Talk:Black people and early Mormonism/Archive 1

Scope and advice
Currently this page is entirely devoted to the discussion of how the LDS Church has regarded blacks with respect to the specific issue of the priesthood. This is an important topic, but it really isn't about the entire relationship between blacks and the church. Moreover, it doesn't say anything about how blacks regarded the church. It's strictly about how the church regarded blacks, so it's only about one side of the relationship.

As a general matter of style, moreover, I think its poor form to write an article that begins, "this is an article about..." I think the first sentence of the article can be deleted in its entirety without any loss of significant meaning. --Sheldon Rampton 04:38, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * You're right. I changed the intro. And with regard to the content, I agree. The article needs at least information about the Genesis Groups, as well as about the protests that occurred against the Church, and at BYU in the late 1960s. It could also mention what various black leaders have said about the Church. I'm probably not personally going to get back to this article for a while, though. COGDEN 00:30, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Separate "Negro doctrine" article?
I'm not entirely sure yet, but I've considered starting a separate article entitled "Negro doctrine" to discuss the purely doctrinal issues regarding blacks and the Church. I would imagine this article would include a discussion of the increasingly less accepted doctrines that blacks were descendents of Cain and/or Ham, that they were "less valiant" in the preexistence, that the Church's 19th Century survival depended upon being discriminatory, and some of the other doctrinal rationales for the Church's policies regarding blacks, along with more modern Mormon scholarship as to why these doctrines might have been wrong. Then this article could focus primarily on the Church's institutional relationship with blacks. COGDEN 18:35, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is the doctrine was taught by Smith, according to many different statements by the twelve and members of the council of fifty, and later discussed and voted upon in winter quarters non-publicly, so Historians are not sure what exactly led to this decision/doctrine. It clearly had something to do with the governmental structure of the kingdom of god, as well as the church and spiritual side, but unfortunately we just don't know. I'd rather keep a historical explanation of it here, but it definitely warrants its own section in the body of the article. -Visorstuff 19:52, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Church's Modern Renunciation of Racial Exclusion
I don't think the word "Renunciation" is appropriate. To me, the word "renunciation" indicates that the LDS Church has "renounced" its past policy of racial discrimination. They've not done so; rather, they merely changed the policy. In fact, the LDS Church maintains that the policy was inspired of God. Regardless of our current ongoing discussion about the source of the ban, can we all agree that the LDS Church has not, to date, renounced the policy of racial discrimination? I propose the following edit to the section title: "The LDS Church Changes Its Policy of Racial Discrimination in 1978."

Anon edit
Removal of Uncited POV reference 68.224.247.41, please cite the following reference before including again. It may be interesting to note, but is a highly unusual reference that is uncited. Also, very POV - needs editing - especially the last line, which has no place in this entry unless it is a quote from Mr. Marchant.
 * It should be noted that this revelation was the day before Spencer Kimball was called to testify in a court trial against a Mormon, Byron Marchant, who had been arrested on the charge of trespassing in the temple where he was married. Mr. Marchant, frustrated at not being allowed to promote two black children in his Boy Scout troop due to the Mormon BSA's policy that in order to be a troop leader, one must hold the priesthood of the Mormon church, was passing out literature questioning the churches discrimination of blacks. Upon Spencer Kimball's "revelation from God" all charges of trespassing were dropped and Mr. Marchant was ex-communicated from the Mormon Church. How dare he have his own revelation from God prior to Spencer W. Kimball's enlightenment? I think this is an interesting addition, if true, however, it needs to be cited. -Visorstuff 11:08, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I've added a paragraph mentioning Byron Marchant and some other internal dissenters from the priesthood ban. I have personal knowledge of Byron's case, since he happens to be my uncle. As far as documentation is concerned, he has written a self-published book about his experiences, called Trial After Trial. His excommunication and the cases of others that I mention in the paragraph I added were also reported at the time in local and national newspapers. However, the paragraph that was removed above contains a number of factual errors. To begin with, the business involving the Boy Scouts happened in 1973, and Byron's excommunication occurred in 1977, the year before Spencer Kimball ended the priesthood ban. The business involving trespassing gets a bit complicated. Back in 1973, Byron actually met with Kimball to explain his reasons for alerting the NAACP. At that time, Kimball told him that he would be willing to meet with him again to discuss the topic further, but subsequent attempts by Byron to schedule such a meeting were rebuffed by Kimball's secretaries. Following Byron's excommunication, he picketed outside Temple Square during a session of General Conference. A woman he knew who was attending the conference asked him what he was doing, and after he stepped briefly onto church property to hand her a copy of his leaflet, he was detained by church security personnel and charged with trespassing. As part of his his defense, Byron successfully subpoenaed Kimball to testify, but he didn't show up in court, and as it turns out, his "revelation" ending the priesthood ban occurred on the same day that the subpoena required him to be in court testifying. Once the revelation was announced, Byron dropped the subpoena as a gesture of goodwill, but the church did not reciprocate, and the trespassing charges were not dropped. (Off the top of my head, I don't remember the outcome of the trial, but I could find out if anyone is curious.)


