LDS (Mormon) Only: Blacks, the Priesthood and the Seed of Cain

[Thanda]

Okay so in another thread @Prestor John mentioned the seed of Cain and how they were only allowed to receive the priesthood recently. This was of course in reference to the priesthood ban on people of African descent instituted by President Brigham Young in 1852 (incidentally the first year missionaries arrived in Cape Town
South Africa). He declared:

any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it.​

This I suppose is where the term "the seed of Cain" originates. The purpose of this debate is to discuss the reasonableness of

1. Calling Africans the seed of Cain
2. Using someone's status as a seed of Cain to deny them saving ordinances.

Calling Africans the seed of Cain.

Ostensibly the ban on the priesthood was meant to apply only to those who were the seed of Cain. However Brigham Young made a point of specifying the degree to which someone must be the seed of Cain before they are denied the priesthood. He said they should not have one drop of blood of the seed of Cain. This of course poses problems since we know that everyone, including Brigham Young himself is the seed of each of Noah's Son's including the children Ham who had the seed of Cain in them through their Mother. Thus if Brigham Young had properly understood the ban he had instituted he would have known that he had effectively banned himself and every other member of the church from the priesthood.
All this assumes that by the seed of Cain he meant the literal lineage of Cain (which seems to be the case). However the term seed is sometimes used in the scriptures to refer disciples rather than literal children (see Mosiah 15:10-11). In that case the more reasonable conclusion would have been that those who followed after the works of Cain were banned from the priesthood.

However it is what it is. Brigham Young banned all blood descendants of Cain and having done so he should have prevented everyone from having the priesthood.

Using someone's status as a seed of Cain to deny them saving ordinances.

Now I wish to discuss the logic of using someone's status as the seed of Cain (i.e. a blood descendant) as a reason to prevent someone obtaining the priesthood and temple ordinances.
The doctrine of the seed of Cain as held by some seems to expect us to believe the following:

• Cain rebelled against God and was cursed as to the priesthood
• Cain's curse followed all his children
• His curse was as not patriarchal as the priesthood is and was also transmitted through women
• The curse by Noah upon Ham and his children was incidental as they had already been cursed even before they transgressed
• No amount of years and no number of dispensations could make the Lord forgive or forget Cain's treachery and the curse He felt was due to his children as a result.
• Not even the Atonement was sufficient to repeal the curse
• When Jesus said the Gospel must be preached to ends of the earth he meant only those ends that didn't include the descendants of Cain
• The Churches that sprung up in parts of Africa complete with their own priesthood holders during the Apostolic period were all apostate or were an example of a temporary lapse in the enforcement of the ban.
• This temporary lapse continued when the fullness of the Gospel was restored by Joseph Smith and it took Brigham Young to remember (or be inspired to remember) that the curse was actually still in effect and to re-establish it.
• The Lord finally forgave Cain's seed for the deeds their father committed almost 6000 years before in 1978.

All this must hold true although we have the following from the Book of Mormon:

Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation. (Amla 3:19)

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.​

It is my position that points 1) and 2) are not reasonable and that other reasons (other than people of African descent being the seed of Cain) was behind the ban on the priesthood.

Your thoughts please.

P.S. Remember, LDS only.

 

[Scott C.]

Okay so in another thread @Prestor John mentioned the seed of Cain and how they were only allowed to receive the priesthood recently. This was of course in reference to the priesthood ban on people of African descent instituted by President Brigham Young in 1852 (incidentally the first year missionaries arrived in Cape Town
South Africa). He declared:

any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it.​

This I suppose is where the term "the seed of Cain" originates. The purpose of this debate is to discuss the reasonableness of

1. Calling Africans the seed of Cain
2. Using someone's status as a seed of Cain to deny them saving ordinances.

Calling Africans the seed of Cain.

Ostensibly the ban on the priesthood was meant to apply only to those who were the seed of Cain. However Brigham Young made a point of specifying the degree to which someone must be the seed of Cain before they are denied the priesthood. He said they should not have one drop of blood of the seed of Cain. This of course poses problems since we know that everyone, including Brigham Young himself is the seed of each of Noah's Son's including the children Ham who had the seed of Cain in them through their Mother. Thus if Brigham Young had properly understood the ban he had instituted he would have known that he had effectively banned himself and every other member of the church from the priesthood.
All this assumes that by the seed of Cain he meant the literal lineage of Cain (which seems to be the case). However the term seed is sometimes used in the scriptures to refer disciples rather than literal children (see Mosiah 15:10-11). In that case the more reasonable conclusion would have been that those who followed after the works of Cain were banned from the priesthood.

However it is what it is. Brigham Young banned all blood descendants of Cain and having done so he should have prevented everyone from having the priesthood.

Using someone's status as a seed of Cain to deny them saving ordinances.

Now I wish to discuss the logic of using someone's status as the seed of Cain (i.e. a blood descendant) as a reason to prevent someone obtaining the priesthood and temple ordinances.
The doctrine of the seed of Cain as held by some seems to expect us to believe the following:

• Cain rebelled against God and was cursed as to the priesthood
• Cain's curse followed all his children
• His curse was as not patriarchal as the priesthood is and was also transmitted through women
• The curse by Noah upon Ham and his children was incidental as they had already been cursed even before they transgressed
• No amount of years and no number of dispensations could make the Lord forgive or forget Cain's treachery and the curse He felt was due to his children as a result.
• Not even the Atonement was sufficient to repeal the curse
• When Jesus said the Gospel must be preached to ends of the earth he meant only those ends that didn't include the descendants of Cain
• The Churches that sprung up in parts of Africa complete with their own priesthood holders during the Apostolic period were all apostate or were an example of a temporary lapse in the enforcement of the ban.
• This temporary lapse continued when the fullness of the Gospel was restored by Joseph Smith and it took Brigham Young to remember (or be inspired to remember) that the curse was actually still in effect and to re-establish it.
• The Lord finally forgave Cain's seed for the deeds their father committed almost 6000 years before in 1978.

All this must hold true although we have the following from the Book of Mormon:

Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation. (Amla 3:19)

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.​

It is my position that points 1) and 2) are not reasonable and that other reasons (other than people of African descent being the seed of Cain) was behind the ban on the priesthood.

