Book of Mormon and Melanin

God doesn't care about skin color. The Book of Mormon Jacob told his people to not look down on the Lamanites because of their skin color. The darker skin was just a mark that the Nephites associated with the curse. It was not the curse itself.

Jacob 3:9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.

What was the curse of Cain, or Ham, and Laman and Lemuel? It was that Cain, Ham, Laman and Lemuel not only rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ, but they also rejected civilization and became superstitious hunting-gathering savages. I mean if everyone came from Adam and Eve, and Adam and Eve were blessed with knowledge of advanced civilization, somewhere down the line someone had to reject civilization and become the aboriginals of Africa, Australia, and America, etc. The curse which is passed on to children is that the children will not have the same opportunity as the the parents to accept or reject Christ. The curse is the inequality of opportunity caused by the sins of the parent and lack of education of the children.

The Book of Mormon deals as a major theme how to overcome the curse of inequality with the institution of agriculture, literacy, industry, free trade, missionary work, freedom of religion, and elected government. Through these steps the Lamanites were convinced of the incorrectness of the traditions of their parents and were converted to Christ. These same Lamanites were praised in the Book of Mormon for being more faithful, more steadfast, and more zealous in their devotion to Christ than the Nephites. There is nothing in the Book of Mormon which says that people with Black Skin are less in the eyes of God but the Book of Mormon says that God is no respecter of persons.

2 Ne. 26:33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Let me give you a great example of what I mean. My Dad is a member of his local Rotary Club. He was telling me that the Rotary Club has begun a new program building and supplying grain mills to third-world countries. It wasn't enough just to teach these people how to grow grain, because these cultures placed the responsibility of grinding the grain on the young women. Using mortar and pistil, it would take all day to grind all the grain needed to feed the family. Consequently, these young women didn't have time to learn to read or attend school. So, now with grain mills, young women for the first time could attend school and learn to read. By reading people are able to be exposed to new and elevated ways of thinking and they are convinced to the incorrectness of their traditions passed to them from their parents and are empowered to pull themselves up out of and break the cycle of poverty.

Tribute to the Faithfulness of the Lamanites
Alma 23: 6 And as sure as the Lord liveth, so sure as many as believed, or as many as were brought to the knowledge of the truth, through the preaching of Ammon and his brethren, according to the spirit of revelation and of prophecy, and the power of God working miracles in them—yea, I say unto you, as the Lord liveth, as many of the Lamanites as believed in their preaching, and were converted unto the Lord, never did fall away.

Alma 27: 27 And they were among the people of Nephi, and also numbered among the people who were of the church of God. And they were also distinguished for their zeal towards God, and also towards men; for they were perfectly honest and upright in all things; and they were firm in the faith of Christ, even unto the end.

Hel. 15: 8 (5-16) Therefore, as many as have come to this, ye know of yourselves are firm and steadfast in the faith, and in the thing wherewith they have been made free.

3 Ne. 6: 14 the church was broken up in all the land save it were among a few of the Lamanites who were converted unto the true faith; and they would not depart from it, for they were firm, and steadfast, and immovable, willing with all diligence to keep the commandments of the Lord.

Lifting the Curse: Literacy, Economy, Religious Liberty

Some critics of the Book of Mormon contend that the teaching of the Book are racist because it mentions that the Lamanites were cursed with black skin. Unfortunately, this is a huge and unfortunate misunderstanding of the Book of Mormon due to unfamiliarity with Hebrew grammatical structure.

According to the Book of Mormon, black skin is not a curse. It was an indirect mark associated with the curse. What is a curse? The curse of the Fall of Adam is the effects of Adams' sin that prevent his children from having the same choice. Because of the Fall, we the children of Adam cannot live in the garden and have the same choice to partake of the tree of knowledge or not. Yet we will suffer the consequences of death even though we don't get to make the same decision under the same circumstances. Not fair.

So it was with the children of Cain, and Ham and the Lamanites. Their apparent rejection of the principles and culture of civilization, literacy, industry, and agriculture cursed their children. Abel was a farmer and Cain was a hunter. He killed Abel and then left the family. He then became a hunter-gatherer which doomed his children to a life of hardship and exerting all efforts, hardly being able to hunt and gather enough calories. Therefore they didn't have free time to learn, study, and ponder spiritual things. The children of Cain would not have the same opportunity to accept God that Cain had. That is the curse.

The darker skin was associated with it only because living a hunting-gathering lifestyle led to more melanin production. But it doesn't mean that a person is less in the sight of God. God is no respecter of persons. They are cursed, but it was Cain who was responsible. This is the same for the children of Ham, and the Lamanites and whatever other group has adopted the savage culture.

But grains like wheat and corn are the staff of life. They can not only support large populations but they can support large civilizations. These grains are easily grown and harvested and are high in nutrients. And they can be stored for millennia. Thus people who have not rejected the agricultural and civil culture of Abel would be literate, industrious, and free and able to practice religion according to the dictates of their conscience.

The Book of Mormon does not teach that people with black skin are less in the eyes of God. What is a huge theme of the Book of Mormon is how to remove the curse. The curse is removed Six steps: 1. Agriculture, 2. literacy(Priests of Noah), 3. Industrialization 4. Free Trade, 5. Religious Liberty(Lamoni), 6. Elected Government. Then, these factors open up a people to missionary work (sons of Alma). And we see that many Lamanites were converted to the truth and those Lamanites with their dark skin were highly regarded in the Book of Mormon for their steadfastness and zeal towards Christ.

The Book of Mormon recipe is working today to lift the curse upon other nations and peoples of the Earth so that they can read God's word and be led to reject the "wicked traditions of their forefathers;" until one day the gospel will be preached to every kindred, tongue and people. While those of us who enjoy religious freedom are urged to "stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free."

Even today, there are segments of our society that mark themselves with tattoos or an effeminate voice as a sign that they have adopted a degree of savage, idividualistic, materialistic, ghetto, or sexually permissive culture. And there are other curses that parents pass on to their children like racism. A common curse it the consequences when a wayward child who grew up in a Christian home rejects that lifestyle. That child's children are considered cursed because they won't have the same opportunity. That is just what the doctrine of cursing is all about. Biblical cursing simply describes an inequality of opportunity and the resultant consequences and has nothing to do with God loving some people more that others. The major theme of the Bible describes how Christ's atonement lifts the curse of Adam, while the Book of Mormon addresses the lifting of the curse of Laman and Lemuel which was the same curse Cain passed to his children .

