Hi Jeff, I love what you do! I’ve followed fair Mormon for a while, and this kind of thing helps me so much! It can be hard to find specific topical information through fair Mormon, although when you can it’s pure gold. But the way you’ve organized this is so effective. Thanks for what you do!
Bruce R. MCkonkie was giving a speech about the seed of Cain being held back from receiving the priesthood, while the revelation was being given otherwise. It was an embarrassing situation for Bruce as it was like the next moment he had to do his recant concerning the matter.
I appreciate his humility from this quote "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."
My ancestors joined the Church in Missouri. Interestingly, they were white, while I am black. That was due to interracial marriages which occurred during the Civil War Era and after.
Thank you for this educational piece. What is scary is that it took a revelation to undo a policy change because at least half the leaders of the church were racist and in need of a call to repentance. The reason it needed a revelation to reverse course is that it would have created a lot of disharmony had it come any other way which is really really sad. It is just a reminder that none of us are perfect, but we are all striving. It also shows that higher callings do not mean better at living the gospel of Jesus Christ nor more understanding of it despite popular opinion of many members.
I didn’t come out of this video understanding more about why, for 126 years, God allowed His church to act in His name disallowing one certain group of people from receiving eternal temple and priesthood blessings. This 126 year ban has tarnished the church forever in my view. Regardless, I’m here and can’t go anywhere because of my testimony in the restoration via Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I wish that there were better answers as to why some things were immediately changed in the early church, but not this. I can only conclude two things; 1) both members and even blacks at the time weren’t really ready to be fully blessed at that time due to their ideology and experiences 2) God truly knows what’s best for His people, but he has to deal with imperfect humans, even prophets and members too weak to receive and act on correct principles and/or revelations. This has got to be the most frustrating part of this church…I just don’t, and maybe never will, understand the ban. Kudos to anyone with black skin who is a member and can get past it, I know I wouldn’t be able to. I’ll ask for forgiveness until I die for my anger in this subject.
Thought to share with you a copy/paste of an email response I recently sent someone with a question/comment similar to yours, in hopes it will provide some additional thoughts and links that you will find beneficial: This is a challenging issue to wrestle with and the gospel topics essay seemed to purposely allow for some ambiguity. Clearly pointing out that the ban was not based on any revelation and that the ideas espoused for the ban are thoroughly disavowed (curse of Cain or premortal life behavior), but not taking a stand that there is no chance that God didn’t command the ban, thus still leaving it ambiguous. Because there is still a possibility of some reason we don’t understand, I think the approach may have been to not risk the challenges that come with formerly acknowledging it as an error, which emphasizes the fallibility of prophets in a way that may be hard for many members, so the attitude seems to continue to be the we don’t know approach. Maybe there is a feeling that the prophet would need to have a revelation that it was an error before they will formally acknowledge this? It will be interesting to see if anything changes in this regard - talks against racism are getting more intense, including from the Prophet. Personally - I like to think of a number of things that have shaped my opinion that God didn’t instruct the ban, but allowed it to happen without stopping it: Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abels to the priesthood Brigham Young acknowledged that Q Walker Lewis was one of our best elders No revelation was ever pointed to behind the ban The reasons given for the ban have now all been disavowed There are many scriptural examples of prophets doing something wrong President Benson’s “Samuel Principle” is a key illustration of God sometimes allowing things he doesn’t approve of to “not be stopped” so we will “learn the hard way” I wanted to also share with you a very helpful video discussion of Terryl Givens interviewing Paul Reeve (author of one of the books I referred to in my video: Religion of a Different Color) - it gets really into the heart of the matter you are bringing up starting around the 37 min mark through most of the rest of the video. I really found it helpful to hear them discuss this frankly: ua-cam.com/video/dl0BBXQnzng/v-deo.html Also hear is a helpful essay that Paul Reeve wrote on the FaithMatters website on the topic: faithmatters.org/making-sense-of-the-churchs-history-on-race/ Here is also an interesting article on some of the reasons given now to defend the ban (since they have not been disavowed like the controversial reasons have been). While you could debate this - it is interesting to consider: bycommonconsent.com/2021/02/11/whether-the-temple-and-priesthood-restriction-was-mistaken/ I also wanted to share 2 other videos on my channel that you might find helpful as subsets of this question: Priesthood Ban Part 2 - Scriptural Misunderstandings ua-cam.com/video/9ll-UMVmo0c/v-deo.html Sustaining Fallible Church Leaders ua-cam.com/video/HBEh25jwHKw/v-deo.html
A question to your question at 19:15. The children of Israel who were slaves for hundreds of years, deprived of education, religion, and cultural progression, and subsequently were only given the Aaronic priesthood, and only the tribe of Levi at that. That wasn't their fault as much as it was the Egyptians. Much like the children of Israel, could it be that the only racists were the slave holders who left them in a debased state to the Lord who started the work of rehabilitation, which included withholding the priesthood until a time that they were prepared to take on such a huge responsibility? In which case it would have been a purpose of the Lord which would be hard for us to understand in our society today. Thoughts?
It is an interesting speculation and could possibly have played into the situation, maybe somehow even working in conjunction with the speculation I shared as well (the ‘Samuel Principle’ I discussed). The church gospel topics essay and statements appear to be careful to not speculate about reasons, but do clearly condemn past racism (particularly racist excuses given for the ban); they also describe the racist culture in general society that existed at the time of the ban, point out that no revelation is in the documented record to begin the practice, and a revelation was deemed necessary after the practice had become entrenched for so long.
It was my understanding that they didn't obtain the higher priesthood at that time because of the sins they committed (with the golden calf and whatever wickedness went along with that) while Moses was up on the mountain getting the tablets the first time. Because of that they were given a new set of tablets with a lesser law because they were not spiritually prepared for the higher one.
@@TofuTal I think you’re on to something. But, this would never go over well, trying to explain it to today’s people. They already want retaliation, not equality. Could you imagine? Your theory is not without biblical precedence though…
So basically we screwed up, then had a hard time understanding that we did, even though some of us knew at some level it was wrong but we needed to move together after a church-wide revelation to end it forever and overcome what was an error perpetuated by people that was brought with them initially from outside the church. It that the quick version? It helps us realize the importance of continuing revelation and not taking for granted that other people can do it all for us because we all mature differently in different ways at different speeds. It also has applications for listening to the Spirit in our lives when dealing with out own prejudices and working to both constantly repent and forgive.
Interesting - but I wasn't there until the last comment: that the Official Declaration could be viewed as a call to repentance to church members who maintained racist beliefs, and who may indeed have contributed to the withholding of temple blessings for so long. It could have happened at the turn of that century and definitely in the 60s. I'm glad that it happened in such a powerful way and my faith and trust rests in our loving God to recompense individuals for all that was unjust and unfair in the past.
Thank you for your comment. I love your testimony of those who have suffered because of this will be compensated by the Lord. It reminds me of the scripture in Isaiah 61:3 that says what the Lord will do “…unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness…”
My mother told me that she knew it would happen when "we" were ready. There had to be repentance and humility before we were worthy of them. When she was young, she heard this as the explanation given to her. There is a lot held back until we are ready, even now.
This is 100% true. I wish many would see it like this. It seems today that Satan has convinced the savior white liberals and other extremists on the topic that retaliation is needed rather than forgiveness and actual equality though.
Haha - haven’t made a count on the books but I am sure its in the thousands. I know its a bit excessive, but the reading passion has sure helped in putting together these videos!
