Did Elder Snow Misrepresent the Truth on National TV

[_Blixa]

This remains, to me, not only one of the most troubling things about the current LDS hierarchy, but also one of the most puzzling.

Off the top of my head, I can think of multiple ways to explain the priesthood ban that are not lies and not opportunistic PR spin. And I'm sure most of you can too. Which makes the path they have chosen all the more unnecessary.

[_huckelberry]

This remains, to me, not only one of the most troubling things about the current LDS hierarchy, but also one of the most puzzling.

Off the top of my head, I can think of multiple ways to explain the priesthood ban that are not lies and not opportunistic PR spin. And I'm sure most of you can too. Which makes the path they have chosen all the more unnecessary.

Blixa,sorry to question but I am having some difficulty off the top of my head.
my attempts:

It was a relic of 19 century assumptions that nobody had authority to question.
It was a relic of 19 century assumptions more useful to maintain as a commitment test for members than to adjust.

I have heard since that white Mormons were incapable of handling more black members until 1978 or so.

I remember inference to the effect having more Black members would risk influence from communists and people unable to follow the path of law and order in their demands for undesirable social change. (I am sure somebody thinks I sensed such inferences because I was young)

Then there was the preexistence stuff about the most deserving individuals from preexistence getting the choice social birth locations. That idea links well with the ugly notion that especially undeserving folks were born black.

i suspect that with these rotten alternatives, saying "we do not know" is quite attractive.

Frankly I am still angry about what I was taught about Black people.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

How about his for a change?

Yep, we were a racist church. We were wrong, and we're sorry for that nonsense.

Today?

We fully embrace every single human on this Earth as an equal, and hope to move forward together. Life is tough enough, and we certainly don't need to be creating divisions amongst ourselves.

- VRDRC

[_sock puppet]

To "some" people the scripture seems to indicate that those of African lineage (blacks) were under a curse.

ldsfaqs, the LDS canon continues to include the following:

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.

NOTE: THE TERM 'WHITE' WAS CHANGED TO 'PURE' IN 1981.

And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites.

5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.
* * *
8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.
9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.

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.

Those were all scriptures wrought at the hand of JSJr.

Joseph Smith identifies Negroes as lineage of Ham: "The first Sabbath after our arrival in Jackson county, Brother W. W. Phelps preached to a western audience...wherein were present specimens of all the families of the earth; Shem, Ham and Japheth; … quite a respectable number of negro descendants of Ham ...".

History of the Church, 1:190.

1843: Apostles Heber C. Kimball, Orson Pratt and John Page restrict ordained Seventy Elijah Abel's missionary work to his own people.

Because Cain cut off the lives [sic] of Abel...the Lord cursed Cain's seed and prohibited them from the Priesthood.

Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot hold the priesthood ... I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it. The Negro cannot hold one particle of Government ... if any man mingles his seed with the seed of Cane the only way he Could get rid of it or have salvation would be to Come forward & have his head Cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground. It would also take the life of his Children.

And then there is this from from the Journal of Discourses:

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, un- comely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race - that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, [p.291] and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.

You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation ...When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, [u]he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people[/u].

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.

Then the sitting prophet,

The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.

From what did an entire race need to be redeemed?

1908 (24 years after E. Abel died): Joseph F. Smith, on unspecified grounds, reverses his former position about Elijah Abel's status and now claims that Joseph Smith himself declared Abel's ordination as a Seventy "null and void."

Now, ldsfaqs, note how the prophet and two apostles (ordained as 'prophets, seers and revelators') couched this 'talking as men' not as god's oracles--note the phrase, Official Statement of the First Presidency.

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. 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. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind; namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of the principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the principle is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood, is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the Priesthood by Negroes

Official statement of the First Presidency to BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson, dated August 17, 1951, quoted in Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price, 1967, pp.406- 407.

Dear Brother Nelson:

As you have been advised, your letter of June 16 was received in due course . . . We have carefully considered [its] content; and are glad to advise you as follows:

We make this initial remark: the social side of the Restored Gospel is only an incident of it; it is not the end thereof.

The basic element of your ideas and concepts seems to be that all God's children stand in equal positions before Him in all things. Your knowledge of the Gospel will indicate to you that this is contrary to the very fundamentals of God's dealings with Israel dating from the time of His promise to Abraham regarding Abraham's seed and their position vis-à-vis God Himself. Indeed, some of God's children were assigned to superior positions before the world was formed.