Your thoughts please.

P.S. Remember, LDS only.

I suggest you and others read this link:

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

[Thanda]

I suggest you and others read this link:

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

I have read it before, thanks.

 

[Katzpur]

It is my position that points 1) and 2) are not reasonable and that other reasons (other than people of African descent being the seed of Cain) was behind the ban on the priesthood.

Your thoughts please.

My thoughts are that you summed things up quite nicely. The Church has acknowledged (finally) that there never was a revelation to the effect that Black men should be ineligible to hold the priesthood. Had there been one, we could find it today in the Doctrine & Covenants. I was 30 years old when the ban was lifted and I still remember the incredible joy I felt when I heard the announcement. I don't believe that Brigham Young acted in accordance with God's will in enacting the ban in the first place, but I guess that's a matter best left between him and the Lord. After all, prophets are only human, and humans screw up from time to time.

 

[Watchmen]

What Katzpur said.

 

[Thanda]

My thoughts are that you summed things up quite nicely. The Church has acknowledged (finally) that there never was a revelation to the effect that Black men should be ineligible to hold the priesthood. Had there been one, we could find it today in the Doctrine & Covenants. I was 30 years old when the ban was lifted and I still remember the incredible joy I felt when I heard the announcement. I don't believe that Brigham Young acted in accordance with God's will in enacting the ban in the first place, but I guess that's a matter best left between him and the Lord. After all, prophets are only human, and humans screw up from time to time.

Indeed. It is curious that such an important declaration was not made by a part of the standard to be approved by the body of the church. It was as if a minor change or correction was being made rather than a major doctrinal position.

 

[Prestor John]

Thank you for the invitation.

I am willing and able to have a discussion about this topic as long as everyone agrees to not be offended by anything anyone says.

I am only advocating this because I wish to be direct in my responses and many people tend to be offended by that.

As long as no one assumes that my “bluntness” is any attempt on my part to belittle or deride anyone, then I am all for this discussion.

Also, don’t assume that I am racist or that I harbor any dislike for people of color. That simply isn’t true.

Calling Africans the seed of Cain

This idea was always given in general terms and the policy was enforced generally.

I have not read anything that said that every single “black” or “African” person was a descendant of Cain.

Using someone's status as a seed of Cain to deny them saving ordinances.

This is misleading.

The reason that Brigham Young and others enacted the policy that denied certain people access to the Priesthood and saving ordinances was because it was received to them by the Lord through revelation.

They attested to that fact and later General Authorities also testified of that as well.

All the theories offered to “explain” why the ban was put in place (other than as obedience to revelation) were never considered official doctrine of the Church and were Man’s attempts to comprehend the reasons behind the commandment.

I realize that this is at odds with what I said to Katspur previously about the descendants of Cain only being allowed access to the Priesthood recently.

I was trying to showcase an example of the Lord’s tendency to give or deny blessings based on the actions of others. I understand that my reference to this example was not consistent with the official doctrine of the Church and I apologize for that. It was just the most efficient way for me to point out an example that another member of the Church would understand.

This is not to say that Brigham Young was wrong in his assertion that the ban was commanded to be set in place on those who were literally descendants of Cain. He could have been correct.

I am only pointing out that his rationale behind the commandment was never accepted as the official doctrine of the Church and I wanted to make it clear that the official position of the Church in regards to this past policy is that, “We don’t know why it was given, but it was given and we obeyed.”

This of course poses problems since we know that everyone, including Brigham Young himself is the seed of each of Noah's Son's including the children Ham who had the seed of Cain in them through their Mother. Thus if Brigham Young had properly understood the ban he had instituted he would have known that he had effectively banned himself and every other member of the church from the priesthood.

This is an unsupported and unverifiable assumption.

It is a false dichotomy.

All this assumes that by the seed of Cain he meant the literal lineage of Cain (which seems to be the case). However the term seed is sometimes used in the scriptures to refer disciples rather than literal children (see Mosiah 15:10-11). In that case the more reasonable conclusion would have been that those who followed after the works of Cain were banned from the priesthood.

This idea has merit, but there are still examples in the scriptures of the Lord both giving and denying people certain blessings based on the choices of others that descend down through the literal descendants of those people.

However it is what it is. Brigham Young banned all blood descendants of Cain and having done so he should have prevented everyone from having the priesthood.

False dichotomy.

Now I wish to discuss the logic of using someone's status as the seed of Cain (i.e. a blood descendant) as a reason to prevent someone obtaining the priesthood and temple ordinances.

Right after you explain the logic behind preventing someone from obtaining the Priesthood if they were not direct descendants of Levi or anyone who was not an Israelite from entering the Temple.

That went on for many centuries.

Cain rebelled against God and was cursed as to the priesthood

Cain envied his brother’s flocks, covenanted with Satan for gain, offered up a false sacrifice as instructed by Satan, murdered his brother, lied to God about the murder of His brother, formed a secret band of violent murderers to plague Adam and his children for centuries which eventually caused God to Flood the Earth to wash it clean of the wickedness that began with Cain.

Claiming that he simply “rebelled” against God is an understatement and knowing that he now “rules over” Satan should showcase the height of his wickedness.

Cain's curse followed all his children

Yes and the scriptures claim that his children lived after the manner of their father.

His curse was as not patriarchal as the priesthood is and was also transmitted through women

His curse was a physical one as well as spiritual and it was upon him and all those who descended from him by blood.

The curse by Noah upon Ham and his children was incidental as they had already been cursed even before they transgressed

I don’t believe that that is the same curse.

The lineage of Ham was cursed to be “servants” to the lineage of his brothers.

I don’t believe it had anything to do with the Priesthood.

No amount of years and no number of dispensations could make the Lord forgive or forget Cain's treachery and the curse He felt was due to his children as a result.

Where is this written?

I believe that it is a curse that comes and goes according to the will of the Lord and the choices made by Man.

Not even the Atonement was sufficient to repeal the curse.

It was not the purpose of the Atonement to remove the conditions placed on us while we sojourned in mortality.

When Jesus said the Gospel must be preached to ends of the earth he meant only those ends that didn't include the descendants of Cain.