Cursing and Black Skin

The Book of Mormon talks a lot about the concept of cursing as well as blessing. In fact, this is a major subject of the Book. The Book of Mormon begins with a great covenant from the Lord that "Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; but inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence." This is the great covenant of blessing and cursing in the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon gives several examples of blessing and cursing beginning with Adam and the curse upon all mankind because of his transgression in the Garden of Eden. The curse is the effects that are passed down onto the children by a decision made by a parent. Because of the choice of Adam and Eve, all man will die. That doesn't seem fair because each one of us are not given the same choice Adam and Eve were, yet all are subject to the consequences.

Then there is the cursing of Laman and Lemuel who rejected the commandments of God and Nephi's leadership. The Book of Mormon mentions that Laman and Lemuel and their children were cursed and developed a darker or black skin. Many look at this detail as evidence that the Book of Mormon is racist and leads the LDS church to be racist against those of darker skin color.

2 Ne. 5: 21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. . . 24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.

Jacob 3: 8-9 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.

Alma 3: 6-8 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women. And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction.

But, if you read the above passages, it is clear that the cursing was not the black skin. Black skin became a mark that was associated with the curse, but not the curse itself. The curse according to the Book of Mormon was that because of disobedience, Laman and Lemuel and their descendants, were cut off from the presence of the Lord. That curse was perpetuated to the children of Laman and Lemuel because their children were taught to be idle, iliterate and superstitious and to reject the principles of civilized living. This lack of civility, or "wicked traditions of their fathers" prevented the descendants of Laman from having the same opportunity to accept or reject Christ that Laman and Lemuel had.

So, what about the Black skin? God does not care about what skin color we are. The Book of Mormon and the Bible teach that God is no respecter of persons. And the Book of Mormon demonstrated that many Lamanites with their black skin were more valiant in their faith in Christ than any Nephite ever was (Hel. 15: 8,10, Alma 23: 6).

2 Ne. 26: 33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

3 Ne. 6: 14 And thus there became a great inequality in all the land, insomuch that the church began to be broken up; yea, insomuch that in the thirtieth year the church was broken up in all the land save it were among a few of the Lamanites who were converted unto the true faith; and they would not depart from it, for they were firm, and steadfast, and immovable, willing with all diligence to keep the commandments of the Lord.

Alma 27: 27. And they were among the people of Nephi, and also numbered among the people who were of the church of God. And they were also distinguished for their zeal towards God, and also towards men; for they were perfectly honest and upright in all things; and they were firm in the faith of Christ, even unto the end

The Lamanites were cursed in that Laman rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ and the culture of industry and agriculture. The Lamanites resorted to an idle hunting-gathering lifestyle and from being exposed to the elements, sun, and eating a diet of raw meat; their skin darkened. Also, when the Lamanites mixed seed with the other Native Americans who where already present, and adopted their culture (wicked traditions), black skin is a dominant trait so all the Lamanite children would be dark skinned. So, when the Nephites saw the children of Laman and Lemuel they were surprised at the change in their appearance and associated the skin with the curse.

The curse was that the Lamanites in their aboriginal state were not as blessed as the Nephites who had accepted the fullness of the gospel and the culture of hard work, literacy, agriculture, industry, and civility that go along with it. Thus all the Nephite children had the same opportunity to accept of reject the gospel of Christ while the Lamanite children did not.

The Book of Mormon talks about marking as a sign of a curse and not the curse itself. There is the example of the Amlicites who painted their foreheads red. Amlici rejected the principles of democtratic and representative government and sought to be made king over the Nephites. Amlici drew away many supporters and the political division that resulted developed into a civil war. Recognizing their weakness, Amlici joined with the Lamanites to battle against the main body of Nephites. To help distinguish themselves from the other Nephites in battle, the Amlicites marked themselves painting their foreheads red. Mormon comments how this marking was in fulfillment of the prophecy that anyone who rejects Christ and accepts the incorrect traditions of the Lamanites would be cursed as well.

Some believe at the Tower of Babel everyone's languages were all of the sudden confounded all at once. The scripture doesn't necessarily say that. It says that the people were scattered and their language was confounded. I don't think this happened all at once.

So, how does this relate to the cursing of Black skin? I don't think it necessarily was an all of the sudden thing. I am of the opinion that in consequence of rejecting Christ, and knowledge of industry and agriculture, and adopting an idle, superstitious, hunter-gatherer lifestyle that those the skin of the Lamanites turned dark because they were out in the elements and the sun in conjunction with their diet. Also, because the Lamanites likely mixed with the other Native American's, their children would have had darker skin because darker skin is a dominant trait.

The dark skin itself isn't the curse on the African or Lamanite people. It may be a mark or result of it. Any curse of the African race, like the curse of Adams transgression is the consequences that parent's sin left to their children.The only curse on the African race was their adoption of a culture of a hunter-gathering and superstition. This isn't limited to the African race. The conseqences of this lifestyle is that it takes so much effort for hunter-gatherers to get enough food that there is no time to ponder about spiritual things (Maslow's hierarchy).

So, the culture of hunting-gathering prevented the Lamanites and Africans from learning about Christ and being blessed by that knowledge. So, the blessing of wheat, corn and other cash crops is not only that they could support large populations, but that they gave man leisure time. And with that leisure time, man could pray and read scriptures and learn about God and Christ. On the other hand, according to Maslow, if a man is constantly worried about shelter and food; it doesn't leave him time to concern himself with higher, spiritual needs.

The curse is lifted once a people accept a culture which allows facilitates literacy, learning, industry, and agriculture. Remember that there is no reason there should be hunter-gathers in the first place. Able had been taught agricultural practices and to cultivate. Cain was a hunter but could have benefited from Abel's garden. But, Cain killed Abel and left the family to live on his own. Thus the Earth had its first culture of hunting and gathering.

