Race and the Church

To answer your questions, I think most Mormons haven’t thought through all the implications of our beliefs. Race is one of those areas.

For example, the revelations clearly teach that all who die before reaching the age of accountability will be in the Celestial Kingdom. You don’t have to be too aware of the news in the world to know that the continent with the highest infant mortality rate is Africa. And it isn’t much better in Asia or the Indian subcontinent, who number in the billions.

Put two and two together, and the number of people in the Celestial Kingdom with dark skin will almost certainly be larger than those of us with blond hair and blue eyes.

I remember the day the Revelation was announced. I was new on my mission, attending my first baptism, held at the mission home. I never would have imagined seeing my mission president, a portly man, dance the way he did when he told us.

2. Ask racist Mormons who bring up the “curse” of Ham (and Pharaoh in the Book of Abraham) who Ephraim’s mother was.

Welcome to BCC, Molly. I think most Mormons viewed the 1978 announcement as a change in practice but not a change in doctrine. As such, most Mormons felt no need to update their racial beliefs, which were composed of a mixed bag of doctrinal justifications that had grown up around the priesthood ban. And it’s those holdover beliefs that fuel persistent (if sporadic) examples of Mormon bigotry that we keep hearing about.

The solution, I think, is for LDS leaders to clearly repudiate the lingering doctrinal justifications for the now-abandoned practice. I suspect they don’t do that because they think it would create more problems than it would solve. In other words, they don’t think “Mormons of color” are really in any distress, and they don’t want to offend those Mormons who still hold racial beliefs but don’t want to have their racial thinking corrected. Maybe they should just take the risk of offending a few bigots in order to finish the job started in 1978.

Ryan said:
“I will, however say this, I believe that trials of the black mormons are more aptly described as “victims of circumstance” rather than “victims of a bigoted church””

I’m not entirely clear what to make of this comment. If you’re trying to say that the historical priesthood ban and/or Mormon ignorance towards blacks is NOT so much a function of the deep-seeded racial bigotry of Mormons, as much as it is the “circumstance” of Mormon theology being what it was for so many years, I suppose I agree. (Armand Mauss has a relevant article here). The Church was not “bigoted” (look up the technical meaning of that word, to understand my point) in that it had a perfectly calm and logical world view that it propagated (albeit a repugnant one, in my view), and many members of the Church, even if they didn’t like the Church’s racial teachings, felt an allegiance to the views of the leaders that propagated them. Many members of the Church found themselves in the “circumstance” of having to defend this repugnant belief system, and many black members found themselves in the “circumstance” of having to endure it. A tragedy, all around.

But maybe I’m not understanding your point …

Aaron B

I remember talking about this issue in seminary–yes, I am old enough that the ban was still in place when I was in high school. Our teacher taught us that some people justified the ban through the PofGP passages, and some justified it on other grounds. He didn’t hold much credence in any of the folklore reasons. His conclusion was that he really didn’t know, and hoped that it would change soon.

I remember hearing in my childhood that a reporter once asked Pres McKay when the ban would change. If I remember correctly, his answer was “Not in my lifetime, and probably not in yours.” I used to think that was pretty harsh, until I learned from the new bio that he had prayed and asked about lifting the ban, and was pretty much told to quit asking.

Dave: “I suspect they don’t do that because… they don’t want to offend those Mormons who still hold racial beliefs but don’t want to have their racial thinking corrected.”

Maybe, but I doubt that they are all that afraid of offending bigotted members. More likely they’re afraid of casting any negative light on former bigotted leaders. (It’s also possible that some of the current leaders have some bigotted feelings themselves….after all, many of them are over 80 years old.)

But I basically agree with you, Dave. The leaders seem to judge that the old attitudes should just fade away with time, and hopefully be forgotten, rather than confronting them directly and raising all sorts of uncomfortable questions about church leadership.

My answers to Molly’s questions:

(1) I don’t know what “most” Mormons belief about racial differences and LDS doctrine. I would really like to know. My sense is that a significant minority hold to the “curse of Cain” or “fence-sitters in the Pre-existence” theories, while the majority (particularly those below a certain age) don’t know anything about the racial aspects of Mormon theology (I understand the desire to pejoratively label it as “folklore,” but I think this tends to obscure the fact that the sources of these beliefs over time have not exactly been non-authoritative).

(2) What we should be doing to educate and sensitive racist Mormons is help propagate the writings of Bush, Mauss, etc., so that the fallacious rationales of the past are exposed and repudiated.

(3) Yes.

And in case anyone was wondering… No, I don’t have enough to do at work today, thus giving me time to author half the comments in this blog thread. :)

Aaron B

Hey Molly, don’t know if you remember me, but I’m pretty sure you taught Relief Society when I lived in the Seattle North Stake. (Susan Malmrose)

I was excited to learn you were going to be posting here, you’re one of my favorite teachers I’ve had at church.

As for your questions:

1) What do you think most Mormons believe about racial differences and doctrine?

I’ve never really talked about it with Mormons other than my in-laws, mainly because I don’t associate with many outside of church.

2) What can we do to educate and sensitize Church members who hold to racism?

Point it out when you see it. Share experiences you’ve had about it. I don’t know if you remember, but I once helped organize a fireside in Seattle for Darius Gray and Margaret Young to speak at (really all I did was put them in touch with the stake president). I remember being somewhat shocked at Darius’s experiences with racism that he shared.

3) Would you join me and many others in reassuring any black members among you that you do not think them innately cursed or inferior in any way and in speaking up whenever and wherever we hear the folklore presented as fact or doctrine?

Yes. After moving away from that Seattle ward, I was in a suburban ward full of white middle class families, in an area that actually had a very diverse population (Kent). A black woman and her teenage son moved into the ward. She was welcomed with open arms and really genuinely fellowshipped in a way I’ve never seen before. I was impressed with the members of the ward who went out of their way to make sure she felt welcome and a part of the ward family.

Hi, Molly – thanks for this post on a very compelling subject.

1) I’m not sure how pervasive racist beliefs are among LDS members, but – given past history – helping our brothers and sisters of color feel loved and respected (without being patronized) is certainly a challenge.

2) White Mormons should look at Mormons of color with a great deal of respect. Would YOU have joined the church after reading the overtly racist statements from Church leaders (including prophets)? I think I would have been too easily distracted by the fear and animosity expressed by many Church members towards blacks that I probably would not have been able to feel the Spirit in a way that would have moved me to join the Church.

3) Yes. This issue arose in my Ward a few years ago when someone brought in the Mark E. Peterson BYU speech to show a few of our black members during a Gospel Essentials class. Needless to say, most of us were horrified and tried everything we could do to explain to the black members that this was not doctrine and that we loved them and wanted them to be a part of our community. Unfortunately, they stopped coming to Church soon after this incident.

Ryan, I think such a hypothesis is quite unfounded. It places blame on african americans for not changing things earlier. Tough stance. The more persuasive argument, to me, from the same data is that the Church was simply as racist as the rest of the US (and moreso than many christian ministries).

“the Church was simply as racist as the rest of the US (and moreso than many christian ministries).”

I can see this line of thinking and partially agree. However, why then did we allow blacks to even be baptized but not receive the Priesthood–so we didn’t appear TOO racist and separate ourselves from groups like the KKK? I don’t get it.

Ryan, that analogy could be easily construde as quite offensive. You can’t live the Law of Consecration because you are weak, therefore blacks couldn’t have the priesthood because they were weak? I’m not trying to extrapolate here; this is just my at-face-value reading of your comment.

You are correct that the Church has accomodated a great bit.

The last couple of comments address the issue of the origin for the priesthood/temple ban. People differ over whether there was an appropriate justification for ban initially, and over when it started (though most historians consider it to have been initiated by BY after Joseph’s death).

But, it seems like no matter how we differ as a community on the above questions, we ought to be able to reach agreement that the racial folklore some Mormons used to justify the ban is factually wrong.

I suggest each of the following examples of racial folklore (all from the current version of McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine) are teachings that we should be able to figure out how to completely eliminate from within our community:

1. Cain and Ham were cursed with black skin; the curses were passed to their posterity, and all black Africans are descended from Cain and Ham.
2. Dark skin results from a curse from God in response to sinful behavior (with the assumption that the curse is passed genetically to children).
3. God created caste systems and racial segregation.
4. Behavior in pre-existence explains why people are born into a specific race or caste.
5. Marriage between blacks and persons of any other group is condemned by God.
6. Blacks and other non-white persons are physically and spiritually inferior to whites.
7. Priesthood and temple blessings were withheld from blacks from the beginning of time until the 1978 revelation.

None of the above teachings are found in the Bible or other Mormon scripture. Instead, each was developed as either an interpretative gloss to scripture or an extra-scriptural invention (a Christian Targum?), long after the relevant Biblical texts were written–and in justification of a social and economic context that relied on the enslavement and segregation of black Africans.

For me, Molly’s recounting of her friend’s experience is a reminder that the task of eliminating these teachings from our religious community is still in the “To be completed” column.

Stirling

I see where Ryan is coming from, and I tend to agree. In the example he gave it isn’t because *he* is weak that he doesn’t live the law of consecration, it is because the members of the church as a collective unit and the world we live in prevent that through the widely accepted attitudes about money and work. So even though individuals are worthy and ready they still can’t pull it off.
I’ve always seen that as the reason the priesthood was witheld. Even though black members were ready, willing, and worthy, the society that existed at the time wasn’t ready. The world had to change first. The law of Moses is, perhaps, a better example of the society not being ready to live a higher law, and being given a lesser law in its place.