 * Not surprisingly, Byron believes that his protests and the subpoena helped move the church to abandon the priesthood ban, and the coincidental timing of Kimball's revelation with Byron's trespassing trial is certainly rather striking. However, it doesn't prove a causal relationship between the two, so I haven't mentioned the trespassing trial at all in the article. However, I think it is worth mentioning that a number of members of the church publicly opposed the policy and that some were excommunicated. --Sheldon Rampton 04:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks. -Visorstuff 14:07, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Instituted by God
I've just added a sentence to this entry, at the very bottom of the page, that states: Regardless of the 1978 change in practice, the LDS Church still maintains belief in and continues to teach that the policy of racial exclusion was instituted by God. I trust this is not controversial? --Timothy 2066 02:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * on the contrary, historians are unsure on the reasonings behind the policy. It was not neccessarily given by revelation - at least no record of it, which is not like Smith or Young not to document their revelations. It very well could have been a policy toward the US done by smith, or by young, or whatever. The church does not teach, or have commented on, the reasonings behind it. They have not said it was or was not instituted of God. That said, you've probably heard that from missionaries, or whatever - the church membership speculates on the topic, but it is only that. The added phrase is pure speculation. In fact, the church does not teach anything about it currently, unlike other Latter Day Saint sects. Let's discuss this more if you need further clarification. -Visorstuff 14:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * In place of Timothy's original language, I've put in a sentence that says "many members" continue to believe that the policy was instituted by God. The fact that many members believe this is, of course, different from saying that the church itself teaches it. -Sheldon Rampton 17:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some confusion about what I've stated. To be clear, I am not discussing the "reason for" the ban, which I agree, has never been given; rather, I am discussing the "source of" the ban. And, Officially, per the LDS Church, the source of the ban is God.


 * This is not "pov" but rather, the Official Position of the LDS Church.


 * I'll briefly document. If you need me to, I can bore you with pages of documentation. But, I'll give the highlights here.


 * Let's start with Official Declaration 2, since this is now Canonized Scripture in the LDS Church. Note: only relevant sections have been included here.


 * OFFICIAL DECLARATION—2


 * Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.


 * He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood.


 * So, OD-2 claims 1) the the lifting of the ban had long been promised, 2) this is part of God's eternal plan, 3) the Leaders of the Church had "pleaded" with God for long periods of time, 4) God heard prayers, and confirmed that the long-promised day had come.


 * Where had that long-promised day been spoken of previously? Well, in several places historically by the Prophets of the Church. But, most relevant, perhaps, is the Official Statement made by the First Presidency on Dec. 15, 1969.


 * The 1969 Official Statement of The First Presidency on the Position of Blacks and Civil-Rights


 * 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 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.


 * THE FIRST PRESIDENCY
 * (Statement of The First Presidency on the Position of the Church on Blacks and Civil Rights, Dec. 15, 1969)


 * So, in 1969, the LDS Church gave it's Official Position. They stated clearly that they don't know God's reason for instituting the ban, but clearly attributed the source of the ban to God.


 * Official Declaration 2, given by President Spencer W. Kimball, repeats this teaching by referencing the Official Position of 1969.


 * Recently (in September of 2003), I wrote to the LDS Church Public Affairs office to get confirmation that this is the Official Position of the LDS Church, and they responded affirmatively (I can provide documentation of this if you like).


 * I'm restating my original statement, and making an edit to the page.


