The other night my wife and I were having dinner with another couple that are close friends. They had both recently received the results of DNA testing (23 and Me) and were anxious to share the results with us. The most starting revelation was that the wife had 8% African ancestry. She is lily white, and has no visual indication of African blood.
This got me to thinking about the LDS church’s priesthood/temple ban for people of African decent, and if it could be in place today with modern DNA testing. Or what would have happened if DNA testing had become widespread in the 1960’s?
These friends of ours have several sons and grandsons who are all active and hold the priesthood. How would the church have handled DNA testing? Would the ban have moved from a visual test to a blood test? What would the church have done if large prominent families in the hierarchy found out they had African blood?
While the pressure to change the “policy” was from the outside in 1978, I believe the pressure from within the church would have become insurmountable if DNA testing had become common while the ban was in place, and a “revelation” would have been forthright.
Your Thoughts?
Wheat & Tares 
So bill, in some weird way, are you actually trying to point out that the reversal at least was following the Lord’s timing in a preparatory way for now….
Could it be that you actually consider the prophet inspired instead of not?
Very interesting point. Methinks there could have been a lot of manoeuvring and a very urgent “revelation.” Add a new dimension and imagine it happened within the Smith family………
You might want to check into margins of errors and assumptions in these DNA ancestry tests. There’s a popular introducation at https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/01/22/578293890/my-grandmother-was-italian-why-arent-my-genes-italian
Also the several (2 at least) tests of identical triplets showing significantly different ancestry though all came from the same egg and sperm. These are easily found by internet search.
You mean kind of like the “ban” on oral sex that was recended VERY quickly? I can only recended so quickly due to many (even in leadership ) saying “What do you mean? I very passionately disagree!” (pun intended). It reminds me of the comments about even within the church there are limits and sometimes the reality of “what the market will bear” (market being the members) in https://wheatandtares.org/2018/02/07/judgmentalism-and-standards/
But on a practical level, it would get too hard to deal with. I heard a podcast the other day where some indian tribes (“nations”) have “blood requirements” that in order to technically be part of them you have to have x% of your ancestors from the tribe. It is making some want to find as pure blooded mates so their kids will be able to be “members”.
BY’s injunction against even “one drop” of African blood was clearly motivated by racism. Come on. That’s got to be obvious to even the most nonsense-defending TBM out there, right?
As they pointed out in the excellent Black Panther movie, the human race came out of Africa (Mesopotamia). Some might want to think otherwise, but that’s what the DNA record shows.
The priesthood ban was resolved in 1978. I wonder how long it will take before we can move on.
There are many ideas expressed about the reason for the priesthood ban, from pure racism to pure revelation. I’ll express my take on the priesthood ban. I believe Heavenly Father is near His prophets. That means nothing consequential will stand for very long that isn’t according to His will. He won’t let those He calls to lead His church get too far off course without bringing about a correction.
Angela C. I liked the Black Panther movie too.
I had a trace of Pacific Islander. Even though most of me is from Eastern Europe. So there is error in those tests.
I would say if one of the apostles wound up with a even a drop of African blood, the ban would have been reversed within one business day.
I have a hard time imagining any kind of forthright or immediate revelation, or change in policy. D&C Declaration 2 makes clear President Kimball’s purported revelation came after lots of struggle and reflection, and even when it came, seemed to proceed through a multi-tiered ratification process.
But as long as we’re speculating, I can imagine in this day and age some general authority’s 23andMe results being leaked. Big hullabaloo on the Internet. Eventually, a carefully worded statement would be released clarifying that genetic testing is informative but not perfect. We would be reminded that we are a big eternal family, so of course there is genetic overlap. We, but more especially those being excluded, would be counselled to exercise patience, for in the Lord’s due time, the full blessings will be made available to all worthy… etc. etc.
Here’s a discussion about the “one drop” legend. The new scholarship traces that to Wilford Woodruff, not Brigham Young.
https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/02/07/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-lesson-7-2-nephi-3-5/
In fact, pressure from within the church was part of what led to the revelation. The church’s membership was growing fast in Brazil, where a very large proportion of people have some African ancestry. Brazilian members of the church were being ordained to the priesthood based largely on whether their appearance suggested African ancestry, not based on their actual lineage. Grant Bangerter, who was a mission president in Brazil, was quoted in the 1980’s as saying, “We knew many people had received the priesthood who, perhaps if we had known the full facts, would not have been ordained.” The leadership in Salt Lake City knew that this situation was not sustainable, and it was a significant factor in their deliberations.
The Bangerter quote and lots of other great information is in Ed Kimball’s BYU Studies article about the revelation:
https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/spencer-w-kimball-and-revelation-priesthood
These genetic tests don’t really reveal what they are commonly believed to reveal. First, we have no DNA samples from ancestors living 500-1000 yrs ago, so shen we get our DNA tested, we are actually comparing our DNA to DNA of people living TODAY.
