Katzpur's Take on Racism in the LDS Church

[keithnurse]

That's right, but I think that's a relatively insignificant difference. The people spoken of in Daniel were apparently "dark" if they were changed in some way to be made "white." Darkness is spoken of as representative of wickedness elsewhere in the Bible and lightness as representative of purity and goodness. When I read the Book of Mormon, I see a lot more references to God's unconditional love for all of His children, regardless of their color than I see references to partiality. Obviously, there was a long period of time when even most Latter-day Saints read those verses and interpreted them as you are interpreting them now. The leaders of the Church have, in recent years, though made a real point of saying that's not how they should have been interpreted. It's unfortunate that it took so long for this to happen, but I personally do not believe that when they were written (and of course, I don't believe they were "written" by a nineteenth century man at all), I don't think the original author was saying that God changed anybody's skin color. I know a lot of people (not just Mormons) who would agree that a wicked person's overall countenace has a "darker" look than a good person's, and I think that's how the verses are supposed to be interpreted.

I think that what you have said here is a much better idea than that dark skin color is a sign of gods curse, but I still can't get past the fact that the book of Mormon verses say "skin" being dark. If it really is supposed to be spiritual darkness then why say "dark skin"?

 

[Katzpur]

I think that what you have said here is a much better idea than that dark skin color is a sign of gods curse, but I still can't get past the fact that the book of Mormon verses say "skin" being dark. If it really is supposed to be spiritual darkness then why say "dark skin"?

I don't know. It sure would have made it easier on it if it hadn't said "dark skin." Again, though, we have similar verses in the Bible:

Lamentations 4:8: "Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick."

Joel 2:6: "Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness."

Nahum 2:10: "She is empty, and void, and waste: and the heart melteth, and the knees smite together, and much pain is in all loins, and the faces of them all gather blackness."

By the way, there is a Hebrew idiom in which "black" means "gloomy."

 

[Sola'lor]

Katz maybe you can help. I remember finding a reference in te Old Testament about a guy whose land was curse by God. The curse was that the sun shone brighter and as a result his skin became darker. I cant find the reference but I know it exists!

One think I noticed in the book of mormon is that yes it does say skin but is doesn't say the darkened skin was the curse.

Lets examine:
2 Nephi 5:21-23:

"And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity."

So God cursed them becuase of their iniquity.

"For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint;wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome,"

They became wicked and they used to be "fair and delightsome."

"that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."

This says the God caused a skin of blackness to come upon them. The reason for this was so that the people with lighter skin wouldn't be attracted to the people with a darker skin and interbreed/marry. Note that is doesn't say God cursed them with a skin of blackness. It says that he caused it to come upon them. Perhaps God knew that many people fear what is different(the underlying cause of racism) so the most effective way to make sure the two peoples avoid intermarrying was to make one group different.

"And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities."

Now one thing I noticed here is that God says that they shall be loathsome unto thy people. He didn't say they would be an ugly black people. He only siad they were loathsome unto the Nephites not that they were completely unattractive people because of their skin. I think too many people think this means the Book of Mormon is saying all dark skinned people are ugly.

Another thing I just noticed is that the loathsome isn't even connected to te dark skin. In fact God had already caused the dark skin to come upon the lamanites and it's not until the next verse that God says he would at some future time cause the people to become loathsome. So there are two distinct things that were caused. Actually three if you include the actual curse.

"And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done."

Again this is talking about the curse not the darkened skin. They are two distinct things.

"And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey."

So if the curse equals dark skin as some would assume then having dark skin makes some one lazy, mischievous, and have a desire to go hunting.

Sorry but the Curse=Black skin=Racism in the Book of Mormon just doesn't make sense when you actually read the book.


​

 

[rojse]

Sorry but the Curse=Black skin=Racism in the Book of Mormon just doesn't make sense when you actuyally read the book.

Why read the book when people can use an anti-Mormon site to mine quotes to support their bigoted views?

 

[Dunemeister]

Lamentations 4:8: "Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick."