 * Regardless of the 1978 change in practice, the current Official Position of the LDS Church is that the policy of racial exclusion was instituted by God. --Timothy 18:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Using that same logic, it is still an current official position of the LDS Church that the state of Illinois and the united states will be destroyed for the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith. However, it may be true, it is no longer taught or officially commented on. There is no current "official" statement at this time. Let me clarify - CURRENT church position supercedes all PREVIOUS church position. The current church leadership is mute on the point, and therefore as the previous statement was given after the big correlation push (which decides what is official and what is not) it is not "official" at this time - if it went through correlation and is still published, then it would be, however it is not. It may very well be true. It may have been taught at one time. But it is not official any longer. Does this make sense? Another way to support this is for you to write a letter to the Church and ask. They will come back with an "official statement" that the reasons for its institution are not known (many have done this in the past five years with these results. In addition, a statement in 1969 I would hardly consider "current." The closest we have to "current" is president Hinckley's statement in the Wallace interveiw about that was a long time ago... I like Sheldon's edit best:


 * "Notwithstanding the 1978 change in practice, many members of the church still believe that the policy of racial exclusion was instituted by God." -Visorstuff 15:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Vistorstuff, I wonder if you understand what I am saying. When you say "they will come back with an "official statement" that the reasons for its institution are not known." I'm aware that the Official Position of the Church relative to the "reasons for" the ban are that those "reasons" are not known. However, I'm specifically discussing the "source of" the ban, not the "reasons for" the ban. This is an important distinction. And, I welcome your suggestion that I write to the Church to get an answer. I've already done so. I wrote two letters in 2003. I wrote one letter, got a response, wanted a clarification, so I wrote a 2nd letter and got a 2nd response. The answer was explicit and clear. I'll link here to copies of the letters, both mine and the responses from the LDS Church:


 * 1st Letter, Aug. 4, 2003
 * 1st Response, Aug. 14, 2003
 * 2nd Letter, Aug. 27, 2003
 * 2nd Letter, Sep. 10, 2003


 * So, we have an explicit Official Statement given in 1969. We have a repeat of that given source in OD-2 in 1978. We have multiple references to God being the source since 1978 in statements made by many General Authorities. And then, I have an explicit answer given by the Church in 2003.


 * I stand by my statement; Regardless of the 1978 change in practice, the current Official Position of the LDS Church is that the policy of racial exclusion was instituted by God.

You misunderstand the letter - Mr Jesse's second response did not say "Yes." He qualifies his answer. He does not address "racial exclusion" nor the source of the ban of blacks - but rather, that God only gave the priesthood to certain people (the tribe of Levi at one time - about 2000 BC-33 AD); the tribe at Ephriam in another - 1845-1978) and that he was in approval with how it was distributed until He gave the revelation to allow all men to recieve it. He was merely trying to give you context. This second letter does not specifically address blacks at all. God does set the boundaries on who can hold, but please remember that Blacks were not the only ones singled out prior to 1978 (other groups en masse were also excluded, but none as highly publicized). Only those who were of the tribe of Ephriam had claim to the priesthood, and even then it had to be given by revelation - other tribes were exeptions. It was not always as automatic as it seems now in the LDS Church.

He also mentions that any statement prior to 1978 is opinion and conjecture, regardless of the source. He also uses the words "as far as we know" which to me is a caveat - saying "we don't have a clue, but looks fine for me - it's the current popular thinking of the membership."

So in saying this, your statement would be better written as follows: Regardless of the 1978 change in practice, the current Official Position of the LDS Church is that the policy of racial exclusion limited distribution of the priesthood to certian families or tribes was instituted by in accordance with God's will.'''

I don't mean to split hairs (but the church does), but the church is very careful about what various words are used to define doctrine, and unfortunately, this doesn't meet the litmus test from a scholarly point of view. They are very very careful. I'm not being an apologist nor justify, nor defent, but Sheldon's statment is most accurate (and believe me Sheldon and I do not see eye to eye on much, so that's saying something). One of my main focuses on wikipedia has been to clarify doctrines, misperceptions and "official" statements on the wikipedia. And frankly, this doesn't fit. It is close, mind you, but not quite there. -Visorstuff 18:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

(Incidentally, your letter didn't come on LDS Church letterhead? Just curious.)-V


 * Visorstuff...I too am not trying to be difficult, but I think you are splitting hairs here. Let me try this again...


 * In 1969, the First Presidency of the Church released a Statement that says it is "Official." Here it is again:


 * The 1969 Official Statement of The First Presidency on the Position of Blacks and Civil-Rights


 * 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 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.