I agree with Sue (and disagree with Ryan). To me the idea that the priesthood ban was necessary to “gain acceptance in a racist america” is crazy. Even if you buy the highly dubious proposition that the ban was instituted in order to “gain acceptance” from the world, the ban persisted far past the point when it could have served that purpose, and instead was a big embarrassment for the church. It continues to be an embarrassment today.

“Society wasn’t ready for polygamy, but the saints still lived it for quite some time”

But it was withdrawn as a result of the harm it threatened to bring to the very existence of the church.

“I would rather believe that BY was a racist than to believe that God was/is racist.”
I am not suggesting God is racist, I’m suggesting that he knew exactly how a racist nation would persecute a church that embraced such an anti-social tenet.

Furthermore, To suggest that every single prophet from BY all the way up to Kimball (who consequently would have been telling quite an elaborate lie regarding his wrestling with the Lord on the matter instead of just declaring the unrighteous nature of the doctrine) was nothing more than a racist with no regard to the extensive scriptures declaring the Lord’s love for all His children, His stated disrespect for persons, etc… is rather dubious.
Why is it so difficult to believe that men who, themselves suffered immense persecution and prejudice were likely to sympathize with the injustices blacks were faced with?

“the ban persisted far past the point when it could have served that purpose”

I mentioned earlier that in the grand scheme of things, the revelation really didn’t come much longer than the peak of the civil rights movement (Civil rights act was signed in 1968 followed for several years by significant advances, the PH announcement was made in 1978) 10 years is not much time at all. Honestly, I am still in shock that it’s already been almost 10 years since I graduated High School..

Reading this interesting post, I couldn’t help but fantasize about some future bloggernaclites discussing Women And The Church. Imagine it’s 2050: “I was on my mission in Pyongyang when I heard news of the revelation concerning women in the priesthood…” But I digress into a mine field.

How blessed we are to have a church which by revelation can change in very profound ways, put mistakes behind, and move on to an ever increasing fullness of the truth! How sad that as a people we can’t yet bring ourselves to just say “That practice was wrong and we abandoned it.” I don’t think the membership is ready for such candor yet, which is sad.

“But it was withdrawn as a result of the harm it threatened to bring to the very existence of the church.”

But God instituted polygamy knowing that it would be met with revulsion. It was something that at the time of its institution, was not accepted by society at the time – indeed was completely unacceptable. The race issue is different – it was an evolution of thought that gradually came to be unacceptable. At the time that BY and others spoke, what they were saying was somewhat acceptable to most of the people of the time. Even one generation removed (my in-laws for example) it is common for members to have some racist thoughts and attitudes, so yes, I can believe that many of our leaders since BY have also been racist. Many of their speeches bear this out. Besides, God apparently didn’t feel that it was unacceptable for JS to give Elija (forget his last name) the priesthood.

In your scenario, God responds and commands his people according to the peer pressure or ridicule they may face. I can’t see anywhere in the bible, book of mormon, or anywhere else, that God said – “you know what, that thing I asked you to do? It will probably make people hate and persecute you, so, um – don’t worry about it. Here, go beat up some Samaritans.”

Ed, your comment confuses me. I cannot find solid issue with Stirling’s 1, 2 and 3 in the scriptures. For example,I don’t see a description of the mark of Cain, a mark which was to protect him, not punish him. I’m intrigued with the interpretation that the word Cain refers to metallurgy and that he may have been a travelling metal worker with burned and sooted hands. All speculation from the language. We Mormons are too quick to shun higher criticism of the Old and New Testament while some of our scholars reach awfully far to use particularly creative exegesis to support the Book of Mormon.
I sent my DNA to the National Geographic/IBM genetic project and they connected my mitochondrial DNA to an African group 50,000 years ago. Makes me feel a warm and fuzzy part of the entire family of man.
A fourth question of course is what to tell my friend to convince him to stay active. Fruits for his soul, service to render to others, yes, but he asks in return how much pride is healthy? Will we allow him a modicum of black pride before we deem him too proud to take the arrows?
Susan, thank you. I needed that. Just recently a group of sweet young things have complained my classes add too much information and ambiguity to be spiritual.

Lest you think racism is a thing of the past in Our Lovely Deseret, check out this article from today’s tribune:

Utah Developer Pulls Racial Data from Site

We Mormons are too quick to shun higher criticism of the Old and New Testament while some of our scholars reach awfully far to use particularly creative exegesis to support the Book of Mormon.

But these are not equivalent groups. An average LDS, if they even know anything about source criticism, may reject it, but in my personal and academic experiences, those scholars whom you suggest are over-reaching in their support of the BoM do not.

In any case, since your point has to do with philological issues, I don’t see the purpose of either invoking general LDS ignorance of the technicalities of biblical studies (after all, they’re ignorant of the technicalities of many other fields) or taking a broad swipe at anonymous scholars whom you euphemistically criticize. I agree that LDS could do a much better job in actually *studying* scripture, but I think you’re over-reaching in your supporting point.

As to the original point, some scholars have made metallurgical connections with Cain’s name. Other scholars have made different proposals, and as far as I am aware, there’s no scholarly consensus on the question. It may or may not be relevant.

So is the the priesthood “ban” on women purely because we have sexist leaders?

Consider the can of worms to now be open.

Curses J.! Foiled again.

Evidence is mounting that we all began black Africans. Should that be the case, consider the ramifications. We can no longer assume curses are black or that black is more than figurative or that black skin is exclusively the domain of the cursed or that a curse of blackness was more than a relatively brief local event in man’s evolution or that all cursed for whatever iniquities are somehow related. And we need no longer explain mistakes of our leaders. Papal Infallibility has nothing on us. Old and New Testament prophets can make serious errors and remain the Lord’s annointed. Today’s prophets must be perfect lest we lose our faith. What’s wrong with us? Molly

Ed, in #30, you asked how I define “folklore.” With regards to racialist teaching within Mormonism, I’m using it to refer to extra-scriptural stories or interpretations that are factually incorrect and were developed to explain societal phenomena (in this case, the phenomena being the relatively recent institutionalized slavery of black Africans, and the resulting societal segregation and discrimination).

David Goldenberg, in The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, writes that that in the context of racialized readings of the Bible, both biblical and extrabiblical sources have been misinterpreted “ultimately due to an assumption that the way things are now is the way things were in the past,” failing to realize “our perceptions of the Black have been conditioned by the intervening history of centuries of Black slavery and its manifold ramifications”

That error occurred among many 18th-20th century European and American Christians when they utilized misinterpretations of the stories of Cain, Ham, and Nimrod to justify their slavery and segregation (ignoring other stories, such as Moses marrying an Ethiopian). We Mormons, understandably, made the same mistake in the 1800s because we forged our religion in a place and time when these folk stories were commonly accepted. But, as we move into the 21st century, the practice, is much less understandable (IMNSHO).

If you mean to suggest that the scriptures you cite offer valid scriptural support for withholding priesthood and temple blessings based on race (or for teaching that blacks are cursed or otherwise inferior, etc.) we could share our differing viewpoints (perhaps offline?). I suspect instead you just mean to suggest that within our canon there are texts that could be reasonably used to offer some support for our racialist beliefs/practices. I do concede this point, with the reminder that, for example, Abr. 1: 24, can only be read as supporting a priesthood/temple ban on black Africans if one first adds many assumptions that aren’t stated in the text.

You are correct that that I overstated the case in my #2 by stating there is no scriptural support for a teaching that “Dark skin results from a curse from God.” I should have written instead that “There is no scriptural support for a claim that the dark skin of black Africans results from a curse from God.”

The reason for this clarification is that some Saints read the BoM as teaching that God turned the Lamanites’ skin dark as a result of their wickedness. That is not my own reading of the text, but I grant that some people read it that way. For a couple of articles on this topic, see John Tvedtnes, ‘The Charge of ‘Racism’ in the Book of Mormon ‘, The FARMS Review 15, 183–198 (explaining many BoM uses of “dark” and “light” as symbolic, and suggesting that where a BoM writer meant to describe an actual difference in skin color, the change may have occurred due to intermarriage with other peoples); Douglas Campbell, “‘White’ or ‘Pure’: Five Vignettes.” Dialogue 29 (4) Winter 1996: 119-135 (interpretating color references to “white” and “dark” or “black” skin in the Book of Mormon as metaphors used to describe levels of purity–not as literal (and inaccurate) descriptions of skin color).

If this topic interests you, for an analysis of the symbolic use of references to blackness, darkness, and whiteness in early Christian literature, see Gay L. Byron, Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference in Early Christian Literature (London: Routledge, 2002).

Stirling

Many of Joseph Smith’s teachings were remarkably enlightened on this issue. I have heard it said that the early church stance on this was really a practical response to the political situations of the day, and that the Church may have suffered even more if it had been branded pro-slavery. I have always assumed that much of the “folklore” that developed over the years was simply after-the-fact justifications for a clearly un-christlike doctrine. Is there any historical support for this?

Yes, as is well known Joseph Smith ordained at least one black man as an Elder and a Seventy. Also, Joseph Smith ran for president on a platform that advocated abolition of slavery.

This is yet further evidence that Ryan’s thesis about the reason for the ban doesn’t make sense. How could it be that God insipired Joseph to publicly advocate abolition(!!!), an incredibly divisive and explosive topic in 1944, and then later inspired Brigham to discriminate against blacks in order to gain public “acceptance” during a time when the Mormons were pracicing polygamy(!!!), even though the policy on blacks was probably virtually unknown to anyone outside of Utah?

