Why were some blacks not allowed to be baptized before 1978?

[_DarkHelmet]

I knew there was a priesthood ban, but I didn't know blacks couldn't be baptized. I heard the story of the guy from Ghana who organized unofficial LDS churches until finally he and his followers were able to be baptized in 1978. Here is his wikipedia page:
[url]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Johnson_%28Mormon%29[/url]

Johnson was born in Lagos, Nigeria. He grew up in the Roman Catholic faith. In 1964, Johnson learned about the Book of Mormon from Frank A. Mensah. Upon receiving a copy of the Book of Mormon, Johnson started "Latter day Saint" congregations in Ghana independent from any other Latter day Saint sect.[1]

Although he was not able to be baptized at this time, Johnson did receive support and encouragement in sharing the faith with others from Latter day Saint expatriates who occasionally lived in or visited Ghana, such as Merrill J. Bateman.

So why didn't Bateman baptize him during one of his visits?

Johnson was finally baptized into the LDS Church on 9 December 1978 a few months after Spencer W. Kimball received his revelation that allowed black people of African descent to hold the priesthood.

I know there were black members before 1978, so why was this guy, and all of the members of his unofficial LDS branch in Ghana, denied baptism before 1978?

He sounds like an interesting man, and his story is told as a great story of faith. Here is an LDS.org story about him.

http://www.LDS.org/ensign/1999/12/steadfast-african-pioneer

By April 1964, Joseph Johnson had formally organized a church patterned after The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah. He wrote to President David O. McKay and received additional literature and letters encouraging him to study the gospel and to help the people until, as President McKay wrote, “in the Lord’s own due time, missionaries would be sent.”

This guy had a strong testimony and a bunch of followers and they were meeting "unofficially" using guidelines provided by the church. What part of the priesthood ban prevented missionaries from going over and baptizing these people?

Several months before the 1978 revelation that the priesthood and temple blessings would be available to all worthy brethren, Brother Johnson saw in a dream some Caucasian men entering his chapel. They said, “We are your brothers, and we have come to baptize you.” Some of his followers also had similar dreams, giving hope that the missionaries would soon come. “Each time the Lord addressed us in dreams,” Brother Johnson noted, “He addressed us as Latter-day Saints, even though we had not yet become members.”

Late one night in June 1978, deeply discouraged and tired, Brother Johnson returned home. Some of his followers were tired of waiting, and they wanted to go back to their old churches to be with their families and friends. Brother Johnson felt a great need for spiritual and emotional strength. A strong impression came to him to listen to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) shortwave station, which he had not listened to for several years. He worked with his old short-wave radio for over an hour before he could tune in to the BBC.

It was midnight, and the news was being broadcast. He recalled: “I heard the message of President Spencer W. Kimball that all worthy males in all the world could receive the priesthood. I burst into tears of joy because I knew the priesthood would come to Africa, and if we did the right things, we would all receive the priesthood.”

Several months before 1978 he had a revelation that he and his followers would be baptized, and then the priesthood ban ended, missionaries went to Ghana and baptized him. Why did he have to wait for the 1978 revelation to be baptized?

[_consiglieri]

I think this was mentioned in David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism. Going from memory, I believe the reasoning was that it would be counterproductive to baptize people into a church which could not exist in a formal capacity due to a lack of priesthood leadership.

In other words, the priesthood ban precipitated a baptism ban.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Stormy Waters]

This makes another statement in the Mormonism 101: FAQ false.

People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning.

[_consiglieri]

This makes another statement in the Mormonism 101: FAQ false.

People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning.

Good catch, Stormy.

Is somebody keeping a list of these somewhere?

[_MsJack]

I believe the reasoning was that it would be counterproductive to baptize people into a church which could not exist in a formal capacity due to a lack of priesthood leadership.

I was just typing something to this effect. The church didn't have the resources to send missionaries and foreign, white, priesthood-holding leaders who could live there and preside over these congregations, so it opted not to baptize the people at all.

This makes another statement in the Mormonism 101: FAQ false.

People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning.

I don't think that statement is false. This claim is not the same as saying that baptism has been made available to everyone who desires it at all times. The issue in Ghana wasn't that the people were unwanted for baptism because they were black; it was that baptism was not made available in their area because of other issues tied to race.

[_Drifting]

So...in summary...the faithful black people couldn't be baptised because some white people weren't there to supervise them post baptism.

Sounds perfectly Christlike.

