The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has an article on the 30th anniversary of the revelation on the priesthood. Excerpts follow:
For more than a century, such scriptures were interpreted by Mormon leaders as a rationale to ban people of African descent from holding the priesthood. With each generation, the teaching became more ingrained.
But by the 1970s, in the wake of the civil rights movement, members of the church began to question the ban. That triggered a series of meeting and debates about the issue. And in 1978, the top leaders of the church said a revelation from God would, from now on, allow blacks to join the priesthood.
In 2006, church President Gordon Hinckley, who died earlier this year, gave a speech about racism. He confronted Mormons with their own prejudices, calling them “unacceptable.”
“There is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood,” he said.
Some Mormons feel the church has not gone far enough. They say that while the 1978 revelation was a good step, the church needs to repudiate its history, explain the roots of its racist teachings and do more to teach the next generation about the church’s history.
“The 1978 revelation changed what was being done, but the problem is that there was no education to follow,” said Marvin Perkins, a Mormon and co-author of the book “Blacks in the Scriptures.” “We tore down the wall, but we didn’t clean up streets afterward.”
Margaret Young, 53, a professor at Brigham Young University, agreed.
“We have a long ways to go to disabuse people of the things that were taught in my generation,” she said. “People my age were all taught the curse idea. The restriction was lifted, but no one repudiated the ideas themselves.”
Some black Mormons say the church is doing fine when it comes to race and integration.
“You’d be hard-pressed to find an organization more earnest in its outreach and more inclusive and effective at integrating people of African descent into its membership and leadership,” said Ahmad Corbitt, who is African-American and director of the church’s New York Office of Public and International Affairs.
Source: Black Mormons straddle two worlds on 30th anniversary by Tim Townsend
I come from a white Mormon family, raised in Utah who has questioned race issues in the church for years and have had all issues resolved to my satisfaction with the exception of one, which I would like some help with. Our church officials and especially our presidencies are divinely inspired. We believe our prophets to be divinely chosen by God, who communicate directly with God on a regular basis to receive guidance and revelation; so why did He allow Brigham Young to place a ban on African Americans holding the priesthood without correction and clarification? -Especially after Joseph Smith had already given the priesthood to members of African decent. Furthermore, how did the ‘ban’ remain in effect for nearly a hundred and fifty years?
If you have any insight regarding this issue I would greatly appreciate some input.
Thank you for your faith,
Jeremy
I am a 5th generation member of the church who grow up in San Diego. I grew up in a completely integrated neighbor. Their were whites, blacks, hispanics, and philippinos living in my neighborhood. I never saw any racism at home, in school, or in public. I was taught by my parents to love and respect people of all races. When I was a child I know that blacks could be baptized, but could not hold the priesthood. I knew that any black that was baptised and endured to the end would be saved in the celestial kingdom. I felt in my heart that one day they would be given the priesthood, according to the Lord’s timetable, and I should not question God who is the leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I remeber when I heard the news that Spencer W Kimball and the twelve apostles had received the revelation that give blacks the priesthood I cried and and was very thankful. I have always wondered why some members of the church question the prophet. Don’t they know that the prophet will never lead the Lord’s people astray? We need to focus on our commonalities and not our differences. I am so thankfu for my membership in the church and I love all people of different cultures, races, and ethnic groups.
Thank you for your time. Roger
Jeremy, I’ll share some off the cuff thoughts on your question.
First, I think there was a strong stare decisis [“to stand upon prior decisions”] effect. During most of the time the ban was in place, it was not a high priority issue, for the simple reason that the Church was in no way unusual vis-a-vis the larger society. So it was sort of a back burner issue. The issue began to come to the fore in the wake of the civil rights movement, and for the last quarter-century of the existence of the ban it started to become a front burner issue. But church leaders at this time were at something of a disadvantage, because the policy had been in place for so very long, and none of their predecessors had seen fit to change it, that the default assumption was that there must have been a sound revelatory reason for the policy in the first place. Church leaders do not overturn more than a century of precedent lightly. And we have to remember that at that time they did not have the sound historical research on this subject that we do today (such as the early work of Bush, Mauss and Bringhurst). They were operating from a position of a lack of historical knowledge about the origins of the ban.
Second, I don’t think God micromanages our leaders. They remain mortal, fallible men, steeped in the cultures in which they live.
Third, the 1890 Manifesto and its aftermath was a very traumatic development for the Church, the effects of which we are still experiencing today, and the leaders of the time were not anxious to reverse course like that a second time.
I realize this is not a complete answer to your question, but it suggests some factors to consider in thinking about it.
A friend recently asked me the same question Jeremy was trying to ask in the first comment above. “If God will not allow the Prophet to lead the church astray, why did He allow Brigham Young to lead the church astray with the racist doctrine of denying blacks the Priesthood?” I’m at peace with the topic, but I’m not sure how to answer my friend. It’s a valid question.
Hi Brooke – sorry we missed your comment. Here is a good article from Dr. Armand Mauss that relates to your question using an easy to read Q & a format. http://www.blacklds.org/mauss
Brigham Young did many great and good works in leading the church. I believe his overall leadership lead the church in the right direction through great opposition despite his imperfections and the racial views of that era. The growth and goodness of the church likely would have been better without those imperfections, but far worse without all the good he did. Moses, David, Peter and other leaders had similar flaws.