Ed, in #54, you mentioned that “the scriptures contain racialist ideas…I’m not sure either how to reconcile those scriptures with our modern ideals of racial equality and integration.”

Based on my readings of scholars of ancient scriptures, I suggest that what is modern is not “ideals of racial equality and intergration,” but the exact opposite.

We easily assume that racism has historically been the norm, because it has been the norm for the last several centuries in Europe and America. But, if I may refer to Goldenberg’s (very good book) again, some of the specific questions he looked at in his exhaustive research were “How did biblical-era Jews view black Africans?” and “What was the attitude of biblical and early post-biblical era Jews towards dark skin color in general?”

He concluded there is no evidence that biblical and post-biblical Judaism saw “anything denigrating in African origin or in miscegenation, ” and reported that “Apparently Kushite [assumed black African] ancestry did not matter one way or the other.” This follows Frank Snowden’s conclusions (among other places, in Before Color Prejudice), and for we Mormons, is a reminder of Hugh Nibley’s similar findings in Abraham in Egypt.

There, in the subchapter entitled “No Prejudice,” Nibley discussed whether there existed in the Abrahamic era a prejudice against skin color. He concluded there was not: “In the drawings and texts, which are numerous, the proportion of black to white seems to follow no pattern but that of a society in which the races mingle freely and equally.” He agreed with Heinrich Brugsch that in records of the “four races” of the period and geography (Egyptian, Asiatic, Black, European-Berger), there was not “the slightest indication of race distinction.” From reviewing numerous royal portraits and royal mummies, “from the earliest dynasties right down to the end,” Nibley determined that if black skin “did not prevent one from becoming pharaoh, neither was it a requirement. There was simply no prejudice in the matter.” He concludes the subchapter with the statement that in the Abrahamic era it is “clear that there is no exclusive equation between Ham and Pharaoh, or between Ham and the Egyptians, or between the Egyptians and the blacks, or between any of the above and any particular curse.” Abraham in Egypt, 585-587.

This takes me back to the Goldenberg quote that in the context of racialized readings of the Bible, both biblical and extrabiblical sources have been misinterpreted “ultimately due to an assumption that the way things are now is the way things were in the past,” failing to realize “our perceptions of the Black have been conditioned by the intervening history of centuries of Black slavery and its manifold ramifications.” The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, 7.

The point being that people of our era mistakenly assume people have always had the negative racist attitudes about black Africans that we find in Europe and American from the 1600-1900s.

As a side note: You mentioned that “Furthermore, the interpretations of modern Biblical scholarship mostly don’t apply to the Mormon scriptures, which contain most of the verses I cited above.”
Why not? You referred to Abr 1:24 which mentioned a “Ham” and a “curse in the land.” The only way one gets from there to viewing that scripture as support for a temple/priesthood ban unique to black Africans is to adopt the slavery-era Christian creative additions to the biblical story of Ham.

Stirling Adams

For what it’s worth, has anyone heard of the Genesis Group? I stumbled on it a while ago. I wasn’t aware that it existed.

It’s an officially sanctioned group specifically geard towards black members of the church.

To further everyone’s research on this topic, in Volume 801, Spring 1973 of Dialogue Journal, Lester Bush wrote a wonderfully insightful article called Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: A Historical Overview. Thoughtful responses are given by Gordon Thomasson, Hugh Nibley, and Eugene England. You can read the entire collection of articles on the website beginning on page 11.

And for those who don’t have the time or inclination to read Bush’s lengthy article, his follow-up piece in a 2003(?) issue of the JMHA is even more fascinating, and starts out with a brief but thorough synopsis of the 1973 article.

Does JMHA have articles online that one can link too?

Aaron B

I’m a mom to two Black sons through transracial adoption, so you can imagine this is somewhat of a pet issue …

1) What do you think most Mormons believe about racial differences and doctrine?

Most Mormons don’t think about it. They don’t have to — their circle of friends consists of ward members who are very much like themselves in age, class and race. When they do think about it, they usually turn to McConkie rather than to a source like Bush and Mauss (which I read soon after we adopted our first and appreciated very much), or to what their parents taught them rather than what makes sense and is right and true. Not what I wish for, but I think it’s the general practice out there.

Just two weeks ago in my parents’ Utah ward of mostly fifty and sixtysomethings, I heard the good old Seed of Cain theory. I let it slide, I’m somewhat embarrassed to say. I will protest briefly that my reasons for that were complex … being a visitor there and not wanting to stir the pot for my parents who have enough to deal with already in various issues with theb family and the Church, stuff like that.

I also think that it’s very hard to educate someone who is not looking for education. And a lot of people just aren’t.

2) What can we do to educate and sensitize Church members who hold to racism?

Wait for them to die? That’s sort of a joke, but I think that time passing and the arrival of new generations is the surest force of change. There are a lot of Black kids adopted into Mormon families now. How will that change the landscape?

If the incident from a couple of weeks ago had happened in my own ward, I would have spoken up. Obviously I cannot allow that kind of attitude to fester in the place where my beautiful brown kids go to worship and learn about the gospel. And when friends ask me, I regularly refer them to Neither Black Nor White. (I’m very glad to know about the online version; thank you!!!)

However, the foremost thing that would help would be a current, clear, straightforward statement from Church leadership unconditionally repudiating the false doctrines and folkloric racism that exist among members of the Church. For most Mormons it is not enough to have a great article or book published by Dialogue or Signature. However good the material, the source is suspect to them. I’m sure that’s not news to anyone here.

Several years ago I heard President Hinckley on Larry King referring to the priesthood ban. His exact words were, “That was in the past, and that was a mistake.” I wish he would say it in General Conference.

Genesis is fantastic. We used to attend when we lived in Salt Lake. I wish the Church could find a way to help that group expand its influence, not just among Black members but among all members.

But that’s all wishing and hoping for intervention from places of power. You asked what we can do. I think the number one thing we are not yet doing is to stop being afraid. Too often I hear any conversation about race reduced to whispers. People are so afraid of giving offense that they lose any chance to interact with and learn about their Black brothers and sisters. If we have a question, we should ask it. That’s what children do when they see my family. (“Why is your mom so white?” “A light person … and a dark person?”) I think it’s wonderul!

Thanks for the chance to rant. I apologize in advance for typos. The comments are slow and I tried to proofread, but I can’t guarantee I caught everything!

Stirling, the problem with calling these teachings “folklore” is because it only becomes apparent in hindsight that the teachings are folklore. There are likely current teachings that will eventually prove to be folklore by your definition. I suppose that’s ok, but when I hear the work “folklore” it implies not just whether the ideas are correct but how they are transmitted and received.

Regarding ancient ideas about race: that’s a very good point. I think you are right that black-vs.-white racial thinking is modern. Although the ancient Israelites apparently placed great importance on their ethnicity, which in some ways was seen like a large extended family (e.g. the “seed of Abraham”), they weren’t biologically much different from their idolotrous neighbors anyway. It is interesting that the more modern ideas about race seem to be much more strongly reflected in the Mormon scriptures than in the Bible. It’s as if the Mormon scriptures provide a modern racialist gloss to the Biblical accounts.

Ryan, blacks have been ordained as ministers in many other denominations throughout American history. It didn’t kill Methodists, why should it have killed the Mormons?

I just find it hard to believe that if those crazy 18th century Mormons, way out in Utah, had decided to let their black members hold the priesthood and go to the temple, that anybody outside of Utah would have even noticed, let alone that it would have been “suicidal” for the church.

Of course a century later the outside world did eventually notice the policy we adopted, and then it was an international embarassment. And don’t you find it odd that the leaders like BY justified the practice in terms of a “curse” without mentioning more pragmatic concerns about outside attitudes?

“some Church members are so desperate to not say their leaders are wrong, that they’ll defend anything, regardless of how ridiculous.”

You couldn’t have hit the nail more precisely on the head. You have accurately described an example of not speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed. I guess the difference is whether or not an individual perceives this attitide to be a virtue or if we feel that keeping temple covenants is a luxury we can afford to disregard if it clashes with personal opinions on what official doctrine ought to be.
I think this argument reinforces the point Molly and those who concur with her are trying to emphasize, namely, let’s put criticism of church leaders aside because it does nothing to help increase our faith. Rather, let’s focus on eradicating the terrible attitudes that have torn at the church long past their time. Perhaps making that our goal, instead of finding ways to place blame on leadership would be a good way to make us all a little more Christ-like

Puh-leeeeez, Ryan. Give me a break. First of all, whatever “not speaking evil of the lord’s anointed” might mean, I think it’s a bit much to argue that it requires looking anywhere and everywhere but at our leaders for an explanation of some unfortuante past practice, theology, etc. You might as well adopt an “Our leaders are always infallible” attitude, or a “let’s say our leaders are always infalliable even though we know they’re not” policy.

I suppose if you don’t want to focus on possible causal explanations for the ban, that’s your prerogative. But that IS what many of the rest of us are doing, rather than disregarding covenants that clash “with personal opinions on what official doctrine ought to be.”

“…let’s put criticism of church leaders aside because it does nothing to help increase our faith.”

Well, for a lot of people, even acknowledging that there have been unfortunate racial implications of Mormon theology and racist attitudes in Mormon culture does nothing to help increase their faith either. So maybe we should just stop talking about this subject altogether? Or maybe this is the wrong time to be invoking the “faith-promotion” canard, given how difficult ANY discussion of this issue is bound to be for faith.

