Blacks Receive LDS Priesthood

REVELATION EVADES REAL ISSUE

O. Kendall White, Jr., made these interesting observations six year before the revelation was given: "Since they believe in 'continuing revelation,' Mormons have a mechanism that enables them to reverse previous positions without repudiating the past. This is illustrated in the resolution of the conflict over polygamy. Mormons never disavowed their belief in polygamy, but they discontinued the practice on the grounds that it conflicted with another belief involving support for 'the law of the land'. That the church will invoke such a mechanism to resolve the racial issue is not too unlikely.

"However, this approach has a serious drawback. It is the tendency not to acknowledge the errors of the past. While revelation could be used to legitimate a new racial policy and to redefine Mormon relations with black people, Mormons might still be unwilling to condemn the racism involved in their history. They might be inclined to argue that Mormons in earlier periods were under a different mandate than the one binding them. This obviously implies that the church is never wrong. Thus, change may come through the notion of continuing revelation, but the racist aspects a Mormon history will not necessarily be condemned." (The Journal of Religious Thought, Autumn-Winter, 1973, pp. 57-58)

It would appear that the Church leaders have done exactly what Mr. White warned against--i.e., they have used revelation as a means of sidestepping the real issues involved. Mario S. DePillis pointed out that "the revelation leaves unsolved other racist implications of the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price--scriptures that are both cornerstones and contradictions." (New York Times, June 11, 1978)

One issue that the Mormon leaders now seem to be dodging is that concerning skin color. From the beginning Mormon theology has taught that a black skin is a sign of God's displeasure: "We will first inquire into the results of the approbation or displeasure of God upon a people, starting with the belief that a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind." (Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 3, p. 157)

The Book of Mormon is filled with the teaching that people with dark skins are cursed:

"...wherefore, as they were white, and exceeding 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." (Book of Mormon, page 61, verse 21)

"And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because at their transgression..." (Ibid., p. 201, v. 6)

On page 468, verse 15, of the Book of Mormon the following statement is made concerning the Indians: " ...for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us,..."

The Book of Mormon, however, predicts that the Indians will repent of their sins and become white: "...and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people." (Book of Mormon, page 102, verse 6)

Spencer W. Kimball, who gave the new revelation which allows blacks to hold the priesthood, seems to be a real believer in the teaching that God makes righteous people become "white and delightsome":

"I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today as against that of only fifteen years ago....they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people....they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos;...The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation....There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated....today the dark clouds are dissipating." (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-923)

It is interesting to note that while Spencer W. Kimball believes that the Indians are to become "white and delightsome," he has suppressed Joseph Smith's 1831 revelation on polygamy which commanded the Mormons to marry the Indians to make them white. We published this revelation in full in the book Mormonism Like Watergate? in 1974. The most important verse of this revelation reads as follows:

"4. Verily, I say unto you, that the wisdom of man, in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood, but ye shall know when ye receive a fulness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles."

We seriously doubt that President Kimball will ever allow this revelation to be canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants since he feels that the Indians are being made "white and delightsome" through the power of God and has in the past discouraged intermarriage with the Indians. The Church Section of the Deseret News for June 17, 1978 gave this information:

"In an address to seminary and institute teachers at Brigham Young University on June 27, 1958, President Kimball, then a member of the Council of the Twelve, said:

"'...there is one thing that I must mention, and that is interracial marriages. When I said you must teach your young people to overcome their prejudices and accept the Indians, I did not mean that you would encourage intermarriage.'"

Although the Mormon Church is now opening the door to temple marriages between blacks and whites, President Kimball is probably not too enthused about the matter. An endorsement of Joseph Smith's 1831 revelation encouraging intermarriage with Indians could now lead white members to seek marriages with blacks. Since blacks are no longer cursed as to the priesthood, the revelation might just as logically be interpreted that Mormons should "take unto you wives" of the Ethiopians or Nigerians "that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just,..."

For more documentation and verification of the 1831 revelation on polygamy see our book Mormonism Like Watergate? pp. 6-14.

