Recently a new page was put up at LDS.org that has caused a
lot of stir in a lot of circles. In the off chance Race
and the Priesthood” and can be found by clicking on the title.
One new statement made in the document reads, “Today, the
Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of
divine disfavor or curse”
Alright, black skin is not a sign of a curse that would
prevent someone from having the priesthood.
Black people of African descent are not, according to this statement, Canaanites.
If they aren’t, then (as we will see from the scriptures) we had better figure
out who is.
The prophets Ezra and Nehemiah both said that there was a
lineage that was prohibited from holding the priesthood:
Ezra 2: 61 ¶And of the children of the priests: the
children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took
a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their
name:
62 These sought their register among those
that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they,
as polluted, put from the priesthood.
Nehemiah 7: 63 ¶And of the priests: the children of
Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai, which took one of
the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite to wife, and was called after their
name.
64 These sought their register among those
that were reckoned by genealogy, but it was not found: therefore were they, as
polluted, put from the priesthood.
Which lineage then prevented men from holding the
Priesthood in mortality?
Abraham 1:21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the
loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the
blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom
and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to
imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the
days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of
Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the
blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not
have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it
from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;
Is it ok to mix with the seed of Cain?
Moses 5:22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people
which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam
save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not
place among them.
And peaking of the time when the Lord returns, the Prophet Zechariah
said, “and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the Lord of
hosts.” Zechariah 14:21
It seems the scriptures are clear that:
- There is a lineage prevented from having the priesthood
- The “ban” will be in place at the 2nd coming of the Lord
If it isn’t black people of African descent, perhaps we should
identify who this restricted lineage is and take the appropriate steps to
prevent their ordination and entrance into the Temple .
Another point of interest is the statement that “Church
leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and
present, in any form”. (Emphasis added) “Condemn”? What does that mean? Condemn the statements? The individuals? What does that mean to “condemn all racism,
past and present, in any form”? When is it alright to condemn Church leaders,
past OR present? Is it only alright
after their death? If they are alive, is condemning them “speaking ill”? For example, if I were to condemn President
Monson for this statement, would I be speaking ill of him?
To be clear, I am not fault finding, steadying the ark, or
anything of the sort. As a believer, I
think it’s important to make observations of facts and ask questions to better
understand the word and will of the Lord.
The article has several inaccuracies that bring up questions
I’d like to have answered if I ever had the opportunity. Inaccuracy
#1 "There is no evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood
during Joseph Smith’s lifetime." Depends on what you call
"evidence". First hand testimony of Apostles and later Prophets say
that the ban began with Joseph Smith., including the First Presidency which
said the ban came through revelation. The current church policy is that
statements by the FP are official doctrine. #2 "In 1852, President Brigham
Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be
ordained to the priesthood" in January and February 1852, Brigham Young
announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood
ordination." implies that this is when the "ban" began,
insinuating again that Brigham Young and others were liars. #3 "At the
same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members
would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members."
Perhaps not an outright falsehood, but clearly misconstruing and contradicting
the stated intent (and further explanation) of what Brigham said. #4 "The
justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial
inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black
“servitude” in the Territory of Utah" The justification was modern
revelation and modern scripture, not sectarian views of possibly mistranslated
scripture.
All throughout the article, it tries to make the case that all of the changes happened within the culture of the times, as if Prophets of God are subject to the culture, and leaving open the logic that the removal of the ban was simply because of the culture. In addition to the inaccuracies, it presents many troubling questions and speaks evil of and condemns the Lords anointed. It's logic also opens up the way for ordaining women and same-sex couples. According to an unnamed GA source of mine, this is exactly what is being prepared for as we speak. What group of people does these inaccurate statements help and why make them 35 years after the matter was effectively settled as far as the Church is concerned?
All throughout the article, it tries to make the case that all of the changes happened within the culture of the times, as if Prophets of God are subject to the culture, and leaving open the logic that the removal of the ban was simply because of the culture. In addition to the inaccuracies, it presents many troubling questions and speaks evil of and condemns the Lords anointed. It's logic also opens up the way for ordaining women and same-sex couples. According to an unnamed GA source of mine, this is exactly what is being prepared for as we speak. What group of people does these inaccurate statements help and why make them 35 years after the matter was effectively settled as far as the Church is concerned?