Then came the mark of black skin which became a mark associated with the curse, but the skin itself is not the curse. When the Book of Mormon says that in the Last days the Lamanites skin will be fair and delightsome. It's not saying that their skin will change color. It is talking about that they will adopt a culture of civilization which will enable them to accept Christ.

Moro. 9:12 And only a few years have passed away, and they were a civil and a delightsome people (notice how Mormon substitutes civil for the word fair).

A major theme of the Book of Mormon talks about the wicked priests of Noah being exiled, stealing new wives of the Lamanite daughters, eventually integrating with the Lamanites and being made teachers over the Lamanites. Teaching them to read and write and to engage in trade. The literacy of the Lamanites then made it possible for the Nephites to take the Brass Plates and preach to the Lamanites and convince them of the incorrect traditions of their fathers (hunting and gathering).

So, because of literacy and free trade, the gospel of Jesus Christ was spread and many Lamanites came to a knowledge of Christ. We see the same influences on civilization today. Literacy and Free Trade will soon open up China to the preaching of Christianity as it has many other countries.

So, in the end, the curse isn't the black skin. The black skin is only a mark of the curse. The curse is the rejection of literacy, industry, agriculture, and civilization. We see many in the inner-city reject literacy and industry and they mark themselves with markings which reflect their gang and ghetto culture. Other anti-civilization groups mark themselves in other ways. Homosexual males mark themselves by speaking with an effeminate voice.

So, if having black skin does not mean that a person is less valiant or less worthy in the eyes of the Lord, or is cursed by God; then why did the LDS church not allow Black males to receive the priesthood? The answer is, I don't know. Another speculative answer is the subject of other posts, but it more had to do with God making allowance for the learned racism of my parents and grandparents than it did the unworthiness or cursed status of the Black race.

How can we learn from the principle of cursing and marking today? The United States is fighting a culture war (Bill OReily). This is not a black and white war. This war is a civilization vs. law of the jungle war. As it relates to inner-city poverty; inner-city poverty is not a black issue. It is a ghetto culture issue that is white, Asian, Hispanic, and black. Ghetto culture romanticizes and legitimizes a negative culture of materialism and sexual immorality that results in illegitimacy and poverty. There are many other examples like religious extremism. Those of us in the civilized world need to preserve the principles of literacy, industry, learning, agriculture, religious liberty which will allow our children the same opportunities that we have had to accept or reject Christ. Again and again the Book of Mormon and Bible prophets and Apostles tell us the "stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free" (Gal. 5: 1, Mosiah 23: 13, Alma 58: 40, Alma 61: 9, 21, Hel. 15: 8).

Racial Priesthood Ban

I was recently asked why there existed a past LDS policy which denied temple entrance to Blacks. The official doctrine of the church is "we don't know." Which is my position. But I followed that up with a few things that I have heard and feel right to me on the subject.

After President Kimball received the revelation on priesthood, Elder McConkie said "forget what he or Brigham Young or anyone said that was contrary to the present revelation." LDS were always against slavery. The LDS church was severely perscecuted for this very fact. Joseph Smith originally started to ordain blacks to the priesthood but then for some reason stopped. The unfortunate speculation by McConkie and others in response to this policy rightly assumed that the racial ban was inspired. However, the folowing speculation led to many racially interpret scripture. McConkie and others use the same flawed logic that the Baptist church used to justify slavery (cain doctrine) with the added racist interpretation of Abraham (pre-existence). It was wrong, and McConkie clearly retracted.

So, if the ban was inspired, why was it necessary? The same reason I think the ban was necessary is the same reason why Christ came to the Jews and not the Gentiles at first. It is because he went to the most biggoted people. We know how biggoted the Jews were. They would even walk around Samaria through the desert to go to Galilee to avoid having to go through the Samaritan land. But God didn't judge the Jews because racism and bigotry is learned. But after the fullness of the Jews then the gospel went to the Gentiles. And then after the fullness of the Gentiles the gospel will go back to the Jews. And the first shall be last and the last shall be first and Ephraim will not envy Judah and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.

In the temple prayers, participants are asked if there are any unkind feelings toward other members of the group that those people would excuse themself so the Spirit of the Lord may be unrestrained. Because of our learned racism (better than many other groups; remember we were abolitionists), Joseph Smith felt that it wasn't time yet to integrate the church. Was the church under condemnation -- YES. And every president of the church has prayed that the ban would be lifted, and every president of the church has asked the members to pray that the ban be lifted. And not until Pres. Spencer Kimball got a revelation (which is said to have been a Pentecostal-type event), was the general membership sanctified by the grace of Chirst and the power of the Holy Spirit of its racism and bigotry enough to worship together in the temple.

So, the basis for the temporary ban has precedent in the Bible but has nothing to do with that Blacks were more or less worthy in the pre-existence, but that our parents and grandparents were too racist to commune and fellowship together and keep the Sprit of God working in them and in the church. Now, LDS churches are some of the most integrated churches in the world becaue of geographically defined congegations. There are no white churches or black churches or competing mega-chruches and small poor churches (except branches) and have all things (spiritually) in common. But we all worship together and the Spirit of the Lord is less restrained than it ever has been.

Also, because temple ordinances can be done for the dead, Joseph Smith knew that the ban was not denying these blessings to blacks permenantly. Now we have the opportuninty to do the work and make up for our past racism. That is part of what it means that "we without them cannot be made perfect neither they without us." We can repent and make restitution through temple work.

LDS Women: Working Without Going to Work

Julie B. Beck, General President of the Relief Society of the LDS church, gave a wonderfully inspired talk during the past General Conference entitled Mothers Who Know. A sign of just how inspired this talk was is the small but vocal amount of criticism the talk has garnered from within the LDS church. The point of the talk was that the ideal LDS woman desires to be a mother, to have children, to be a person of integrity, and to be spiritually minded as opposed to being materialistic and superficial.