Can you share any leader of the Church claiming that those who descend from Cain should not be taught the Gospel or should be cast out?

The Churches that sprung up in parts of Africa complete with their own priesthood holders during the Apostolic period were all apostate or were an example of a temporary lapse in the enforcement of the ban.

This is an assumption based on the assumption that all those who dwelt in Africa descended from Cain.

This temporary lapse continued when the fullness of the Gospel was restored by Joseph Smith and it took Brigham Young to remember (or be inspired to remember) that the curse was actually still in effect and to re-establish it.

I still believe it was a cursing that could come and go as directed by the Lord, when it suited His purposes.

The Lord finally forgave Cain's seed for the deeds their father committed almost 6000 years before in 1978.

That is an assumption.

Where does it say that God forgave anyone anything?

Also where does it say that this supposed forgiveness caused the lifting of the ban and not some other factor?

All this must hold true although we have the following from the Book of Mormon:

No. All of these assumptions are based on the theories that men have given.

In actuality we don’t know why the ban was given or lifted, other than that both were commanded by God.

Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself his own condemnation. (Amla 3:19)

You are assuming that the ban someone brought someone under “condemnation”.

No one made that claim.

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.

The ban was not God denying anyone salvation.

All people are alike unto God, but throughout the history of our world He still chose people to receive certain blessings while He also withheld certain blessings from others.

It is my position that points 1) and 2) are not reasonable and that other reasons (other than people of African descent being the seed of Cain) was behind the ban on the priesthood.

I cannot agree with you for two main reasons.

1.) No one has any idea why the Lord put the ban in place or removed it.

2.) Numerous First Presidencies have claimed that the ban was received by revelation from God and that only God could remove it.

 

[Prestor John]

My thoughts are that you summed things up quite nicely. The Church has acknowledged (finally) that there never was a revelation to the effect that Black men should be ineligible to hold the priesthood. Had there been one, we could find it today in the Doctrine & Covenants. I was 30 years old when the ban was lifted and I still remember the incredible joy I felt when I heard the announcement. I don't believe that Brigham Young acted in accordance with God's will in enacting the ban in the first place, but I guess that's a matter best left between him and the Lord. After all, prophets are only human, and humans screw up from time to time.

Hey Katzpur.

Would you mind sharing a link to this acknowledgement you mentioned above?

Not all important decisions/policies are written in the scriptures.

Take Joseph Smith naming Brigham Young as his successor. Hardly anyone wrote it down (to much sorrow), but it happens.

Indeed. It is curious that such an important declaration was not made by a part of the standard to be approved by the body of the church. It was as if a minor change or correction was being made rather than a major doctrinal position.

The ban was only a policy, not a doctrine. A policy still commanded by God.

The "curse", as it were, was only something had in this mortal life. It had no eternal ramifications.

 

[Scott C.]

Thank you for the invitation.

I am willing and able to have a discussion about this topic as long as everyone agrees to not be offended by anything anyone says.

I am only advocating this because I wish to be direct in my responses and many people tend to be offended by that.

As long as no one assumes that my “bluntness” is any attempt on my part to belittle or deride anyone, then I am all for this discussion.

Also, don’t assume that I am racist or that I harbor any dislike for people of color. That simply isn’t true.

This idea was always given in general terms and the policy was enforced generally.

I have not read anything that said that every single “black” or “African” person was a descendant of Cain.

This is misleading.

The reason that Brigham Young and others enacted the policy that denied certain people access to the Priesthood and saving ordinances was because it was received to them by the Lord through revelation.

They attested to that fact and later General Authorities also testified of that as well.

All the theories offered to “explain” why the ban was put in place (other than as obedience to revelation) were never considered official doctrine of the Church and were Man’s attempts to comprehend the reasons behind the commandment.

I realize that this is at odds with what I said to Katspur previously about the descendants of Cain only being allowed access to the Priesthood recently.

I was trying to showcase an example of the Lord’s tendency to give or deny blessings based on the actions of others. I understand that my reference to this example was not consistent with the official doctrine of the Church and I apologize for that. It was just the most efficient way for me to point out an example that another member of the Church would understand.

This is not to say that Brigham Young was wrong in his assertion that the ban was commanded to be set in place on those who were literally descendants of Cain. He could have been correct.

I am only pointing out that his rationale behind the commandment was never accepted as the official doctrine of the Church and I wanted to make it clear that the official position of the Church in regards to this past policy is that, “We don’t know why it was given, but it was given and we obeyed.”

This is an unsupported and unverifiable assumption.

It is a false dichotomy.

This idea has merit, but there are still examples in the scriptures of the Lord both giving and denying people certain blessings based on the choices of others that descend down through the literal descendants of those people.

False dichotomy.

Right after you explain the logic behind preventing someone from obtaining the Priesthood if they were not direct descendants of Levi or anyone who was not an Israelite from entering the Temple.

That went on for many centuries.

Cain envied his brother’s flocks, covenanted with Satan for gain, offered up a false sacrifice as instructed by Satan, murdered his brother, lied to God about the murder of His brother, formed a secret band of violent murderers to plague Adam and his children for centuries which eventually caused God to Flood the Earth to wash it clean of the wickedness that began with Cain.

Claiming that he simply “rebelled” against God is an understatement and knowing that he now “rules over” Satan should showcase the height of his wickedness.

Yes and the scriptures claim that his children lived after the manner of their father.

His curse was a physical one as well as spiritual and it was upon him and all those who descended from him by blood.

I don’t believe that that is the same curse.

The lineage of Ham was cursed to be “servants” to the lineage of his brothers.

I don’t believe it had anything to do with the Priesthood.

Where is this written?

I believe that it is a curse that comes and goes according to the will of the Lord and the choices made by Man.

It was not the purpose of the Atonement to remove the conditions placed on us while we sojourned in mortality.

Can you share any leader of the Church claiming that those who descend from Cain should not be taught the Gospel or should be cast out?

This is an assumption based on the assumption that all those who dwelt in Africa descended from Cain.

I still believe it was a cursing that could come and go as directed by the Lord, when it suited His purposes.

That is an assumption.

Where does it say that God forgave anyone anything?