 * THE FIRST PRESIDENCY
 * (Statement of The First Presidency on the Position of the Church on Blacks and Civil Rights, Dec. 15, 1969)


 * Would agree that in 1969, the Official Position of the LDS Church was that the source of the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood was from God?


 * Answer that question and I'll return. Thanks. --Timothy 19:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Splitting hairs is different than accuracy. Let me refer you to your own research: "Statements made by Church members or leaders prior to President Kimball's revelation regarding this question, were an expression of their own opinions and are not then nor now the position of the Church." -Visorstuff 19:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Visor...regarding the Church letterhead question...


 * Here are the envelopes from each letter:


 * 1st Reply Envelope


 * 2nd Reply Envelope

Thanks - was different than letters I've recieved, but no matter, I trust they are accurate. -Visorstuff 20:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

"Yes"

 * You stated: "You misunderstand the letter - Mr Jesse's second response did not say "Yes." "


 * But he did say yes. Re-read the 2nd letters. I asked:


 * Is it the position of the LDS Church that the Priesthood Ban was God's will? In other words, did God set the boundaries of his priesthood, and thereby allow some to receive the priesthood while denying it to others, previous to 1978?


 * And He answered:


 * Your last paragraph in your previous letter was accurate as far as we know. God set the boundaries of the inhabitants of the earth and as a part of that determined who could hold the priesthood.


 * --Timothy 19:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Visorstuff...when Mr. Jessee said "statements made...were an expression of their own opinion" he was referring specifically to the "reasons for" and not the "source of." It was on this point that I wrote the 2nd letter, in order to allow Mr. Jessee to clarify, which he did, affirming that the source of the policy was God. Perhaps you need to re-read the letters?


 * Again, the Church had an "Official Position" in 1969. They reaffirmed that position in OD-2 in 1978, and then, they answered affirmatively when I asked the question directly in 2003. I understand the strict need to get it right when talking about "Official" doctrines of the LDS Church. I understand the complexity of the question, and am confident that I've met the requirements.

--Timothy 19:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not see the word "Yes" in that statement. Rather, he said it appears "accurate as far as we know" - which I read - as stated before - "we don't know, but this appears in line with current theories." He did not say "Yes, that statement is 100 percent correct" but rather, "it is accurate as far as we know." More revelation and light on the subject could come at a later time. That does not seem like an end-all statement to the controversy.

As far as my statement above about "instituted," well, let me put it another way. Marriage was instituted by God. Both the Law of Moses, and the LDS Church allow divorce - and an official policy - divorce can sometimes be the will of God. But divorce was not instituted by God. In the beginning all men were to hold the priesthood if called by revelation, but things changed and men did not qualify and that may or may not have had lasting repurcussions on their children - whether it was Ham, Lot, Esau, Ephriam, Judah, Simeon, or Eli or was given to one group because of exceeding righteousness such as Abraham, Isaac, Israel, Aaron, Moses (to name a few post-diluvian biblical examples). If I reject my covenants with God, my children will be affected in some way. Same with the priesthood. Certain tribes were excluded and certain others were coventanted with. This does not make any of the groups better than one another, just have different responsibiliites. Make sense? In the scholarly circles of Mormonism, (and even Genesis) there have been great disagreements in whether the policy was implemented by revelation or by policy for some other reason. I've seen no conclusive statement by any church leader clarifying this, regardless of whether or not a PR person tries to shed light on the matter. I see Mr. Jessee's comments in line with this thinking. If it is too complex for scholars to agree on in any form, and they have not been supported by Church leaders on the matter (who have attended forumns and symposiums on the matter), the issue is far from decided upon. I'd refer you to the GENESIS website - cited above for one group that is split on the issue. -Visorstuff 20:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

In fact, comparing 1960s statements by Church leaders to me is the eqivelent of comparing Nixon and Bush Jr. policies. They are both official policies from the U.S. - shouldn't they be the same? But they are not. The Church is believed to be led by revelation - and anything not "current" is not "current." This is a good discussion - thanks - I hope you are not feeling frustrated, but rather, I hope we can come to an agreement on the disputed sentence. Perhaps we should focus back on my suggested edit to the statment - please tell me what you see wrong with it and we can go from there? -Visorstuff 20:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * "As far as we know" can be attached to any doctrinal statement; indeed, at the core of LDS Church doctrine is that present revelation can supercede any prior revelation. We seem to agree on this point.