My wife has just finished a great book by Jane Clayson Johnson (former LDS CBS anchor) entitled, I am a Mother . According to my wife and her friends, this book recounts Jane Clayson's decision to turn down a contract renewal at CBS so that she could focus on being a wife and mother. The book's main point seems to be that "just being a mother is enough." However, in discussing the book and contrasting it's thesis with Pres. Beck's talk, my wife is of the opinion that "just being a mother" does not represent LDS Doctrine, nor does it correlate in any way with the spirit and message of Pres. Beck in talk during this past General Conference.

Now, don't misunderstand, Jane Clayson's book is excellent. However, it is clear that Clayson's life since her decision to turn down the CBS job starkly contradicts her thesis statement. Being "just a mother" is not enough for Clayson. That's why she wrote this book and why she travels the country on a book tour and giving endless firesides and motivational speeches. In the same way, "just being a mother" shouldn't be considered enough for any woman. And again we get into the pendulum swinging false dichotomy thing yet again where one side argues that just being a mom is good enough while the other side argues that woman need to perform a male role to be considered of value to society.

When Pres. Beck said that "mothers who know desire to bare children, are nurturers, and do less" she is not saying that just being a mother is enough. But on the other hand, the measure of a woman's worth should not held to a male standard. The crux of Pres. Beck's talk was that baring and nurturing children along with personal spirituality and obedience are the things that will bring women their most fulfillment in life. This is not an issue of capability. The issue is that at the end of the day, if a woman earns all the honors of men but never rears a family she is more likely to feel regret. Now the other side is trying to tell us that this guilt is artificially put on women by a negative and chauvinistic society and that if we changed the traditional foundation of our society that women could be freed to perform the male role be be freed from the oppressive feelings of regret and guilt.

I do not want to be misunderstood either on the point of women in the workplace. I fully support women in the workplace. Women in the workplace make an amazing and critical contribution. I fully support allowing women the freedom to choose when and if they will gain an education, work, marry and have children. However, I hope I can be free to encourage and champion the role of woman as mother and nurturer in the home.

That said, "just being a mother" is not enough for any woman. It is not enough for Pres. Beck, for Jane Clayson, or my wife, and does not reflect LDS Doctrine in any way. My wife told me as we discussed this Clayson book and the Beck talk that it is very important that she feel she can both work inside and outside the home without having to leave her children and go to work outside the home.

So, how does my wife find the right balance in her life. Well, honestly she hasn't always been balanced. But, she choose to get married and have a family during college. And we have been blessed to have 3 healthy children despite considerable difficulty and adversity. She has worked hard to develop a skill as an ASL (American Sign Language) interpreter. As it turns out she has not finished her college degree yet which she has mixed feelings about. When we moved to our current job we were disappointed that there is not a prominent deaf community in the area. Consequently, my wife hasn't had the pleasure of using her ASL skills the last 2 years. However, as divine providence would have it, a member of our LDS congregation is loosing her hearing and now requires ASL translation. My wife hasn't been happier since she has started to ASL translate for this deaf sister each Sunday and to teach a Sunday School class in ASL. She also is busy planning baby showers for other new mothers in our neighborhood and social circle as well as planning play dates, going to the gym regularly, making dinners when needed and planning other social engagements. She also loves to actively participate in our children's school classes. And she has 4 of her best girlfriends who she went to highschool with who all attend medical school here and who look up to her and envy her.

My wife's experience supports that "just being a mom" should never be considered enough for any woman. My wife will be the first to tell you that she is far from the ideal (I disagree however). She has no intention to be a so-called "supermon" and we make it a point to ignore the "Jones'" and the latest fashions. And although the home is the source of her greatest happiness and joy, it is important for my wife to be a well-rounded, productive, and balanced individual where she is free to work inside and outside the home without being forced to go to work.

Family Roles

Human needs fall into 4 major categories: temporal, spiritual, emotional, and social. The traditional family is the most efficent vehicle for meeting these needs. There isn't a social organization that can outperform the family in terms of effectiveness, or efficency with regard to taking care of people. Unfortunately, the family us under seige and people are suffering the effects of unmet need: drug addiction, overeating, promescuity, consumer debt. The destruction of the traditional family is the #1 contributer to poverty and crime in this country.

When it comes to traditional men and women's roles the LDS church teaches that families do better when fathers (generally speaking) focus on their family's temporal and spiritual needs while the mother focus on the emotional and social needs. When I say better, I mean the family as a whole does better. If our roles were reversed, my wife could likely earn more money and establish a more spiritual family environment than I do. But she can't outperform what both of us can do together with me focusing on some needs and her focusing on others. Fortunately, the most skilled parent (my wife) is assigned to the more critical task of nurturing the children.

I have a friend who studied to become a CPA and wanted a simple 9-5 job so he could stay home more with his family and do more of the fun social and emotional stuff. Well, turned out that as a CPA he could only get a job that earned 24-36,000 a year and the financial stress almost tore his marriage and family appart. Finally, he recognized that an extra sacrifice needed to made and that it was his primary role to "bring home the bacon." So, instead of asking his wife to get a job, he started working longer hours, traveling, and getting more training. Now, he brings home $80,000 and his marriage and family is doing great. He still spends plenty of time with his wife and kids. But when an extra sacrifice needed to be made, he knew he was the one who needed to make it.

Did the kids miss their Dad? Sure. But, all that time they had a stay-at-home mom who was their to do care for their social and emotional needs. Consequently, they are all very intelligent, motivated, straight-A, straight-arrow kids (and they have had serious issues they've needed to work through). If mom had decided to work instead of Dad working harder, things likely wouldn't have worked out as well. Having 2 people doing the same job is too inefficient. Division of labor is the most efficent way to get things done.

Sociologist have loads of evidence to support my argument. If mom wanted to work also, consider how much it cost to pay for her wardrob, transportation, and childcare expenses. Salary.com determined that a stay-at-home mother might be paid as much as $134,121 for her contributions as a housekeeper, cook, day care center teacher, janitor and CEO, among other functions. So, unless mom is bringing home that kind of cash, she is more valuable at home. But then that still leaves the kids without emotional support for which you would have to factor the cost of the drug rehab or other counciling everyone will need because noone was there for them emotionally when they needed it.

