Teaching About the Priesthood Ban and Official Declaration 2 in Sunday School
[See the Spanish translation of this post here.]
I watched with interest discussions such as this one that involved teaching about the Priesthood Ban in Sunday School as part of Lesson 42 on Continuing Revelation. I was at a party a few weeks ago and talked with the Sunday School president about what I’d been reading and hearing from others about how these lessons were going. I’d had him watch the Nobody Knows documentary a few months ago, and he had liked it, and he thought that a lesson on the topic might be beneficial. I told him that if that’s the direction he felt to go that he should run it by the bishop to make sure he was on board and that if so, I’d be willing to teach it. That Sunday he came back and said that it was a go for December 6, 2009.
So, I prepared by spending some time praying about how and what to present as well as reading Prince, Kimball, Bush, O’Donovan, and past JI posts [1]. I purchased a .pdf of Ed Kimball’s BYU Studies article and emailed a copy to each ward member, asking them to try and read through some of it before class (fat chance at 70+ pages and with finals looming, but two or three did get to it and really liked it). I also sent out a power point presentation that a friend who taught this lesson had put together with relevant quotes and material. I went ahead and sent a copy to my former bishop whose dad had been, once upon a time, affiliated with Dialogue. He got back to me the same day I sent the article out and said that he had just spent “a joyous two hours” reading it.
As I formed my outline Saturday night, I determined that though I would spend a significant amount of time on the ban, ultimately, the lesson would need to focus on the events and the process leading up to the 1978 revelation. At the last minute, I concocted a half-baked, optional survey that I passed out at the beginning of class:
What reasons(s) for the priesthood ban have you heard? Circle all that apply.
1) Was instituted by revelation
2) Because of premortal issues
3) Less valiant/”Fence sitters” in premortality
4) Curse of Cain/Biblical/Book of Abraham
5) The Church wasn’t ready for full integration
6) Blacks weren’t ready for full integration
7) Ban has existed since the beginning (Joseph Smith)
8 ) Other (please specify)
I know, I could have done a lot better than that, and I don’t even know what the difference is supposed to be between 2 & 3. Results:
#1-4 votes
#2-6 votes
#3-5 votes
#4-11 votes
#5-6 votes
#6-3 votes
#7-1 vote
#8 (Other)-1 vote=>Church organization wasn’t sufficient to sustain the training needs with the imminent expansion that did follow.
Well, I started just articulating the lack of good evidence that Joseph Smith started the ban and talked a bit about some of the blacks that were ordained pre-1847: Elijah Abel, Joseph T. Ball, Walker Lewis and William McCarey. The discussion of McCarey segued into a discussion of Young’s statement in March 1847 that “It’s nothing to do with the blood for [from] one blood has God made all flesh. We have one of the best elders an African in Lowell.”
I then referred to William Appleby’s letter to Brigham Young concerning Enoch Lewis, his wife and child and saying, “Now dear Br. I wish to know if this is the order of God or tolerated in this Church ie to ordain Negroes to the Priesthood and allow amalgamation [inter-racial marriage]. If it is I desire to Know, as I have Yet got to learn it.”
Having introduced this notion of “amalgamation,” I took some time (not sure how effectively) to discuss attitudes at the time about inter-racial marriage and biblical justifications for racism and slavery which had existed long before the Church was established.
I continued the Appleby narrative telling about how he arrived in Winter Quarters and discussed the matter with Brigham Young. I cited BY’s assertion that “the law is their seed shall not be amalgamated,” but I spared us all the most vivid portion of that discussion.
I mentioned that BY referred to the Curse of Cain as the source of the restriction while others, facing a dilemma about punishing blacks for the sins of their “father” Cain, began to interpret scriptural passages and craft teachings about pre-mortal deficiencies to help explain the ban.
I mentioned that after BY died, there was still enough ambiguity on the subject that John Taylor called a council to study the matter. In the process I discussed Elijah Abel and Jane Manning James including Jane’s pleading to John Taylor, “Is there no blessing for me?”
I mentioned that despite problems with the testimony given at that council, Taylor and subsequent presidents seem to have carried with them the assumptions of past presidents on the matter. However, during David O. McKay’s presidency, he instituted a number of administrative changes that allowed the burden of proof to shift from baptismal candidates having to provide proof of freedom from African ancestry to being presumed to be free until evidence dictated otherwise. I mentioned that though a much more merciful policy, there were instances where genealogical research had revealed African ancestry and resulted in suspension of priesthood. I wanted to give them a sense, even if hopelessly incomplete, of the situation of black members without looking to use anything too shocking.