Yet another great video. I have read and researched this a great deal. While I was working at BYU I read a paper about the experience with Pres. Kimball and the Quorum of the Twelve. It was an emotional experience for me for a couple of reasons. I served In the Florida Tampa Mission from 1985 -1986. I had one particular experience where I had brought a black man to church and he was rejected and ignored by the ward. I was so upset because I had never experienced real racism before, let alone by church members. I grew up in S. E. Idaho where we weren't necessarily racist, we were truly ignorant because there were very few black people there. I absolutely fell in love with them on my mission and this action shocked me. Secondly, it was President Kimball who signed my mission call and he also passed away while I was on my mission. He's a very dear prophet to me. President Monson signed my older son's mission call while President Nelson signed my younger son's mission call. I hope someday I would get to meet you and would could spend time discussing the gospel. It is my favorite thing to do.
Thank you for sharing some of those details and experiences! Would be fun to connect with you at some point. Not sure if you live in Utah or ever visit, but I live in a suburb of Salt Lake City. You can touch base with me directly through my website (where I keep the transcripts for the videos) - latterdaysaintsqa.com using the contact me link.
@@latterdaysaintsqaI used to live in Pleasant Grove but we moved to Idaho Falls so I could work with my dad in his accounting/bookkeeping business. We try to visit fairly often. Eventually I want to make regular trips for the Fair conference and Ed week so maybe we can meet up there one of these few years and go out to lunch or something.
People were in Such a colonial state of mind back then. There were empires and colonies all over the world all the way until even after world war 2. Even hitlers propaganda was based on ideological ideas about preserving the industrialized culture and in his eyes more civilized superior races. And even though we frown on those views now, it’s hard to blame settlers for assuming superiority when they start exploring the world and find that they have ships, horses, wagons, factories, steam engines, electricity, sophisticated clothing, a written history, guns, machines and so on, only to bump into peoples in Asia, Africa and America who live in wooden huts, can’t read, and have no complex style, culture, or giant cities. So many people from Europe and the USA saw how much more advanced their society was and automatically drew the conclusion that it must also have something to do with skin color. If you’d go back in time you’d experience a culture shock.
Thanks for the comment. I think you will be interested in some of the things I share at the beginning of this video “Priesthood Ban - Part 2: Scriptural Misunderstandings”. Here is the direct link: ua-cam.com/video/9ll-UMVmo0c/v-deo.html
Hi Jeff, did you read and analyze Genesis 9: 18-29? Reading the Old Testament Institute Manual (4-20) and what is explained there is very interesting. Why did Noah curse Canaan when he was not even present? I think the Priesthood curse is related to this.
If you look on the library app for the church, and pull up the current edition of that Old Testament Institute manual online, you will find that section (4-20) has been removed (I have an old physical copy so I was able to verify the difference). I don’t know when it happened but it may have been done at the time when things kind of blew up in early 2020 from what was declared an error in the printed manual for the Come Follow Me manual for the Book of Mormon, which included a 60+ year old quote from Joseph Fielding Smith expressing some outdated views on race that the church disavows today. When this CFM for BofM manual error was discovered in early 2020, the church removed the error passage in the online CFM manual. Maybe when this happened the church went through and eliminated other passages in all church manuals (to include the Old Testament institute manual you referred to) that had any discussion on curses and theories related thereto. Let me share a little bit more about the error that was in the Come Follow Me manual for Book of Mormon in 2020, in case you, or anyone reading this comment, aren’t familiar with what happened. Elder Stevenson was speaking at an NAACP event right after this error was discovered - here is what he shared in his talk then: “One of our recent church manuals includes a paragraph with some outdated commentary about race. It was mistakenly included in the printed version of the manual, which had been prepared for print nearly two years ago. When it was brought to the attention of Church leaders late last year, they directed that it be immediately removed in our online manuals, which is used by the majority of our members. We have also directed that any future printed manuals will reflect this change. We’re asking our members to disregard that paragraph in the printed manual. I’m deeply saddened by any hurt this error may have caused for some of our members and for others. Our position as a Church is clear-we condemn all racism, past and present, in any form and disavow any theory advanced that black or dark skin is a sign of a curse.” www.thechurchnews.com/2020/1/20/23215831/naacp-elder-stevenson-martin-luther-king-jr The removed quote from the CFM BofM manual said, “The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing [see 2 Nephi 5:21-23; Alma 3:6-10]. The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord [see 2 Nephi 5:20]. … Dark skin … is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse” (Joseph Fielding Smith, “Answers to Gospel Questions,” comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. [1960], 3:122-23).” In the official church gospel topics essay on race and the priesthood, a key section states “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.” www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng Here is a (strongly worded) article on the error that happened in the CFM Manual: www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/01/18/error-printed-lds-church/ I would love to share here a few more helpful resources on this topic as well: Here is an excellent video from Scriptures Central on curses that has a lot of helpful info: Hard Questions in Church History with Lynne Hilton Wilson - Official Declaration 2 (also look at the great pdf Lynne has as a link in the show description) ua-cam.com/video/vj283ZWETfc/v-deo.html …and here is a video I did on some other key aspects - Priesthood Ban Part 2 - Scriptural Misunderstandings ua-cam.com/video/9ll-UMVmo0c/v-deo.html Here is also a very detailed research piece published in 2022 in the Interpreter by the Egyptologist John S. Thompson - “Being of that Lineage - Generational Curses and Inheritance in the Book of Abraham”: journal.interpreterfoundation.org/being-of-that-lineage-generational-curses-and-inheritance-in-the-book-of-abraham/ Lastly, I highly recommend a fantastic book on this overall topic that was just published by Deseret Book - “Let’s Talk About Race & Priesthood” by Paul Reeve deseretbook.com/p/let-s-talk-about-race-and-priesthood?queryID=fd01e9005080a174e7eb35be3b572b0e&variant_id=201896-paperback
Here is the statement read by President Hugh B. Brown in the October 1963 General Conference before he began his remarks (President David O. McKay had it published as an ‘official statement’ in March 1965 in the Deseret News): During recent months both in Salt Lake City and across the nation considerable interest has been expressed in the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the matter of civil rights. We would like it to be known that there is in this Church no doctrine, belief, or practice that is intended to deny the enjoyment of full civil rights by any person regardless of race, color, or creed. We again say, as we have said many times before, that we believe that all men are the children of the same God and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny to any human being the right to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience. We have consistently and persistently upheld the Constitution of the United States, and as far as we are concerned that means upholding the constitutional rights of every citizen of the United States. We call upon all men everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God's children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man. Although the statement is wonderful, there were still a number of challenges involved. The best way to see a quick summary is visiting the Wikipedia page Civil Rights and Mormonism (which has many footnotes for further detail): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_and_Mormonism Please also note a did a Part 2 to this video called Priesthood Ban Part 2: Scriptural Misunderstandings. Here is the link to that video: ua-cam.com/video/9ll-UMVmo0c/v-deo.html
Hi, I have a question. The Book of Mormon mentions cursing by the Lord by colouring skin or at least skin colour becoming fairer as people are more obedient. I have difficulty articulating an argument when the Book is described as 'Racist" for this reason. Would love your thoughts. Eddy. Ps doing a great job.