Another matter which the new revelation allowing blacks to hold the priesthood does not resolve is the teaching concerning pre-existence. In the past Mormon leaders have stressed that blacks were cursed as to the priesthood because of "unfaithfulness in the spirit--or pre-existence" (see Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? pp. 263-264). Should a faithful Mormon continue to believe that blacks were unrighteous in a pre-existent state? The Mormon leaders are silent concerning this matter. It will be especially interesting to see how Church leaders explain this matter to blacks in the Church. Monroe Fleming, far instance, was converted to the Church over 25 years ago. President Joseph Fielding Smith explained to him why he could not hold the priesthood, but since the new "revelation" he is being encouraged to be ordained. Now, was Mr. Fleming really unfaithful in a pre-existent state or did the Church leaders just make a mistake in the past when they said he could not hold the priesthood? Church leaders should explain if they believe black babies born after the new "revelation" were inferior spirits in a pre-existent state. Now that they have abandoned the idea that blacks cannot hold the priesthood, they should explain if they are giving up some of their teachings on the pre-existence. They should also explain whether they are repudiating the Book of Mormon teaching that a dark skin is given by God as a "curse."

By giving a "revelation" on the matter without explaining its implications, the Mormon leaders are leaving their people in a dense doctrinal fog. They should take a lesson from the situation that has developed since the Church gave up polygamy. Instead of actually repudiating the doctrine, President Woodruff said he received a revelation and issued the Manifesto which was supposed to put a stop to the practice. The Church retained Joseph Smith's 1843 revelation on polygamy in the Doctrine and Covenants Section 132. Church leaders continued to teach that polygamy was a righteous doctrine, but since it was against the law, it should not actually be practiced. Because of their reluctance to come to gaps with the real issue and repudiate the doctrine, the Mormon leaders left their people in confused state. Many Mormons have reasoned that since the Church teaches plural marriage will be practiced in heaven, they should practice it on earth. Therefore, in disregard to the Church's Manifesto, thousands of people in Utah are living in polygamy today. The Church excommunicates those who are caught living in the practice, but since it retains the revelation on plural marriage in the Doctrine and Covenants, the number of dissidents continues to grow.

Now, if the Church continues to hide behind a purported revelation on the blacks and fails to come to grips with its racist doctrines, thousands of people are going to continue believing these doctrines and the Church will be plagued with racism for many years to come. In 1960, Sterling McMurrin predicted: "...I really believe, if I don't die in the very near future, I will live to see the time when this doctrine is dissolved. I don't mean repudiated. The Mormon Church is like the Catholic Church, it doesn't repudiate doctrine that at one time or another were held to be revelation or absolute truth. They didn't repudiate the doctrine of Polygamy. I use the word dissolve, and I imagine by some technique they will dissolve the doctrine on the Negro, rather than repudiate it. " (Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? page 287)

Dr. McMurrin's prediction seems to be coming true. The Mormon Church now appears to be in the process of trying to dissolve the doctrine through new "revelation." This is the very thing which we warned against in our book Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? p. 293:

"The honest solution to the problem facing the Mormon leaders is not to have another 'revelation', but to repudiate the doctrine. They should admit that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other Mormon leaders taught doctrines that cannot be accepted as coming from God.

"The reader will remember that Brigham Young, the second President of the Mormon Church, said that slavery was a 'DIVINE INSTITUTION,' and that the Civil War could not free the slaves (See Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p. 250); however, the Civil War did free the slaves, and Brigham Young was wrong....

"Brigham Young said that if a person who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the Negro the penalty is 'DEATH ON THE SPOT'. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 110) Obviously, the Mormons do not believe this statement by Brigham Young or they would be putting many people to death. Brigham Young called this the 'LAW OF GOD' and said that 'THIS WILL ALWAYS BE SO.' Now, if Brigham Young was wrong about this, what assurance have we that he was right when he said that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood? Why should we disregard this teaching, which Brigham Young called the 'LAW OF GOD,' and yet hold to his teaching that the Negro can not have the Priesthood?"

Instead of continuing to cling to Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham, the Mormon leaders should come to grips with the matter and acknowledge that it is a false translation of the Egyptian Book of Breathings. To come forth with a new "revelation" only compounds the problem.