One of the necessary steps in “eradicating the terrible attitudes that have torn at the church long past their time” is having honest discussions about the origins of these policies, even if those discussions are sometimes necessarily going to be speculative. By foreclosing any critical discussion of the role of the historical LDS leadership with respect to this issue, you are potentially shutting the door on the possibility of grappling with this issue in a way to help us all get beyond it, and for what? So that you never have to think negative thoughts about any Mormon leader. I think you’re prioritizing the wrong principles here, and are not doing the Church any favors.

Aaron B

Ryan: “missionary work, official recognition, persecution abatement, etc.. would have been severely damaged ”

Well, if you keep saying it, it must be true. You might try to provide some evidence, if you can find any. (For example, that other churches suffered when they admitted blacks.)

Until then, I’m inclined to believe that the long run damage done to the church’s image by imposing the ban and keeping it in place for so long is much, much worse than any damage that the ban may have averted.

Hey Ana, thanks for your comments. I have nephews that are half-black (actually, part black, white, Japanese, native American, and um…German–and oh, wait, they’re actually great-nephews) and always figured I’d adopt or at least foster parent some mixed kids myself, but it hasn’t happened yet. I’m sure as time goes on “rainbow” kids will just be more and more common.

Ryan, you have been too kind to me but with an explanation I hope we are not that far apart. I do believe we are still dealing with these issues largely for the mistaken statements of past leaders and the absence of a clear statement disavowing the same. But I do not think I am guilty of speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed for saying so. Like you, I take my temple vows seriously. Speaking evil is to me very different from suggesting a leader has been wrong. I think speaking evil is to speak lies about or to seek to cause harm for harm’s sake. Unless we believe our leaders are perfect (and beginning with Joseph Smith who told followers if they wouldn’t expect perfection of him, he wouldn’t expect it of them), many have forthrightly reminded us they are not perfect. I see nothing wrong with suggesting leadership error got us here and leadership can get us out. We cannot dictate that leadership of course and I think it only respectful we voice our disagreements appropriately in select forums, classes, letters and among ourselves. Picketing the Church Office Building won’t cut it. That in mind, you rightly conclude I am suggesting we clean up our own attitudes and actions, but we may also continue prayers and discussion for a public repudiation from the Prophet. I have only love and respect for the good men who struggle with their own humanity to lead us as closely to God’s will as they can. I have no desire to undermine their dignity or authority.

One of my proudest moments as a parent came when I met my daughter’s two roomates. She had been living with them for about two months, and I was surprised to see one of them was black.

I am militantly opposed to racism and bigotry and have raised my daughter to share these values. Consequently, an individual’s race is a total non-issue with her, and it hadn’t even occurred to her to tell me Lisa was black.

Compare this to my TBM mother who insisits “I’m not racist, I just don’t like the things they do,” and calls one of her co-workers “the black lady Yvette.”

She’s been this racist her entire life and she’s justified it with the ban, believing, to this day, Africans were cursed by God.

I know this isn’t relevant to the Church’s stance, and I am no longer a believer, so this isn’t an issue I have to struggle with. But I just wanted to point out that it is possible for people to be color-blind.

I truly could not have been prouder of my daughter.

Jaynee

JetBoy, in #78, what do you mean when you write, “I believe the “folklore” was actual doctrines of the Church.”

Do you mean you believe, for example, that Cain and Ham actually were cursed with black skin?
Or, do you mean that those teaching were “actual doctrines” of the church because they were taught for a time? Do you think the teaching is factually correct, or that it was correct in its time and is no longer?

Your approach sounds similar to that of First Presidency Member George Q. Cannon. The First Presidency Minutes show that In August 1900 the First Presidency was asked by a South Carolina mission president about what to do about “a village of negroes who were members of our Church. Two of the males had been ordained to the priesthood” by the missionary who had baptized them. GQC told the other FP members that “President Young had held to the doctrine that no man tainted with negro blood was eligible to the priesthood…President Cannon read from the Pearl of Great Price showing that negroes were debarred from the priesthood[remember, that’s a “folk” interpretation, the text doesn’t say that]… “

But, for Church president Lorenzo Snow, this was not a settled matter. He wanted to discuss it with the full quorum.
The minutes read: “President Snow intimated to President Cannon that this was one of the questions which it was understood would come up before the Council of First Presidency and Apostles for discussion the first time there should be a full attendance. “

Check out GQC’s response:
“President Cannon remarked to President Snow that as he regarded it the subject was really beyond the pale of discussion, unless, he, President Snow, had light to throw upon what had already been imparted. “
“Brother [George F.] Gibbs now reminded President Cannon that President [Joseph F.] Smith had on a previous occasion related something going to show how the full blooded negro came through the flood which had not to his knowledge appeared in our records, and suggested that President Smith be asked to repeat it.
Upon being invited to do so President Smith said that he had been told that the idea originated with the Prophet Joseph [Smith], but of course he could not vouch for it. It was this: That the woman named Egyptus was in the family way by a man of her own race before Ham took her to wife, and that Cainan was the result of that illicit intercourse. [could we agree this is folklore?]
This subject was now dropped without President Snow intimating that the subject would be further considered. “

I read this instance, given the similar lobbying efforts by GQC on the ban in other FP meetings before and after this one, as possibly being an example of GQC talking the President of the Church out of his (the prophet’s) desire to reconsider a racial ban that at that time had not yet been crystallized into a rigid, universal rule (especially for persons who were regarded as of mixed-race heritage). From my reading of the FP minutes, it’s seems that if GQC and Joseph Fielding Smith had not consistently lobbied in these types of circumstances to continue a teaching held by Brigham Young, the racial ban might have never been solidified (particuarly not in its form of applying to any one with “one drop” of “negro” blood), and it might have merely been another fleeting doctrine taught by BY that has no general acceptance in the church today.

Una lastima.
Stirling

You keep putting in the words “folk doctrine” as if repeating that phrase will impart it as reality. Well, lests just say that it has yet to be proven that is nothing more than your own “folk doctrine” that it is not a true teaching. The text, by the way, never says anything until the interpretation is made. When it comes to Scripture that job is the responsibility of prophets and not linguists or professors.

I believe that the “blacks not holding Priesthood because they are decendants of Cain” to be actually and continually an unbreakable doctrine. It is supported by Scriptural exegesis of the prophets over time, specifically as relates to a small section of the Book of Abraham. Regardless of what you might think of people like me, it doesn’t have anything to do with the Blackness as a sign of spiritual darkness or a dislike of people who are not white. It has to do with a very specific ban that God, through his Prophet Brigham Young as seemingly taught by Joseph Smith and upheld by prophets since, had instituted. Discussion doesn’t make something a non-doctrine. God and his prophets (including Snow) had ample time to clear up the “false” teachings as they had with BY’s other so-called theological mistakes (lets not forget that those “fleeting” doctrines are still alive and well in some places even among those who are quick to dismiss the race teachings. Its more politics than religion). President Kimball said the “ban” was lifted in his revelation, and not that it was wrong. You can wish for some clear prophetic denouncement of the very authoritative teachings on the subject all you want, but the time for such possibilities has past for those who hold to Revelation.

My advice is, get over it as your stuck with it as long as you are a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Jettboy, you’re coming across like a racist blockhead. You say “blacks not holding Priesthood because they are decendants of Cain” is an unbreakable sciptural doctrine. But it obviously isn’t unbreakable since it didn’t apply in Joseph’s day and it doesn’t apply in our day. And Stirling’s patient explanations show it’s not scriptural either. I think you’re just a little behind the curve on this one.

I agree the “folklore” label can be problematic, but it is a particular problem in the race and priesthood question because LDS leaders (1) never clearly articulated the basis for the priesthood ban, and (2) never clearly explained the basis or doctrinal implications of the abandonment of the ban in 1978. What is clear is that that absence of official comment has allowed racist “folklore” to remain as the working worldview for too many Mormons. I don’t see how they can take the big step of reversing the priesthood ban but not do the straightforward cleanup work of clearly repudiating the racial doctrines (“folklore”) that flourished in its shadow.

FARMS uses the same folklore distinction with the LGM (although I don’t believe they use the term “folklore” for traditional Mormon beliefs). They portray the Hemispheric Model, embraced by Joseph Smith and most Mormons since, as folklore because they see it as not supported (or at least not required) by a careful reading of the Book of Mormon. Same thing here: Stirling is explaining how the priesthood ban is not, in fact, supported by a careful reading of LDS scriptures.

Although I haven’t taken the time to sort out all the issues and determine anything more than a general stance toward the ban, I would like to submit one thought that’s crossed my mind.

We may not know all of the reasons for the initiation of the ban, but I think we can understand (at least in part) the difficult situation in which subsequent Church leaders were placed.

We Mormons tend to hold strongly to the ideal that all of our leaders’ actions and teachings should perfectly fit into one big harmonious puzzle called the Gospel, which has been directly revealed by God to his servants. Unfortunately, we seldom make allowances for the natural frailties and limited knowledge of these mortal men.

With this ideal in mind, I imagine it would have been difficult for post-Brigham leaders to initiate any change without disrupting the idea of continuous, harmonious revelation. Even if they had doubts about the ban’s correctness, it would have been difficult to make amendments without seemingly discounting Brigham’s prophetic role. Additionally, assuming that the policty was inspired, leaders may have had some doubts about whether or not they could change the policy without offending the God who supposedly inspired it to begin with.