This fascinating podcast discusses DNA testing.
https://www.wnyc.org/story/the-human-story-of-our-genes/
Bottom line is this:
The assignment of racial categories has never been based on valid science, but instead was strongly influenced by cultural attitudes. These categories were further justified by misuse of scientific methods and measurement. In other words, “race” as it came to be used was a social construct, without a valid scientific basis.”
(source: http://emerald.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PDF/Dialogues%20on%20Race.PDF
“….That’s because the chosen ancestry-information markers reflect only a small percentage of our DNA, and there’s actually more genetic diversity within the African population than between the African population and a European population.”
source: http://now.tufts.edu/articles/pulling-back-curtain-dna-ancestry-tests
repeat:
Race is a social construct, without a scientific basis. Racial identify is simply a man-made concept.
(Please let me know if links aren’t allowed)
Loursat — thank you for adding to the discussion.
Silly Angelica:
We all know that the human race all descended from Noah and his 3 sons who were founders of the three races on the earth. Actually their wives were the founders of the diversity but women don’t really matter as much. And that they originated in Missouri before the flood and traveled on the ark to Palestine. The cursed black race was preserved through Ham who went to Egypt and from him descended the pharaohs who built pyramids and spread south beyond the Sahara desert. The human race came out of Jackson County Missouri, USA. If you do not accept these teachings of the prophets with child-like humility, then of course the rest of this discussion doesn’t make sense and is pointless.I have blogged extensively on this very topic. (Cough, cough).
Margin of Error:
These are scientific studies, therefore they have sensitivity and specificity which are measurements of false positives and false negatives. But there is also constant improvement. Those error rates will go down over time and I speculate rather quickly since there is money to be made from them being accurate. This is a dodge to think the question isn’t relative because the data that raises it isn’t perfect.
What race is God?
Since in Mormon theology the Gods have gender; father and mother in heaven, it also makes sense that they would have racial features.
The Bible teaches the first humans were made in the image of God so what race were the earliest humans?
Skin color is not preserved in fossil remains. But other skeletal features associated with different racial groups (now properly called ancestor groups , now don’t you feel better?) are preserved in fossils. Anthropologists can take a skull and tell its racial features, especially if they have several skulls from related burials. The designation of a group of life forms into one Genus implies likely reproductive compatibility. So fossils designated Homo sapiens and Home neanderthalensis and Homo heidelbergensis indicates cross-matings would produce fertile offspring. DNA studies support these fossil studies. Most importantly, Homo erectus is considered a member of this group.
Homo erectus appears on the earth about 2 million years and was extinct about 140,000 years ago, the most long-lived Homo species so far. They originated in Africa (if a tapir is a horse then Africa is Missouri) and were the first to migrate to other continents. They used fire and are thought to have language and culture and religion (ceremonial burials). There were about a dozen sub-varieties.
Of most importance to this discussion, they had African skeletal features and hence likely had dark skin and so would be classified as not worthy of the priesthood before 1978. The skeletal features that are characteristic of the white race emerge in the fossil record definitely way AFTER 100,000 years ago and possibly 50 to 70,000 years ago. That means for the first 95 to 97% of the history of the human race, no white people lived on this earth. If Homo erectus is made in the image of God then God is definitely black. When you kneel down beside your bed beneath that Confederate flag hanging on your wall tonight to say your prayers, image God is black. It changed the way I view black people I see and interact with every day.
Why God would deny priesthood authority to those of his offspring who most closely resemble him in race is beyond my fecund imagination and must be answered by greater doctrinal contortionists than me.
Jared: Why can’t we move on?
We allowed priesthood ordination in 1978, but too many of us didn’t move beyond it then. I was told in the 1980’s, they (blacks) may be given the priesthood but they ain’t gonna make it to the celestial kingdom… we don’t have to home teach ’em… and so forth. The topic of interracial marriages is not settled. We, most of us, seem able to accept it when it is a done deal. But we don’t like our sons and daughters marrying across racial boundaries and we do not like black guys hitting on white girls and making dates with them at youth dances, in my limited experience. Incidentally, some LDS black people agree with this, in their words, “better to be stayin’ in your own tribe to marry.”
Black people have every reason to hate on white people as much as the other way around. Actually more reasons.Don’t think that many black people hate you for no other reason than you are white.Racism goes both ways and is destructive. Only time, measured in decades and generations heals some of these wounds.
It was only a few years ago, not 40 years ago, that Pres, U-dorf apologized for our racism before 1978 and basically threw Brigham Young and his pals under the wagon for it. Before that we taught the ban was of God before 1978, even if we had no rational justification for it. Many still stick to that position. We do not see the bishop (in Seattle?) who, in 1977 baptized a black man in his swimming pool, confirmed him, and then ordained him to the priesthood on TV, as heroic.. No, he remains a pariah for insubordination.