Also where does it say that this supposed forgiveness caused the lifting of the ban and not some other factor?

No. All of these assumptions are based on the theories that men have given.

In actuality we don’t know why the ban was given or lifted, other than that both were commanded by God.

You are assuming that the ban someone brought someone under “condemnation”.

No one made that claim.

The ban was not God denying anyone salvation.

All people are alike unto God, but throughout the history of our world He still chose people to receive certain blessings while He also withheld certain blessings from others.


I cannot agree with you for two main reasons.

1.) No one has any idea why the Lord put the ban in place or removed it.

2.) Numerous First Presidencies have claimed that the ban was received by revelation from God and that only God could remove it.

I saw it your way for many, many years, including after the ban was lifted. But since then, I've come to a few conclusions, which indeed put a strain on my paradigm of how things work in the church-

1. There is no doctrine in our church whatsoever that Cain's curse had anything to do with Priesthood.
2. There is no doctrine whatsoever that gives us any idea whatsoever as to who on earth today happen to be descendants of Cain.
3. The Pearl of Great Price speaks of Pharaoh not having the right to the Priesthood. We don't know why he did not have this right. These versus do not contradict points one and two.
4. Brigham Young was mistaken in his interpretation of scripture and in implementing the ban.

Statements from modern day Apostles make this clear. They are very, very slow to correct or to contradict earlier church leaders, but the message is clear to me. Brigham Young got it wrong. This link is pretty clear on the subject:

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

From the LDS Statement:

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. According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel. Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father. Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.

I don't know how to make it any more clear that the policy was driven by the biases and popular notions of the times among some Christians.

A BYU professor recently expressed opinions similar to yours to the press. The church very quickly stated that he was wrong and what he stated was inconsistent with what the church teaches today. The church stated in response to the Washington Post article:

The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. BYU faculty members do not speak for the Church. It is unfortunate that the Church was not given a chance to respond to what others said.

The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form.

For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.

The church does not know "why, how, or when" the ban started. If there were revelation, that would be the "how". It would also be the "why". The church is not saying "we know there was a revelation, but we don't know the Lord's reasons behind the revelation." Rather the church is saying "Since there is no known record, documentation, or other evidence of a revelation to Brigham Young or to any other President, we don't know why the policy was implemented." This makes a big difference, of course.

 

[Katzpur]

Hey Katzpur.

Would you mind sharing a link to this acknowledgement you mentioned above?

In the link Scott C. provided, the statement is made that "Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." If there had been a revelation instructing Brigham Young not to ordain Black men, the answer would have been clear. There would have been no need for random explanations as to why the policy was enacted. The answer would have been: "Check the D&C; the answer is there." But since it wasn't, and since Brigham Young never even claimed that he had received a revelation, there is no logical reason to think there was. There are, however, numerous scriptures that strongly imply that all worthy men should have the right to hold the priesthood. They just seem to have been ignored for a long period of time.

Not all important decisions/policies are written in the scriptures.

Take Joseph Smith naming Brigham Young as his successor. Hardly anyone wrote it down (to much sorrow), but it happens.

The ban was only a policy, not a doctrine. A policy still commanded by God.

Oh, come on! The brethren make policies all the time that aren't commanded by God. I seriously can't believe you really think that God instructs them in every decision they make -- from whether men with beards can sing in the Tabernacle Choir to which musical instruments are "approved" for use in Sacrament meetings to what kind of earrings a woman can wear to the temple. My husband is in the High Priests group leadership of our ward, when another one of the leaders got all worked up because he noticed that some people in the congregation weren't taking the sacrament with their right hand. He was ready to take the matter all the way to the Stake President if necessary, because he was sure that anyone who was taking it with his left hand was showing disrespect to God. He was convinced that there was a policy in place instructing members to take the sacrament with their right hand and that it was given by revelation. Fortunately, someone must have talked some sense into him because he finally let it drop. I'm sure the Brethren pray about every decision they make, but sometimes policies are enacted that simply don't work out and are consequently changed. That's not because God didn't know what was best all along. It's because some decisions are made by men alone, men simply acting in what they personally feel to be the best interests of the Church. The Brethren aren't perfect. Sometimes they made a wrong judgment call.

The "curse", as it were, was only something had in this mortal life. It had no eternal ramifications.

There is a "curse" described in the Bible, but there is absolutely no indication that it should prevent worthy men from holding the priesthood.

 

[Katzpur]

Indeed. It is curious that such an important declaration was not made by a part of the standard to be approved by the body of the church. It was as if a minor change or correction was being made rather than a major doctrinal position.

You are absolutely correct. A number of years ago, I heard the most incredible talk imaginable on the subject of Blacks and the priesthood. It's not online, so I can't post a link. But if you or anyone else is interested, I could do a quick copy and paste from a Word document I have and post it here. It would take several posts to fit it all in, but it was truly a memorable talk. Meanwhile, here are some great comments I believe all Mormons need to keep in mind. They do not pertain solely to the issue we're discussing, but to a great many other issues as well:

B.H. Roberts: "The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in General Conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appear for our doctrine."

Harold B. Lee: All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures. … We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures, and wherever you have an illustration in the scriptures or a revelation in the Book of Mormon, use it, and do not draw from other sources where you can find it here in these books. We call these the standard Church works because they are standard. If you want to measure truth, measure it by the four standard Church works. … If it is not in the standard works, you may well assume that it is speculation. It is man’s own personal opinion, to put it another way; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, you may know by that same token that it is not true. This is the standard by which you measure all truth. But if you do not know the standards, you have no adequate measure of truth.

Joseph F. McConkie: In presenting a lesson there are many ways for the undisciplined teacher to stray from the path that leads to his objective. One of the most common temptations is to speculate on matters about which the Lord has said very little. The disciplined teacher has the courage to say, ‘I don’t know,’ and leave it at that. As President Joseph F. Smith said, ‘It is no discredit to our intelligence or to our integrity to say frankly in the face of a hundred speculative questions, “I don’t know” ’

J. Reuben Clark Jr.: Only the President of the Church, the Presiding High Priest, is sustained as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator for the Church, and he alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church, either new or amendatory, or to give authoritative interpretationsof scriptures that shall be binding on the Church, or change in any way the existing doctrines of the Church”. We should not teach our private interpretation of gospel principles or the scriptures.

