or ended in 1978.) It may placate members to take Young’s words out of context and say “one day” blacks will hold the priesthood, but that’s not really accurate.
The funny thing is that when Brigham Young made this statement in 1852, he was WELL acquainted with honorable black men who held the priesthood: Elijah Abel (Young called him on the last of Abel’s 4 missions), Walker Lewis (Young met him while presiding over the New England Mission), Joseph Ball (Young met him in Nauvoo where Ball was supposed to help build the Nauvoo Temple), as well as the dishonorable Warner McCary (Young met with McCary in Winter Quarters before Young heading west to Utah.) Young also knew the honorable Jane Manning James (in Nauvoo), and denied her the sealing ordinance when both lived in Salt Lake City.
In 1852, Lewis had just come to Utah to receive his patriarchal blessing when Young made this speech. It must have been very bitter for Lewis, a man so upstanding that Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal that Lewis “was an example for his more whiter brethren to follow.”
I can’t imagine what Lewis thought when he came to Salt Lake City and heard Young’s racist statements before the Utah Legislature. (He probably felt as offended as I do today concerning children of gays.) Lewis was here just 6 months, and returned to Massachusetts shortly after this speech was given. It is so ironic to me that blacks WERE holding the priesthood in 1852 and continued to hold the priesthood after Young died. (Young died in 1877, Abel died in 1885.) So Young didn’t even outlive this horrible quote, although this quote was the first public justification of the ban and was the impetus for Mormons to blame the ban because of the curse of Cain.
I’m so glad the church has disavowed this awful policy and the awful theories associated with the ban. I hope it won’t take so long to disavow this new policy.