 * So, in this case, in 1969, the First Presidency of the LDS Church made an "official" statement, attributing the priesthood ban to God. Mr. Jessee, the LDS Church Representative, affirmed that, as far as we know, that official position still stands.


 * Your "he didn't say "yes" is a bit trite, don't you think. :-)


 * Your entire discussion about lineage and the idea that someone may act in ways such as to exclude their ability to hold the priesthood seems only to confirm my point. God has set the bounds on who can and cannot hold his priesthood, according to the LDS Church. In the case of blacks, the LDS Church holds that the decision to withhold it was God's decision, not mans (again, see the 1969 "Official" First Presidency Statement, OD-2 in 1978, and my letter with an affirmative response in 2003). That "Official" positions can change does not mean that we can assume that they havechanged until there is an actual revelation clarifying the matter. In this instance, the matter is clear, and could only be changed by further revelation. Just to be clear, I'm not resting my case on what Mr. Jessee stated in his letter to me; he was merely reaffirming the previous Official position of the Church. Had Mr. Jessee contradicted that previous Official Position, then that would raise flags and require much greater research and questions.


 * Your political comparison is faulty for many reasons, it seems to me. God only has to say something once, and a prophet only has to declare it God's will once, and then it can stand for all time as an Official position. God's teachings don't fade over time. If the position is to change, it can only be changed by subsequent statements and revelations. There've be no statements or revelations that change this Official Policy.


 * By changing the statement to "many members believe" you miss the point of the statement entirely. The point is that there is an Official position on this issue; it transcends "many members believe" in significant ways. I stand by my statement. If you wish to discredit it, you'll need to provide Official statements that change the previous Official Position of the LDS Church.


 * Thanks for the discussion. --Timothy 20:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Visorstuff...you didn' t answer a previous question of mine, so I'll rephrase it.


 * Assuming that you and I agree that after the precisely named "official position" in 1969, there was an "Official" position of the LDS church regarding the source of the priesthood ban, when did that position change? --Timothy 22:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It could have occurred at a number of times - at the 1978 revelation we have only an official statement of (not the revelation itself, which would need to be examined), during the correlation push, and during subsequent statements of the president of the church, including the previously cited Hinckley quotes. -V

These edit conflicts are kiling me! Again, I disagree. Even Mr Jessee understood that non-correlated materials are en masse not considered binding to the current membership - hence his statement about anything prior to the 1978 revelation is conjecture. You on the other hand, don't seem to understand the current teaching in the church in regard to this sort of policy (of correlated material). While something may or may not be a historical doctrine, it is not a teaching of the Church. Many Anti-Mormons glummed onto President Hinckley's statement about "we don't teach we can create our own worlds after we become gods" statement to mean that he wasn't familiar with the doctrine, or that the church was renouncing it. On the contrary, he was saying that if the doctrine has not been clarified by revelation and placed in the standard works, we don't teach it, regardless of how true it may be. In addition, Most mormons think they'll get to create worlds, etc. if they become "gods," however, nowhere does it say what a god does. The old testament often interchanges the words "gods" and "angels" - we simply do not know - there has been nothing revealed on teh matter to clarify what happens when we become exalted, other than the continuation of seed - which is typically clarified today as meaning the family unit will exist forever. The doctrine is that exalted beings are called gods, and that they will have a continuation of seed. Other than that there is no "official" statement. End of discussion.

As far as my "he didn't say yes" - when it comes to doctrinal matters, you'll find that little is said without caveat. There is too much we don't know. Yes, a lot of truth has been revealed, but there is a lot that has not yet been. If you asked, "is marriage ordained of God," he would have said - Yes. See the proclamation. Precise wording is very important for both the Catholic and LDS Churches (and others).

You wrote: "God's teachings don't fade over time. If the position is to change, it can only be changed by subsequent statements and revelations. There've be no statements or revelations that change this Official Policy." Let us examine this -

1 - God's teachings don't fade over time - correct, however, our interpretation and understanding of them do. Was it God's teaching that Blacks could not hold the priesthood? If so, then why were a dozen ordained prior to Smith's death? Or was the teaching that the priesthood could only be given to men by revelation, and an early authority believed this extended to anyone who was not of the tribe of ephriam, until revelatory approval was given for jews, simeonites, and blacks?