Elder Spencer W. Kimball: There are those today who seem to take pride in disagreeing with the orthodox teachings of the Church and who present their own opinions which are at variance with the revealed truth. Some may be partially innocent in the matter; others are feeding their own egotism; and some seem to be deliberate. Men may think as they please, but they have no right to impose upon others their unorthodox views. Such persons should realize that their own souls are in jeopardy.”

Wilford Woodruff: I wish to say that in my acquaintance in this Church, I have seen men, from time to time rise up and try to be servants of God. They try to explain things they know nothing about, to make themselves appear clever. There is a great deal of this kind of thing in this age. There was one of the leading Elders of the Church who went before the people and undertook to preach certain principles. Joseph heard of it and desired him to present the doctrine to him in writing. He wrote it, and when he completed it read it to the Prophet. He asked Joseph what he thought of it. “Why,” said Joseph, “it is a beautiful system, I have but one fault to find with it—” “What is that, Brother Joseph?” Joseph said—“It is not true.” So I say, every little while someone, thinking he is smart, tries to teach something that is not in the Doctrine and Covenants and Church works, and which is not true. … Do not speculate on things you know nothing about, for it will benefit no one.

 

[Prestor John]

@Scott C. and @Katzpur
Thank you both for your posts. They were clear and to the point and I believe I understand where you are both coming from. I appreciate the effort.

I am, however, still inclined to disagree with you.

I am not trying to say that either of you are wrong. I just cannot agree with you based on my own understanding.

You have just been led to different conclusions about what the leaders of the Church have said in regards to this issue and I personally don’t believe that the sources that have been shared say what either of you claim they have said.

I understand that not everything said by a General Authority constitutes the official doctrine of the Church. I also know that current Church leaders have discredited many of the things said by past leaders of the Church in regards to the Priesthood ban.

However, I have not seen anyone claim that the Priesthood ban was not received by revelation. I have only see them discredit certain Man-made speculations, theories and explanations that have circulated in the Church for many decades in attempts to justify or rationalize the Priesthood ban.

These speculations, theories and attempts to explain the Priesthood ban (when no known reason was ever given) have led to all kinds of confusion.

It is much like the many attempts by Church leaders to explain why the Lord commanded us not to drink coffee or tea. Most members of the Church (and the rest of the world) would claim that we don’t drink those things because of their caffeine content. This has led many members of the Church to also refrain from consuming any other caffeinated drinks or even chocolate.

However, the revelation does not mention caffeine or chocolate.

I feel that this is relatable to our issue because if Church leaders were to say that caffeine is not the reason for why we don’t drink coffee and tea that would not mean that those Church leaders were also claiming that there had been no revelation about coffee and tea.

Basically, just because leaders of the Church are now claiming that the speculations, theories and attempts to explain the Priesthood ban by Brigham Young and others (like the curse of Cain and neutrality in the pre-mortal war) are not official Church doctrine, that is not the same as saying that the Priesthood ban was not revelatory.

It only means that all those Man-made attempts to justify or rationalize the Priesthood ban were never official Church doctrine.

I would like to respond to your comments, but I wanted to see how you guys would like to proceed. Should we discuss one topic at a time or write long comments that address everything at once?

Which would you prefer?

 

[Katzpur]

I don't really care how we proceed, but I did want to share one thought... I don't know whether you're familiar with Darius Gray or not. But, according to the wiki article on him, "Darius Gray is an African-American Latter-day Saint speaker and writer. [He] was among those involved in Developing the 'Race and the Priesthood'" essay published on the website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in December 2013. In 2014 Gray was given a special citation by the Mormon History Association for contributions to Mormon history." I've met him on three occasions that I can recall, and he is truly one of my heroes.

In a 2014 speech he gave, he spoke of a "spiritual experience" which he presented to then President Gordon B. Hinckley, asking him, "May I teach this?" He said that about ten days later, he received permission from the Brethren to do so. They asked, however, that before relating the experience, he make the following disclaimer: "That which I am about to share should not be considered as doctrine in that it does not appear in the Standard Works of the Church. It is, however, consistent with the scriptures, and permission has been granted by the Brethren for me to teach this. The reasons for the denial of the priesthood to Blacks have not been known historically. However, it was through revelation in 1978, that the restriction was lifted. The issue of race is a test for all Christians, Latter-day Saints included. The priesthood restriction was not imposed by God but was allowed by Him."

This is absolutely what I believe to have been the case with respect to the priesthood ban. I believe it was not imposed by God, but allowed by Him.

 

[Prestor John]

I don't really care how we proceed, but I did want to share one thought... I don't know whether you're familiar with Darius Gray or not. But, according to the wiki article on him, "Darius Gray is an African-American Latter-day Saint speaker and writer. [He] was among those involved in Developing the 'Race and the Priesthood'" essay published on the website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in December 2013. In 2014 Gray was given a special citation by the Mormon History Association for contributions to Mormon history." I've met him on three occasions that I can recall, and he is truly one of my heroes.

In a 2014 speech he gave, he spoke of a "spiritual experience" which he presented to then President Gordon B. Hinckley, asking him, "May I teach this?" He said that about ten days later, he received permission from the Brethren to do so. They asked, however, that before relating the experience, he make the following disclaimer: "That which I am about to share should not be considered as doctrine in that it does not appear in the Standard Works of the Church. It is, however, consistent with the scriptures, and permission has been granted by the Brethren for me to teach this. The reasons for the denial of the priesthood to Blacks have not been known historically. However, it was through revelation in 1978, that the restriction was lifted. The issue of race is a test for all Christians, Latter-day Saints included. The priesthood restriction was not imposed by God but was allowed by Him."

This is absolutely what I believe to have been the case with respect to the priesthood ban. I believe it was not imposed by God, but allowed by Him.

I think that is a very good point and what I will say on this topic is comparable to that.

 

[Thanda]

Apologies for the late reply: My laptop got stolen last week.

Anyway I'm back and ready for action.

Thank you for the reply and don't worry about being straightforward - this is a debate not a polite discussion

This idea was always given in general terms and the policy was enforced generally.