The reason why God makes generalized commandments is because he is looking out for the good of the many. Most rules work this way. Generally speaking, families do better if the most skilled parent is home doing the nurturing (usually the mother). There are exceptions to this. But, God makes rules like this because he understands that majority of people will have successful families if they stick to the rule. And even if you were the exception, God would still likely expect you to obey the rule because the rules are easier to keep if they become generally socially acceptable and traditional. But there are always exceptions and if both parents must work or the wife works and the husband stays at home, it's not the ideal, but then you do the best you can.

LDS Patriarchy

Men and women are consider to be of equal status in the LDS church. The reason mormon women do not preside in LDS congregations is a matter of role and not status. [women weekly preach sermons, give prayers, teach sunday school, and hold presidency positions over local, stake and church-wide general primary, young women, relief society organizations]. Being the same is not being equal.

Because childbirth and child-rearing tends to be spiritually sanctifying endevers for women, the priestood assigns men spiritual duties that they would not normally take on themselves. So, by priesthood assignment, the father is supposed to “lead out” in getting the family together to read scriptures, have family prayer, and family home evening. They are also supposed to call family councils and conduct family priesthood interviews and give father’s blessings. These are all spiritually-minded tasks that help fathers be more spiritually minded to off-set their primarily temporal role as breadwinner outside the home.

How does this presiding business affect decision-making? Not much. When my wife and I make a decision, we make it together. I would never just tell my wife, “I am the deciderer.” The patriarch is the presiderer, not the deciderer. Therefore, we pray about decisions together and do not act until we both feel like we know that the Lord is accepting of our joint decision. Church council should operate the same way.

Then when things get tough, we dont look at each other and say , “good going, this is all your fault, I never thought this was a good idea in the first place.” Instead, we say, “hey, we both felt good about this, that the Lord was okay with it. So, lets be patient and faithful and things will work out in the end.”

In conclusion, God has given that men preside because of our lack of spiritual fitness. We need the exercize. Church leadership is not a status symbol. The Bible teaches us that leaders in the church should be the servants of all. God gave his church leaders like Peter keys to suggest that his status was more like a janitor than a king. And many Apostles reminded the Saints that they were the least in heaven. There is nothing about a calling itself that will get you into heaven any sooner or in front of anyone else. Callings do not save. But the spiritually-minded service that men have the opportunity to perform can help draw us closer to Christ who is the only and true Savior.

Priesthood Ban: The Last Shall Be First

This post contains thoughts related to a post on By Common Consent. In 1969, the First Presidency issued a letter on the preisthood ban which is considered by many to most closely refect the view of the LDS church on this matter. (see below)

This First-Presidency statement on the priesthood ban make the following points. The LDS church has always favored civil rights for blacks. The church maintains it's historical abolisionist, anti-slavery position. The LDS church believes that the priesthood ban was God’s will, came through revelation and was taught by Joseph Smith. However, God did not reveal the reason for the ban. According to God's will, the church maintained the ban and considered such action to be it's first amendment right. Yet at the same time, the First Presidency made it clear that blacks are spirit children of God, and descendants of Adam and Eve and that members should continue to pray that the ban would one day be lifted and suggests that the ban will only be temporary and eventually the blessings of the priesthood and temple would be available to everyone. This also suggests that many if not all the President's of the church have continually prayed that the ban would be lifted.

Despite this letter, Elder McConkie and others continued to speculate and justify the ban though a racial interpretation of scripture. Their assumption was that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were inspired to institute the policy. So, they interpreted the Bible to explain why such a racist policy would be heavenly justified. That lead them to racially interpret passages of scriptures which spoke of the "noble and great" in the pre-existence. They also adopted southern christian interpetations which were used historically to justify slavery which had to do with descendancy theories through Cain and Ham. This kind of reasoning led to some rather unfortunate opinions and statements.

However, after the ban was lifted, Elder McConkie in August of 1978 said, "Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." This statement is not saying that Elder McConkie believes the original ban was not inspired. This quote serves as a statement of retraction by Elder McConkie's for previous arguments which speculated about the ban and attempted to scripturally support the church's policy. However, Elder McConkie confesses all these arguments were wrong. Therefore, I feel no need do defend them; as they do not represent Mormon Doctrine.

Despite this example of the inherent dangers of speculation, I believe the ban was inspired and temporarily necessary. The reason the ban may have been temporarily necessary was not because God is racist, or the prophet; but I may have been simply because the individual members in the chruch were racist. And our racism inside and outside the church may have severly limited the reach of the church.

Had the gospel been preached to the slaves and in Africa from the beginning, those humble, spiritual people would have joined immediately. Unfortunately, my racist ancestors then would never had joined the church. Therefore, like Christ teaching to the bigoted Jews first and then to the Gentiles, the gospel was to go the the more bigoted Gentiles first and then to the rest of the house of Israel. "The first shall be last and the last shall be first" and "Ephraim shall not envy Judah and Judah shall not vex Ephraim."

The learned racism within the individual members of the church would have had other grave consequences. I imagine that many of our prayers in the temple would have been more ineffectual because the spirit of the Lord would have been restrained due to a greater level of unkind and racial feelings.

That said, the ban is now lifted and the church is no longer under condemnation and our prayers inside and outside the temple are much more effectual now then ever before. Since God has seen in his wisdom that his church was ready for the ban to be revoked I have witnessed the the windows of heaven opening up and showering blessings from heaven upon his church. Thank Our Heavenly Father the ban is lifted.

December 15, 1969

To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.

Dear Brethren:

In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by “wise men” whom God raised up for this “very purpose,” and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended “for the rights and protection” of all mankind.In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is “not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.” These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church’s deep and historic concern with man’s free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.

It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.

However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.

This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.

A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.

We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our chosen form of religion just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of Constitutional right.We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.

We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in His wisdom and in His tender mercy.Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the out-reachings of our divine souls.

Faithfully your brethren,The First Presidency

Racism and Priesthood: Inspired or Uninspired

Armand L. Mauss wrote an excellent article published by FAIR, whcih presents a credible opinion to explain the historical LDS policy of race and priesthood. The paper begins with a quote by Elder McConkie in August of 1978 who says, "Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." This quote confessed that Elder McConkie's previous arguments to biblically defend the church's policy which denied priesthood to the blacks, was wrong.