Members (leaders and general membership alike) may have adopted an attitude toward the ban similar to the attitude commonly employed toward some elements of the Endowment ceremony: “I don’t understand it all, but I have a testimony of Church and this gospel, so it must be true.” Essentially, the ban may have been accepted on the basis of faith in our past leaders.

If, by chance, the ban was not inspired to begin with, then I’m not trying to justify it’s continuance for so long. Nor am I trying to vindicate leaders for not making a needed amendment to Church policy. It simply crossed crossed my mind that, if post-Brigham leaders did entertain doubts concerning the Priesthood ban, they would have had to grapple with some difficult issues and considerations, which may be partially responsible for the hesitancy to initiate change until 1978.

I’m not offering any solutions per se. But I do believe that it would be beneficial for the general Church membership to come to grips with the imperfections of our leaders. We should be comfortable with the idea that sometimes even those at the top of the totem pole make mistakes. Then we wouldn’t feel the need to explain away uninspired practices.

What Steve said.

Plus, we’ve gone beyond Molly’s complaint here. In a sense we should take President Hinckley seriously when he says the ban “is behind us.” There was a ban once. There isn’t anymore. Hallelujah.

The problem is that the ban was NEVER officially explained, which leaves many Mormons of all stripes feeling that they need to explain it. This is where folklore arises. So we end up piling on the misery of many faithful black Saints (who are already puzzled as to why God prevented them from enjoying the priesthood because of the colour of their skin) by telling them all manner of fantasy-folklore-rubbish. Best to keep our mouths shut.

With that in mind, I’d like to pose a difficult question. What would better help a struggling black member on this issue? To say:

1. You have the curse of Cain, mate, get over it. (Er, NO!)
2. Former church leaders simply laboured under some of the racist notions of their time. I’m sorry. We’re not perfect.
3. We have no idea why God instituted this ban.

It just dawned on me how paternal this all sounds. Are there no black Mormons reading this blog? If so, please comment! (If not, well, I wish we could remedy that.)

Jettboy, you’re coming across like a racist blockhead. You say “blacks not holding Priesthood because they are decendants of Cain” is an unbreakable sciptural doctrine. But it obviously isn’t unbreakable since it didn’t apply in Joseph’s day and it doesn’t apply in our day.

Its was doctrine in at least Brigham Young’s day, it is doctrine NOW. The POLICY related to it has changed, but the doctrinal reasoning has NOT! Polygamy, for instance, is still a doctrine where the policy is for the most part no longer fuctioning. It is just interesting how so many here are making excuses and not approaching the question: What if the “Blacks cursed as to the priesthood through lineage of Cain” doctrine were not a mistake?

I am not denying that the priesthood can be given to everyone at this time. I am not arguing that anyone is less of a person than another because of the ban. What I AM saying is that your making assumptions that are tenuous at best to somehow make the Church look good for PR purposes. I have the words and actions of Apostles and Prophets with divine authority to back me up in the officiality of both the ban and the major reasoning. All you have is the “fallibility theory,” that even prophets and apostles after the ban have not even mentioned. And I suspect, unlike anyone here so far, the reason is that the doctrine remains true where the practice is no longer in force.

Stirling,

I believe that Greg Prince was more explicit about McKay not knowing about the ban in his podcast interview with John Dehlin, that you can find here. That may be what Ben was thinking about.

Thanks Ed (#95) and Ben.
I just listened to the post. Here’s the part you refer to.

Greg Prince [at about 8:00 into the podcast]:
“[The race-based priesthood/temple ban] was not a discrete revelation, it was a policy that was instituted, probably in response to something going on in the local environment. I’m not sure of that…”

“It became accepted as doctrine the longer it remained in effect. So by the time you got into the 20th century everybody just assumed that this was based on revelation, that it was doctrinal, that it wouldn’t change.

John Dehlin: “I’ve also read that it really didn’t come up very much.”

Greg Prince: “No, it didn’t. David O. McKay was called to be an apostle in 1906. He recorded later that the first time he became aware that this policy even existed was on his trip around the world, which was in 1921. So he’d been an apostle for 15 years, didn’t even know there was a policy. And if he didn’t know, you can imagine what the level of knowledge in the general church membership.”

Mormon Stories # 004: Gregory Prince, David O. McKay and the Blacks/Priesthood Issue” , 22 Aug 2005 20:47
http://feeds.feedburner.com/MormonStoriesPodcast

Jettboy, is it just a shocking coincidence that Protestants believed the same things about Cain, Ham, Noah, etc long before Mormons enumerated the “doctrine?” Care to tell us why it’s a doctrine? Where did Brigham claim a revelation? Is it written down somewhere?

In other words, just because you believe something, doesn’t make it true. Some of us need a little bit more than you temper tantrum over people believing things you don’t like.

Bob–you are right about the world getting it right before the Church managed it. In the David O. McKay biography–DOM and The Rise of Modern Mormonism. The authors apologize for DOM by saying that he was a product of his time and place and therefore his racial attitudes were determined by his Wasatch Mountain upbringing and that his pathetic efforts to open up the Church to a degree on this issue were somehow courageous–when compared, I guess to Harold B. Lee panic-struck at the prospect of his granddaughter getting engaged to a black student at BYU or Ezra Taft Benson’s fulminations about the Communist-inspired civil rights movement. Let’s look at a contemporary of DOM—Harry S Truman, US president from 1945-1953. Truman was born in the former slave-holding state of Missouri–and often times spoke of himself as having “southern sympathies”. Yet he had the foresight and the gumption to integrate the US Armed Forces and to support a civil rights plank in the 1948 Democratic Platform—a full 30 years before Spencer Kimball’s priesthood declaration.

Jonathan–I’ll keep the psuedonym. Frederick G. Williams saw it all and still concluded it was madness.

To address the problematic term ‘folklore’:
If we were to use the term ‘popular belief’ instead, we might convey the same sense of alternative discourse (as opposed to authoritative statements, or perhaps as opposed to true revelation). However, the term ‘popular belief’ has the advantage of including leaders, as well as the main body of church members.

(When I attended the annual meeting of the American Folklore Society this fall, a number of the presenters spoke passionately about their abhorrence of the term ‘folklore’ as it is used in this post. But what to do about it? Even professional folklorists cannot come to a concensus regarding a better term.)

Wow, talon, I can’t believe you went all the way through that comment. That has to be the longest comment I’ve ever seen in the ‘nacle.

You don’t see any Official Declarations regarding the repeal of the Adam-God theory, or some other nutty BY quotation…

but no BY quotation or theory ever started such a huge problem in the church. and yes I do think it was a problem. I don’t know much about anything. I was born 10 years after the fact, but that’s my .000002 cents on the subject.

Ann 105:

I didn’t read the whole comment…I only read as far as that statement and I realized I had read enough.

“And lo, this shall be given unto you as a sign of their wackyness; they shall type long and rambling comments in the ‘nacle, professing the virtues of secret polygamy, and calling zone leaders to repentance with righteous zeal.”

Talon 3:16

How would that be enforced, and isn’t that rather cruel and unusual? If they’re married, they’re married, so they should be able to live together and man and wife.

It is enforced just like any other aspect of morality is enforced in the Church, through pre-baptism interviews, and after baptism by continuing interviews with Priesthood leaders (Temple recommends, etc.)

And yes, I think you could call it cruel (I believe David O McKay used that exact word when informed of saints in Nigeria who had returned one or more of their plural wives to their parents homes in order to be accepted for baptism). But the fact of the matter is plural marriage is not the practice of the Church anywhere on earth, even in countries where it is legal.

On that same note, if two gay members are married (that is, in countries and/or state[s] where it’s legal, they don[t get excommunicated, do they?

I do not know the exact Church policy on this, but I would guess that the answer is yes.

Sorry for the threadjack.

It’s just speculation on my part and I’ll freely admit it, but sometimes I think the priesthood ban for Black people was more of a punishment for the non-Black members of the Church. Taking the long view, no one will be denied the full blessings of the gospel on any basis othern than personal righteousness. At least in theory, the injustices of that period can be rectified through proxy ordinances which can then be accepted by anyone who wants to accept them. So who were the real losers there for a few generations? Could it have been the non=-Black members of the church, who would not see what God’s family really looks like and therefore missed a lot of chances to learn and grow with and serve and love people who didn’t look like them? The one thing we can never get back is time.

Ana: I agree with you whole heartedly, that a living prophet trumps a dead prophet. However, I also believe that personal revelation trumps any other living prophet, regardless of the level of that prophet, for personal growth.

However, this does not mean what I think you think it means.

I’m not going to try to set policy for my stewardships that contradict any of the policies of my Primary President, my Quorum leadership, my Bishop, my Stake President, my Area President, the Quorums of the Seventy, the Council of the Twelve, nor the First Presidency, until I get permission to run with it from whoseever policy it conflicts with.

The only time I did buck the system, was that time while on my mission when the DL an ZLs had my companion and me doing some things that I felt were very unmissionary-like, and in exchange, were letting my companion do some things that flirted with breaking rules that would send him home—or worse.

I wrote three letters to the mission president about it (which were handed in to the DL, as per policy), but did not get any kind of reply back — not even a note telling me when he’d make himself available for me to give him a very expensive phone call.

I finally made up my mind that I had to disobey the D&ZLs, which I knew might get me reprimanded, and I prayed about it, and got a very resounding “yes” answer.

So I did.