Lamentations is Jeremiah's lament over the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of Israel to Babylon. This specific verse contrasts the debasement and poverty of the princes of Israel in comparison with their former glory. Chapter 2 describes how they threw dust over their heads as a sign of shame and repentance and abasement.

It's also noteworthy that this passage is describing Israel. And it's not saying that all of a sudden Israel's skin tone had gotten darker. The black visage here does not refer to black skin but to the appearance of a people beaten, battered, bruised, and mauled in battle. After a defeat in battle, a battle that you were supposed to win (you're the people of YHWH, after all, so said the court prophets), I dare say you'd wear a visage black as coals, too!

Joel 2:6: "Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness."

First, this is only the King James rendering. Whatever virtues the translation had at one time, it has been eclipsed in accuracy and appropriacy by more modern translations, which have availed themselves of newer manuscript discoveries. Tellingly, several well-respected translations (NRSV, NIV, TNIV, NASB, ESV, NCV) render this "all faces grow pale" or "everyone's face turns pale." The New King James Version, using the same manuscript tradition as the Authorized Version (KJV) renders it "all faces are drained of color."

Secondly, the context of the passage is the description of a powerful foreign army conquering its enemies and the fearful response of those about to face them. In fear, their faces turn pale. Once again, context tells against this being anything like a racist slur.

Nahum 2:10: "She is empty, and void, and waste: and the heart melteth, and the knees smite together, and much pain is in all loins, and the faces of them all gather blackness."

Again, we find that the King James version may not be rendering the original exactly faithfully. Or, perhaps more charitably, the English language has changed in the way it would express what appears in the Hebrew. In any case, "the faces of them all gather blackness" becomes "every face grows pale" in more modern translations. I leave for homework verifying this. The following Web site will help:

BibleGateway.com: Search for a Bible passage in over 35 languages and 50 versions.

By the way, there is a Hebrew idiom in which "black" means "gloomy."

This is precisely my point before. The word "black", taken on its own without reference to the skin, or perhaps only referring to the face, can mean gloom, depression, shame, or abjection. This is qualitatively different from what appears in the Book of Mormon, which refers to the skin being black and specifically says that the black skin is a curse, a punishment, a sign of the wickedness performed by the person in a previous existence.

It seems to me that the LDS church is on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, they may affirm that the Book of Mormon was indeed penned (engraved?) several hundred years or thousands of years ago, so the black skin can't mean racism. In that case, there appears to be no explanation what the significance of the black skin is.

On the other hand, they can admit the text is racist but the church has got past the racism. But then, as Katzpur points out, it's hard to imagine how, in an area where everyone is swarthy, how black or dark skin could be racist.

Either way, the idiom is completely inexplicable. Now that might not be a problem except that it just lends itself so easily to a racist interpretation. And it appears to be special pleading to insist that it isn't when it looks so much like it is. There is a third option, but orthodox LDS believers can't go there. And that is to admit that Joseph Smith wrote, not translated, the Book of Mormon. And the book simply reflects the racism current in the culture of his day.

 

[Dunemeister]

Dunemeister, as I promised a couple of days ago...

Consider these verses from the Bible (emphasis mine). Daniel 11:35 says, "And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end..."

And Daniel 12:10 states, "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand."

In both of these examples, the "to make white" clearly means to purify. How are those examples all that different from the ones in the Book of Mormon?

I agree that white and black can be used in a figurative sense. But when so used, they are used on their own, as in the passages you cite, or they refer to the soul. By contrast, the BoM specifically mentions whiteness (and delightsomeness) of skin and blackness (and loathsomeness) of skin. Again, there's the question of skin that can't be shunted aside.

 

[Sola'lor]

I agree that white and black can be used in a figurative sense. But when so used, they are used on their own, as in the passages you cite, or they refer to the soul. By contrast, the BoM specifically mentions whiteness (and delightsomeness) of skin and blackness (and loathsomeness) of skin. Again, there's the question of skin that can't be shunted aside.