I have not read anything that said that every single “black” or “African” person was a descendant of Cain.

I would ask you to explain what you meant by this as I do not quite follow. What do you mean by the fact that it was a "general policy". Does it mean it only generally applied to black people but that there were exceptions from time to time granted to "outstanding Africans"?

Furthermore when Brigham Young gave the proclamation he did not say people of African descent would be denied the priesthood. He said the seed of Cain would be. After that the church (the brethren) interpreted his proclamation to mean people of African descent.
As for as you know which native Africans were exempt from the policy?

This is misleading.

The reason that Brigham Young and others enacted the policy that denied certain people access to the Priesthood and saving ordinances was because it was received to them by the Lord through revelation.

They attested to that fact and later General Authorities also testified of that as well.

And yet no one has come forward to give a date and nature of this revelation.

All the theories offered to “explain” why the ban was put in place (other than as obedience to revelation) were never considered official doctrine of the Church and were Man’s attempts to comprehend the reasons behind the commandment.

Was the proclamation by Brigham Young also a "explanation"?

I realize that this is at odds with what I said to Katspur previously about the descendants of Cain only being allowed access to the Priesthood recently.

I was trying to showcase an example of the Lord’s tendency to give or deny blessings based on the actions of others. I understand that my reference to this example was not consistent with the official doctrine of the Church and I apologize for that. It was just the most efficient way for me to point out an example that another member of the Church would understand.

This is not to say that Brigham Young was wrong in his assertion that the ban was commanded to be set in place on those who were literally descendants of Cain. He could have been correct.

I am only pointing out that his rationale behind the commandment was never accepted as the official doctrine of the Church and I wanted to make it clear that the official position of the Church in regards to this past policy is that, “We don’t know why it was given, but it was given and we obeyed.”

Again I'd love to know the time, place and nature of this revelation.

This is an unsupported and unverifiable assumption.

It is a false dichotomy.

As is the assumption that black people are the seed of Ham/Cain. But, okay I'll admit it is just an assumption on my part. But it is an assumption which I don't think is quite off. Take a look at the U.S. and how so many people (in the space of only a few hundred years) have shared ancestry across Caucasian, African and native American racial lines. Now what are the chances that among a group of just 6 people on the earth they would somehow manage to keep their blood lines clear of each other?

This idea has merit, but there are still examples in the scriptures of the Lord both giving and denying people certain blessings based on the choices of others that descend down through the literal descendants of those people.

But never so inconsistently - Why the gaps in the application of the curse?

Cain envied his brother’s flocks, covenanted with Satan for gain, offered up a false sacrifice as instructed by Satan, murdered his brother, lied to God about the murder of His brother, formed a secret band of violent murderers to plague Adam and his children for centuries which eventually caused God to Flood the Earth to wash it clean of the wickedness that began with Cain.

Claiming that he simply “rebelled” against God is an understatement and knowing that he now “rules over” Satan should showcase the height of his wickedness.

However heinous Cain's crime's might have been seems to have little to do with people who lived more than 5000 years later who were no more his seed than any other people in the world.

Yes and the scriptures claim that his children lived after the manner of their father.

Sure, that should be the only reason why a curse move's from father to child.

His curse was a physical one as well as spiritual and it was upon him and all those who descended from him by blood.

Where does this doctrine come from?

I don’t believe that that is the same curse.

The lineage of Ham was cursed to be “servants” to the lineage of his brothers.

I don’t believe it had anything to do with the Priesthood.

From Abraham 1:26 :

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.​

Where is this written?

I believe that it is a curse that comes and goes according to the will of the Lord and the choices made by Man.

What choice do you think people of African descent may have made in or around 1852 which caused the curse to return?

It was not the purpose of the Atonement to remove the conditions placed on us while we sojourned in mortality.

Conditions placed by whom?

Can you share any leader of the Church claiming that those who descend from Cain should not be taught the Gospel or should be cast out?

I need not - by not extending the priesthood to black people the Church also decided (as a consequence) to not preach to Gospel to most parts of Africa - thus ensuring that most Africans did not receive the Gospel.

This is an assumption based on the assumption that all those who dwelt in Africa descended from Cain.

An assumption that was apparently made by the Church since they specifically denied people of African descent the Gospel and did not attempt to test people for their Cainness no matter where they came from.

I still believe it was a cursing that could come and go as directed by the Lord, when it suited His purposes.

A very weird kind of course indeed - I know of nothing else like it.

That is an assumption.

Where does it say that God forgave anyone anything?

Also where does it say that this supposed forgiveness caused the lifting of the ban and not some other factor?

Oh, I'm not proposing any of this to be true. I am merely following the "seed of Cain" doctrine to it's logical conclusions.

No. All of these assumptions are based on the theories that men have given.

In actuality we don’t know why the ban was given or lifted, other than that both were commanded by God.

I submit that we also don't know that it was commanded by God. In fact all evidence seems to point to the fact that it wasn't

You are assuming that the ban someone brought someone under “condemnation”.

No one made that claim.

I am saying the "seed of Cain" doctrine with which the ban was revealed reference a curse and according to the Book of Mormon prophet a curse is a condemnation as a result of personal unrighteousness.

The ban was not God denying anyone salvation.

All people are alike unto God, but throughout the history of our world He still chose people to receive certain blessings while He also withheld certain blessings from others.

Again there is no evidence that He chose to withhold anything from people of African descent.

I cannot agree with you for two main reasons.

1.) No one has any idea why the Lord put the ban in place or removed it.

2.) Numerous First Presidencies have claimed that the ban was received by revelation from God and that only God could remove it.

Currently the Church position is that they are not sure that it was the Lord who put the ban in place.

 

[Katzpur]

Currently the Church position is that they are not sure that it was the Lord who put the ban in place.

They've done everything but publicly announce what President Hinckley told Darius Gray he had permission to teach: The priesthood restriction was not imposed by God but was allowed by Him."

People have a very hard time believing that a prophet of God could actually implement a policy that was so out-of-line with the scriptures, without being specifically commanded to. But the fact that one did just that isn't evidence that the Church is not true, or that the prophet wasn't a true prophet. All it's evidence of is that the prophet was a man who made a mistake.