2- If "There've be no statements or revelations that change this Official Policy." Okay. It was taught in the early 1980s, in the 70s and in the 90s that anything that was not correlated is no longer official policy. So everything that was taught prior to the big correlation push was thrown out the window, so to speak, unless church leaders specified otherwise. To me, that is a statment of change to the official policy.

3- "If the position is to change, it can only be changed by subsequent statements and revelations." Not the case, neccessarily. For example, Nephi in the Book of Mormon was well-aware of commandments not to kill, but in one situation it was right and he did it to preserve scriptures. Mind you, Nephi was not yet the prophet of his people, and could not change doctrine or teachings found in the law of Moses. What Mormons typically believe is that the current prophet and his teachings supercede all others prior to him. No revelations are needed to renounce the so-called Adam-God theory, none are needed to renounce statements about Blood Atonement. They simply are no longer believed or adhered to or taught and are not, nor have been official doctrines. My discussion about lineage and divorce I thought would help. I don't consider divorce to be instituted by God. Nor do I consider the ban to be instituted by God. Rather it is my personal opinion that both were policies approved by God, but not initiated by him (but I may be wrong). I base this on research that I've seen presented at such forums as I've suggested you read above. The issue is very complex and to state such an absolute statement as you want to indtroduce is strange, when no two scholars would agree on that precise issue. Strange!

You wrote Jessee "affirmed that, as far as we know, that official position still stands." But he didn't he affirmed nor did you provide the official position to him as you provided by David McKay. He did say that one paragraph in your letter looked accurate, and that all discussions or statements surrounding why blacks couldn't hold the priesthood prior to 1978 were opinions only.

I think it may be interesting to hear Sheldon's of other's views on the matter - COGDEN has researched this topic as well, and is much more open in his views on the matter than I. This is one of the few things I speculate and have an opinion on from my own research. Pre-correlated material, however, is not binding, and I'm unaware of any who would adhere to your statement. -Visorstuff 22:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry to keep driving you crazy. But, it should be apparent to you, by now, that I know of which I speak. You keep talking circles around the issue, not the issue directly. We do have an Official Statement attributing the ban to God. Yes, this position can change, but, you're "correlation" issue aside, this issue has not changed; to wit, Mr. Jessee's letter affirming the position (and, for the record, I agree that the Church doesn't claim to know the "Why's" of the ban). When you say "I'm unaware of any who would adhere to your statement"....excepting, of course, The Public Affairs Office of the Church, right? And, per your own statements above "many members" who you claim believe that the ban has its source with God.


 * Visor, I'd be interested in reading your documentation on the idea that correlation "threw everything out". This just simply is not true, so far as I know, but I'm open to the discussion. Can you point me anywhere? Any Official statements to that regard? Given the drill you're putting me through here regarding official statements, I'd appreciate seeing yours. Best. --Timothy 23:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

You definitely aren't driving me crazy. For starters, you may want to read Priesthood Correlation Program and the associated Encyclopedia of Mormonism article about the efforts of the Corrlation program in regard to "official doctrine." I'll have to dig through my files for letters on the matter as well.

Again, Mr. Jessee did not affirm President McKay's position, but affirmed that a paragraph in your letter was seen as accurate. No circles. I appreciate what you are saying from a historical perspective, however, historical data shows other theories are plausible or even more likely. Historical circles - such as Genesis - another source to investigate - would support the complexity of this issue. As you probably know, the church at one time suggested many readings for missionaries - a whole eight books were part of the missionary library - and were considered doctrine. Now there are three. Why? becuase earlier books are not seen as doctrinally sound. If it hasn't been through correlation, it is not doctrine. You asked for my documentation - let's start with the following that you may want to read.  I'll find some other specific quotes on this to seminary teachers (here's one that references it to EFY employees:, in the ensign and post here later this week. In the mean time, do you agree we should get others to review the above and give their opinions? -Visorstuff 00:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's get others to weigh in. And, just so you know, I'm very familiar with Genesis. I've heard Darius Gray speak on several occasions. I've read the works of Armand Mauss. I've conversed with many on this specific issue. For starters, Genesis has no authority to set Official Doctrine. So, I'm not sure what you hope I'll find there. I'll get to reading your materials. It may be that we need to agree on what makes something "official." Perhaps you could tell me this: name an Official Doctrine, and what made that Doctrine official? That would help. Thanks. --Timothy 00:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, Genesis does not have authority to set doctrine - no more than Mr. Jessee. But both are seen as experts in what they do. Genesis points out a lot of the complexities that you've simplified (overly-so in my opinion, which is why we are having this discussion), while Jessee tried to give context.

