On February 25, Scott Gordon president of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) sent out a newsletter to subscribers noting that February is Black History Month. Â Gordon explained why black history matters, and explained 3 myths about the ban. Â Just 3 days later, ProfessorÂ Randy Bott created a stir when he tried to explain why the priesthood ban took place. Â Bott stated that (from the Provo Daily Herald)
“God has always been discriminatory” when it comes to whom he grants the authority of the priesthood, he said. He quoted Mormon scripture stating that the Lord gives to people “all that he seeth fit.”
Bott compared blacks with a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her father’s car, and explained that, similarly, until 1978, the Lord determined that blacks were not yet ready for the priesthood.
“What is discrimination?” Bott asks. “I think that is keeping something from somebody that would be a benefit for them, right? But what if it wouldn’t have been a benefit to them?”
Bott says that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on Earth — although not in the afterlife — protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers. “You couldn’t fall off the top of the ladder, because you weren’t on the top of the ladder. So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.”
It was nice to see Gordon’s “pre-emptive strike.” Â Here’s what Gordon said in an email sent to subscribers. (Emphasis mine)
February is black history month. Many white members of The ChurchÂ will say “who cares?” or “good for them!” or even “aren’t they overÂ that yet?” and move on about their daily tasks. That’s unwise. WithÂ the presidential election in full swing, our faith and our historyÂ of race relations has come under the spotlight of public scrutinyÂ and the intensity will continue to grow. As that happens, I amÂ hopeful that we as members are educated to move the discussionÂ forward instead of saying things that are harmful to the Church andÂ hurtful to many of our members.
The United States has a long history of difficult race relations. MyÂ home teacher served in the Air Force in the South, and was shocked
when he found it unlawful to share a cab off base with his blackÂ friend. They couldn’t go into the same restaurants or get their hairÂ cut at the same barbershops. This was in the days of segregatedÂ restrooms and water fountains. Most of us, as members, have neverÂ had state laws dictating where we are allowed to go and with whom weÂ are allowed to congregate. People can’t tell by looking at you ifÂ you are Mormon.
Many of us live in areas that are not racially integrated, so weÂ have never had to examine our long-held beliefs and traditions. JustÂ to give a hint of my thoughts on this–having one or two non-whiteÂ members of your ward doesn’t really allow you to claim you have aÂ lot of experience in race relations. The reality is that mostÂ Mormons live in the Western United States, which has a much lowerÂ concentration of blacks. In those those states where LDS are 5% orÂ more of the population, the percentage of blacks does not reach theÂ national average.
USA Â Â Â Â Â 12.6%
Idaho Â Â Â Â 0.6%
Wyoming Â Â 0.8%
Utah Â Â Â Â Â 1.1%
Arizona Â Â 4.1%
Nevada Â Â Â 8.1%
Even in California, which has a large population of Church members,Â the percentage of blacks is only 6.2%, still below the nationalÂ average. If one factors in how many blacks actually attend ChurchÂ with you, it highlights the reality that you probably don’t
frequently interact with black Americans. This translates into neverÂ needing to examine your traditions and beliefs. Even if you don’t
have a racist bone in your body and you love all people as childrenÂ of God, you may still not realize that some things you say are
hurtful or simply untrue.
Here is a list of three myths that are often repeated, and simplyÂ must stop.
Myth #1: Blacks couldn’t have the priesthood because they had theÂ curse or mark of Cain
This belief was commonly held by many Protestant denominations inÂ early American history. It was often used as a justification forÂ slavery and reached its peak about the time of the Civil War. ManyÂ people who joined the LDS Church brought this teaching into theÂ Church with them. Most Protestants later changed their talkingÂ points on this to say the children of Cain were wiped out duringÂ Noah’s flood, so the cursing came though the flood through Ham. Â Therefore, the more modern phrasing of this belief is the so-calledÂ “curse of Ham.” But the curse of Cain continued to be taught in theÂ then geographically isolated LDS Church.
While the scriptures do talk about a mark being put on Cain, thereÂ is no scriptural explanation of what that mark may be or how itÂ relates to the priesthood. One member of my high priest quorumÂ suggested the mark is likely to be male pattern baldness.
There is a scripture in the Book of Moses talking about the childrenÂ of Canaan being black (Moses 7:8), but there is no given connectionÂ between Cain and Canaan. Just because a name sounds similar, doesn’tÂ make it the same.
Even in the Book of Abraham, the priesthood restrictions were notÂ put on “blacks”, but on the lineage of the Egyptian Pharaoh. ThisÂ was at the time of Abraham, long before Jesus Christ. If you wereÂ alive at that time, it is likely you would have been restricted fromÂ that priesthood as well.