One thing that should be noted about the new "revelation" is that the Church has failed to produce a copy of it. All we have is a statement by the First Presidency that says a revelation was received. Joseph Smith printed many of his revelations in the Doctrine and Covenant and other Church publications, and the Apostle Orson Pratt mocked the Catholics for not adding revelations to the canon: "...strange to say, none of their revelations are permitted to enter the sacred canon... Here, indeed, is a strange inconsistency! Even the Catholic church herself, evidently places no confidence in the popes and bishops,...if she did, she would have canonized their revelations along with the rest of the revelations of the New Testament....We can but conclude that it is all an imposition..,"(Orson Pratt's Works, "The Bible Alone An Insufficient Guide," p. 39)

It appears that the Mormon Church does not intend to canonize or even make public the new revelation on the blacks. The Salt Lake Tribune for June 13, 1978 reported: "Kimball refused to discuss the revelation that changed the church's 148-year-old policy against ordination of blacks, saying it was 'a personal thing.'...

"Kimball said the revelation came at this tine because conditions and and people have changed.

"'It's a different world than it was 20 or 25 years ago. The world is ready for it,' he said."

We seriously doubt that President Kimball will put forth a written revelation on the bestowal of priesthood on blacks. We doubt, in fact, that any such document exists. What probably happened was that the leaders of the Church finally realized that they could no longer retain the anti-black doctrine without doing irreparable damage to the Church. Under these circumstances they were impressed with the fact that this doctrine had to be changed and this impression was referred to as a revelation from God. In a letter to the Editor of the Salt Lake Tribune, June 24, 1978 Eugene Wagner observed: "...was this change of doctrine really a revelation from the Lord, or did the church leaders act on their own? Why don't they publish that revelation and let the Lord speak in his own words? All we saw was a statement of the First Presidency, and that is not how a revelation looks.

"When God speaks the revelation starts with the words: 'Thus sayeth the Lord...' It seems when the Lord decides to change a doctrine of such great importance he will talk himself to the people of his church. If such a revelation cannot be presented to the members it is obvious that the first presidency acted on its own, most likely under fear of public pressure to avoid problems of serious consequences and to maintain peace and popularity with the world."

In Mormonism--Shadow or Reality? p. 281, we included an account of an interview Michael Marquardt had with a member at the Genesis Group. According to Mr. Marquardt's notes, "June 24, 1971 was the first time that the First Presidency and Twelve have prayed in this Temple about whether Black members of the Church should hold the Priesthood. The First Presidency and Twelve were not in agreement on the question. But they did agree that the Genesis Group should be formed."

We will probably never know whether the First Presidency and Twelve reached a unanimous decision in June, 1978, but it is logical to believe that the majority had came to believe that the doctrine had to be changed.

Be this as it may, we feel that it is wrong to attribute such a revelation to God. It makes it appear that God has been a real racist for thousands of years, and that the Mormon leaders by "pleading long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the upper room of the Temple" have finally persuaded God to give blacks the priesthood. The truth of the matter, however, is that "God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." (Acts 10: 34-35) It is the Mormon leaders who have kept blacks under a curse. They have continually and stubbornly opposed the advancement of black people, threatening and excommunicating those who differed with them on the matter. Finally, when their backs are to the wall, the Mormon leaders are forced to change their position. We would think that at this time they would fall down before God and acknowledge their wrong doing, but instead they proudly stand up as heroes and proclaim that because of their "pleading long and earnestly" on behalf of the blacks, God has changed the doctrine and decided to give them the priesthood. To claim a "revelation" at this point seems almost like mockery to God. Less than four years ago Apostle McConkie was claiming that it was unspiritual people who were "deeply concerned about the Church's stand on who can or who cannot receive the priesthood and think it is time for a new revelation..." Now members of the First Presidency admit that they have been "pleading long and earnestly" concerning the question. Dr. Hugh Nibley once claimed that "of all churches in the world" only the Mormon Church "has not found it necessary to readjust any part of its doctrine in the last hundred years." (No Ma'am, That's Not History, page 46) The new revelation on the blacks is just another evidence of how Dr. Nibley has misrepresented the situation.

Sterling McMurrin made some interesting observations ten years ago:

"He expressed belief the time would come when 'the Mormon people for the most part will have to abandon their crude superstitions about Negroes because their children forced them to.'

"But he said there will be those who will remember 'with sadness and moral embarrassment the day when their Church could have done great things to hasten the achievement, but failed.'" (Ogden Standard-Examiner, June 22, 1968)