The loathsomeness is seperate from the blackness. Both blackness of skin and loathsomeness were used by God to seperate the people. But blackness of skin does not equal loathsomeness. Blackness of skin can be very beautiful.

 

[Dunemeister]

The loathsomeness is seperate from the blackness. Both blackness of skin and loathsomeness were used by God to seperate the people. But blackness of skin does not equal loathsomeness. Blackness of skin can be very beautiful.

Hey, no argument here. Black is beautiful. But that's not what the texts at issue say. The text conjoins the blackness to the loathsomeness, and the whiteness with delightsomeness. And therefore the text means that black people are accursed and white people are blessed.

 

[Sola'lor]

Hey, no argument here. Black is beautiful. But that's not what the texts at issue say. The text conjoins the blackness to the loathsomeness, and the whiteness with delightsomeness. And therefore the text means that black people are accursed and white people are blessed.

It says that God gave the cursed people a black skin and then a loathsomeness. They did become loathsome just because their skin was made dark. They had to be made loathsome in addition to the blackness because blackness is not linked to loathsomeness. Compare verse 21 and 22.

Also it isn't saying that white skinned people in general are righteous and black skinned people in general are wicked. In the entire episode it refers to "them"(a specific group) and "thy people." It is not refering to skin color in general but to conditions pertaining to specific groups of people.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I may as well throw my understanding into the equation! Katz please correct me if I have got this completely wrong and you disagree!

I think everyone agrees that the problem of these verses comes from the use of the word SKIN. However, we have to remember that these verses were written ages and ages ago when speech was probably completely different. You only have to look at other phrases in the Bible, Book of Mormon or any other Holy Book to know that. Things like "and it came to pass" (on a side note, I am sure the BoM would be half the length it is if these phrases were taken out...) and "begat".

Phrases and meanings of words have also changed a lot over the centuries. The word Gay for example meant happy years ago and if you look in poems and songs written in those times..they show the word Gay meaning happy. However obviously Gay now means homosexual or in some cases bad when used by some people. Has anyone watched Angels in American where the guys ancestor didnt know what Gay was and referred to homosexual by another word (cant remember it, began with S)? In fact you dont even have to go into the past to find a different understanding of words - anyone noticed the difference between words used in UK and USA? I remember one year we came to America, mum having problems sorting a bed out for my little brother who was a baby at the time, because crib and cot mean different things over in America to what they do here in UK.

Anyway back to the word Skin, when these verses were written, it was highly likely that they used animals skins as blankets, clothes etc. Therefore "Skin" to them could simply mean blanket. Where we say "I need an extra blanket, I am cold" - they may have said "I need an extra skin" (OK I dont know that for sure, but we cant be sure how they spoke back then!). If you put the word blanket into the verse it actually makes sense. "A blanket of blackness" - black meaning dark, not very good, curse etc. Its kind of like saying having a cloud of darkness over you...which we use today

Look everywhere and black is generally used to show darkness, suffering, sadness etc. Films, music, tv anywhere you look. If you want to portray something bad, its usually done at night, or in the dark or with black colours (the good old hooded black figure in the corner). Look back at the "BLACK death" aka the plague, some would say this was a curse. Does this mean all people who are black are sad, scary, people who are plagued, no it most certainly does not...Its in a completely different context.

Anyways thats just my understanding of it...that everyone used symbolism a lot when these verses were written and speech (as you can tell from reading any Holy Book) was very much different centuries and centuries ago.

 

[Dunemeister]

It says that God gave the cursed people a black skin and then a loathsomeness. They did become loathsome just because their skin was made dark. They had to be made loathsome in addition to the blackness because blackness is not linked to loathsomeness. Compare verse 21 and 22.

Also it isn't saying that white skinned people in general are righteous and black skinned people in general are wicked. In the entire episode it refers to "them"(a specific group) and "thy people." It is not refering to skin color in general but to conditions pertaining to specific groups of people.

