Black people wasn't allowed as members until 1978!?!

[NurseGuy]

I see reference to "Hamitic lineage" earlier in this thread. Is this a common LDS belief, that blacks (i.e. those of Sub-Saharan African descent) are descendants of Ham? I know that many Protestant churches referred to blacks as being descendants of Cain.

Also, am I correct in understanding that prior to 1978, in addition to the priesthood ban, both blacks males and females were not allowed to enter LDS temples for the higher rituals, such as the Endowment?

 

[Katzpur]

Just to add a bit more to the conversation, this does go back to the Old Testament which is another long explanation
that I will spare you with. Another consensus goes back to the pre-existent. You may or may not know that we as Latter Day Saints believe that we lived as spirit children with our Heavenly
Father before we came to the earth to gain physical bodies to house our spirits. So, this is just two explanations, the old testament and pre-existent. Thank you for your interest in this thread.
Your buddy, Norman.

In an interview with the Associated Press, Elder Dallin Oaks had the following to say about our attempts to "explain" the ban:

"Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it... I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking... Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies."

 

[Katzpur]

If I can ask a question that is just a little bit off topic, what about the rule that says that women cannot hold the priesthood? Is that authorized by an official revelation, or is that just the belief of someone who was the product of the culture in which they were raised?

I'm unaware of any specific revelation on the subject. We do know that when Jesus Christ initially instituted His Church on the earth, He conferred the priesthood only on males. You might say that He was "the product of the culture in which [He was] raised." To that, I would answer that Jesus never did seem to be influenced by cultural norms. His teachings were actually considered quite radical for that time. For this reason, I feel reasonably confident in saying that if He had wanted to ordain women to the priesthood, He wouldn't have hesitated in the slightest to do so.

I find it kind of interesting that it's non-Mormons who seem to be so concerned about "sexual discrimination" in the Church today. I personally know hundreds and hundreds of Mormon women and I can tell you without hesitation that the vast, vast majority of us have no interest in holding the priesthood. What people don't seem to realize is that we know we have access to the blessings of the priesthood, even though we cannot officiate in the ordinances that priesthood holders can.

 

[Katzpur]

I see reference to "Hamitic lineage" earlier in this thread. Is this a common LDS belief, that blacks (i.e. those of Sub-Saharan African descent) are descendants of Ham? I know that many Protestant churches referred to blacks as being descendants of Cain.

I have seen references to Blacks as being both descendants of Ham and descendants of Cain. This is one thing that really bothered me. We, unlike most Christians, do not believe in the doctrine of "Original Sin" as such. While we believe that human beings are, by nature, predisposed to be sinful, we don't believe that anyone is born bearing any guilt for Adam's transgression. We are taught that man will be punished for his own sins and not for something someone else did thousands of years ago. That always made perfect sense to me, but it was something I could not reconcile to the idea that a Black man could not receive the priesthood because of the sins of one of his ancestors hundreds of generations back.

Also, am I correct in understanding that prior to 1978, in addition to the priesthood ban, both blacks males and females were not allowed to enter LDS temples for the higher rituals, such as the Endowment?

That is, unfortunately, correct. A man must be a Melchizedek Priesthood holder to get a temple recommend, which would explain why males were not allowed to receive their temple ordinances. I'm not sure exactly what the reasoning was behind females not being allowed to receive theirs. I suspect (note: this is just my opinion and I want to make that clear) that it is because much of what takes place in the temple serves to unite families, not just for this life, but for the next. Since a "family" consists of more than just female members, there is an obvious problem.

Today, when I go to the temple, I almost always see Black couples in attendance and occasionally a mixed-race couple.

 

[Katzpur]

Norman: Hi fantome profane, I hope you don't mind me jumping in here. It was by official revelation.

Doctrine and Covenants, I presume? Could you quote section and verse, please.

 

[Norman]

In an interview with the Associated Press, Elder Dallin Oaks had the following to say about our attempts to "explain" the ban:

"Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it... I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking... Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies."

Norman: Hi Katzpur, yes, good quote by Elder Oaks, I have another one by Jeffrey R. Holland. I understand the brethren's point of view on this. However, I do have an interest in the past reasons for this ban for myself and I don't think that makes me wrong for clinging to something in the past that was explained by past Prophets and Apostles on the reasons of the ban.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland: One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ... It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.[3]

 

[Norman]

Doctrine and Covenants, I presume? Could you quote section and verse, please.

Norman: Hi Katzpur, that was an oops on my part. No revelation given why woman cannot have the priesthood. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Norman]

If I can ask a question that is just a little bit off topic, what about the rule that says that women cannot hold the priesthood? Is that authorized by an official revelation, or is that just the belief of someone who was the product of the culture in which they were raised?

Norman: Hi fantome profane, I have to correct myself, it was not done by official revelation.

 

[fantome profane]

Norman: Hi fantome profane, I have to correct myself, it was not done by official revelation.

 

[Katzpur]

However, I do have an interest in the past reasons for this ban for myself and I don't think that makes me wrong for clinging to something in the past that was explained by past Prophets and Apostles on the reasons of the ban.

Suit yourself. Would you care to explain why? Bruce R. McConkie was one of the primary supporters of the theory that the ban was instituted because of something Black members of the Church did in the pre-existence. Subsequent to the ban being lifted, he said:

“Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever 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. We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept (2 Nephi 28:30; Isaiah 28:9-10; D&C 98:11-12; 128:21). We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter anymore.”

The problem is that nothing is erased if people continue to cling to ideas that the General Authorities have actually admitted were in error.