Page 1 of 2
Question about the priesthood ban
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:51 am
by _Scottie
I had an interesting question posed to me today, and I didn't have the answer.
Since a woman does not have to hold the priesthood to enter the temple, could black women go through?
.
Re: Question about the priesthood ban
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 12:56 am
by _Ray A
Scottie wrote:Since a woman does not have to hold the priesthood to enter the temple, could black women go through?
No they couldn't, because the ban was not just priesthood, but "the seed of Cain".
Re: Question about the priesthood ban
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 1:57 am
by _NorthboundZax
As a follow up, could blacks have their temple work done prior to 1978?
Re: Question about the priesthood ban
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 2:08 am
by _Ray A
NorthboundZax wrote:As a follow up, could blacks have their temple work done prior to 1978?
No they couldn't. One exception was
Jane Elizabeth Manning.
After Isaac left the family in 1869, Jane repeatedly petitioned the First Presidency to be endowed and to be sealed, along with her children, to Walker Lewis, a prominent African American Mormon Elder. Lewis, like Elijah Abel, had been ordained to the priesthood during Joseph Smith's lifetime, and Jane therefore assumed that he would be eligible for temple ordinances. However, her petitions were consistently ignored or refused.
After Isaac died in 1891, Jane asked that she and her family be given the ordination of adoption so that they could be sealed in that manner. Her justification, according to her correspondence with church leaders, was that Emma Smith had offered to have her sealed to the Smith family as a child. She was now reconsidering her decision, and asked to be sealed to the Smiths.
Her request was refused. Instead, the First Presidency "decided she might be adopted into the family of Joseph Smith as a servant, which was done, a special ceremony having been prepared for the purpose."[1] The ceremony took place on May 18, 1894 with Joseph F Smith acting as proxy.[2]
The minutes of the Council of Twelve Apostles reflect that Jane was dissatisfied with that decision, and applied again to obtain the sealing that was offered to her by Emma, but was again refused.
Church leadership subsequently revoked her temple ordinances and blessings on August 22, 1895, due to her "negro blood". But reinstated the sealing -- along with her servant status -- in 1902 (Bathsheba Smith acting as proxy).
Re: Question about the priesthood ban
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:53 am
by _skippy the dead
Scottie wrote:I had an interesting question posed to me today, and I didn't have the answer.
Since a woman does not have to hold the priesthood to enter the temple, could black women go through?
.
Ah, but are you familiar with the role the priesthood plays in women's temple rites? It's not such a cut and dried question. Although we do not HOLD the priesthood, we are permitted to EXERCISE the priesthood in the temple. This may have been a stumbling block, I would venture.
Re: Question about the priesthood ban
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:31 am
by _cinepro
No, black women could not go to the Temple (which is one of the reason inter-racial marriages were a no-no).
It also explains the unusual wording in the SWK manual regarding OD2:
Re: Question about the priesthood ban
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:36 am
by _Inconceivable
Ray A wrote:Her request was refused. Instead, the First Presidency "decided she might be adopted into the family of Joseph Smith as a servant, which was done..
!!!!!!
God no.
Endowed to be a servant. A black woman cleaning the toilets in the Smith mansion for all eternity.
This is wicked ignorance.
I imagine Eldridge Cleaver would have returned to the fold of Black Panthers had he heard this.
If this is true, I am once again embarrassed and humiliated that I followed such blind guides.
Ray, Truly this must be damned lie.
Re: Question about the priesthood ban
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:49 am
by _Ray A
Inconceivable wrote:Ray, Truly this must be damned lie.
If only it was.
Thankfully, the US now has "the seed of Cain" as president elect, and the most powerful man in the world.
Would Mark E. Petersen be turning in his grave?
Re: Question about the priesthood ban
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:29 am
by _Inconceivable
Ray A wrote:Inconceivable wrote:Ray, Truly this must be damned lie.
If only it was.
One of these days, perhaps someone like Gladys Knight will trace here lineage back and discover she has a great grandmother that was sealed to be a slave to a pasty white Mormon bigot for eternity.
How does a present day white Mormon explain this away? Man, it really must have sucked to be a black Mormon in the 1800's, huh?
Re: Question about the priesthood ban
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 9:08 am
by _moksha
Her request was refused. Instead, the First Presidency "decided she might be adopted into the family of Joseph Smith as a servant, which was done, a special ceremony having been prepared for the purpose."[1] The ceremony took place on May 18, 1894 with Joseph F Smith acting as proxy.[2]
The minutes of the Council of Twelve Apostles reflect that Jane was dissatisfied with that decision, and applied again to obtain the sealing that was offered to her by Emma, but was again refused.
Church leadership subsequently revoked her temple ordinances and blessings on August 22, 1895, due to her "negro blood". But reinstated the sealing -- along with her servant status -- in 1902 (Bathsheba Smith acting as proxy).
Wonder if this has ever been fixed?
.