 

[Prestor John]

I am sorry for the very late response.

There was a “perfect storm” of illness in my family where my three-year-old got sick, which got me sick, then my wife and then the one-year-old baby and then me again.

It has been a nightmare and I just didn’t feel up to writing.

I had prepared a lengthy response before I had gotten sick, which I feel is a pretty comprehensive look at what the Standard Works have taught about Cain, various “curses” and how the Lord handles such.

I read mainly from the book of Moses, but I feel that I gained the most insight when I compared the history of Cain and those who followed him to that of the Lamanites and also turned to the Doctrine and Covenants here and there to fill in any gaps.

However, when I came back to that response, I felt that it made me look like such a “blow hard”, so I am just going to share my main points here and we will work from there if anyone is even still interested in this discussion.

I won’t be addressing anyone’s comments directly, so if I miss anything just point it out to me and I will address it later.

Now, before I begin I just want to reiterate that I understand that not everything said by a prophet is revelation or the will of the Lord. I am also not advocating that everything Brigham Young or anyone else has said in an attempt to “explain” the ban are revelatory nor am I claiming that any man/prophet/leader of the Church is infallible.

1.) I find the position that Brigham Young “got it wrong” or that the Priesthood ban was not revelatory or that it was based on racism to be implausible for any member of the Church.

I say this because it was my understanding that since the official organization of the Lord’s Church in these latter-days that no Church policy could be enacted without the unanimous decision of the General Authorities of the Church. (D&C 107:27)

Also, the Doctrine and Covenants mentions what the Church was to do if any decision made by General Authorities was done in unrighteousness. (D&C 107:32)

2.) Now, in reference to the position, “It cannot be revelation because it was not written in the Doctrine and Covenants or in a statement with a specific date.”

I do not believe this to be a reasonable position for members of the Church to take because we have accepted other revelations even when we did not know exactly when they were given nor were they recorded in our Standard Works.

Doctrine and Covenants 27 mentions that the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had been given the Melchizedek Priesthood and were called to be Apostles, but we have no record of that event nor do we know exactly when it took place.

3.) If the Priesthood ban had been “allowed” by the Lord, rather than it being His will, then why did He not lift the ban as soon as other Presidents of the Church and other General Authorities asked Him to?

Why did General Authorities claim that they had not received any revelation to lift the ban and that they could not do so until they received such a revelation?

Even though it is entirely possible that the idea of the Priesthood ban originated with Brigham Young, that is not the same as saying that it was not revelatory or not the will of the Lord. Rather than “allow” I see it as “approve”.

For example, the Lord gave the sealing power to the prophet Nephi because He claimed that Nephi would “not ask that which is contrary to my will.” (Helaman 10:5) The same could be said of the President of the Church because the Lord has said that the keys of the kingdom “always” belong to the President of the Church (D&C 81:2).

Therefore, just as with Nephi, cannot the President of the Church “say that God shall smite this people” and it should come to pass if it be the Lord’s will? (Helaman 10:10)

Even though it was Nephi's idea to replace the Nephite war with a famine (Helaman 11:4-5), does that make Nephi's request any less revelatory or any less of God's will?

Those who know God’s will and are committed to aligning their will to His can make requests of the Lord, through His Holy Priesthood, of which He can “approve” and make it His will, for the voices of His servants can be the same as His voice (D&C 1:38)

4.) At least two First Presidencies claimed that the Priesthood ban was a commandment from the Lord.

August 17, 1949

“It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.”

“December 15, 1969

“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.”

“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 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.”

You can read both of the statements in full here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements

5.) The scriptures are clear that the “order of the priesthood” “rightly belongs” to the “literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made.” (D&C 107:40) and the Lord clearly pointed out that this “right” belonged to Seth and his descendants (D&C 107:42-43).

The fact that there is a “chosen seed” that received the “right” to the Priesthood would also indicate that all other “seed” would not have that right.

Does this mean that no one else can have the Priesthood but the descendants of Seth?

No. That is not what it means. It simply means that no one else has the “right” to it. For example, if I deny someone access to my home, they cannot claim that I am denying them of their “rights” because they have no “right” to enter into my home.

So, anyone can receive the Priesthood, based on the criteria set by the Lord, but He can also deny people access to the Priesthood simply based on the fact that they did not have a “right” to it in the first place.

The idea that only certain lineages have access to certain blessings at certain times is found in the scriptures many times.

How or why the Lord decided to place certain of His children into the “chosen seed” or not is not known. However, what is known is that the actions we performed in our pre-mortal life can affect us in this mortal life.

Just how they who were “noble and great” among the spirits that dwelt with God were chosen to receive blessings, like being His “rulers” (Abraham 3:22-23), that would also mean that there were also “less noble and great” or “not at all noble and great” that may have been denied the “right” to certain blessings in this life.

All that we are and receive is based on what we do. We all have the same opportunity. If we decide to apply ourselves and excel we are blessed more. It is upon our faithfulness that the Lord adds to or takes away blessings from us.

It is just as Alma explained about those who were called to be priests according to the “foreknowledge of God”,

“And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.

Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared—

And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest—

This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things—

Now they were ordained after this manner—being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order, which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end—

Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen.” (Alma 13:3-9)

6.) The portion of the remnant of Cain’s descendants that survived the Flood were cursed “as pertaining to the Priesthood” which is clarified to mean that they became the “lineage by which [they] could not have the right of Priesthood” (Abraham 1:21-27).

Again, it is clear that they could receive the Priesthood, based upon their worthiness and the will of the Lord, yet they simply had no “right” to it. They had not be foreordained to receive it.

7.) The Church has been clear that all past attempts to explain or justify the Priesthood ban were never the official doctrines of the Church.

I did not mention any of this stuff in an attempt to support any of those past explanations or justifications.

I just don’t think that Brigham Young being wrong about why the ban was put in place changes the fact that the ban was received by revelation.