Myth #2: Blacks were neutral or less valiant in the pre-existence
This terrible teaching was repudiated by none other than BrighamÂ Young himself. Unfortunately, it continued to be perpetuated by manyÂ members throughout our history, and even ended up in books authoredÂ by Joseph Fielding Smith.
In an interview, apostle Jeffery R. Holland said the following: “OneÂ clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated.
… I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. … They, I’m sure,Â in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape toÂ [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. Â All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, IÂ think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong.”
For those who are troubled by the fact that explanations givenÂ repudiated, we have to look at the wordsÂ of Bruce R. McConkie, who was originally a proponent of thoseÂ theories. He said, “Forget everything that I have said, or whatÂ President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoeverÂ has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. WeÂ spoke with a limited understanding and without the light andÂ knowledge that now has come into the world.
“We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept uponÂ precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and lightÂ on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and allÂ the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter anymore.”
Myth #3: The best example to explain blacks not having theÂ priesthood comes from the Levites. The Levites were able to hold theÂ priesthood, while others were not. This shows how God restrictsÂ people of certain lineages from receiving the priesthood just likeÂ he did with blacks.
While it may be true that Levites could hold the priesthood whileÂ others could not, it has little to do with this issue. The ancientÂ practice where only one group is able to exercise the priesthood andÂ work in the temple has little in common with modern times whenÂ everyone is able to hold the priesthood except for one group. Â Repeating this claim as an explanation doesn’t provide adequateÂ support for the argument, and the claim completely falls apart whenÂ we recognize that Joseph Smith, Parley P. Pratt, William Smith, andÂ Orson Hyde all ordained blacks to the priesthood in the 1830s andÂ 1840s. The explanation is not helpful and can be hurtful.
So why couldn’t blacks have the priesthood? Gordon B. HinckleyÂ stated, “I don’t know what the reason was. But I know that we’veÂ rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at the time.”
Men are slow to change in their beliefs. Even in the New Testament,Â Peter had to be lifted beyond his prejudice to sit and eat with theÂ Gentiles. I hope we all take the time to familiarize ourselves withÂ this topic and not perpetuate the hurtful and harmful myths thatÂ have been repeated for so long.
It is worth an hour or two of our time to read several articles onÂ Mormonism and race, so we can help those around us. It will help usÂ relating to African-Americans who join the Church. It will help usÂ in teaching our children in such a way that they won’t make hurtfulÂ assumptions. It will help us in keeping our children from fallingÂ away as they learn about this past practice. Finally, it will help us in explaining our beliefs to those outside of our faith. It isÂ not only simply worth our time to learn about black history, it is essential.
President ofÂ FAIR
If only Brother Bott read FAIR before speaking to the Washington Post! Â I don’t agree with Bott, and I do agree with FAIR. Â Myth #3 is interesting to me. It was pointed out to me that Official Church website says
Ever since biblical times, the Lord has designated through His prophets who could receive the priesthood and other blessings of the gospel. Among the tribes of Israel, for example, only men of the tribe of Levi were given the priesthood and allowed to officiate in certain ordinances. Likewise, during the Saviorâ€™s earthly ministry, gospel blessings were restricted to the Jews. Only after a revelation to the Apostle Peter were the gospel and priesthood extended to others (seeÂ Acts 10:1â€“33; 14:23; 15:6â€“8).
It seems that FAIR is not in line with the church website there, and in fact, the church website seems to agree with Randy Bottâ€™s conclusions, despite disavowing them.
Where is Correlation when you need them? On this issue, I am siding with FAIR, but one can easily see why Bott thought his explanation was in line with the church.
As Gordon stated, ‘Gordon B. HinckleyÂ stated, “I don’t know what the reason was.”‘ Â This just isn’t a satisfactory response, as many people will try to fill in the gaps, such as Randy Bott. Â Even FAIR doesn’t give a very good answer–they give the party line that nobody knows. Â So the church has a bunch of unsatisfying responses to the problem. Â Most people try to speculate, as Bott did, or accuse the church of racism. Â While Hinckley states that the church has “rectified” the problem in 1978, it leaves a wound to fester uncleansed.
There are many who call for the Church to simply state the obvious: early leaders were racist. Â Some people think this is a bad idea, because it will undercut the church’s authority as divinely guided. Â On the other hand, such a response would be welcomed by others as refreshingly candid, and it could lead to more blacks joining the church, and resulting in a net gain of converts.
What do you think would be the repercussions if the Church stated the ban was racist?