I have addressed this in a video, which I actually labeled as part 2 to this video here. The official title: “Priesthood Ban Part 2: Scriptural Misunderstandings”; here is the direct link to that video: ua-cam.com/video/9ll-UMVmo0c/v-deo.html
Do you have an email address where I can privately ask you a question. My dad was an LDS Army Chaplain, I could ask him anything. But he has passed over. Ty
For security from hackers I have been told not to put my email address out in a public forum. So the best way is to use Facebook messenger. You can find me under Cindy-Jeff Roundy (it is a joint account with my wife).
Just a slight correction. I wouldn't say that interracial marriages weren't legal in the US until 1967. Interracial marriages were banned in 16 states prior to 1967. There was not a federal law nor did the majority of states ban it.
Thanks for pointing that out as I hadn’t researched that point enough in time for the video. I had just seen the point that the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional in 1967, which led to my general wording in the video which wasn't said properly. Looking it up now I see what you were talking about - only 16 states were still banning interracial marriage at that point (and yes, it had never been a federal ban, just state by state, and the 1967 Supreme Court ruling forced these remaining states to drop their bans).
This is very good. Thank you. I see you stopped a year ago. Are you going to start back up? I have a black friend who was raised in the Church in Boise, Idaho. His family was the only black family he knew of there at the time. He saw the tremendous contradiction and suffering his father went through. As he grew into a young man, he couldn't date most of the white LDS girls because of the racism in the minds and hearts of the members. His mother stayed loyal. He did not. My friend said that the leadership is not addressing the sin of racism of the last even if the policies had changed. No apologies or explanation was given, just a reversal and a let's move on attitude. I have an LdS friend that in 2006 said to me that if any of his white daughters or sons married a black person, he would not allow them into his house. Racism is still very real and still needs to be addressed by the brethren. A few years ago, I wrote to the First Presidency after talking with my Bishop and Stake president. I stated that the Church needed to confess the sin of incorrect discrimination in conference to the whole world and that it is part of the repentance process. It is preached as part of the repentance process. I stated that a policy paper on the Church website is not sufficient for the nearly 100 years of devastation to the black community being denied the Melchizedek priesthood and eternal marriage. I got a cursory reply from one of the administrators that the brethren are aware of the situation. I live in Dallas Texas area and there is no interest in the black community to hear about Joseph Smith because of the spiritual branding the Church did. Thank you again for the short yet very informative video. You put a lot of work into it and thank you.
Thanks for your comment and sharing your thoughts and experiences. Let me first address making additional videos - I set out to build a set library of content which I have completed now. I have left the door open for future content if something needs to be addressed that I haven’t already covered in some fashion. As far as thoughts on the rest of your comment, let me share with you a copy/paste of a recent email I sent somebody asking me thoughts similar to your comment. Here is a copy/paste of the email response I sent: This is a challenging issue to wrestle with and the gospel topics essay seemed to purposely allow for some ambiguity. Clearly pointing out that the ban was not based on any revelation and that the ideas espoused for the ban are thoroughly disavowed (curse of Cain or premortal life behavior), but not taking a stand that there is no chance that God didn’t command the ban, thus still leaving it ambiguous. Because there is still a possibility of some reason we don’t understand, I think the approach may have been to not risk the challenges that come with formerly acknowledging it as an error, which emphasizes the fallibility of prophets in a way that may be hard for many members, so the attitude seems to continue to be the we don’t know approach. Maybe there is a feeling that the prophet would need to have a revelation that it was an error before they will formally acknowledge this? It will be interesting to see if anything changes in this regard - talks against racism are getting more intense, including from the Prophet. Personally - I like to think of a number of things that have shaped my opinion that God didn’t instruct the ban, but allowed it to happen without stopping it: Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abels to the priesthood Brigham Young acknowledged that Q Walker Lewis was one of our best elders No revelation was ever pointed to behind the ban The reasons given for the ban have now all been disavowed There are many scriptural examples of prophets doing something wrong President Benson’s “Samuel Principle” is a key illustration of God sometimes allowing things he doesn’t approve of to “not be stopped” so we will “learn the hard way” I wanted to also share with you a very helpful video discussion of Terryl Givens interviewing Paul Reeve (author of one of the books I referred to in my video: Religion of a Different Color) - it gets really into the heart of the matter you are bringing up starting around the 37 min mark through most of the rest of the video. I really found it helpful to hear them discuss this frankly: ua-cam.com/video/dl0BBXQnzng/v-deo.html Also hear is a helpful essay that Paul Reeve wrote on the FaithMatters website on the topic: faithmatters.org/making-sense-of-the-churchs-history-on-race/ Here is also an interesting article on some of the reasons given now to defend the ban (since they have not been disavowed like the controversial reasons have been). While you could debate this - it is interesting to consider: bycommonconsent.com/2021/02/11/whether-the-temple-and-priesthood-restriction-was-mistaken/ I lso wanted to share 2 other videos on my channel that you might find helpful as subsets of this question: Priesthood Ban Part 2 - Scriptural Misunderstandings ua-cam.com/video/9ll-UMVmo0c/v-deo.html Sustaining Fallible Church Leaders ua-cam.com/video/HBEh25jwHKw/v-deo.html
Yet in the Book of Mormon we see the Lord himself instituting a racial policy. He gave the Lamanites skin like flint so that they would not be enticing to the Nephites. Perhaps, with the background of interracial marriage of the 19th century, Brigham Young felt to do the same.
I would like to share another video with you, that really became part 2 to this video: “Priesthood Ban - Part 2: Scriptural Misunderstandings” - ua-cam.com/video/9ll-UMVmo0c/v-deo.html
I am glad that the church presently condemns racism but a question I have is this: If the culture of the 1800s condemned polygamy yet God gave a revelation to practice it why wouldn’t he just as well given a revelation that blacks could hold the priesthood? Jesus clearly broke barriers of racism during his ministry that were considered taboo (ie mixing with samaritans). Yet it took over 100 years for the restored church to receive this revelation. It seems like the argument of the culture of the time doesn’t work in light of the introduction of polygamy into that culture so averse to that practice as well.
It is a good question and observation, and while I don’t know the answer for sure (due to various assumptions that have to be made), I am happy to speculate a bit. The Lord wanted polygamy practiced for a period for multiple reasons (particularly to raise up a righteous posterity quickly) - see the video I did entitled “Polygamy Part 1 - The Beginnings” ua-cam.com/video/RutEPRO0LvE/v-deo.html Since the Lord instructed them on this culture breaking practice, then logic would say the Lord could also have given a revelation to break the culture of racism in full force at that time. The Saints had allowed blacks to join and attend in congregations, which was already a culture breaking practice, why not go all the way? We don’t have a record of a revelation Brigham received to institute the practice - but couldn’t the Lord have stopped them from doing it all together, just as they had been open to culture busting like polygamy was? What about subsequent generations - couldn’t it have been changed earlier than 1978? Could it have possibly been the “Samuel Principle” which I discussed in the video from Ezra Taft Benson? I will quote it here for quick access: “If you see some individual in the Church doing things which disturb you, or you feel the Church is not doing things the way you think they could or should be done, the following principles might be helpful. God has to work through mortals of varying degrees of spiritual progress. Sometimes he temporarily grants to men their unwise requests in order that they might learn from their own sad experiences. Some refer to this as the “Samuel principle.” The children of Israel wanted a king, like all the nations. The prophet Samuel was displeased and prayed to the Lord about it. The Lord responded by saying to Samuel, “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” The Lord told Samuel to warn the people of the consequences if they had a king. Samuel gave them the warning, but they still insisted on their king. So God gave them a king and let them suffer. They learned the hard way. God wanted it to be otherwise, but within certain bounds he grants unto men according to their desires.” So if this “Samuel Principle” was the reason why things happened the way they did with the ban, then God could have stopped it (against the culture), just like he started polygamy (against the culture), but may have “allowed” these things to transpire for the Saints to learn a number of lessons the hard way.