Just because the concepts are separated by a verse number doesn't mean that they aren't closely linked. Although separate, the fact is that the loathsomeness and the delightsomeness are results of the blackness and whiteness. The black people are loathsome because they're black (in the text).

And I realize that the color of their skin does not indicate their current righteousness or lack of it. It is a curse or a blessing based on their pre-existent fidelity or infidelity to Elohim.

Lastly, it specifically says "skin", so why shouldn't I think of it as referring to skin (apart from your say so)? What textual reason might there be for taking the black/white skin bit figuratively rather than straightforwardly?

 

[Sola'lor]

It's not the number. It's the text. In one verse it says God caused the skin of blackness. Then in the next verse it says God "will" cause them to be loathsome. They are two different events. Even if theye were part of the same verse it wouldn'tchange the fact that they are two seperate things

Your right the skin color was not an indecation of righteousness. The blackness was put upon the Lamanites so that the Nephites would know who not to interbreed with.

But this is all specific to the Lamanites in relationship to the Nephites. Not everyone with a dark skin is related to the Lamanites. Not everyone with dark skin has a loathsomeness upon then nor do they have a curse. Those are related to a specific people and not all dark skinned people in general.

I think it was a literal change in the color of skin in these particular verses.

 

[Katzpur]

I may as well throw my understanding into the equation! Katz please correct me if I have got this completely wrong and you disagree!

I think everyone agrees that the problem of these verses comes from the use of the word SKIN. However, we have to remember that these verses were written ages and ages ago when speech was probably completely different. You only have to look at other phrases in the Bible, Book of Mormon or any other Holy Book to know that. Things like "and it came to pass" (on a side note, I am sure the BoM would be half the length it is if these phrases were taken out...) and "begat".

Phrases and meanings of words have also changed a lot over the centuries. The word Gay for example meant happy years ago and if you look in poems and songs written in those times..they show the word Gay meaning happy. However obviously Gay now means homosexual or in some cases bad when used by some people. Has anyone watched Angels in American where the guys ancestor didnt know what Gay was and referred to homosexual by another word (cant remember it, began with S)? In fact you dont even have to go into the past to find a different understanding of words - anyone noticed the difference between words used in UK and USA? I remember one year we came to America, mum having problems sorting a bed out for my little brother who was a baby at the time, because crib and cot mean different things over in America to what they do here in UK.

Anyway back to the word Skin, when these verses were written, it was highly likely that they used animals skins as blankets, clothes etc. Therefore "Skin" to them could simply mean blanket. Where we say "I need an extra blanket, I am cold" - they may have said "I need an extra skin" (OK I dont know that for sure, but we cant be sure how they spoke back then!). If you put the word blanket into the verse it actually makes sense. "A blanket of blackness" - black meaning dark, not very good, curse etc. Its kind of like saying having a cloud of darkness over you...which we use today

Look everywhere and black is generally used to show darkness, suffering, sadness etc. Films, music, tv anywhere you look. If you want to portray something bad, its usually done at night, or in the dark or with black colours (the good old hooded black figure in the corner). Look back at the "BLACK death" aka the plague, some would say this was a curse. Does this mean all people who are black are sad, scary, people who are plagued, no it most certainly does not...Its in a completely different context.

Anyways thats just my understanding of it...that everyone used symbolism a lot when these verses were written and speech (as you can tell from reading any Holy Book) was very much different centuries and centuries ago.

Actually, I think your understanding of the verses is pretty darned good.

 

[Dunemeister]

Actually, I think your understanding of the verses is pretty darned good.

Well, it's interesting speculation. What would a historical linguist have to say about it? Do we have any experts in the original language(s) the plates were written in? Do we have access to a transmission tradition? No? Shucks, that would be really helpful.

 

[Dunemeister]

It's not the number. It's the text. In one verse it says God caused the skin of blackness. Then in the next verse it says God "will" cause them to be loathsome. They are two different events. Even if theye were part of the same verse it wouldn'tchange the fact that they are two seperate things

Your right the skin color was not an indecation of righteousness. The blackness was put upon the Lamanites so that the Nephites would know who not to interbreed with.