Before the 1978 revelation, Elder McConkie and others tried to support the church racial policy with the Bible. Their assumption was that Brigham Young was inspired to institute the policy. So, they interpreted the Bible to explain why such a racist policy would be heavenly justified. That lead them to racially interpret passages of scriptures which spoke of the "noble and great" in the pre-existence. McConkie and others were of the opinion that God must have denied the black race the priesthood because the blacks were spirits who were less righteous in the pre-existence. This argument is shocking to the 21st-century ear. However, Mauss cuts McConkie some slack by saying that he was faithfully, yet blindly, trying to justify an uninspired racist policy. However, after the revelation in 1978, McConkie immediately realized God's mind and will and that his previous rationalizations to defend the policy were wrong.

It is doubtful that the policy to deny the priesthood to blacks originated with Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith himself confirred the priesthood upon his friend Elijah Able. The article says that the later church policy was not inspired by God but was a product of widespread 19th-century racism and concessions by Brigham Young during his battles with the national government for statehood. The Mormon's were the most politically radical group in the nation. Mormon's opposed slavery, practiced polygamy, and were governed by a theocracy. In an attempt to gain acceptance by the political mainstream, Brigham Young relaxed or reversed some of these policies. Mauss seems to say that Brigham Young may have instituted this policy because the national goverment feared the abolishionist mormons would start preaching and converting all the slaves and encouraging them to escape to the west (not a bad idea).

Mauss argues that all christian churches were racist at that day. All the main-stream christian denominations supported slavery, denied blacks the priesthood and/or had a policy of racial segregation. These racist policies only began to change during the civil rights movement in the 1960's. However, if all the other christian chuches had begun to change their racist policies, why did the LDS church wait until 1978? No other christian churches get flack for having a racist past. Had Mormons changed with everyone else in the 1960's, we would have gotten the same pass as all the other churches. So, why did the church wait intil 1978? LDS believe that it is because it wasn't until 1978 that God finally revealed his will on the matter to Spencer W. Kimball, who was President and Prophet of the LDS church.

However, Mauss goes on to argue that the evidence supports the conclusion that the LDS church policy was not inspired but a consquence of wide-spread 19th-century racism. I'm not sure I agree with Mauss' conclusoin. I do agree that the LDS church didn't change it's race policy during the 1960's civil rights movement with everyone else because the church does not do anything that important until it receives revelation from God to do it. However, it does't make sense to me to believe the church policy is uninspired on one hand but require inspiration to revoke it on the other. Also, I don't think the Brigham Young's arguments to defend the policy are evidence for against the policy being inspired.

Brigham Young looked to the Bible to defend the policy to deny Blacks the priesthood just as he did all the doctrines and policies of the church. Many of the arguments used by McConkie and others using the doctrine of the pre-existence or the lineage of Cain, Ham etc. go back to Brigham Young. However, just because Brigham Young tried to find justification for the race policy doesn't say, one way or the other, whether the policy was inspired or not. Brigham Young would have sought to find biblical justification for the policy either way. Therefore, Elder McConkie's confession of misunderstanding in his defense of the policy cannot used as evidence that the policy itself wasn't inspired.


I disagree with Armand L. Mauss, and give as my opinion that Brigham Young would not have instituted such an important policy without first seeking and obtaining inspiration. The policy of the church was racist, but that does not necessarily mean that it couldn't also have been temporalily necessary. Just because Elder McConkie admitted after 1978 that their pevious arguments were in error, doesn't mean that the original policy wasn't given by inspiration. See my previous post for a possible argument which assumes the race policy was inspired and temporarily necessary.


That said, I am glad the priesthood is now available to all and that the church of Jesus Christ is no longer under condemnation for living briefly under a possibly preparatory and lesser-law. The Church has experienced such a great outpouring of blessings since 1978.

Racist Ban to Save a Racist World

I, like most other LDS members, have been asked on many occasions to explain why the LDS church denied blacks the priesthood until 1978. During a recent debate between Rev. Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens, Hitchens used this issue as one of many examples where man has acted unjustly in the name of religion. Both this and the recent PBS Documentary entitled "The Moromons" by Helen Whitney which focused a chapter of her documentary on this issue, got me to examine how best to answer this concern when it arises.

As I have come to understand it, the official church doctrine on this issue is something akin to Adam's response in the Book of Moses when an angel asks him why he offers sacrifice unto the Lord. Adam responds, "I know not save the Lord commanded me." I believe that Joseph Smith and later president's of the church are prophets of God and that God revealed his will concerning this issue. But, the reason God chose to deny blacks the priesthood for a time, hasn't been revealed. "Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good;" (D&C 56: 4-6).

Now, some people consider this response a non-answer or an attempt to avoid the question. Others feel the idea that God would command that a certain group would be blessed and another not, based on race, as blasphemy. The Bible clearly teaches that, "God is no respecter of persons:" (Acts 10: 34). However, the denying of certain blessings to a certain group by Christ is not unprecedented. The Woman of Canaan asked Christ to cast a devil out of her daughter to which Christ responded, "It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs" (Matt. 15: 26). Christ did cast out the devil according the woman's faith, but the verse does seem to suggest a preferential attitude towards the Jews. Only after Christ's resurrection, were his Apostles commanded to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations," (Matt. 28: 19).

So, If this kind of thing is not unprecedented. So, we are left to speculate on why Christ would institute a temporary policy of racism. Or maybe I am interpreting the "dog" comment inaccurately. In addition, if God is an unchangeable God, why didn't he preach to the gentiles and other nations from the beginning? Or, if you accept that God had his reasons during his ministry to focus on the Jews but that Christ's church was charged to "teach all nations" and therefore the true church of Christ should carry on that commission; how do you explain that? Paul, who had embraced Christ's commission, taught, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3: 28).

Well, first off, we know that Christ and his church were not racist. Evidence for this is his interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well. She was dumbfounded that a Jewish male would speak to her at all (John 4: 7, 9). In addition to portraying Christ's lack of prejudice, this verse illustrates just how racist the Jews were as a whole. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that certain doctrines existed to make allowance for this.