I took a church history class many many yrs ago. On this subject, one of the documents was a letter to the Saints coming to Missouri. I can’t quote it, but it had to do w the safety of the Saints, that Missourians were already hostile toward them and didn’t need the reason of having black members and priesthood to add to the hostility. This was a volatile time w some states wanting to continue slavery and others wanting to abolish it. I think I learned this was one of the reasons Missouri didn’t want so many “Mormons” in their state - b/c they could flip the vote against slavery.
I'm not a Mormon though have been watching these videos as they are very interesting. It might be out of line for me to comment but I feel somewhat compelled to. So I'm Māori and in our culture we believe God never gives u an answer to a question u never asked. Furthermore u r given the concept usually via a prompting though it can come via a dream or a vision. By concept I mean this. God will not put the words "be kind to children" in ur mind. Instead they will give u the concept and it up to u to clothe that in language. Because of this we believe one can not fully understand exactly what God is trying to tell them. They know they ought to go this place but they don't have a map on how to get there. So to me it makes sense that maybe with Joseph and polygamy he's got this idea of sealing the human family. But at the same time he can't quite differentiate between what it means to seal as oppose to marry and how to do this or what this looks like. To me this seems the most likely explanation for his polygamy. I don't think he was a predator. Instead that he had this concept of uniting humanity in his mind and in trying to make it a reality somewhat bungled things up. As for the issue of race it could be that God didn't tell anyone to change on this issue because quite simply because no one was asking the question.
@@brycepardoe658, man, this is a super legit comment and pretty cool considering you aren't even mormon. I appreciate you taking the time to really explain what you are saying. that makes so much sense to me and I feel like that is a true principle and easy way that us as well-meaning children of our Heavenly Father can misunderstand what He is telling us. I kind of think of it like we get impressions similar to the game "hot or cold". God may put specific words in your mind, but it's always going to be in your own language that YOU know! To piggy back on what you said about polygamy, it doesn't help that the bible isn't totally specific as to why God doesn't speak on the prophets' polygamy back in the old testament. If I were trying to reimagine a consecrated society, questioning the full story of the bible and trying to unite the entire human family, while weighing pros and cons, putting sacrificing our heart and loving God at the top of the list, I can see how I would probably come to the same conclusion as him (whatever problems you have with one wife, just multiply those! talk about sacrifice). I believe Joseph, (and pretty much every prophet after him) felt compelled to follow the promptings he/they gained in the most sacrificial way he/they could imagine to be the most consecrated disciple he/they could envision. it's trial and error. Thankfully we continue to have prophets to help us constantly correct the course over time to truly prepare for the Lord's coming. We always need to keep rethinking and asking questions. If there is something that feels amiss, it just might be! but keep asking questions, and not just the same one over and over. patiently wait on the Lord for the full answer.
I will refer you to the video I did entitled “Priesthood Ban, Part 2 - Scriptural Misunderstandings”. Here is a direct link: ua-cam.com/video/9ll-UMVmo0c/v-deo.html
This is quite a confusing topic. Thank you for presenting it and clarifying as much as you could. I can remember as a missionary a long time ago, it seemed like they kind of left topic alone and we didn't have much for a reason why they couldn't hold the priesthood
When reading your comment, I felt impressed to share with you a recent email I wrote to someone who had contacted me via the email link on my website (latterdaysaintsqa.com) as they were commenting/asking a question similar to yours. Here is a copy/paste of the email response I sent: This is a challenging issue to wrestle with and the gospel topics essay seemed to purposely allow for some ambiguity. Clearly pointing out that the ban was not based on any revelation and that the ideas espoused for the ban are thoroughly disavowed (curse of Cain or premortal life behavior), but not taking a stand that there is no chance that God didn’t command the ban, thus still leaving it ambiguous. Because there is still a possibility of some reason we don’t understand, I think the approach may have been to not risk the challenges that come with formerly acknowledging it as an error, which emphasizes the fallibility of prophets in a way that may be hard for many members, so the attitude seems to continue to be the we don’t know approach. Maybe there is a feeling that the prophet would need to have a revelation that it was an error before they will formally acknowledge this? It will be interesting to see if anything changes in this regard - talks against racism are getting more intense, including from the Prophet. Personally - I like to think of a number of things that have shaped my opinion that God didn’t instruct the ban, but allowed it to happen without stopping it: Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abels to the priesthood Brigham Young acknowledged that Q Walker Lewis was one of our best elders No revelation was ever pointed to behind the ban The reasons given for the ban have now all been disavowed There are many scriptural examples of prophets doing something wrong President Benson’s “Samuel Principle” is a key illustration of God sometimes allowing things he doesn’t approve of to “not be stopped” so we will “learn the hard way” I wanted to also share with you a very helpful video discussion of Terryl Givens interviewing Paul Reeve (author of one of the books I referred to in my video: Religion of a Different Color) - it gets really into the heart of the matter you are bringing up starting around the 37 min mark through most of the rest of the video. I really found it helpful to hear them discuss this frankly: ua-cam.com/video/dl0BBXQnzng/v-deo.html Also hear is a helpful essay that Paul Reeve wrote on the FaithMatters website on the topic: faithmatters.org/making-sense-of-the-churchs-history-on-race/ Here is also an interesting article on some of the reasons given now to defend the ban (since they have not been disavowed like the controversial reasons have been). While you could debate this - it is interesting to consider: bycommonconsent.com/2021/02/11/whether-the-temple-and-priesthood-restriction-was-mistaken/ I lso wanted to share 2 other videos on my channel that you might find helpful as subsets of this question: Priesthood Ban Part 2 - Scriptural Misunderstandings ua-cam.com/video/9ll-UMVmo0c/v-deo.html Sustaining Fallible Church Leaders ua-cam.com/video/HBEh25jwHKw/v-deo.html
@@latterdaysaintsqa Thank you for the quick reply. I appreciate you taking so much time to compile all this information and share it. I will definitely listen to your other lessons.. I love listening to it on my way to work. It helps set the tone for the day
Hi Jeff, I love what you do! I’ve followed fair Mormon for a while, and this kind of thing helps me so much! It can be hard to find specific topical information through fair Mormon, although when you can it’s pure gold. But the way you’ve organized this is so effective. Thanks for what you do!
Thank you!
Hi Alex, I completely agree with you!! I love the enthusiasm in these videos. It adds a personal touch.
FAIR is not the know all, end all to LDS knowledge and theology.
Beautiful video thank you you’re so loved and appreciated
Thank you!
Bruce R. MCkonkie was giving a speech about the seed of Cain being held back from receiving the priesthood, while the revelation was being given otherwise. It was an embarrassing situation for Bruce as it was like the next moment he had to do his recant concerning the matter.
I appreciate his humility from this quote "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."
This really helped me, brother. You slayed it. Thank you.
Thank you!
My ancestors joined the Church in Missouri. Interestingly, they were white, while I am black. That was due to interracial marriages which occurred during the Civil War Era and after.