AS for "official doctrine," I'll have to pull up some notes for sources. Ancidotally, when I went through CES training, we were told that if it is not currently published by the church, it is likely not doctrine (and not to use much info that was given by deceased leaders). You can even look at the differences in the Gospel Principles manual in the past five years and realize that those changes are for doctrinal reason. To me, there are a few different types of doctrines - Historical doctrines, cultural doctrines, scriptural doctrines and official doctrines are the four main ones. Any of the four may or may not be true, but the first two are much harder to change. You can easily pull out the old "plan of salvation map" that every sunday school teacher draws up on the board from every church-published manual (as was done over ten years ago) but the chart still gets drawn up on the board - even if it is incorrect and not doctrinally sound. You can censure anyone who even mentions polygamy in church meetings, but yet culturally many believe it will be re-instituted (where they get that from I have no idea). You can denounce doctrines that have no real-world application such as blood atonement, but yet it still affects state law for more than 150 years. Even during a typical sacrament and testimony meeting, you'll find at least a half-dozen things that are not scripturally supported or prohibited in the standard works (although revleations were received later clarifying or directing them to have been put into place - but they aren't included in the D&C). Then you have two 'announcements of revelations' but not the revelation themselves in the D&C (official declarations of revelations). The church has focused in recent years much more on "principles" and letting doctrine be more personal. Very few things are considered "official." In fact, when I was at the MTC years ago, we were told not to teach doctrine, as many of the things we consider doctrine is wrong. I've given examples in other places on this. Let's continue this discussion on my talk page if you are interested, drop a note on my talk page and we can discuss this in more detail. -Visorstuff 20:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, is an interesting talk on correlation. -Visorstuff 20:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Separate "Current Official Position" sub-section?
I think this may be of value given our discussion. I can write a draft with full documentation. I'll begin working on it. --Timothy 18:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested in the current relevance of this. Look forward to you shedding light on the current position. -Visorstuff 15:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Sheldon's thoughts
I've reviewed the discussion above, and Timothy has won me over. I think he has thoroughly documented the following:


 * The official position of the church, prior to the 1978 revelation, was that the priesthood ban was instituted by God and therefore could only be lifted by God.
 * The 1978 revelation specifically referenced and reaffirmed the official position that God was the source for the original policy. (If that were not the case, the revelation wouldn't have said, "God finally accepted our pleadings and said it's time to change the policy." Instead, it would have said something like, "God told us, 'You idiots! This whole thing was never my idea! Stop blaming it on me!'")
 * Current statements from the church PR office, while they do not have the weight of official doctrine, do have the weight of being official positions of the church. Mr. Jessee is a church official, even though his job title does not denote priesthood-based authority. I should note that elsewhere on Wikipedia, I have seen statements from the church PR office held up as standards for what should be judged to be the official position of the church. (For example, a number of PR office statements have been considered official declarations regarding the church's preferred naming conventions.)
 * The 2003 statement from Jessee reaffirmed the position that God was the source of the original policy.

I think therefore that Timothy has shown clearly that this in fact the current official position of the Church. This doesn't mean that this official position will never change. Its official position on other topics has changed in the past, and this position too may someday change.

If someone can cite an instance of an official statement that the priesthood ban may not have been instituted by God, there might be a basis for reconsidering this interpretation. However, opinions from groups like Genesis clearly don't meet the standard of "official statements."

It might be a good idea to add some language to Timothy's statement, clarifying that the current official position of the church doesn't offer any explanation for why the policy was instituted. (Also, the phrase "official position" should not be capitalized.) How about language such as the following:


 * Regardless of the 1978 change in practice, the current official position of the LDS Church is that the policy of racial exclusion was instituted by God. However, it disavows any of the doctrinal explanations for the policy that have been proposed by various members and church leaders. According to the LDS public relations office, "The position of the Church is that we don't know what the reason was, for the Lord has never revealed it."