But this is all specific to the Lamanites in relationship to the Nephites. Not everyone with a dark skin is related to the Lamanites. Not everyone with dark skin has a loathsomeness upon then nor do they have a curse. Those are related to a specific people and not all dark skinned people in general.

I think it was a literal change in the color of skin in these particular verses.

This sort of analysis is more along the lines of what I was hoping for. Don't know if I buy it because I'm not familiar enough with the text. However, this is certainly going in the right direction.

 

[Katzpur]

I think it was a literal change in the color of skin in these particular verses.

And it changed from what to what? What color skin did the people have before their skin changed and what color was it after it changed?

 

[idea]

from the other thread

Here is a pict:
http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/maya1-lg.jpg

tell me what you see - are these people white/dark skinned, OR HAVE THEY PAINTED THEMSELVES - PLACED A MARK UPON THEMSELVES.

are these really two different ehtnic groups (this image found in south America) or are these simple people who have marked themselves to distinguish themselves?

13 Now we will return again to the Amlicites, for they also had a mark set upon them; yea, they set the mark upon themselves, yea, even a mark of red upon their foreheads.
(Book of Mormon | Alma3:13)

18 Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads; nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God; therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them.
19 Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the acurse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation.
(Book of Mormon | Alma3:18 - 19)


The white and dark skin colors/marks are artificial marks that they put on themselves to distinguish themselves from one another. This is not a racial issue - it is a makeup issue. Who has decided to wear makeup and who does not.

From the BoM:
33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi26:33)

The Nephites and the Lamanites are two different groups of people, two different family lines, who just might happen to have two different skin colors. However the mark that was talked about as being a curse - this is makeup, not skin color.

Consider that at the time the BoM was translated, most of the settlers considered native Americans to be savages – and the BoM presents them as a civilized society, with Kings, queens, cities, cement roads, etc. etc. etc.


Let me ask you - is this racial?
105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
(Old Testament | Psalms119:105)

Is this saying only the path of "light" is good? Please - it is talking about day/night - sunlight - lamp. Being able to see light -

18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
(New Testament | Acts9:18)
you quoted:
6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi30:6)

2 Nephi 30:6 has NOTHING to do with race. It is about being able to see clearly what is around you, about being clean from sin, etc. etc. You are the one who is racist if the first thought that entered your mind was balck/white people when reading this. It has nothing to do with black/white people. It has to do with spiritual cleanliness. Black people can be as spiritually clean as white people can be.


34 And thus we see that the Nephites (lighter skinned race) did begin to dwindle in unbelief, and grow in wickedness and abominations, while the Lamanites (darker skinned race) began to grow exceedingly in the knowledge of their God; yea, they did begin to keep his statutes and commandments, and to walk in truth and uprightness before him.
35 And thus we see that the Spirit of the Lord began to withdraw from the Nephites(light skin), because of the wickedness and the hardness of their hearts.
36 And thus we see that the Lord began to pour out his Spirit upon the Lamanites(dark skin), because of their easiness and willingness to believe in his words.
(Book of Mormon | Helaman6:34 - 36)


19 And while the angel spake these words, I beheld and saw that the seed of my brethren did contend against my seed, according to the word of the angel; and because of the pride of my seed(light skined people), and the temptations of the devil, I beheld that the seed of my brethren (dark skin) did overpower the people of my seed.
(Book of Mormon | 1 Nephi12:19)

would a racist book have an account of dark skinned people overpowering white skinned people????

27 Which is my word to the Gentile, that soon it may go to the Jew, of whom the Lamanites are a remnant, that they may believe the gospel, and look not for a Messiah to come who has already come.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section19:27)
would a racist book associate dark skinned people (lamanites) with the chosen family - a remnant of the Jews?

24 But before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as the rose.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section49:24)
would a racist book claim dark skinned people will "blossom as the rose"?