They were pioneers in many ways - thanks for sharing!
@@latterdaysaintsqa Indeed, so! I am very thankful for the many blessings of the Church.
Thank you for this educational piece.
What is scary is that it took a revelation to undo a policy change because at least half the leaders of the church were racist and in need of a call to repentance. The reason it needed a revelation to reverse course is that it would have created a lot of disharmony had it come any other way which is really really sad.
It is just a reminder that none of us are perfect, but we are all striving. It also shows that higher callings do not mean better at living the gospel of Jesus Christ nor more understanding of it despite popular opinion of many members.
The leaders of the church and everyone else were BORN into that time and culture. They did not invent it.
Hola hermano!
Gracias por este video.
Gracias por los subtítulos en español.
Saludos desde Uruguay.
Thank you for reaching out from Uruguay and I’m so grateful to hear the Spanish subtitles have been helpful!
I didn’t come out of this video understanding more about why, for 126 years, God allowed His church to act in His name disallowing one certain group of people from receiving eternal temple and priesthood blessings. This 126 year ban has tarnished the church forever in my view. Regardless, I’m here and can’t go anywhere because of my testimony in the restoration via Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I wish that there were better answers as to why some things were immediately changed in the early church, but not this. I can only conclude two things; 1) both members and even blacks at the time weren’t really ready to be fully blessed at that time due to their ideology and experiences 2) God truly knows what’s best for His people, but he has to deal with imperfect humans, even prophets and members too weak to receive and act on correct principles and/or revelations. This has got to be the most frustrating part of this church…I just don’t, and maybe never will, understand the ban. Kudos to anyone with black skin who is a member and can get past it, I know I wouldn’t be able to. I’ll ask for forgiveness until I die for my anger in this subject.
Thought to share with you a copy/paste of an email response I recently sent someone with a question/comment similar to yours, in hopes it will provide some additional thoughts and links that you will find beneficial:
This is a challenging issue to wrestle with and the gospel topics essay seemed to purposely allow for some ambiguity. Clearly pointing out that the ban was not based on any revelation and that the ideas espoused for the ban are thoroughly disavowed (curse of Cain or premortal life behavior), but not taking a stand that there is no chance that God didn’t command the ban, thus still leaving it ambiguous. Because there is still a possibility of some reason we don’t understand, I think the approach may have been to not risk the challenges that come with formerly acknowledging it as an error, which emphasizes the fallibility of prophets in a way that may be hard for many members, so the attitude seems to continue to be the we don’t know approach. Maybe there is a feeling that the prophet would need to have a revelation that it was an error before they will formally acknowledge this? It will be interesting to see if anything changes in this regard - talks against racism are getting more intense, including from the Prophet.
Personally - I like to think of a number of things that have shaped my opinion that God didn’t instruct the ban, but allowed it to happen without stopping it:
Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abels to the priesthood
Brigham Young acknowledged that Q Walker Lewis was one of our best elders
No revelation was ever pointed to behind the ban
The reasons given for the ban have now all been disavowed
There are many scriptural examples of prophets doing something wrong
President Benson’s “Samuel Principle” is a key illustration of God sometimes allowing things he doesn’t approve of to “not be stopped” so we will “learn the hard way”
I wanted to also share with you a very helpful video discussion of Terryl Givens interviewing Paul Reeve (author of one of the books I referred to in my video: Religion of a Different Color) - it gets really into the heart of the matter you are bringing up starting around the 37 min mark through most of the rest of the video. I really found it helpful to hear them discuss this frankly:
ua-cam.com/video/dl0BBXQnzng/v-deo.html
Also hear is a helpful essay that Paul Reeve wrote on the FaithMatters website on the topic:
faithmatters.org/making-sense-of-the-churchs-history-on-race/
Here is also an interesting article on some of the reasons given now to defend the ban (since they have not been disavowed like the controversial reasons have been). While you could debate this - it is interesting to consider:
bycommonconsent.com/2021/02/11/whether-the-temple-and-priesthood-restriction-was-mistaken/
I also wanted to share 2 other videos on my channel that you might find helpful as subsets of this question:
Priesthood Ban Part 2 - Scriptural Misunderstandings
ua-cam.com/video/9ll-UMVmo0c/v-deo.html
Sustaining Fallible Church Leaders
ua-cam.com/video/HBEh25jwHKw/v-deo.html
A question to your question at 19:15. The children of Israel who were slaves for hundreds of years, deprived of education, religion, and cultural progression, and subsequently were only given the Aaronic priesthood, and only the tribe of Levi at that. That wasn't their fault as much as it was the Egyptians. Much like the children of Israel, could it be that the only racists were the slave holders who left them in a debased state to the Lord who started the work of rehabilitation, which included withholding the priesthood until a time that they were prepared to take on such a huge responsibility? In which case it would have been a purpose of the Lord which would be hard for us to understand in our society today. Thoughts?
It is an interesting speculation and could possibly have played into the situation, maybe somehow even working in conjunction with the speculation I shared as well (the ‘Samuel Principle’ I discussed). The church gospel topics essay and statements appear to be careful to not speculate about reasons, but do clearly condemn past racism (particularly racist excuses given for the ban); they also describe the racist culture in general society that existed at the time of the ban, point out that no revelation is in the documented record to begin the practice, and a revelation was deemed necessary after the practice had become entrenched for so long.
It was my understanding that they didn't obtain the higher priesthood at that time because of the sins they committed (with the golden calf and whatever wickedness went along with that) while Moses was up on the mountain getting the tablets the first time. Because of that they were given a new set of tablets with a lesser law because they were not spiritually prepared for the higher one.
@@TofuTal I think you’re on to something. But, this would never go over well, trying to explain it to today’s people. They already want retaliation, not equality. Could you imagine? Your theory is not without biblical precedence though…
So basically we screwed up, then had a hard time understanding that we did, even though some of us knew at some level it was wrong but we needed to move together after a church-wide revelation to end it forever and overcome what was an error perpetuated by people that was brought with them initially from outside the church.
It that the quick version? It helps us realize the importance of continuing revelation and not taking for granted that other people can do it all for us because we all mature differently in different ways at different speeds. It also has applications for listening to the Spirit in our lives when dealing with out own prejudices and working to both constantly repent and forgive.
Interesting - but I wasn't there until the last comment: that the Official Declaration could be viewed as a call to repentance to church members who maintained racist beliefs, and who may indeed have contributed to the withholding of temple blessings for so long. It could have happened at the turn of that century and definitely in the 60s. I'm glad that it happened in such a powerful way and my faith and trust rests in our loving God to recompense individuals for all that was unjust and unfair in the past.
Thank you for your comment. I love your testimony of those who have suffered because of this will be compensated by the Lord. It reminds me of the scripture in Isaiah 61:3 that says what the Lord will do “…unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness…”
My mother told me that she knew it would happen when "we" were ready.
There had to be repentance and humility before we were worthy of them.
When she was young, she heard this as the explanation given to her.
There is a lot held back until we are ready, even now.
This is 100% true. I wish many would see it like this. It seems today that Satan has convinced the savior white liberals and other extremists on the topic that retaliation is needed rather than forgiveness and actual equality though.
Thank you for this fair and balanced view. Epic!
Thank you!!
Brother, I am finally wondering now, how many books do you own!!!???
Haha - haven’t made a count on the books but I am sure its in the thousands. I know its a bit excessive, but the reading passion has sure helped in putting together these videos!