Two days later, instead of simply receiving a pretty expensive phone call, our entire zone was invited to do three days of much more expensive travelling to attend a zone conference where Elder Ballard was going to be, who was in the country for another conference, not to tour the mission, but he allowed the local missionaries to put on a zone conference which he attended, and he invited us, too, rather last minute.

My companion and I were placed on the very end of Elder Ballard’s rather lenghty list of appointments and interviews before he was supposed to jet off to some other part of the world.

He decided to stay the night and catch a later flight.

Again, he thanked me, got my companion to apologize to me, and the D&ZLs didn’t even take the train back to our zone with us.

That’s the only time I’ve ever outright directly disobeyed any of my living leaders.

All the rest of the time, any time my own revelation has conflicted with an existing policy, that policy got changed before I began implementing the things that I had learned by revelation.

That is, after all, the way the Lord’s church is governed.

I have no idea why that one guy in Portland Oregon bucked the system by baptizing and ordaining the guy of Indiginous African descent, but based on the end result, he might very well have been inspired to do what I had done on my mission, just on a much much much larger scale than mine was.

Talon: In a country where polygamy is legal, in order for a polygynous male to be interviewd and baptized by full-time missionaries, he has to agree to live monogamously.

Any polygynous male who agrees to that condition is clearly not living polygyny that might be considered celestial in any way, shape, or form.

Any polygynous male who does not agree to that condition, but who is persistent with his investigation to where he obtains an interview with the Mission President, will wind up being interviewed by a General Authority, who will make the determination as to whether or not to proceed.

Polygynous males are not the only ones who get to use that method of being interviewed for baptism.

All genealogically-docummented Israelite, and anyone who has ever killed anyone, or who has ever been divorced, too.

FrankO: Two things: First: What Stirling said.

Okay, actually that was second, because the following explanation is what I wrote first, before reading Stirling’s concise response. So, for those of you who would like to skip lengthy replies… feel free to. Otherwise, the following is a more-detailed explanation of what Stirling said, albeit without the benefit of me ever having studied Hugh Nibly. This is something I learned on my own.

Abraham 1:21-27 is not talking about your everyday flavor of Melchizedek Priesthood (and no, I don’t mean that simply because the term hadn’t been thus coined yet).

There is a difference between someone to whom the priesthood is a priviledge (a.k.a. me) and someone who has a legitimate right to a specific office of the priesthood.

One such lineage-driven right to the priesthood is mentioned in Doctrine and Covenants Section Thirteen: “… until the sons of Levi do again offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.”

When I was ordained a Deacon, I received the PRIVILEGE to exercise this office of the Levitical Priesthood, only because there were not enough literal genealogy-documeted descendants of Levi in my locality (none, to be exact).

When I was ordained a Priest, I received the PRIVILEGE to exercise this office of the Levitical Priesthood, only because there were not enough literal genealogy-documeted descendants of Aaron in my locality (none, to be exact).

For a worthy descendant of Aaron or Levi, it is not a privilege, but rather a right.

Similar to the fact that any worthy first-born descendant of Aaron has a RIGHT to exercise the office of Bishop (D&C 68:14-21), and to do so without the encumberance of counselors.

It should be pointed out that although Moses was the prophet in his day, and he was by birth a Levite, neither he nor his sons nor their descendants had any right to exercise the office of Priest as did the descendants of Moses’ older brother, Aaron, even though it was Moses who ordained Aaron to that office in the first place.

The “Right” to the priesthood that Abraham was talking about was his own Patriarchal right to the Priesthood, which passed from Noah to Shem and on down, and finally rested upon Abraham.

Abraham was not saying that Pharoah could not hold the priesthood as a matter of privilege (like me), but that Pharoah was not of the lineage that would have given him the RIGHT to the priesthood, like Abraham.

It should also be pointed out that Abraham learned about this right to the priesthood from his prophet, a guy by the name of Melchizedk, who, like me, did NOT have the “RIGHT” to the Priesthood, but, who had the PRIVILEGE of bearing it, but unlke me, had the authority to confer the priesthood upon Abraham, as Melchizedek had been ordained to be a High Priest after the order of the Son of God (not to be confused with being a high priest after the order of the Sons of Aaron).

So, even though Abraham’s linear priesthood had not been conferred upon him through Terah, who also had a RIGHT to it, but who was not worthy to hold it, much less confer it, Abraham did receive it, from Melchizedek.

Had Pharoah been worthy, and had Pharoah been a High Priest after the order of the Son of God, Abraham would not have made that distinction.

And, the Lord stated no such thing. All such statements were stated by the leaders of the church, some such statements being issued by the president of the church himself.

D&C 1:38 notwithstanding, just because a man who is recognized as a prophet says something does not mean that the Lord also said it.

D&C 1:38 shows a monodirectional relationship. When the Lord says something to his servants (of which I am one) and a servant repeats the Lord, it is the Lord speaking. But, when the servant is speaking something that he had not been told by the Lord, D&C 1:38 does not apply.

And, finally, Frank, The Adam-God theory is not just a nutty quotation. It is a surprisingly comprehensible explanation of the relationships of both linear priesthoods as well as the linear aspect of non-linear priesthoods, which in this world began with Adam.

Brigham Young was (and is) a Prophet of God. He received the “Adam-God theory” from on high. Just because he lacked the verbal capacity to explain it “in a nutshell” does not make it just some “nutty” statement.

It has taken me more than two decades of more than just attending-my-classes study of the Gospel and the Priesthood, to gain my current understanding of it, but it does indeed make complete sense.

But, I have to admit that the first time I heard it, from the ex-latter-day-saint family of a girl I was very seriously dating before my mission, I, too, thought it was more than just a little bit nutty.

That said, although I believe Brigham Young was a prophet, I do not believe that his policies on ordination were all based upon prophesy.

Ann and Talon: By way of apology, I would refer you to something that Brigham Young started saying about the time that he’d learned what the Press had done with his attempt to describe the linear priesthood relationship we have with Adam, which the press mis-understood, mis-interpreted and mis-quouted, and demanded of Brother Brigham “A nutshell version”. Ever since that fiasco, whenever anybody criticised his lengthy replies as being too lengthy, and would again demand a nutshell version, he would say “Anything that fits in a nutshell belongs there” (which by the way, is where the term “nutty” comes from; anything that sounds nutty to you is something that you should crack open the right book and study up on the whole discourse).

Ana: I like your “punishment for the non-Black members of the Church” suggestion. I’d never looked at it that way, but that is a good way to describe it. I would describe it as the Lord’s way of depriving the Saints of blessings so as not to be holding them so accountable to the higher law, but, even that, in and of itself boils down to a softened form of punishment.

I just find it interesting that no one here has considered that the ban was real and from God.

This was an interesting post from Jettboy.

From a scriptural perspective, God did ban “somebody”; however, as with many things in the Old Testament, the reason for it is unclear.

I cannot explain the motivation or reasoning behind it, as I don’t know why it is there.

However, what we DO know is that Joseph Smith DID ordain a black man to the priesthood. Yet, Brigham Young, all of a sudden, sets this policy. No public revelation as to “the change”, nothing in General Conference for sustaining, just BOOM… and that was that.

Looking at some of Brigham Young’s writing about blacks, it seems pretty clear he didn’t “like ’em”, and the rest is history (literally).

And… it seemed to “fit” America’s lack of acceptance for black people.

Yes, I am glad it’s over, but I wish that we could have been more loving when it was really needed, and quicker to let go of past beliefs that, in our hearts, we know did not come from love, but rather an acceptance of the status quo.

However, what we DO know is that Joseph Smith DID ordain a black man to the priesthood.

Can someone provide a reference for this? Thanks.

Just Google Elijah Abel.

The previous post quoted the Historical Record as stating that Elijah was the “only colored man who is known to have been ordained to the Priesthood.”

That was probably a common assumption some time back, but it is incorrect. Here is a more detailed (and likely incomplete) list of “black” persons that received the priesthood up to 1936.

1836: March, Elijah Abel is ordained to the office of Elder.
The wikipedia article on Elijah is one of the best quick resources for info on him.
A pseudonym-toting commentator asked for a cite to the proposition that Joseph himself ordained Elijah. As far as I know, the WIkipedia article is assumed to be accurate when it says Joseph “probably” ordained Elijah. I don’t know if there is a solid record of who ordained him. But, it is clear Joseph knew and approved of the ordination. Here’s one example, from Elijah’s “Elder’s License.” It reads:
“To Whom It May Concern:
This certifies that Elijah Abel has been received into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, organized on the sixth of April, in the year of our Lord, one thousand, eight hundred and thirty, and has been ordained an Elder according to the rules and regulations of said Church, and is duly authorized to preach the gospel agreeable to the authority of that office. From the satisfactory evidence which we have of his good moral character, and his zeal for the cause of righteousness, and diligent desire to pursuade men to forsake evil and embrace truth we confidently recommend him to all candid and upright people as a worthy member of society. We therefore, in the name, and by the authority of this Church, grant unto this, our worthy brother in the Lord, this letter of commendation as a proof of our fellowship and esteem, praying for his success and prosperity in our Redeemer’s Cause given by the direction of a conference of Elders of said Church. Assembled in Kirkland, Geauga County, Ohio, the third day of March, in the year of our Lord, one thousand, either hundred, and thirty-six.
[signed]Joseph Smith, Jr.
Chairman
F.G. Williams, Clerk”
(I haven’t viewed this original document or a copy of the original, but I haven’t seen anyone contest its validity).

1836: December, Elijah Abel is ordained to the office of Seventy.

