Black men and the Pre-Existence

[_Jason Bourne]

McConkie certainly said that they were wrong.

Jason, If I recall correctly, BRM did not say they were wrong. He said something like, "forget what I said."

Do you have the quote?

My observation is that there are a lot of folks who still believe in this doctrine... I'm guessing a few on this board? ;-)

~dancer~

Here is what he saidL

We Follow Living Prophets

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, "Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things." There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say,

"You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. (See Following the Prophets home page) Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept (2 Ne. 28:30; Isa. 28:9-10; D&C 98:11-12; 128:21). We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter anymore.{1}

It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

See here for the full address:

http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/dail ... lation.htm


So did he say they were wrong? It not so many words yes I think he did.

[_Jason Bourne]

First Presidency on August 17, 1951, which reads as:

"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 this 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 maintained 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....."

That date was from 1951. This statement was from President Kimball in 1978.

President Kimball "flatly [stated] that Mormonism no longer holds to...a theory" that Blacks had been denied the priesthood "because they somehow failed God during their pre-existence."

Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride, chapter 24, page 3; citing Richard Ostling, "Mormonism Enters a New Era," Time (7 August 1978): 55. Ostling told President Kimball's biographer and son that this was a paraphrase, but an accurate reporting of what he had been told (see footnote 13, citing interview on 10 May 2001).

Just a note here, we have continuing revelation. So 1978 Trump's 1951.[/quote]

Yes it is no longer a position but it was an official position in 1951 and that is the point. Those who say this idea was only speculation are wrong. An FP statement is as close to official as it gets without something being canonized.

[_moksha]

Boaz made this comment on the Obama thread, and I felt it was worth exploring a little more:

Black men were not valiant in the pre-existence..

For the "faithful few" here, have you ever believed this, and if/when you read about this, what were your thoughts?

I never believed it, for it is nonsense. The Church does not support this speculation for they too realize it is nonsense.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Yes, I was taught this LD Church Doctrine, when I went to Seminary during the 1980's. The Following is from an 'Official Statement,' issued from the First Presidency on August 17, 1951, which reads as:

"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 this 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 maintained 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....."

Yeah, but I don't know of any apologist that believes Official Statements from the First Presidency should be taken seriously. Any time the First Presidency issues an Official Statement members should take it with a grain of salt. After all, Official Statementd from the First Presidency is a fancy way of saying "something that three old guys in Salt Lake city agree on." The rest of us are free to make our own decisions. I'm sure even Charity would agree with me.

[_JAK]

I read it while digging through old LDS books as a teenager. I never heard it in Church until I was on my Mission.

I know a few things about myself that were molded due to failings in the Premortal Worlds. In that sense I was less valiant. There are those who were more and those that were less valiant than me.

Whether skin color figures in at all, I don't know. To be blunt, I don't want to know. We have enough social, racial, and cultural classes dividing society without needing to add a group of indicators to a Premortal class.

So, you're telling me you KNOW there is such a thing as a pre-mortal world, but you don't KNOW what your church leaders have plainly stated regarding the curse of black skin?

You believe them when they tell you pre-mortal worlds exist, but you don't believe them when they plainly state that spirits who were less valiant in that pre-existence are sent to earth with black skin?

Funny, you have issues with creating racial divides, but your inspired Mormon prophets don't.

KA

KA,

It’s a fine example of personal dissonance with a given religious doctrine.

It’s an example of Nehor’s own doctrinal shift. That’s the kind of thing which gave rise to protest, the Protestant Reformation, and to the emergence of start-up groups attempting to revise previous doctrine and call themselves by a new name.

JAK

[_truth dancer]

Hey Jason,

I'll have to agree to disagree with you. I do not think that BRM's statement admitted the teaching was wrong. I interpret it more as... time to move on, let it go, it is behind us.

He could have come out and clearly stated the teaching was completely wrong, even apologized, but he did not. He said, forget about it. Two very different things in my opinion.

President Hinckley, when asked said he did not think the ban was wrong and that the church "rectified" anything that "may have appeared to be wrong at the time." This is not denying anything was wrong, nor is it denying the doctrine.

A few leaders suggest there is further light and knowledge but so far as I can tell no one has stated unequivocally that blacks were NOT less valiant or less righteous in the pre existence. IF they had, I think members would still not hold to this belief like so many do.

I think the church rather than admit mistakes goes along with Pumba... "let's put the past behind us." ;-)

Here is the crux of the problem...

If the church admitted prophets and apostles were wrong.. prophets and apostles who were speaking in the name of God, in an official capacity, who thought they were inspired and teaching truth, were so completely wrong, then how can anyone trust a leader?

And, if prophets and apostles can be so completely utterly wrong, thinking they were receiving inspiration and perhaps receiving revelation, speaking as the mouthpiece for God, then how in the world can anyone trust their own inspiration?

I have asked this question of apologists but have failed to receive an answer.

I truly do not understand how apologists rationalize this.

~dancer~

[_skippy the dead]

President Hinckley, when asked said he did not think the ban was wrong and that the church "rectified" anything that "may have appeared to be wrong at the time." This is not denying anything was wrong, nor is it denying the doctrine.

A few leaders suggest there is further light and knowledge but so far as I can tell no one has stated unequivocally that blacks were NOT less valiant or less righteous in the pre existence. IF they had, I think members would still not hold to this belief like so many do.

I think the church rather than admit mistakes goes along with Pumba... "let's put the past behind us." ;-)

Exactly. This is part of a point I was trying to make earlier. Charity uses a second-hand paraphrase of something Kimball said to Richard Ostler in an interview as the "official repudiation" of the less-valiant theories. Why on earth would a prophet use that method to spread the word?? Stand up in General Conference for pity's sake, say "Blacks were NOT less valiant in premortal life" and be done with it.

But nooOOooo - the leaders make general demurrers and hope it all goes away.

[_truth dancer]

The quote from JRH,

Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... We just don't know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. ... That's my principal [concern], is that we don't perpetuate explanations about things we don't know. ...
We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present. That's the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. ...

Again, I read this as... the teaching must not be taught or perpetuated. Nothing about it not being true. More like, we don't really know for sure so we best not spread the teaching.

If the teaching was not true, why not just come out and say... there is no truth to the previous teaching that blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence. It is a mistake and an incorrect belief. Those who held such a belief were misled and wrong.

As it is, seems quite a few believers still hold to this ridiculous belief.

~dancer~

[_charity]

As it is, seems quite a few believers still hold to this ridiculous belief.

~dancer~

I know some people who also think the landing on the moon was made up. They saw it in a movie.

Some people are just plain dumb. It happens in and out of the Church.

[_the road to hana]

Some people are just plain dumb. It happens in and out of the Church.

Just relishing the profundity of these words.


Dumb, Charity? To believe what they're taught in church? Sigh. I guess. That's why they stopped believing it all. I think you'll find that the new head of the church, President Monson, is going to allow for far less flexibility in interpreting doctrine than some mopologists suggest is consistent with modern Mormonism.

In fact, I'm going to make a prediction, right here. Thomas S. Monson will be the church president who actually starts clarifying doctrine and perhaps even issuing apologies.