Read Galatians 2, Peter was prejudiced towards Gentiles and was berated by Paul because he was embarrassed to be seen associating with them.
Yet another great video. I have read and researched this a great deal. While I was working at BYU I read a paper about the experience with Pres. Kimball and the Quorum of the Twelve. It was an emotional experience for me for a couple of reasons. I served In the Florida Tampa Mission from 1985 -1986. I had one particular experience where I had brought a black man to church and he was rejected and ignored by the ward. I was so upset because I had never experienced real racism before, let alone by church members. I grew up in S. E. Idaho where we weren't necessarily racist, we were truly ignorant because there were very few black people there. I absolutely fell in love with them on my mission and this action shocked me.
Secondly, it was President Kimball who signed my mission call and he also passed away while I was on my mission. He's a very dear prophet to me. President Monson signed my older son's mission call while President Nelson signed my younger son's mission call.
I hope someday I would get to meet you and would could spend time discussing the gospel. It is my favorite thing to do.
Thank you for sharing some of those details and experiences! Would be fun to connect with you at some point. Not sure if you live in Utah or ever visit, but I live in a suburb of Salt Lake City. You can touch base with me directly through my website (where I keep the transcripts for the videos) - latterdaysaintsqa.com using the contact me link.
@@latterdaysaintsqaI used to live in Pleasant Grove but we moved to Idaho Falls so I could work with my dad in his accounting/bookkeeping business. We try to visit fairly often. Eventually I want to make regular trips for the Fair conference and Ed week so maybe we can meet up there one of these few years and go out to lunch or something.
Sounds good!
People were in Such a colonial state of mind back then. There were empires and colonies all over the world all the way until even after world war 2. Even hitlers propaganda was based on ideological ideas about preserving the industrialized culture and in his eyes more civilized superior races. And even though we frown on those views now, it’s hard to blame settlers for assuming superiority when they start exploring the world and find that they have ships, horses, wagons, factories, steam engines, electricity, sophisticated clothing, a written history, guns, machines and so on, only to bump into peoples in Asia, Africa and America who live in wooden huts, can’t read, and have no complex style, culture, or giant cities. So many people from Europe and the USA saw how much more advanced their society was and automatically drew the conclusion that it must also have something to do with skin color. If you’d go back in time you’d experience a culture shock.
Thanks for the comment. I think you will be interested in some of the things I share at the beginning of this video “Priesthood Ban - Part 2: Scriptural Misunderstandings”. Here is the direct link:
ua-cam.com/video/9ll-UMVmo0c/v-deo.html
Hi Jeff, did you read and analyze Genesis 9: 18-29? Reading the Old Testament Institute Manual (4-20) and what is explained there is very interesting. Why did Noah curse Canaan when he was not even present? I think the Priesthood curse is related to this.
If you look on the library app for the church, and pull up the current edition of that Old Testament Institute manual online, you will find that section (4-20) has been removed (I have an old physical copy so I was able to verify the difference). I don’t know when it happened but it may have been done at the time when things kind of blew up in early 2020 from what was declared an error in the printed manual for the Come Follow Me manual for the Book of Mormon, which included a 60+ year old quote from Joseph Fielding Smith expressing some outdated views on race that the church disavows today. When this CFM for BofM manual error was discovered in early 2020, the church removed the error passage in the online CFM manual. Maybe when this happened the church went through and eliminated other passages in all church manuals (to include the Old Testament institute manual you referred to) that had any discussion on curses and theories related thereto.
Let me share a little bit more about the error that was in the Come Follow Me manual for Book of Mormon in 2020, in case you, or anyone reading this comment, aren’t familiar with what happened. Elder Stevenson was speaking at an NAACP event right after this error was discovered - here is what he shared in his talk then: “One of our recent church manuals includes a paragraph with some outdated commentary about race. It was mistakenly included in the printed version of the manual, which had been prepared for print nearly two years ago. When it was brought to the attention of Church leaders late last year, they directed that it be immediately removed in our online manuals, which is used by the majority of our members. We have also directed that any future printed manuals will reflect this change. We’re asking our members to disregard that paragraph in the printed manual. I’m deeply saddened by any hurt this error may have caused for some of our members and for others. Our position as a Church is clear-we condemn all racism, past and present, in any form and disavow any theory advanced that black or dark skin is a sign of a curse.”
www.thechurchnews.com/2020/1/20/23215831/naacp-elder-stevenson-martin-luther-king-jr
The removed quote from the CFM BofM manual said, “The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing [see 2 Nephi 5:21-23; Alma 3:6-10]. The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord [see 2 Nephi 5:20]. … Dark skin … is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse” (Joseph Fielding Smith, “Answers to Gospel Questions,” comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. [1960], 3:122-23).”
In the official church gospel topics essay on race and the priesthood, a key section states “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.” www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng
Here is a (strongly worded) article on the error that happened in the CFM Manual:
www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/01/18/error-printed-lds-church/
I would love to share here a few more helpful resources on this topic as well:
Here is an excellent video from Scriptures Central on curses that has a lot of helpful info:
Hard Questions in Church History with Lynne Hilton Wilson - Official Declaration 2 (also look at the great pdf Lynne has as a link in the show description)
ua-cam.com/video/vj283ZWETfc/v-deo.html
…and here is a video I did on some other key aspects -
Priesthood Ban Part 2 - Scriptural Misunderstandings
ua-cam.com/video/9ll-UMVmo0c/v-deo.html
Here is also a very detailed research piece published in 2022 in the Interpreter by the Egyptologist John S. Thompson - “Being of that Lineage - Generational Curses and Inheritance in the Book of Abraham”:
journal.interpreterfoundation.org/being-of-that-lineage-generational-curses-and-inheritance-in-the-book-of-abraham/
Lastly, I highly recommend a fantastic book on this overall topic that was just published by Deseret Book - “Let’s Talk About Race & Priesthood” by Paul Reeve
deseretbook.com/p/let-s-talk-about-race-and-priesthood?queryID=fd01e9005080a174e7eb35be3b572b0e&variant_id=201896-paperback
@@latterdaysaintsqa thank you very much for all the detailed answers, they really help!
You are welcome and glad it helped!
Was the church officially opposed to the Civil Rights Movement? Can you make an episode about this? (or have you already?)
Here is the statement read by President Hugh B. Brown in the October 1963 General Conference before he began his remarks (President David O. McKay had it published as an ‘official statement’ in March 1965 in the Deseret News):
During recent months both in Salt Lake City and across the nation considerable interest has been expressed in the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the matter of civil rights. We would like it to be known that there is in this Church no doctrine, belief, or practice that is intended to deny the enjoyment of full civil rights by any person regardless of race, color, or creed.
We again say, as we have said many times before, that we believe that all men are the children of the same God and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny to any human being the right to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience.
We have consistently and persistently upheld the Constitution of the United States, and as far as we are concerned that means upholding the constitutional rights of every citizen of the United States.
We call upon all men everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God's children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man.
Although the statement is wonderful, there were still a number of challenges involved. The best way to see a quick summary is visiting the Wikipedia page Civil Rights and Mormonism (which has many footnotes for further detail):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_and_Mormonism
Please also note a did a Part 2 to this video called Priesthood Ban Part 2: Scriptural Misunderstandings. Here is the link to that video:
ua-cam.com/video/9ll-UMVmo0c/v-deo.html
Hi, I have a question. The Book of Mormon mentions cursing by the Lord by colouring skin or at least skin colour becoming fairer as people are more obedient. I have difficulty articulating an argument when the Book is described as 'Racist" for this reason. Would love your thoughts.