We are aware that some Higher Critics do not accept this, but the Church does. Your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the pre-existence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a religionship in the life heretofore.

From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been "most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous [meaning 'marriage within a specific tribe or similar social unit']. Modern Israel has been similarly directed.

We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

Faithfully yours,
/s/
George Albert Smith
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
David O. McKay
The First Presidency

There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.... There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.

Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation?

Those who were less valiant in the pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin.... Noah's son Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the negro lineage through the flood....The negroes are not equal with other races when the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom, but this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, based on His eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate.

• 1969: President Hugh B. Brown proposes that the Church's policy be reversed and that Blacks be given the Priesthood. This policy was approved by the Quorum of Twelve and the First Presidency with President McKay and Harold B. Lee absent. (President McKay was disabled due to age and President Lee was traveling on Church business). When President Lee returns, he calls for another vote and the measure is defeated.

To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.
Dear Brethren:
"In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church."
"A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.
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." [NOTE: until 1969, no room for not fully known or understood was in the way the doctrine had been taught.]
"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.""
Faithfully your brethren,
The First Presidency
By Hugh B. Brown
N. Eldon Tanner

Spencer W. Kimball described the process through which the church decided to bestow all church privileges upon African-Americans:

"It went on for some time as I was searching for this, because I wanted to be sure. We held a meeting of the Council of the Twelve in the temple on the regular day. We considered this very seriously and thoughtfully and prayerfully.

"I asked the Twelve not to go home when the time came. I said, 'now would you be willing to remain in the temple with us?' And they were. I offered the final prayer and I told the Lord if it wasn't right, if He didn't want this change to come in the Church that I would he true to it all the rest of my life, and I'd fight the world against it if that's what He wanted.

"We had this special prayer circle, then I knew that the time had come. I had a great deal to fight, of course, myself largely, because I had grown up with this thought that Negroes should not have the priesthood and I was prepared to go all the rest of my life till my death and fight for it and defend it as it was. But this revelation and assurance came to me so clearly that there was no question about it."

(President Spencer W. Kimball, Deseret News, Church Section, January 6, 1979, p. 19)

Are you and the current COB claiming that all these official statements prior to 1969 were men talking as men? (1969 being when the first wiggle room for not fully understanding god's reasons appear in these pronouncements.)

That's not racism, that's simply repeating what they believe the scripture states.

Just talking as men, right? Didn't understand it, right?

• The 'law of god',
• 'not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord',
• canonized scripture explaining black and dark skin being a curse from god (and Africans--black skin and flat nose--being descendants of Cain who was so marked as part of his curse from god),
• needing redemption from their dark skin,
• a handicap for not being as valiant in the pre-existence,
• the 'very fundamentals of God's dealings',
• 'the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a religionship in the life heretofore',
• God's rule for Israel,
• "revelation" even in the first weaselly worded 1969 pronouncement,

No ones questioning that it was a "wrong" belief, but "racism" is a far different story and charge, a false one at that.

No, ldsfaqs, not just a 'belief' but

• The 'law of god',
• 'not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord',
• canonized scripture explaining black and dark skin being a curse from god (and Africans--black skin and flat nose--being descendants of Cain who was so marked as part of his curse from god),
• the 'very fundamentals of God's dealings',
• 'doctrine',
• God's rule for Israel,
• "revelation"

Do you think you're the ONLY ONE to look at statements and like a child and think they're racism???

Thank mankind, no none of us are alone in thinking your BS religion has one of the most clearly racist histories of institution still in operation.

You're not the first to think YOU'RE the only one being "rational" while Mormons were/are racist!

Sorry, but there is simply MORE to the story..... Which mean's you're NOT the "rational adult" you think you are, and also means you aren't telling the truth. I know, because I've been there. Mock as you in your childishness will, but I know what the actual truth is.

Yes, there is more to the story--and a rational (not COB-spoon-fed) adult will realize that the LDS Church, in its chain of authority going right back through Brigham Young, is racist.

[_Blixa]

This remains, to me, not only one of the most troubling things about the current LDS hierarchy, but also one of the most puzzling.

Off the top of my head, I can think of multiple ways to explain the priesthood ban that are not lies and not opportunistic PR spin. And I'm sure most of you can too. Which makes the path they have chosen all the more unnecessary.