It might also be worth adding a section to this article that specifically enumerates and discusses the various "folk doctrines" that have been offered at various times as conjectured explanations for the policy. These would include:
 * The "seed of Cain/seed of Ham" theories.
 * The "lack of valiance in the pre-existence" theory.
 * The theory that the policy was instituted to protect the church from attacks by southern racists.
 * The theory that it was instituted to prevent the priesthood from being dishonored by the racism of white Mormons. (I think Armand Mauss has offered speculation along these lines, although I can't personally see any logic in this line of reasoning.)
 * The theory that it was in fact never instituted by God but merely reflected the racial attitudes and situational ethics of Joseph Smith and other church leaders. (This would be my position, BTW.)

--Sheldon Rampton 12:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree with your suggestion and drop my argument here. It is correct enough from a historical doctrine perspective, but still really doubt it would fly as current official doctrine. -Visorstuff 20:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * We seem to be approaching agreement on acceptable language, so I don't want to beat a dead horse. However, I should point out that you seem to be conflating "official doctrine" with "official position." The two things are quite different. A "position" (as the term itself suggests) is something that can move fairly easily. For example, the "official position" of the Bush administration prior to the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons. Today the Bush administration's official position has changed. However, the related doctrine has not changed: hostile nations that actually possess such weapons are still regarded by U.S. planners as a security threat.


 * Like any institution, the LDS church consists of more than simply doctrines. It also has policies and positions, some of which are doctrinal and some of which are not. For example, the church's opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment in the late 1970s was clearly an official position of the church, but I don't recall anyone characterizing it as an official doctrine. -Sheldon Rampton 04:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

"Instituted" vs. "permitted"
I attended the 2005 FAIR Conference last week, and heard a talk there by Darius Gray, past president of the Genesis Group, an organization for LDS African-Americans established with Church approval and oversight.

In the Q&A portion of his talk, Gray was asked about the origin of the priesthood ban. He replied that "the ban was not instituted by God, but it was allowed by God." In my later personal discussion with him, he told me that this explanation was arrived at during his discussions with members of the Quorum of the Twelve, and that it best reflects the Church's current position.


 * That is unacceptable. Obviously it was allowed by God. God allowed the Nazi's to kill Jews, and allowed the KKK to lynch black people. God allowed a lot of things. But that does not answer the motivation or the issue about what God allows in relation to a self-delusional fabricated belief. See what Gray is doing is this; Gray is assuming that the white-over-black racism WAS somehow spiritually relevant to God. (Whereas Black-over-white oppression would simply seem like a ludicrous senseless atrocity, people are still taught that white-over-black oppression has some merit, value, or ultimate purpose in the scheme of things.) What also offends me is that people who support a racist organization or racialized perspective will try to find a person of the same race of those who are bearing the brunt of the offense. So for example, if we were talking about justifying the practices of the KKK, someone would think that if they find a Black person to excuse the KKK, then that's as good as excusing it. If a Black person is not a good enough resource to criticize the racist practices of the LDS church, how can a Black person be used as a credible person to justify it? Gray's comment that the ban was allowed by God is based on Gray's ignorance about his relationship as a person with God. I do not know, but this has made things worse as far as the ignorance factor goes. They've got a token black guy in the militia movements in Michigan; does that mean the Michigan Militia is a good social organization to join now? I don't think that makes a difference. So Gray, being Black, does not lend more credence to the statement that "god allowed the priesthood ban" outside of the universal belief that God allows humans to do stupid things and evil things.

Gray's address is not on the FAIR web site yet, but I suspect it will be available soon.

I modified the statement at the bottom of the article's introduction based on what he said, and based on the previous discussion (above). Despite any conjecture, no revelation on this issue has been produced by anyone inside or outside the Church. Any statements that the ban was given by revelation (even if those statements come from Church authorities) have to be backed by evidence, not assertion.

I welcome thoughts and criticisms of this. --MrWhipple 17:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * MrWhipple, I too have had conversations with Darius Gray on this matter. However, he is not and LDS Church Authority, cannot speak to Official LDS Church positions, and holds no more authority on the matter than any other member of the Church. Citing his own personal conversations with Church officials is not, in my mind, a legitimate source. Especially when what he states goes counter to that which has been officially stated by the Church.


 * Also, this idea that there exists no actual revelation is not pertinent, so far as I can tell. There are many, many doctrines within the Church for which we only have reports of revelations received. Past LDS Prophets have stated that the source of the ban is God. In fact, the change in the policy only references a received revelation; it doesn't give us the revelation itself.


 * So, I am changing your "permitted" back to "instituted." You've not documented, using even a single authoritative statement, that this policy was merely permitted.