Eddy.
Ps doing a great job.
I have addressed this in a video, which I actually labeled as part 2 to this video here. The official title: “Priesthood Ban Part 2: Scriptural Misunderstandings”; here is the direct link to that video:
ua-cam.com/video/9ll-UMVmo0c/v-deo.html
@@latterdaysaintsqa very grateful my friend.
Thank you
Do you have an email address where I can privately ask you a question.
My dad was an LDS Army Chaplain, I could ask him anything. But he has passed over.
Ty
For security from hackers I have been told not to put my email address out in a public forum. So the best way is to use Facebook messenger. You can find me under Cindy-Jeff Roundy (it is a joint account with my wife).
Just a slight correction. I wouldn't say that interracial marriages weren't legal in the US until 1967. Interracial marriages were banned in 16 states prior to 1967. There was not a federal law nor did the majority of states ban it.
Thanks for pointing that out as I hadn’t researched that point enough in time for the video. I had just seen the point that the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional in 1967, which led to my general wording in the video which wasn't said properly. Looking it up now I see what you were talking about - only 16 states were still banning interracial marriage at that point (and yes, it had never been a federal ban, just state by state, and the 1967 Supreme Court ruling forced these remaining states to drop their bans).
@@latterdaysaintsqa NP...that was the day I was awake in law school.
This is very good. Thank you. I see you stopped a year ago. Are you going to start back up?
I have a black friend who was raised in the Church in Boise, Idaho. His family was the only black family he knew of there at the time. He saw the tremendous contradiction and suffering his father went through. As he grew into a young man, he couldn't date most of the white LDS girls because of the racism in the minds and hearts of the members. His mother stayed loyal. He did not. My friend said that the leadership is not addressing the sin of racism of the last even if the policies had changed. No apologies or explanation was given, just a reversal and a let's move on attitude.
I have an LdS friend that in 2006 said to me that if any of his white daughters or sons married a black person, he would not allow them into his house. Racism is still very real and still needs to be addressed by the brethren.
A few years ago, I wrote to the First Presidency after talking with my Bishop and Stake president. I stated that the Church needed to confess the sin of incorrect discrimination in conference to the whole world and that it is part of the repentance process. It is preached as part of the repentance process. I stated that a policy paper on the Church website is not sufficient for the nearly 100 years of devastation to the black community being denied the Melchizedek priesthood and eternal marriage.
I got a cursory reply from one of the administrators that the brethren are aware of the situation.
I live in Dallas Texas area and there is no interest in the black community to hear about Joseph Smith because of the spiritual branding the Church did.
Thank you again for the short yet very informative video. You put a lot of work into it and thank you.
Thanks for your comment and sharing your thoughts and experiences. Let me first address making additional videos - I set out to build a set library of content which I have completed now. I have left the door open for future content if something needs to be addressed that I haven’t already covered in some fashion. As far as thoughts on the rest of your comment, let me share with you a copy/paste of a recent email I sent somebody asking me thoughts similar to your comment.
Here is a copy/paste of the email response I sent:
This is a challenging issue to wrestle with and the gospel topics essay seemed to purposely allow for some ambiguity. Clearly pointing out that the ban was not based on any revelation and that the ideas espoused for the ban are thoroughly disavowed (curse of Cain or premortal life behavior), but not taking a stand that there is no chance that God didn’t command the ban, thus still leaving it ambiguous. Because there is still a possibility of some reason we don’t understand, I think the approach may have been to not risk the challenges that come with formerly acknowledging it as an error, which emphasizes the fallibility of prophets in a way that may be hard for many members, so the attitude seems to continue to be the we don’t know approach. Maybe there is a feeling that the prophet would need to have a revelation that it was an error before they will formally acknowledge this? It will be interesting to see if anything changes in this regard - talks against racism are getting more intense, including from the Prophet.
Personally - I like to think of a number of things that have shaped my opinion that God didn’t instruct the ban, but allowed it to happen without stopping it:
Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abels to the priesthood
Brigham Young acknowledged that Q Walker Lewis was one of our best elders
No revelation was ever pointed to behind the ban
The reasons given for the ban have now all been disavowed
There are many scriptural examples of prophets doing something wrong
President Benson’s “Samuel Principle” is a key illustration of God sometimes allowing things he doesn’t approve of to “not be stopped” so we will “learn the hard way”
I wanted to also share with you a very helpful video discussion of Terryl Givens interviewing Paul Reeve (author of one of the books I referred to in my video: Religion of a Different Color) - it gets really into the heart of the matter you are bringing up starting around the 37 min mark through most of the rest of the video. I really found it helpful to hear them discuss this frankly:
ua-cam.com/video/dl0BBXQnzng/v-deo.html
Also hear is a helpful essay that Paul Reeve wrote on the FaithMatters website on the topic:
faithmatters.org/making-sense-of-the-churchs-history-on-race/
Here is also an interesting article on some of the reasons given now to defend the ban (since they have not been disavowed like the controversial reasons have been). While you could debate this - it is interesting to consider:
bycommonconsent.com/2021/02/11/whether-the-temple-and-priesthood-restriction-was-mistaken/
I lso wanted to share 2 other videos on my channel that you might find helpful as subsets of this question:
Priesthood Ban Part 2 - Scriptural Misunderstandings
ua-cam.com/video/9ll-UMVmo0c/v-deo.html
Sustaining Fallible Church Leaders
ua-cam.com/video/HBEh25jwHKw/v-deo.html
Yet in the Book of Mormon we see the Lord himself instituting a racial policy. He gave the Lamanites skin like flint so that they would not be enticing to the Nephites. Perhaps, with the background of interracial marriage of the 19th century, Brigham Young felt to do the same.
I would like to share another video with you, that really became part 2 to this video:
“Priesthood Ban - Part 2: Scriptural Misunderstandings” -
ua-cam.com/video/9ll-UMVmo0c/v-deo.html
I am glad that the church presently condemns racism but a question I have is this: If the culture of the 1800s condemned polygamy yet God gave a revelation to practice it why wouldn’t he just as well given a revelation that blacks could hold the priesthood? Jesus clearly broke barriers of racism during his ministry that were considered taboo (ie mixing with samaritans). Yet it took over 100 years for the restored church to receive this revelation. It seems like the argument of the culture of the time doesn’t work in light of the introduction of polygamy into that culture so averse to that practice as well.
It is a good question and observation, and while I don’t know the answer for sure (due to various assumptions that have to be made), I am happy to speculate a bit. The Lord wanted polygamy practiced for a period for multiple reasons (particularly to raise up a righteous posterity quickly) - see the video I did entitled “Polygamy Part 1 - The Beginnings”
ua-cam.com/video/RutEPRO0LvE/v-deo.html
Since the Lord instructed them on this culture breaking practice, then logic would say the Lord could also have given a revelation to break the culture of racism in full force at that time. The Saints had allowed blacks to join and attend in congregations, which was already a culture breaking practice, why not go all the way? We don’t have a record of a revelation Brigham received to institute the practice - but couldn’t the Lord have stopped them from doing it all together, just as they had been open to culture busting like polygamy was? What about subsequent generations - couldn’t it have been changed earlier than 1978? Could it have possibly been the “Samuel Principle” which I discussed in the video from Ezra Taft Benson? I will quote it here for quick access:
“If you see some individual in the Church doing things which disturb you, or you feel the Church is not doing things the way you think they could or should be done, the following principles might be helpful.