The policy to exclude blacks from the church was a racist policy by definition. It is an undeniable fact. But, that leads us to then ask, was it necessary? And did God command it? Well, first off, the term "all nations" does not mean the whole world. In this context, "all nations," is meant to refer to the Gentile nations only. The Apostles are recorded to have gone to countries with long-established Jewish populations where they taught in the synagogues and focused on the Jews and Gentiles in those communities.

But what of the Ethiopian man who was taught and baptized by Philip (Acts 8: 27)? Ethiopia is Africa. Well, according to documented ancient Ethiopian history, Jews had been living there since at least 800 BC. The Ethiopian eunuch was not a proselyte, but was a natural born Jew who, according to the verse, came to Jerusalem "to worship" in the Temple. And Gentiles were not allowed to worship in the temple (Acts 21: 26-30).

Now, how does this relate at all the early LDS church? How could the church defend a clearly racist and bigoted policy? The Mormon Church was itself the focus of great injustice, and bigotry that still exists today. The Mormons were against slavery from the beginning and abolitionist beliefs were a major reason the Church was persecuted which ultimately let to Governor Boggs of Missouri signed an extermination order , which was not rescinded until 1976. Hard to believe, but it was technically legal to kill a Mormon in the state of Missouri from 1836 to 1976. Mormon's were greatly persecuted for their views against slavery, which they sacrificed their property, and lives to defend. Mormons never compromised on their abolishionist beliefs.

The Book of Mormon itself teaches equality, "For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile" (2 Ne. 26: 33). So, it the Book of Mormon clearly teaches equality, then why would the LDS Church have a racist policy? While many Evangelical Christian churches are segregated by race, Mormon churches, due to geographical delineation, are some of the most diverse and integrated Christian congregations in the world.

But, all that still doesn't get us to a satisfactory answer. God is not racist and the LDS church had a racist policy for a 150 years; why? Well, I think the story of the Samaritan woman at the well is the key. God gave the LDS church a racist policy because we were and are racist. The whole nation was. Because of man's overwelming natural tendancy toward bigotry, Christ's restored church just narrowly escaped annihilation. Had God's church started preaching to blacks from the start, preaching equality, and having integrated church meetings; the church would have never survived.

Is there a Biblical precedent for God asking someone to lie for God's purposes? Yes! Abraham was commanded to not tell pharoah that Sarah was his wife, but instead say that she was his sister. And, Peter was specifically told that he should deny that he knew Christ 3 times so that he would be able to continue to lead Christ's newly-established church. Peter wept bitterly not because of unfaithfulness, but rather, because he knew he could not prevent the death of the Savior. Had Peter, who had just prior, lifted a sword in defense of Jesus died with Jesus, the keys of the priesthood would have died with him.

There is a story I heard from a past mission president in New Zealand which illustrates another side of this point. One of the early LDS missionaries to New Zealand was a man named Matthew Cowley. He did not have very much success with the Europeans so he started teaching the humble Maori Natives. Well, he was incredibly successful. But now when the missionaries go to teach the Europeans and other non-Maori, they get the reply, "we think the work you are doing with the Maori is great, but we have our church." It's as if the Pakeha (non-Maori) see the LDS church simply as a Maori church and their learned bigotry prevents them from considering the LDS church at all.

So, what does this have to do with the LDS church? Well, had the missionaries gone to Africa, or to convert slaves here in the US, instead of going to Europe for converts, they would have been astonishingly successful. The faithful, spiritual, and humble US slaves, or people of Africa and other 3rd-world nations would have readily considered and received the true church. However, had that been the case, my ancestors, who were racists because they were taught to be racist, may never have considered the LDS church at all.

So, there seems to be a higher wisdom and order in the way the gospel goes forth to all nations first, and then to every kindred, nation, tongue and people later, "And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last" (Luke 13: 30, 1 Ne. 13: 42). The reason for this racist commandment that the gospel should be preached to certain groups first and other groups later is not because God is racist or God's kingdom is racist. Rather, it is because the people God is trying to save are racist.

So, it was a racist policy for a very imperfect and racist world which was prophesied by Isaiah who said, "Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me" (Isa. 49: 22-23).

It turns out that both the Bible and Book of Mormon present a very prejudiced, yet humbling picture of how the God's kingdom would be established in the Last Days. The descendants of Abraham and the house of Israel, namely the 12 tribes, are described as God's chosen people who are entitled to eternal blessings in the afterlife through Christ. Unfortunately, because of disobedience, the nation and people of Israel were scattered among all nations of the Earth. Much of the blood of Israel is among the humble people who live in 3rd-world counties. The Bible teaches that before the restoration and gathering of the 12 tribes, that God's kingdom would go to the Gentiles and then after a fullness of the Gentiles is achieved, the Kingdom would go from the Gentiles to the remnant of the Tribes of Israel (the rightful heirs).

And what about those people who fall through the cracks. Well, that’s why the LDS church focuses on genealogy and does vicarious proxy baptism, marriages, and priesthood ordination on behalf of the dead (1 Cor. 15: 29). Therefore, in the end, there will be no crack for anyone to fall through. Death isn't a crack (1 Cor. 15: 55-56), Christ overcame death. Work for the dead is a large part of that. And in the end, through this marvelous work and and wonder, Isaiah promises that there will finally be an end to prejudice, bigotry, racism. Isaiah promises, "The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, . . . Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim" (Isa. 11: 13).

But, all of that explanation still isn't enough because all these evidences are circumstancial at best. Therefore, a better way would be to actually talk to some of the thousands of blacks of have joined the LDS church since 1978. They're the one's who have personally delt with this question first-hand. I'm sure it seems the existence of any black LDS members defies logic. If this policy was so clearly racist, then why would blacks ever consider joining the church at all? According to those LDS blacks I know, they are LDS because they have received the same answers to prayer, and spiritual witness that I have that Joseph Smith was God's prophet and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. Chruch member learn that once you have received your own answers to these big questions, then you can feel confident to go on in the Mormon direction even if all the minor details haven't been worked out yet on every issue. No, Mormon's do not just blindly follow. We follow in faith because of what we already know to be true.