[_MsJack]

Circumstances being what they were, I actually have some sympathy for the church's course of action in this case. Love it or hate it, the LDS church has always liked its order. Everything has to be done according to a proper order. I still mentally roll my eyes when we have Mormon visitors and they ask my husband to choose someone to say an opening prayer---which they always do---because I know that's their way of saying that he's the patriarch and the one who presides in our family. He isn't, and I completely resent the suggestion that my husband has authority over me, but it's such a small thing that it never seems worth the effort to stop and correct them on it. Ordering and micromanaging everything is a very Mormon thing and it's kind of unrealistic to expect them to change on that anytime soon.

Since the church didn't have the resources to appoint white priesthood holders to oversee these congregations, they had two options:

(1) Let these people continue to go rogue (which is what they did). They weren't members of the church, but they weren't accountable to the church, either.
(2) Occasionally send missionaries out to baptize them and allow them to continue managing their own congregations as official members of the church, without priesthood leadership.

But (2) had its own issues. It would have suggested that the church was okay with non-priesthood-holders managing congregations when the necessity of priesthood authority has been one of the central messages of the church since the 1830s. How could the LDS church be telling the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox churches of the world that they needed to repent and accept management by the proper priesthood authorities if it had official African congregations functioning just fine sans priesthood? If the African Mormons could be dedicated and devoted disciples of Jesus Christ without priesthood authority in their lives, then why can't the rest of the Christian world?

Two, there would have been no one there to enforce Mormon orthodoxy. In case you didn't know, syncretism is and always has been a considerable problem for Christianity in Africa (and other parts of the world, for that matter). Who would have disciplined members who refused to abandon false teachings? Who would have ensured that the Mormon believers there were not practicing---for example---female genital mutilation? If the Mormon believers did practice that, and the church did not do something about it (like excommunication), the church would have been criticized for allowing these practices, e. g. "Mormons in Ghana are practicing female genital mutilation, and the church isn't doing anything about it." Also, what would have happened if the people got tired of waiting for occasional trips from foreign missionaries to baptize their children and started performing their own baptisms and serving the Sacrament? The church would have had to discipline them, and then it would have been seen as mean for disciplining African converts who couldn't help it that there were no priesthood holders in their area.

So, like I said: circumstances being what they were, I understand why the LDS church didn't offer baptism to these people. Believers in Mormonism's theological claims will say that they missed out on the blessings of baptism, but I say they also missed out on having to be accountable to the church for things that they might not have known better on. Instead, they were able to live their beliefs as they pleased until the proper leadership could be implemented.

What was unchristlike about the situation was the entire racist policy of not ordaining blacks or allowing them into temples.

[_Joe Geisner]

I knew there was a priesthood ban, but I didn't know blacks couldn't be baptized. I heard the story of the guy from Ghana who organized unofficial LDS churches until finally he and his followers were able to be baptized in 1978. Here is his wikipedia page:
[url]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Johnson_%28Mormon%29[/url]

consiglieri pointed out Greg Prince's excellent work David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism as a source. See pages 81-94

This is in fact the best source on the subject. These events really started out in 1946 and in Nigeria. It is really a disturbing story. Hugh B. Brown suggested in 1962 that blacks be given the Aaronic Priesthood so that they could have Church services without whites. McKay's response was "You do that and you give them the priesthood." Unfortunately Brown acquiesce to McKay and nothing happened. What a waste because of a racist ideology.

McKay was no friend of minorities and his administration was just as racist as his predecessors. No matter how much I despise Kimball for his sexualization of everything with two legs, he did throw away these horrible racist ideas. And he should be praised of this change.

[_Aristotle Smith]

No matter how much I despise Kimball for his sexualization of everything with two legs

As an aside, I distinctly remember The Miracle of Forgiveness mentioning bestiality, meaning he was considerate enough of quadrupeds to include them in that tome.

[_Stormy Waters]

This talk given at BYU gives a lot of information: African Converts Without Baptism

The Church responded by sending literature, but the demand for Church literature was so great that some Africans even established LDS bookstores. However, since there were no priesthood holders to preside and provide priesthood ordinances, those asking for baptism were told, "The time is not yet. You must wait."

As they waited, they shared their knowledge and testimony of the gospel with others and organized congregations. It was reported that in the 1960s there were more than 60 congregations in Nigeria and Ghana, with more than 16,000 participants—none of whom were baptized

Soon after the revelation was announced, I sought out Moses. As we embraced I asked him if he had heard about the revelation. He said, "Yes. Does this mean that I can now be baptized?"

I asked, "Moses, would you like to be baptized?"

His eyes welled up with tears as he said softly, "I have waited for 14 years."