God has to work through mortals of varying degrees of spiritual progress. Sometimes he temporarily grants to men their unwise requests in order that they might learn from their own sad experiences. Some refer to this as the “Samuel principle.” The children of Israel wanted a king, like all the nations. The prophet Samuel was displeased and prayed to the Lord about it. The Lord responded by saying to Samuel, “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” The Lord told Samuel to warn the people of the consequences if they had a king. Samuel gave them the warning, but they still insisted on their king. So God gave them a king and let them suffer. They learned the hard way. God wanted it to be otherwise, but within certain bounds he grants unto men according to their desires.”
So if this “Samuel Principle” was the reason why things happened the way they did with the ban, then God could have stopped it (against the culture), just like he started polygamy (against the culture), but may have “allowed” these things to transpire for the Saints to learn a number of lessons the hard way.
I took a church history class many many yrs ago. On this subject, one of the documents was a letter to the Saints coming to Missouri. I can’t quote it, but it had to do w the safety of the Saints, that Missourians were already hostile toward them and didn’t need the reason of having black members and priesthood to add to the hostility. This was a volatile time w some states wanting to continue slavery and others wanting to abolish it. I think I learned this was one of the reasons Missouri didn’t want so many “Mormons” in their state - b/c they could flip the vote against slavery.
I'm not a Mormon though have been watching these videos as they are very interesting. It might be out of line for me to comment but I feel somewhat compelled to. So I'm Māori and in our culture we believe God never gives u an answer to a question u never asked. Furthermore u r given the concept usually via a prompting though it can come via a dream or a vision. By concept I mean this. God will not put the words "be kind to children" in ur mind. Instead they will give u the concept and it up to u to clothe that in language. Because of this we believe one can not fully understand exactly what God is trying to tell them. They know they ought to go this place but they don't have a map on how to get there. So to me it makes sense that maybe with Joseph and polygamy he's got this idea of sealing the human family. But at the same time he can't quite differentiate between what it means to seal as oppose to marry and how to do this or what this looks like. To me this seems the most likely explanation for his polygamy. I don't think he was a predator. Instead that he had this concept of uniting humanity in his mind and in trying to make it a reality somewhat bungled things up. As for the issue of race it could be that God didn't tell anyone to change on this issue because quite simply because no one was asking the question.
@@brycepardoe658, man, this is a super legit comment and pretty cool considering you aren't even mormon. I appreciate you taking the time to really explain what you are saying. that makes so much sense to me and I feel like that is a true principle and easy way that us as well-meaning children of our Heavenly Father can misunderstand what He is telling us. I kind of think of it like we get impressions similar to the game "hot or cold". God may put specific words in your mind, but it's always going to be in your own language that YOU know! To piggy back on what you said about polygamy, it doesn't help that the bible isn't totally specific as to why God doesn't speak on the prophets' polygamy back in the old testament. If I were trying to reimagine a consecrated society, questioning the full story of the bible and trying to unite the entire human family, while weighing pros and cons, putting sacrificing our heart and loving God at the top of the list, I can see how I would probably come to the same conclusion as him (whatever problems you have with one wife, just multiply those! talk about sacrifice). I believe Joseph, (and pretty much every prophet after him) felt compelled to follow the promptings he/they gained in the most sacrificial way he/they could imagine to be the most consecrated disciple he/they could envision. it's trial and error. Thankfully we continue to have prophets to help us constantly correct the course over time to truly prepare for the Lord's coming. We always need to keep rethinking and asking questions. If there is something that feels amiss, it just might be! but keep asking questions, and not just the same one over and over. patiently wait on the Lord for the full answer.
@@brycepardoe658 Thank You for your comment. It makes a whole lot of sense. A great explanation 😇🕊️
Up until recently the Book of Abraham's reference to Noah cursing Pharaoh was used as a reference to the Ptiesthood ban
I will refer you to the video I did entitled “Priesthood Ban, Part 2 - Scriptural Misunderstandings”. Here is a direct link:
ua-cam.com/video/9ll-UMVmo0c/v-deo.html
This is quite a confusing topic. Thank you for presenting it and clarifying as much as you could. I can remember as a missionary a long time ago, it seemed like they kind of left topic alone and we didn't have much for a reason why they couldn't hold the priesthood
When reading your comment, I felt impressed to share with you a recent email I wrote to someone who had contacted me via the email link on my website (latterdaysaintsqa.com) as they were commenting/asking a question similar to yours.
Here is a copy/paste of the email response I sent:
This is a challenging issue to wrestle with and the gospel topics essay seemed to purposely allow for some ambiguity. Clearly pointing out that the ban was not based on any revelation and that the ideas espoused for the ban are thoroughly disavowed (curse of Cain or premortal life behavior), but not taking a stand that there is no chance that God didn’t command the ban, thus still leaving it ambiguous. Because there is still a possibility of some reason we don’t understand, I think the approach may have been to not risk the challenges that come with formerly acknowledging it as an error, which emphasizes the fallibility of prophets in a way that may be hard for many members, so the attitude seems to continue to be the we don’t know approach. Maybe there is a feeling that the prophet would need to have a revelation that it was an error before they will formally acknowledge this? It will be interesting to see if anything changes in this regard - talks against racism are getting more intense, including from the Prophet.
Personally - I like to think of a number of things that have shaped my opinion that God didn’t instruct the ban, but allowed it to happen without stopping it:
Joseph Smith ordained Elijah Abels to the priesthood
Brigham Young acknowledged that Q Walker Lewis was one of our best elders
No revelation was ever pointed to behind the ban
The reasons given for the ban have now all been disavowed
There are many scriptural examples of prophets doing something wrong
President Benson’s “Samuel Principle” is a key illustration of God sometimes allowing things he doesn’t approve of to “not be stopped” so we will “learn the hard way”
I wanted to also share with you a very helpful video discussion of Terryl Givens interviewing Paul Reeve (author of one of the books I referred to in my video: Religion of a Different Color) - it gets really into the heart of the matter you are bringing up starting around the 37 min mark through most of the rest of the video. I really found it helpful to hear them discuss this frankly:
ua-cam.com/video/dl0BBXQnzng/v-deo.html
Also hear is a helpful essay that Paul Reeve wrote on the FaithMatters website on the topic:
faithmatters.org/making-sense-of-the-churchs-history-on-race/
Here is also an interesting article on some of the reasons given now to defend the ban (since they have not been disavowed like the controversial reasons have been). While you could debate this - it is interesting to consider:
bycommonconsent.com/2021/02/11/whether-the-temple-and-priesthood-restriction-was-mistaken/
I lso wanted to share 2 other videos on my channel that you might find helpful as subsets of this question:
Priesthood Ban Part 2 - Scriptural Misunderstandings
ua-cam.com/video/9ll-UMVmo0c/v-deo.html
Sustaining Fallible Church Leaders
ua-cam.com/video/HBEh25jwHKw/v-deo.html
@@latterdaysaintsqa Thank you for the quick reply. I appreciate you taking so much time to compile all this information and share it. I will definitely listen to your other lessons.. I love listening to it on my way to work. It helps set the tone for the day