1836, December. Joseph Smith Sr. Church Patriarch, gives Abel patriarchal blessing. Bringhurst writes that the blessing:
“…proclaimed Abel was ‘ordained an Elder and annointed to secure thee against the power of the destroyer.’ In this blessing were apparent allusions to Abel’s unusual status as one of Mormonism’s few black members. In contrast to his white fellow Saints who were often declared descendants of a particular biblical lineage-usually Joseph or Ephraim-Abel was not assigned such a lineage. Instead, he was proclaimed “an orphan.” Finally, this blessing promised, “Thou shalt be made equal to thy brethren, and thy soul be white in eternity and thy robes glittering.”
See Bringhurst, “Elijah Abel and the Changing Status of Blacks within Mormonism,” in Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confornt the Race Issue in a Univesal Church: 133-134. online here.

1844: Walker Lewis, a black man from Lowell Massachusetts, is ordained to the office of Elder by William Smith, the younger brother of Joseph Smith. See Bringhurst, online here.

1846: William McCary, a black man is ordained to the office of Elder. (http://www.blacklds.org/history.html ) Bringhurst, online here. I don’t know if there are firm records of this ordination.

1900. November. Elijah’s son Abel ordained an Elder.
(http://www.blacklds.org/history.html ) I don’t what the primary source for this is. The Elijah Abel monument at the Salt Lake City Cemetery may confirm this. See Arave, Lynn. “Monument in S.L. Erected in Honor of Black Pioneer.” Deseret News, September 29 2002. article here.

1900. In South Carolina, an Elder Bond ordained as Elders two Negro males that he had also baptized. Apparently many in the “village of negroes” had also joined the church. Saturday Aug. 18, 1900 First Presidency Minutes, recounting letter from president Ben E. Rich, South Carolina Conference President. (George Albert Smith Papers, Marriott Library, UoU; I haven’t seen the originals of these minutes). The meeting minutes report the question being asked of whether anything should be done about the ordinations, but the portion I’ve read do not include any decision to take action.

1934. July. Elijah Abel (son of Enoch) ordained Priest http://www.blacklds.org/history.html. I don’t what the primary source for this is. The Elijah Abel monument at the Salt Lake City Cemetery may confirm this. Article here.

1934. September Elijah Abel (son of Enoch) ordained. Bringhurst writes, “such historical information is acknowledged on the monument erected for Elijah Abel and dedicated by Elder Ballard.” (citing to Arave article).
1936: Two LDS priests in Hawaii, William Pakale and John L. Pea were “recently … discovered to be one-eighth negro.” Regarding baptisms and ordinances performed by the two men, the Council of the Twelve decided that Apostle George Albert Smith would attend the next Hawaii stake conference, “with instructions that in the event he should find that a considerable number of people are involved, we assuming the authority was given to those brethren to officiate in these ordinances, that ratification of their acts be authorized. In the event he should discover that there are only one or two affected, and that the matter can be readily taken care of, it may be advisable to have re-baptism performed.” Council Meeting minutes, January 25, 1940, in Adam S. Bennion Papers (I haven’t seen the originals of these papers or the minutes).

2005. Due in part to new mathematical and population modeling regarding the concept of “Most Recent Common Ancestor” ( Rohde, Olson, and Chang. “Modelling the Recent Common Ancestry of All Living Humans.” Nature 431: 562 – 66), and in part to the explosion of genetic and genealogy research over the last 20 years, including researching mother-to-mother ancestors using mitochondrial DNA and father-to-father ancestors using portions the Y-chromosome, an increasing number of people are suggesting that everyone alive today may have “black” ancestors from the fairly recent past (perhaps as recent as 2-3000 years ago). That is something Nibley told Lester Bush in 1976, “we all have Negro blood”-there was intermixture everywhere.”
Ironically, this may also mean we all have the “blood of Israel” (at least in the sense that it may be likely all humans alive today have at least one direct ancestor that is from the family of “Israel.” That is different than whether each human alive today has any genes remaining from the genetic contributions of that ancestor).

However, what we DO know is that Joseph Smith DID ordain a black man to the priesthood.

Can someone provide a reference for this? Thanks

My apologies, as I can NOT find a reference for it.

I have read what I could on this subject, only to find that it is agonizing.

I am not going to pursue the history of this anymore, as I’m sure it would be both frustrating and ambiguous.

I do feel, however, that it is important to follow the golden rule (treat others the way you want to be treated). I say this because I would rather “err” on the side of goodness, as, ultimately, I will be accountable.

Stirling told me about this blog, and I’ve been the various reading comments. I have not done a careful read of all of them. I appreciate J.A. Benson’s recommendation of Darius’s and my work. I just got off the phone with Darius, and we talked about a few things on this blog. Our overall impression: Good arguments, but for us, these issues have long since transcended argument. They are life issues for us. Our trilogy tells amazing stories of Black pioneers (and actually goes up to 2002). Guess how many of those pioneers’ descendants are currently members of the Church? ONE! Green Flake has a great great grand daughter who JOINED the Church two years ago. ALL OTHERS (and the descendants probably number in the thousands) left the Church, including the descendants of Jane Manning James and Elijah Abel. (And yes, there IS documentation that his son and grandson received the priesthood.) Is anyone on this list Black? As I was talking to Darius, I quoted the words of Abinadi when he chastized the priests of Noah for knowing the commandments but not having them “written in [their] hearts.” For Darius and me and our many friends in Genesis and elsewhere, the issues you’re discussing have faces. We know a remarkable woman who was called a “nigger” in the temple. We have friends who have been told they were “less valiant” in the pre-existence than whites. Darius himself has been called the “N” word a number of times, and been given the left-handed compliment, “You’re a credit to your race.” Of course, in Old Testament times, the concept of race was non-existent. The OT prophets spoke of lineages and nations, not race–and most of the people mentioned in the scriptures were similarly pigmented, darker or lighter depending on where they lived. We are imposing a modern construct on an ancient world. And those of us who live with these issues in a lively way–recognizing racism as the inevitable legacy of early LDS teachings (common to the 19th Century)–find it hard to simply argue whether Elijah Abel was an octoroon or a full “negro,” and whether it was Joseph Smith who ordained him or someone else. I am very capable of arguing all sorts of points–I saw a number of errors on Mel Tungate’s site when I pulled it up–but I am really tired of arguing. People I love, and who God loves, have not been given the balm of gilead. The revelation of 1978 does NOT speak for itself or this blog would not have proceeded as it did. Darius and I have now heard from descendants of Len Hope, Jane James, Elijah Abel, and Green Flake. All could tell stories about their families and why they chose to leave the faith. I find it not silly but heartbreaking that anyone would suggest that Mormons needed to practise discrimination because America was racist. I seem to recall that Mormons were not doing a lot of things in the traditional ways. Polygamy, one of the “twin relics of barbarism,” as it was termed, was hardly embraced by Americans. Somehow, we manage to excuse the ways we departed from “acceptable” culture and to justify some unthinkable acts and attitudes–which are still infectuously with us–by stating that the rest of America set the stage and we merely played the safest roles we could. No, I think God must weep over what we did and how we still argue the points that keep us from truly living the greatest commandment.

I’m glad to hear about a bishop who would rebuke someone for making a racist comment. My experience, probably because of the work I’ve done with Darius, brings me into close contact with many people dealing with the omnipresent folklore. I have never heard a church leader suggest that past leaders were wrong and President Kimball simply set things right. Consistently, I hear justification of the past teachings and a suggestion that the policy came by revelation to Joseph Smith. (Some of the folklore has been repeated on this blog.) Darius and I worked on our books for five years. There was NEVER a time when we were working at his home (he was serving as the Genesis president at the time) when we were not interrupted several times by phone calls from Blacks trying to hold onto their faith in the midst of mistreatment, or by caucasion parents of adopted Black children trying to get themselves back to church after hearing whispered comments like, “That kid must have been really bad in the pre-existence. Look how dark he is.” (I’m not making this up.) I have gotten to hear the stories first hand, and I have become sensitized to a more covert kind of racism where Blacks are treated as exotic creatures mercifully permitted into “our” temples DESPITE their questionable lineage, or where stereotypes are quietly accepted. (“Well, we preached in a predominantly Black area, so most of our investigators were just interested in Church welfare.”) I am intensely aware of the damage _Mormon Doctrine_ continues to do. One of my husband’s students wrote in his class journal LAST WEEK that the book’s false teachings comprised one reason he didn’t think he could remain in the Church. (This was a caucasion student.) I hope it doesn’t sound too arrogant to say that I’m on the front lines, and what I see and hear is probably different from what others in different places see and hear. Right now, Richard Dutcher, Alex Nibley and I (with Darius Gray as creative consultant) are making a documentary about the issue. We are aiming to be balanced, but also to show the faces and hear the stories of faithful Black Latter-day Saints who are still waiting for “the long promised day” of full fellowship with the Saints. If you want to know more about that project, e-mail me personally at Margaret_Young@byu.edu. As far as the “I’m the victim” attitude, which is the addendum to the “white guilt” argument–I’d refer to King Benjamin’s discourse on beggars. I’ve read a bunch of books by Shelby Steele, whose ideas about white guilt initially intrigued me. The more I read, the more disgusted I became. I found logical fallacies throughout, and regret that his writings have become an easy out for those looking for a convenient exit from very real issues. I find much more of interest in the “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” in South Africa, headed by Nelson Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu. I learned of it, interestingly, when I looked up the article President Hinckley quoted during the last General Conference. If you look up President Hinckley’s talk on forgiveness and follow the link to the article about the kid throwing the frozen turkey through a car window, you’ll see the T&R Commission mentioned. Do a google search on it. I find the aims and methods of Mandela and Tutu to be exemplary. Maybe even a good model for us.

quick question. I’ve been reading a lot about it and I can’t find out what Ephraims mother being Asenath has to do with anything. is she a descendant of Ham? an answer would be greatly appreciated.