A President of the Church cannot enact a Church-wide policy without the unanimous support of other General Authorities. A revealed doctrine or policy does not need to be included in the Standard Works as a detailed word for word revelation in order to be a revelation. The Lord approves of the actions of the President of the Church as long as it is according to His will. The Brethren have claimed that the ban was revelation on several occasions. The ban could not be lifted without further revelation. The scriptures clearly teach that not everyone has the “right” to the Priesthood, so denying someone the Priesthood does not necessarily deny them of any “right”.

 

[Watchmen]

What evidence is there that Young implemented the ban based on revelation?

 

[Prestor John]

What evidence is there that Young implemented the ban based on revelation?

Other than those two First Presidency statements I shared I know of none. Nothing official.

However, I feel that the fact that all subsequent Presidents of the Church (up until the lifting of the ban) not only reconfirmed the ban but also stated that further revelation would be needed in order to rescind the ban is also strong evidence that the ban was originally implemented based on a revelation.

 

[Thanda]

I am sorry for the very late response.

There was a “perfect storm” of illness in my family where my three-year-old got sick, which got me sick, then my wife and then the one-year-old baby and then me again.

It has been a nightmare and I just didn’t feel up to writing.

I had prepared a lengthy response before I had gotten sick, which I feel is a pretty comprehensive look at what the Standard Works have taught about Cain, various “curses” and how the Lord handles such.

I guess life is keeping us both very busy. Things have only just calmed down work-wise for me this side.

And don't worry this response seems sufficiently lengthy

1.) I find the position that Brigham Young “got it wrong” or that the Priesthood ban was not revelatory or that it was based on racism to be implausible for any member of the Church.

I say this because it was my understanding that since the official organization of the Lord’s Church in these latter-days that no Church policy could be enacted without the unanimous decision of the General Authorities of the Church. (D&C 107:27)

It need not be so hard to believe. The brother of Jared (a man Brigham Young would probably admit had greater faith than himself) did not pray for two years (or something like that). Lehi lost faith in the Lord. Nathan allowed himself to be impressed by the appearance of the brother of David rather than looking upon the heart.
I could use many other examples but my point is there is no reason to find it difficult to believe that during a time when racial prejudice was seen as normal in America, that Brigham Young and other apostles held less than perfect ideas about people of African descent. That Joseph Smith apparently did not should not lead us to assume that all others were like him. He was after all "the best blood of his generation" and a man who "did more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it". And if that is true then it should not surprise us if, after he is gone, ideas that may not have been given any room to breath under his watch emerge after he is gone. For in the end the doctrines of the Lord can only be kept as pure as those who are its guardians.

Now, in reference to the position, “It cannot be revelation because it was not written in the Doctrine and Covenants or in a statement with a specific date.”

I do not believe this to be a reasonable position for members of the Church to take because we have accepted other revelations even when we did not know exactly when they were given nor were they recorded in our Standard Works.

Doctrine and Covenants 27 mentions that the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had been given the Melchizedek Priesthood and were called to be Apostles, but we have no record of that event nor do we know exactly when it took place.

The issue crops up because by the time Brigham Young made the announcement the practice of recording important revelations that represented a major position of the church was already well established. So the only question I have is why such a major policy position of the church was not recorded and added to the doctrine and covenants as was done with Polygamy (both introducing it and discontinuing it) as well as, ironically, the removal on the ban.

3.) If the Priesthood ban had been “allowed” by the Lord, rather than it being His will, then why did He not lift the ban as soon as other Presidents of the Church and other General Authorities asked Him to?

Why did General Authorities claim that they had not received any revelation to lift the ban and that they could not do so until they received such a revelation?

Even though it is entirely possible that the idea of the Priesthood ban originated with Brigham Young, that is not the same as saying that it was not revelatory or not the will of the Lord. Rather than “allow” I see it as “approve”.

I think at this point it is relevant to recite what I wrote before concerning the Lord's possible role in the ban.

Spoiler

So the only basis possible for excluding blacks from the priesthood is either direct revelation or prejudice.

I personally reconciled most of the information at my disposal to the following conclusion - the ban was the result of revelation (subtle perhaps) as a result of prejudice.

What does this mean? The Lord has a history of revoking blessings from his people or banning them from doing things which would bless them as a result of the hardness of hearts. E.g. The children of Israel were prevented from entering the promised land, the fullness of the gospel was taken from them and they received only a lessor law. In latter-days the law of consecration has been held back from the church because members are not yet ready to receive it and the reclaiming of Zion was pushed back for a similar reason.

I am also reminded of the debate in the early church about extending the gospel to gentiles. Jesus is recorded to have told them while he was on earth that the gospel should go to all nations. But it required further revelation, a strong and inspirational sermon from Peter, and the manifestation of the power of the Holy Ghost among gentiles to convince the people of the day to extend the blessings they had received to their non-Jewish brothers and sisters.

With all this in mind it seems uncontroversial to say that human prejudice can play a large role in how the affairs of even God's true church are conducted. And it further seems clear that God displays the ability to exercise patience with his people in getting them to incorporate true principles in their lives. In fact from a church perspective God seems be able to wait for generations for the right moment to implement true principles. It is also clear that through the hardness of our hearts God may sometimes be led to make decrees that force us to live in less than ideal ways. (As with the law of Moses).

This leads to the conclusion that either black people displayed a hardness of heart when they received the gospel (as muslims generally do - specifically the lives of converts are often threatened) that led God to institute a temporary ban or the white members of the church held prejudices against their black brethren as was the fashion of the time and could not look at their brethren as equals and as worthy of the same blessings both in this life and the next as themselves.
I would venture to say it seems clear there is more evidence for the latter than the former.

And if it is so then it may be that the ban was introduced by the Lord to save black people from the shame they were suffering within his church and as a chastisement to his church for the hardness of their hearts (as with the Law of consecration). And it is therefore no coincidence that the revelation to lift the ban came during the time when the tide of national (in the US) opinion was turning and the critical mass of the American people (of which LDS members were a part) viewed blacks as their equals and as deserving of the same rights. (It is also relevant to note the number of members who left the church when the lifting of the ban was announced).

The basic message of the above is that Black people's exclusion from the Church (assuming it was by revelation) may not have been because of any deficiencies they possessed but because of deficiencies possessed by their white brothers and sisters who could not see them the way God saw them.

End of Part 1 of 3