Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons

[Ahimsa]

Similarly, in the early church, God stipulated who could and couldn’t receive the priesthood (and it didn’t exclude blacks, but Afro-Americans)…

Are you saying that the early Church excluded African-Americans from the priesthood?

 

[Naf623]

Are you saying that the early Church excluded African-Americans from the priesthood?

Yes, just like the Israelites excluded the tribes of Judah, Reuben, Gad, Asher etc. from the priesthood in ancient times.

 

[Ahimsa]

Yes, just like the Israelites excluded the tribes of Judah, Reuben, Gad, Asher etc. from the priesthood in ancient times.

Do you have any evidence that the early Church excluded Africans (African-Americans didn’t exist until hundreds of years later) from the priesthood?

 

[Marie5890]

1949, the First Presidency under the direction of George Albert Smith stated:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

 

[RebeccaJ]

We believe that having a priesthood holder in the household (and that could just as well be one of the children as the father) can bring great blessings to the family, in particular hat theynaremable to give blessings to their family during times of illness, distress, or trouble. I am very grateful to have grown up in a household where my father gave me a Father’s blessing before starting a new school, before exams, when I was ill, when I was struggling with anything at all. However, I know a number of people, much, much more faithful and righteous than I am, who grew up in a household where the father was not a member of the church.

Any of the baptized can bless their family during times of illness, distress or trouble. Because we are made partakers of the Priesthood of Jesus Christ at our baptism.

That this requires an ordained male in your house only underlines my point. Afrian American didn’t have an ordained male in their house, of any age, so were denied just for having a different color of skin what you are saying you are so grateful for.

No its not. All worthy men are entitled to receive he priesthood should they wish, and because of the blessings it allows them to bring to those around them most do (the priesthood can only be used to bless others). Receiving the priesthood is not essential.

I find it interesting that you reduce the Mormon belief about priesthood. I just have to wonder to what point.

No we don’t. The priesthood is he authority to perform ordinances, blessings and, if occasion calls, miracles in Jesus’ name. The priesthood that 18+ men are entitled to receive is fully named: The Holy Priesthood After The Order Of The Son Of God. We tend to use this full title less often out of respect that we do not overuse Jesus’ and God’s names unnecessarily. We do not have he authority to command what God or Jesus will do, however the power that completes whatever we perform correctly and with correct authority (i.e. that makes a baptism valid, that heals the sick, hat seals on earth and in heaven) is, indeed, the power of God.

Still underlining my point…all this glorious description, denied to people because their skin color wasn’t right…what was it about skin color that made them inherently unworthy?

Throughout The Bible, it has always been God who decided who could operate His priesthood, and the reasons are not obvious to us why the tribe of Levi was chosen for example; but it was and is accepted hat his was the case, because God commanded it. Similarly, in the early church, God stipulated who could and couldn’t receive the priesthood (and it didn’t exclude blacks, but Afro-Americans), while we did not (and still do not) understand the reasons, we still did it because God commanded it. Just like many other things that we do not always know the reasons for right away, but we obey because it is the word of God.

Tribal is not equal to racial…the Mormon practice was completely based on race, which is a man made distinction, and not one of God.

Jesus Christ is the New Covenant, which is for all nations and people. There is no reason to believe God would instruct anyone else otherwise.

 

[Naf623]

Any of the baptized can bless their family during times of illness, distress or trouble. Because we are made partakers of the Priesthood of Jesus Christ at our baptism.

in your opinion, possibly.
Only those with correct priesthood authority from God (who were ordained through revelation and the laying on of hands by someone else also holding correct authority), and who are worthy can administer a blessing. Anyone can pray to God that He will bless someone, however: you don’t even need to be baptised for that.

That this requires an ordained male in your house only underlines my point. Afrian American didn’t have an ordained male in their house, of any age, so were denied just for having a different color of skin what you are saying you are so grateful for.

Nothing ‘requires an ordained male’ in the household, as everyone can have the same blessings administered by another priesthood holder.

I find it interesting that you reduce the Mormon belief about priesthood. I just have to wonder to what point.

Reduce it, how? My description is exactly what is taught about the priesthood (I ought to know having been taught, and taught it). The power behind it is the power of God, but we are not ‘wielding it’.

Still underlining my point…all this glorious description, denied to people because their skin color wasn’t right…what was it about skin color that made them inherently unworthy?

You’d have to ask God that question.
Although I suspect it wasn’t related to skin colour in God’s eyes, rather that their skin colour was determined by God for purposes known to Himself which clearly included this. But that’s not doctrine.