IF blacks were “cursed” as to the priesthood because of their “Hamite” lineage, then so is Ephraim, whose mother, being Egyptian, was alo “Hamite.” Which means 90% of the Church is cursed.

So if that’s one’s logic for the ban, it’s faulty.

Note: I do not actually subscribe to all this Hamite lineage stuff, but for people who do, Asenath is a problem. (Unless you weave some fantasy that she wasn’t Egyptian, but that seems unlikely for the daughter of the priest of On.)

#130 asks about the relevance of Asenath, who is mentioned in #3-4.
Briefly, Gen. 41:45 says that Joseph married “Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On” and that Asenath was the mother of Ephraim and Manasseh. (Gen. 41: 45, 50-52; 46: 20).

Why is that relevant?
Nibley, in Abraham in Egypt, wrote that Asenath, as a daughter of the priest of On, was “of the pure line of Ham… the mother of our own vaunted ancestor Ephraim [many white Mormons think of themselves as literally descending from Ephraim].” (581-582). Nibley emphasized that the story of Joseph and Asenath’s marriage “explains the mingling and reconciling of the blood of Ham with the blood of Israel.” (id.) He believed Egyptians in general could be described as “plainly of mixed race, including black elements,” (571) but he did not consider any of Cain, Ham, Egyptus, Canaan, or Pharoah to be the primary ancestors of blacks. (578-587);

Lester Bush, in his Journal of Mormon History article “Writing ‘Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview’ (1973): Context and Reflections, 1988, ” recounts his 1976 conversation with Nibley on this:

He does not think the blacks are related to Cain, or the early Canann, and probably not to Ham, Egyptus, Canaan or Pharaoh. He’s unsure but would guess now that Brigham Young was “wrong” relating blacks to Cain. He said–“we all have Negro blood”-there was intermixture everywhere. I asked about the accounts of the early patriarchs marrying apparent blacks. He exclaimed yes[.] I mentioned Moses–Yes. But the real “irony” was Joseph marrying a daughter of the priest of On–who he says by definition had to have been a Hamite–and their sons were Ephraim and Manasseh, who[m] we are all so proud to claim. He said it was as though the Lord was trying to tell us something.” (emphasis in original)

But, as Jonathan points out in 4, those interested in viewing Ephraim as having a “pure” lineage have suggested a resolution to the Asenath issue in Gen. 41: 45, 50-52; 46: 20.

The early 1930s seem to me to have been the zenith of Israelism and British-Israelism within Mormonism. And during those years, the problem of Asenath’s lineage was addressed at least three times in the church’s official genealogy class lessons published in the Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine (managed by apostle Anthony Ivins, apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, and Archibald Bennett).
One of these lessons quoted The Heritage of the Anglo-Saxon Race, a work by British Israelist author M.H. Gayer, which argued Asenath may have been a “Shemite princess, not an Egyptian.” Lesson 3, Ut. Gen. Hist. Mag. Vol. XX, 1930, 129-130. The other quoted Egyptian scholar Archibald H. Sayce as saying that Potipher “may have been merely a Semite in an Egyptian Dress.” Lesson 10, Ut. Gen. Hist. Mag. Vol. XX, 1930, 141. Sayce is a surprising guy to see quoted. He was one of eight scholars whose letters criticizing the Book of Abraham was published in F. S. Spalding’s 1912 book Joseph Smith, Jr., As a Translator. Sayce called the Book of Abraham an “impudent fraud.”
Then in the October 1932 issue, as part of the “The Story of Our Race,” lesson series, Mormon geneaology students were instructed to copy word for word into their lesson notebook the full 156-word quote from “The Heritage of the Anglo-Saxon Race” speculating that Asenath’s father was not a Hamite.
As recently as 2001 a Mormon author has similarly recast Asenath’s lineage so as to preserve a claim that the ancestry of Northern European Saints does not include Ham. See John P. Pratt, “Jacob’s Seventieth Descendant,” Meridian Magazine, October 9, 2001, http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/000818answer.html (speculating that Asenath was not Potipherah’s daughter, but the illegitimate or orphaned child of Dinah, the daughter of Jacob and Leah).

Bruce McConkie’s or Joseph Fielding Smith’s speculations that Ham had married a woman who was a descendant of Cain. Those men also speculated that Cain’s descendants were “black.”

Is it me, or have these two numskulls got us into more trouble with the counter-cultists than anybody else? Except mabye BY.

I don’t think we should be too critical of McConkie (I recognize, as pointed out above, he could be very free with his own severe criticisms).
For my tastes, his version of Mormonism didn’t capture some of the essential benefits of our religion (he whittled away at eternal progression and didn’t seem fully convinced of the possibility of repentance in too many circumstances), and he spent too much effort retaining our worst thoughts (hyper-exceptionalism (including racial superiority), blood atonement…).
But, I think his mix of fundamentalist Christianity and 19th century Mormonism, was, in fact, an authentic (if unfortunate) form of Mormonism. Though the theology of Joseph Smith and his written outlook was generally progressively liberal, there were authoritarian actions and some teachings in the early Church that planted the seeds for the fundamentalists among us (George Q. Cannon, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce McConkie, …) to later tend and harvest.
Yes, McConkie confused arrogance and a lack of doubt (or deep thinking) for rectitude. But, his negative (IMHO) theological influence is more than just an fundamentalist aberration that by circumstance (his daring and his status as Joseph Fielding Smith’s protected son-in-law) became a dominant theological tendency.

BTW, I don’t think this is a thread jack, because McConkie, Smith, and Cannon, and their fundamentalist attitudes toward race and past teachings, were important pieces of our story of “Race and the Church.”

I just found this page, so hope my thoughts speak to the issue (I can be inappropriate at times). As I read through all of this I remembered Gene England’s essay, “The Mormon Cross”,in Dialogue, about his personal difficulties with the doctrine before the revelation to President Kimball. If you haven’t read it, I think it is also in one of his collected essay books. I miss his writing–concerns with poverty,etc. I also remember Hugh Nibley’s thoughtful comments in Sunstone before the revelation, reminding and really chastising (like he always did) the non-African men in the church reminding them (D&C 121) that it was Amen to the priesthood power of any man who even thought about priesthood in a way that meant they were better than any one else or that it was thought of pridefully, or in any other way than the job of being the servant of everyone else. He also said the actual mark of Cain, if we read the scripture correctly, was to be a blessing… that it was somehow to be seen in order to protect Cain.. I’m not sure of that but I think it’s worth some contemplation on what that could mean. I was on my mission when I heard the news of the revelation… It was like the world was renewed and blessed… I was so excited I just had to run around outside my house and jump for joy and look for anyone I could tell, it is still a high point in my life. I couldn’t even contain the joy, the Spirit was so strong confirming the truth and our church’s evolution. Before that, I thought as did Nibley, that the earlier doctrine was really a test for the non-Africans, and if I could really understand God’s Will on it, that it actually said nothing at all negative about the Africans… That it was about us–we were the ones who needed to repent, and need the time to get to a level of spirituality where we could become equal with them–and my experiences with both African-American churches and Africans still makes me think that and question if we are even close… I love dancing and clapping and putting my whole Soul (Spirit and Body=Soul) into worship like the services I’ve attended… Sometimes I struggle with staying awake in LDS services(we still don’t bring the body part of the Soul equation to services)… I just hope that we haven’t exported the incoporeal Wasatch spirit of praise and worship to African congregations or to congregations in America with soulful African-Americans–what a loss if we have.. We need to evolve there still.. I do play Gladys Knights new LDS album in my car, just to inspire hope of it…. I remember how my wife and I used to have to sneak past all of the temple workers when we went to the Temple to find a place, so we could dance around in the Temple when the Spirit was so strong and called for Soul level worship. Anyway, thanks for the topic, all of your great contributions, hope mine aren’t too inappropriate, and as we think of Reverend Martin Luther King this month, and of all of the racism, oppression that still exists… I pray we remember his dream and God’s plan and move forward in the Church and in our world to more of God’s Image of His Children–exalted, noble, saved for the last days–the best for last (Saturday Warrior, right?)black or red or yellow or brown or white… brothers and sisters literally, all with our lessons… and eternal glory and lots of dancing ahead if we get it right. Amen.

Margaret, I think there are many shades of foreordenation that could be construed to affect ones station in life. That is not to say that there aren’t distorted foreordaination theologies floating about.

I think it is reasonable that God is cognisant of our indavidual situations, even to the extent that our race, family and consequent social situation was determined by God.

One could make the case that a Zimbabwaian is statistically more likely to accept the gospel than say a frenchmen and that consequently frenchmen are less valiant, but I don’t think extrapolation makes sense in this topic.

Enroute to the Church Office Building, I heard KALL radio’s inital broadcast re: The Revelation (… er, polciy change). Rushing in to break the news, I found Leonard and the rest of the crew celebrating (well …). My only crack at the church history hall of fame instantly evaporated, but boy were we happy. PS you probably don’t know me, Molly, but I’m a great fan. Thanks to you and who-the-heck is to be blamed for this resource. A blogging neophyte.