Blixa,sorry to question but I am having some difficulty off the top of my head.
my attempts:

It was a relic of 19 century assumptions that nobody had authority to question.
It was a relic of 19 century assumptions more useful to maintain as a commitment test for members than to adjust.

I have heard since that white Mormons were incapable of handling more black members until 1978 or so.

I remember inference to the effect having more Black members would risk influence from communists and people unable to follow the path of law and order in their demands for undesirable social change. (I am sure somebody thinks I sensed such inferences because I was young)

Then there was the preexistence stuff about the most deserving individuals from preexistence getting the choice social birth locations. That idea links well with the ugly notion that especially undeserving folks were born black.

i suspect that with these rotten alternatives, saying "we do not know" is quite attractive.

Frankly I am still angry about what I was taught about Black people.

I share that anger, huckleberry, it was this coupled with the general culture of sexism that turned me off from the Church in my youth. This was the line in the sand for me.

I'm just completely perplexed that nothing better than "we don't know" has ever been forthcoming.

Off the top of my head, I was thinking along the lines of your first suggestion: i.e., some earlier beliefs were the product of human speculation and not divinely revealed and therefore are more likely to have been embedded in the zeitgeist during which they were adopted.

I don't think that is anywhere near a completely satisfactory explanation, but it would provide a frame within which the priesthood ban could be explained as "wrong" and apologized for. And it's a hell of a lot better than "we don't know."

Another possibility would be to "Adam God it" and talk about Brigham Young's racial beliefs in contrast to Joseph Smith's. Again, that's not a completely satisfactory explanation, but its still better than "we don't know."

And I also realize that neither of these suggestions go very far in regard to many difficult passages in the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, or other doctrinal and cultural contradictions and problems. But, they are at the very least better than "we don't know." Nearly anything else would be.

I also don't understand what the imagined result of "we don't know" is supposed to be. It leaves all kind of terrible racial beliefs circulating among older members (and possibly the not so old as well) and looks extraordinarily disingenuous to the Gentile. I can't think of a good rationale for going down this road.

(by the way, I entered this thread late without reading earlier comments carefully, so apologies to Equality and Molok who already brought up some of these points.)

[_moksha]

Moksha, if it was wrong and uninspired yet the First Presidency wrote a letter stating it was right and inspired. How can Mormons trust anything the First Presidency says?

We all learn by our mistakes. One handicap the Church has is the false presumption that the ark should not be righted when it lists to one side with momentum. No one wants to see it drop on the ground and its contents break, but inaction is the rule of the day.

The Brethren picked the ark back up in 1978 and are bearing it the best they can. It is currently listing precipitously to the business side, but I am hoping that it will be righted to the religious side. I know Brothers Bcspace and Droopy are doing all they can by standing on the extreme edge of the political side, hoping that their added weight will help.

[_sock puppet]

Moksha, if it was wrong and uninspired yet the First Presidency wrote a letter stating it was right and inspired. How can Mormons trust anything the First Presidency says?

We all learn by our mistakes.

True enough. My mistake was for believing, during the first 25 years of my life, that the FP/12 when they claimed something was from god, a revelation, or divine doctrine. BS. And I did learn from the mistake from listening to those disingenuous liars.

[_Fence Sitter]

I also don't understand what the imagined result of "we don't know" is supposed to be. It leaves all kind of terrible racial beliefs circulating among older members (and possibly the not so old as well) and looks extraordinarily disingenuous to the Gentile. I can't think of a good rationale for going down this road.

I don't understand how the members accept "we don't know". For the brethren to continue to maintain "we don't know" is to admit they do not communicate with God, at least in this matter.

[_sock puppet]

I also don't understand what the imagined result of "we don't know" is supposed to be. It leaves all kind of terrible racial beliefs circulating among older members (and possibly the not so old as well) and looks extraordinarily disingenuous to the Gentile. I can't think of a good rationale for going down this road.

I don't understand how the members accept "we don't know". For the brethren to continue to maintain "we don't know" is to admit they do not communicate with God, at least in this matter.

As the members have accepted the fact that there have been no revelations except the earrings in well over a decade, then they have already implicitly accepted the fact that there is no communication with god going on.

[_MCB]

they have already implicitly accepted the fact that there is no communication with god going on.

They did that a long time ago when they decided to pray with arms folded, universally interpreted as a closed off, not listening to communication, posture.