Tribal is not equal to racial…the Mormon practice was completely based on race, which is a man made distinction, and not one of God.

Really? Having different coloured skin is man-made? And here’s me thinking that ‘blacking up’ is considered racist.
God created people with different coloured skins, for reasons known to Himself, and if He chooses to differentiate between them then we do as He asks. If God told you to do something, I presume (from the fact you profess to be a Christian) that you would do it even if you did not see the sense or reason for it? You know, the way Abraham did when commanded to sacrifice Isaac? Or the way we all do when we follow the command to be baptised? Or the way both of our churches do when men are allowed the priesthood and not women?

 

[catharina]

I, as most LDS would be, am fully aware that there were black/Afro-A,erican members from the start. They were always permitted to be baptised and enjoy communion and membership with the church. What’s the big deal?

Big deal?

Really big deal that Black men
were forbidden to enter the Mormon priesthood
from 1848 to 1978 - and that the bans were
started by Brigham Young.

Really rather a very big deal.

 

[RebeccaJ]

in your opinion, possibly.
Only those with correct priesthood authority from God (who were ordained through revelation and the laying on of hands by someone else also holding correct authority), and who are worthy can administer a blessing. Anyone can pray to God that He will bless someone, however: you don’t even need to be baptised for that.

Just another false teaching.

Nothing ‘requires an ordained male’ in the household, as everyone can have the same blessings administered by another priesthood holder.

Yet, you just describe why you enjoyed have a male in your home with the Mormon priesthood. But now, you’re saying it doesn’t matter just call up someone in the ward. Which says, there’s no purpose to having a male that lives in your home with your priesthood.

Reduce it, how? My description is exactly what is taught about the priesthood (I ought to know having been taught, and taught it). The power behind it is the power of God, but we are not ‘wielding it’.

“Brethren of the priesthood, can you join me right here, right now, once again to commit and to take upon you the name of Christ? With this priesthood which you hold, can you rise up and wield the power of God to defend righteousness?” (from here)

You’d have to ask God that question.
Although I suspect it wasn’t related to skin colour in God’s eyes, rather that their skin colour was determined by God for purposes known to Himself which clearly included this. But that’s not doctrine.

I have no idea why anyone would accept what you just typed out here.

Really? Having different coloured skin is man-made? And here’s me thinking that ‘blacking up’ is considered racist.
God created people with different coloured skins, for reasons known to Himself, and if He chooses to differentiate between them then we do as He asks.

But God didn’t choose to differentiate. Humans did. Please, look up the history of classifying humans by race. It is man made. It would like classifying people by eye color and saying God willed it because brown eyes are favored by God and blue eyes are not. Who would believe such a thing if society/culture had not made this classification?

If God told you to do something, I presume (from the fact you profess to be a Christian) that you would do it even if you did not see the sense or reason for it?

God gave us the capability to reason. Jesus Christ died for ALL, and instructed the Apostles to teach and baptize ALL nations and people.

Excluding people from something you are claiming to be from God, goes against what Jesus taught. So, why would anyone believe a person who is teaching otherwise is teaching something from God?

You know, the way Abraham did when commanded to sacrifice Isaac? Or the way we all do when we follow the command to be baptised? Or the way both of our churches do when men are allowed the priesthood and not women?

Abraham was instructed by an angel, personally. An instruction for him alone and not for all fathers to sacrifice a son. A singular event in Salvation history that prefigured the Sacrifice of the Son of God.

Jesus Christ commanded us to baptize. A priest acts in the person of Jesus Christ. All the baptized share in the Holy Priesthood of Jesus Christ.

All align to what Jesus Christ taught.

Skin color does not, in anyway, have any significance to anything at all. To believe someone speaks for God in saying it does, has no reasoning behind it, other than a cultural belief foisted on people as divinely ordered.

 

[catharina]

"…

Only those who are worthy to receive it, who have a testimony of Jesus Christ, who show a desire to be ordained, and understand the covenants entered into as a part of receiving the priesthood.

… ."

Yet excluding ALL Black men from 1848 to 1978.

Please don’t pretend otherwise.

 

[Marie5890]

(reading all this makes me so grateful that I no longer have to do all kinds of mental gymnastics when it came to Mormon doctrine in order to, somehow, quiet, (or better yet, shut off) the cognitive dissonance that plagued me those final years of being part of Mormonism.)

 

[catharina]

(reading all this makes me so grateful that I no longer have to do all kinds of mental gymnastics when it came to Mormon doctrine in order to, somehow, quiet, (or better yet, shut off) the cognitive dissonance that plagued me those final years of being part of Mormonism.)