The BoM is NOT racist.

The LDS church is a world-wide church with members from all nations/peoples/tongues.

 

[idea]

Yes, cherry picking the Bible can make the Bible look racist:

9 … Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
(New Testament | John4:9)

28 … it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation…
(New Testament | Acts10:28)

2 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.
(Old Testament | Deuteronomy14:2)

Why are the Jews the “chosen” people, why are they “above all the nations on the earth” why was it bad for Jewish people to mingle with non-Jewish people???? Sounds soooo racist doesn’t it? Poor Canaanites, poor gentiles, poor Moabites, etc. etc.

Different people need different things at different times. The Bible is not racist, distinguishing between different cultures, and different families does not make you racist.

Take the above in context, and it is not racist.
9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
(New Testament | John4:9)
Jesus is not racist, he is talking to everyone.

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
(New Testament | Acts10:28)

etc. etc.

 

[idea]

As far as priesthood - why are the Levites the only ones who are priests in the Bible? Why is the priesthood given to none of the other tribes????

Different tribes had different responsibilities. Same with us. IMO - the priesthood is nothing to make one person better than the other, it is just a job, like the Levites had the job of working in the temple, other tribes had other jobs.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
(New Testament | 1 Corinthians12:14 - 23)


I am female, I do not hold the priesthood, and I do not feel inferior for it. I hold something different, motherhood. As each member of the body is different, so is every member of the church. One member no less/more important than the other, different people just have different callings. Having or not having the priesthood is no different.


The last will be first. Would you rather currently be last? or first?


http://www.blacklds.org/

Gladys Knight is LDS.
http://mormonsoprano.com/2008/07/11/the-strong-soul-of-gladys-knight/

http://en.fairmormon.org/Blacks_and_the_priesthood

Church doctrine never held that blacks were less than human or without souls, as some denominations did
Joseph Smith taught that any mental or economic weakness suffered by blacks was not due to any in-born defect, but simply due to not having ample opportunity to advance and receive the same education as whites
Church members were overwhelmingly abolitionist and were even persecuted and driven out because of their anti-slavery leanings
the Church never had segregated congregations; all members worshipped together
the Church supported equal civil rights for many years before the 1978 revelation: to the Church, the issue of priesthood was not one of civil rights or granting status, but of revelation.
sociologic studies demonstrated that pre-1978 Mormons were no more or less racist than their contemporaries

http://en.fairmormon.org/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Deny_based_on_race

It is abundantly clear from the Bible and other scriptures that, in certain circumstances and for various reasons, God has given certain privileges and responsibilities to certain groups and withheld them (or allowed them to be withheld) from others. Examples of this include:

• God made a special covenant with Abraham, and reaffirmed it with his descendants the Israelites, beginning with Moses. While conversion to the Israelite religion was possible, it was rare, and the Lord forbade Israel from intermarrying with the surrounding foreign nations.
• Within the Israelite community itself, only the Levites were tasked with performing the ordinances of the tabernacle, and later the temple (Num. 3:5-13; Num. 8:5-26). With this privilege came certain sacrifices; for example, the Levites did not receive a land of inheritance when Israel took control of Canaan (Josh. 14:4).
• During Jesus' mortal ministry, he instructed his disciples to only preach to the Jews (Matt. 10:5-6). It was only during the later apostolic ministry that Peter received a revelation authorizing the gospel to go to the Gentiles (Acts 10).

The last two are especially instructive, in that there is no apparent reason why non-Levite Israelites in Old Testament times and Gentiles in early New Testament times could not receive the same privileges as others. Sometimes God operates on a timetable that he chooses not to explain.

 

[Katzpur]

It is abundantly clear from the Bible and other scriptures that, in certain circumstances and for various reasons, God has given certain privileges and responsibilities to certain groups and withheld them (or allowed them to be withheld) from others.

So do you believe that God withheld the priesthood from Blacks? If so, why do you believe He did, and could you tell me where the revelation is found where He said it was His will that they not hold the priesthood?