Finally, this generation of black people still remember the civil rights movement and still hold it against us Mormons that we were late and weak in coming to the moral position that people of all races need to be treated with decency and respect. It continues to be a drag on missionary work and sort of a built in additional faith crisis for every black person, It is reflected in lower activity rates for black converts.
I have thought that one of the reasons the Church banned Priesthood ordination to black persons was because the general population of the Church was not morally ready for it. We stood in condemnation before God for our racist views (which our parents taught us, and theirs taught them, etc….) I have also thought if the Church had opened the Gospel into the black nations earlier, we would have been financially broken. I have lived and served missions in black nations and some of them aren’t even third world, they are fourth world or fifth if there is such a thing. Most are very needy, and deserve all the help they can get. That being said, I am so forever grateful that my black friends in many nations can enjoy the blessings of membership in the Church and blessings of the Temple. I don’t give a hoot when or who said when or where they could have it. I only know they have the opportunity now in our present day and age. It makes me happy.
The rise of science and technology surrounding DNA analysis has changed the way we view things like ancestry, lineage, race/ethnicity and such things significantly enough that the priesthood/racial ban would not have been able to withstand it, if it were allowed to remain in place beyond 1978. Even as recent as the 20th century people had some pretty screwed up views about race and lineage, and Mormons were no exception. Pres. Kimball, for all his racial enlightenment, once suggested that successive generations of Native Americans had lighter skin than their parents, as a function of gradual progress towards righteousness. Brigham Young taught that black people didn’t have “believing blood”, as if righteousness was hereditary. For most of human history, the path of a person’s life was largely determined by what family they happened to be born into. We still use terms like “blood” and “bloodline” to refer to lineage and ancestry, when in fact blood is a common bodily fluid that is indistinguishable between between black or white, rich or poor.
A year after the 1978 revelation, Pres. Kimball (to his credit) also abolished the office of Patriarch of the Church. Tradition dictated that the man holding that office should be a direct descendant of the first patriarch, Joseph Smith Sr. No one knows exactly why he did it, but I think Pres. Kimball was prescient enough to realize that notions of “righteous bloodlines” and racial/ancestral/spiritual elitism were antiquated and irrelevant, and the positive reception of the 1978 revelation confirmed it.
It’s always been interesting to me, as an adoptee, that according to some LDS teachings adoptees literally received the adopted parents’ blood when a child was sealed to them. Apparently the priesthood ability to change blood DNA only worked for non-black babies because otherwise black babies could have simply received a priesthood blessing to change their DNA to white DNA. But oh yeah the sealing power wasn’t available to blacks…
Now that we understand that race is way more complicated than we imagined 40 years ago, maybe we’ll realize that other things (gender??) are complicated. I wonder what we’ll be able to test for in 2060.
To An Old Woman – I generally take the easy come/easy go mentality on many things. But I consider if today I was not allowed to join the church because I am left handed or something else I can’t control, would I still be fine with it? What if my child was not allowed to join. I am not sure I would be so OK with “well the church isn’t quite ready.
Happy:
I’ll bet you would be willing to believe “t. We stood in condemnation before God for our racist views (which our parents taught us, and theirs taught them, etc….” about it though.
AnOldWoman – just a note – “I have also thought if the Church had opened the Gospel into the black nations earlier, we would have been financially broken” The same rationale was brought up against immigrants from Europe in the early Church. The Church survived, and most certainly would have survived full integration and acceptance throughout. A little thing like money cannot stop this work.
Sorry I’m a bit late, but way back up there, Jared said:
“The priesthood ban was resolved in 1978. I wonder how long it will take before we can move on. ”
The priesthood/temple/exaltation ban was *not* resolved in 1978. It has *never* been resolved. It was ended. But there has been no acknowledgement of the flawed process that allowed it to come about in the first place or that allowed it to persist for so long, or any apparent concern on the part of Church leaders with making sure something like it doesn’t happen again. That’s what it would take for it to be resolved. Some acknowledgement of the wrong for starters, and some apology and pledge to do better. Instead, all we get is mealy-mouthed stuff like the essays that leave open the possibility for orthodox readers to believe that the ban was inspired all along.
I think the November exclusion policy will end up being the same type of problem. One day (probably a few decades hence), President Renlund will announce that it is ending, and the very next day, the Jareds of 2038 will tell us to just move on, and ask us why we were so worked up about it.
Ziff: It’s funny – in my view, the “mealy-mouthed” things the Church says on social and political issues are designed exactly to do what you say the Church isn’t doing – to make sure we don’t adopt any more (as many?) hare-brained policies that need reversing later. It just looks like good, old-fashioned humility.
The POX appears to have got over that wall, unfortunately, but the Church and its leaders are getting much better at being not completely certain about things. I’m excited about that, because it will make President Renlund’s announcement come sooner.
Incremental change, alas, is all we have, because revelation is a human process, as well as a divine.