Well said, Marie.
Cognitive dissonance says it all.

 

[Lefty0908]

I am struck by the title of the doctumantary, “Nobody Knows:—”

It seems to be hinting at Fawn Brodie’s biography of Joseph Smith. “Nobody Knows My History”

She was the neice of President David O McKay and was given full access to the church’s achieves. Something most historians were not allowed.

Her book did a lot to take away the myth/legend that had been built up around Joseph Smith, and got to the more accurate and historical picture of the real man.

I highly recommend.

I know this isn’t the topic of the thread, but in the interest of full disclosure (and to disabuse anyone of the notion that the Latter-day Saints are helpless in the face of Brodie’s vaunted scholarship), I offer the following:

The actual title of Brodie’s book is No Man Knows My History (not Nobody Knows My History). She has been variously reviewed by:

Hugh Nibley

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=47
maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=77&chapid=962

Louis Midgley

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=8&num=2&id=227

As well as Midgley’s review of Newell Bringhurst’s book Fawn McKay Brodie: A Biographer’s Life

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=1&id=373

And Larry Morris’ contrast of Brodie with the great historian of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Juanita Brooks

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=2&id=663

The phrase “no man knows my history” comes from a sermon Joseph Smith delivered at a conference of the church, April 7, 1844: “No man knows my history. I cannot tell it. I shall never undertake it. I don’t blame anyone for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself.”

 

[andrewstx]

A question. Now the Mormons can ordain blacks to the Aronic priesthood but do they ordain them to the Melchisadec (sp) priesthood?

Are there black elders, or do they stop at the 12 year old priesthood?

 

[Mudgely]

Ahimsa:
The LDS Church was still teaching that the longer one practices their faith, then the whiter one’s skin becomes. In fact, they would use that to try to recruit new members. Brigham Young excluded blacks from the priesthood and participation in temple ceremonies, a practice which continued until 1978.

From the Book of Mormon:

And [God] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because 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, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God; I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities." (2 Nephi 5:21)

It should be stated that Joseph Smith was strongly opposed to slavery by 1842.

 

[ParkerD]

A question. Now the Mormons can ordain blacks to the Aronic priesthood but do they ordain them to the Melchisadec (sp) priesthood?

Are there black elders, or do they stop at the 12 year old priesthood?

Andrewstx,

Yes, when the change came about in 1978 it was for all standing offices in both priesthoods, and for all temple blessings including officiating in the temples.

I would guess that the biggest impacts have been in the countries of Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, the Congo nations, Dominican Republic, Honduras, and Brazil, with many bishops and other leaders and many thriving congregations in those and many other countries.

 

[TrueLight]

This thread is disgusting.

 

[Marie5890]

This thread is disgusting.

Is it the thread you find disgusting or the factual history of Mormonism, Truelight?

Or perhaps, both?

To be fair, there is a lot in Catholic history that is equally disgusting.
Making Jews wear some identifying clothing article, forcing them into ghettos, debates over whether Aborigenese(sp?) or Native Americans have souls etc.

It’s not pretty, but it is part of Catholic historical realities.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Really? Having different coloured skin is man-made? And here’s me thinking that ‘blacking up’ is considered racist.
God created people with different coloured skins, for reasons known to Himself, and if He chooses to differentiate between them then we do as He asks.

Oh my goodness

 

[twopekinguys]

Andrewstx,

Yes, when the change came about in 1978 it was for all standing offices in both priesthoods, and for all temple blessings including officiating in the temples.

I would guess that the biggest impacts have been in the countries of Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, the Congo nations, Dominican Republic, Honduras, and Brazil, with many bishops and other leaders and many thriving congregations in those and many other countries.

I’m no sure I would agree with “many thriving congregations”, after looking at this website.

cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html

When looking at the figures for each respective nation, keep in mind this quote regarding the figures.

"Mormonism is not characterized as a form of **Protestant Christianity because it claims additional revealed Christian scriptures after the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. "

Where there is any kind of a notable presence, Mormon is listed individually, like other religions.

 

[ParkerD]

I’m no sure I would agree with “many thriving congregations”, after looking at this website. [see prior post]

…

Twopekinguys,

There are temples either already operating or in a planning or construction phase in all of those places excluding Kenya, which means there are enough active members including Melchizedek Priesthood and leaders to warrant building a temple.

One who wants to know where Latter-day Saint temples are located can look at:

lds.org/church/temples/find-a-temple?lang=eng

That provides a list.