Prejudice and Priesthood

A friend at work is invstigating the LDS Church. He is African American and asked about early church policy regarding denying priesthood to African Americans. We had a good discussion on the issue and I wanted to post some of the points of our discussion as well as some commentary.

It seems that jealousy and prejudice have been associated with the priesthood since the beginning. Genesis records that Abel's sacrifice was accepted by the Lord while Cain's was not. Instead of accepting the judgements of God, the Bible says that Cain's countenance fell. Then, because of jealousy, Cain murdered his brother Abel. As priestood is traced throughout the Bible from Noah to Shem; then from Melchesidek to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the theme of jealousy is repeated again and again. The Bible recounts the story of Joseph who was sold into Egypt. Many current conflicts can be traced back to similar ancient quarrels. In fact, Isaiah forsaw the conflict between the Jews (Judah) and the Samaritans (Ephraim) and prophecied in the last days, "Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim" (Isa. 11: 13).

The theme of jealousy is central to the story of the Book of Mormon. After the arrival of Lehi's family in the Americas, the elder brothers Laman and Lemuel attempted to murder Nephi who they saw as a threat to their "right to the government." Many years later wars were waged between the Nephites and Lamanites under the pretense that Nephi "did wrong their brethren, insomuch that [he] did rob them of their right to the government when it rightly belonged unto them" (Alma 54: 17, 24).

It stands to reason that if the LDS church were Christ's church, that it would be above prejudice and jealousy. However, the Bible and Book of Mormon clearly show God reserving his authority for some and denying it to others. Is the LDS church prejudice? That all depends on if the church is lead by a prophet who receives direct revelation from God who has a perfect "foreknowledge of all things" (Alma 13: 3,7-9).

1. The official church stance on why God denied priesthood authority and temple blessings to African Americans until 1978 is---We don't know why, except that God commanded it by revelation through a living prophet.

(Moses 5: 6) And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord. And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.

(Isa. 55: 9) For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

2. The LDS church condemned slavery and segregation. Because of its policy on slavery, among other issues, the LDS church was percecuted and mobbed. The Book of Mormon as well as the Bible teaches that "God is no respector of persons" (2 Chr. 19: 7)(Acts 10: 34)(Rom. 2: 11).

(2 Ne. 26: 33) For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

3. The Bible gives many examples of priesthood authority being given to some and not others.

(Ex. 29: 4-44) And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water. . . Then shalt thou take the anointing oil, and pour it upon his head, and anoint him. . . and thou shalt consecrate Aaron and his sons. . . I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons, to minister to me in the priest’s office.

(Matt. 15: 27) And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, . . . But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. . . It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.

(John 15: 16) Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you.

(1 Cor. 14: 34-35) Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to [preside]; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

4. Because Christ's church is lead by a prophet, Peter receives a revelation that the gospel can finally be taught to the Gentiles. This foreshadows the events in the latter-days that, after a period of time, the Lord's prophet would once again receive a revelation that the priesthood and temple blessings would be made available to all worthy males.

(Acts 10: 28) And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

5. Through latter-day temple work, performed on behalf of the deceased by vicarious proxy, all spiritual blessings are made availible to every son and daugter of Adam irrespective to race, color, or ethnicity.

(1 Cor. 15: 29) Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

6. The revelation received by President Spencer W. Kimball in 1978 was not driven by pressure from the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 60's. The revelation came over 10 years after the death of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. If LDS policy were based on prejudice and bigotry, then I think it more likely that the church would have reversed its policy years earlier.

7. Despite the chuch's history, African American's are joining the LDS church in record numbers. Before the revelation in 1978, there were independent, congregations of believers in Nigeria and Ghana. During the 60's-70's the requests from Africa for information on the LDS church exceeded the rest of the world combined (http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=1779). Everyone who joins the church learns that God has called living prophets today and that God has given us additional scripture in the Book of Mormon. I invite anyone with concerns regarding blacks and the priesthood to talk to an African American Latter-day Saint. They, like me, have read and prayed about the Book of Mormon and have been told by God by way of the Holy Spirit that it is the word of God.

9. Had the Mormon faith began baptizing and ordaining African Americans clergy in 1830, the church would have insighted even more persecution than it already did. As it was, in a country established on the ideals of freedom of religion, with the mardyrdom of Joseph Smith and the mobbings of the LDS church members from New York, to Ohio, to Missouri, to Illinois, and then to Utah; the chruch narrowly escaped intact. However, I do not consider this point as important as the following.

8. Athough, the revelations on the priestood themselves were not inspired by bigotry and racism. I believe they were given for exactly that purpose. Let me explain. I heard a story of an early LDS missionary Matthew Cowley who served among the Maori people in New Zealand. The Mormon Church had amazing success with the Maori as well as other Polynesian peoples. Later, as missionaries attempted to share the LDS faith with the more affluent European settlers, they would say, "we are so grateful for the work you do with the Maori, but we are not at all interested in learning about their church." The Europeans identified the church with the Maori, and their prejudice against them prevented them from any consideration of the Mormon message.

How does that apply to the Bible and to the early LDS church? In Christ's day, there were no more prejudice, racist, and bigoted people than the Jews (generally speaking). Partly due to their captivity and state of apostasy, the Jewish culture dispised the Samaritians, they scorned the Gentiles, and held disdain for all other heathen cultures. In the 1830's my european ancestors were equally prideful. I don't necessarily condemn them. Racism and bigotry is transmitted from generation to generation like a plague. I believe that had the Mormon faith been first preached to the humble African-, Native-, and Hispanic- Americans that they would have immediately embrassed it, and my ancestors, like the Europeans in New Zealand, would have never considered it.

So, yes we were and still are prejudice in some ways, but according to the perfect foreknowledge of God, he has provided a way for the Gentiles to repent of our pride, come unto Christ, and be saved. And now all are invited to come unto him, "And the time cometh that he shall manifest himself unto all nations, both unto the Jews and also unto the Gentiles; and after he has manifested himself unto the Jews and also unto the Gentiles, then he shall manifest himself unto the Gentiles and also unto the Jews, and the last shall be first, and the first shall be last" (1 Ne. 13: 42)(Mark 10: 31)(Luke 13: 30)(read Parable of the Laborers: Matt. 20).