I then ran through a list of factors that began coming to a head in the 50s-70s that led to a desire to reevaluate or at least better understand the policy. 1) Large numbers of Africans setting up congregations in Africa and petitioning for missionaries, which created discussion about how to provide leadership for local congregations (among other things), 2) The Civil Rights movement caused the whole nation to reevaluate it’s views and treatment of blacks and other minorities. BYU sports teams faced boycott and some LDS Churches were vandalized over the issue. 3) Historical studies of the Ban had failed to yield any reliable evidence that Joseph Smith had begun the ban, and had even showed that at least one, Elijah Abel, had been ordained during Joseph’s life. General authorities were aware of these studies.
Hugh B. Brown believed that since the ban was a policy, that an administrative decision could change it. He was basically alone in this view among the apostles and first presidency and his views did not prevail.
With all these factors converging, Church leaders began to study and reevaluate the ban. Where before leaders had said that blacks would be able to receive the priesthood in mortality (or at the earliest in the millennium), statements began to leave room for reversal of the ban through revelation.
Some began to believe it was proper to pray for the ban to be lifted, others felt it proper to wait on the Lord to act. Pres. Kimball began as one who was content to vigorously support the ban and when he became president he stated that he anticipated no changes to the policy, but left the door open to change because of revelation.
Pres. Kimball had a long history of working with Native Americans and opposing racism. Many believe that this compassionate background served as one of many factors that made Pres. Kimball open to the possibility of change.
Pres. Kimball became increasingly concerned with the matter. It began to occupy his mind to the extent that close friends expressed some concern for his health. As the responsibility for the matter fell to him, Pres. Kimball found it no longer possible to wait for the Lord to act and began inquiring fervently to know the will of the Lord on the matter. He collected newspaper clippings and spent many hours in the temple praying and meditating over the issue. He pleaded to know if the current policy ought to be maintained. He received no immediate answer.
He invited members of the 12 to join him in prayer, discussion, and study of the issue.
“Over time, through the many days in the temple and through the sleepless hours of the night, praying and turning over in his mind all the consequences, perplexities, and criticisms that a decision to extend priesthood would involve, Spencer gradually found “all those complications and concerns dwindling in significance.” They did not disappear but seemed to decline in importance. In spite of his preconceptions and his allegiance to the past, a swelling certainty grew that a change in policy was what the Lord wanted.133 “There grew slowly a deep, abiding impression to go forward with the change.”134 (Ed Kimball, SWK)
“This answer had become clear in Spencer’s mind as early as late March 1978, but he felt unity within the leadership was important, and he continued to discuss the matter with others. He sensed resistance from some, which he fully understood. He did not push, lobby, pressure, or use his office to seek compliance. Instead, he increased his visits to the temple, imploring the Lord to make his will known, not only to him but also to the Twelve.”
Pres. Kimball continued to meet with and discuss the matter with the 12.
Finally, at a meeting with the 12 on June 1, 1978,
“He outlined to them the direction his thoughts had carried him—the fading of his reluctance, the disappearance of objections, the growing assurance he had received, the tentative decision he had reached, and his desire for a clear answer. Once more he asked the Twelve to speak, without concern for seniority.” Each spoke in favor of change and Pres. Kimball asked them to join him in a prayer for a witness that this was indeed the Lord’s will. Forming a prayer circle, with Pres. Kimball as mouth, he prayed for that witness. There are many statements on record that describe what happened next.
[To this point, a few had commented. The Sunday School pres was one of the few to have gotten through a good amount of the article and talked very favorably of it and commented about some of the things that Pres. Kimball had done like spending hours in the temple, etc. Time was running short. I asked the class what lessons about revelation could be learned from this episode and took some good comments. One said that he was amazed to see the process of coming to the decision among the Brethren, which is a process of which very little is known. He said that probably a lot of decisions like a recent policy change had been arrived in the same way. I felt to push back just a bit on that comment and pointed out that most of those involved both at the time and years later had talked about how unique that particular experience was.]
I drew it down by quoting Bruce R. McConkie’s “Forget Everything” statement, Elder Holland’s PBS statements, and a brief portion from Pres. Hinckley on Racism from a past General Conference. I ended with this:
I believe in our humanity, and all the imperfection that comes with it. I also believe that the Lord has mercifully provided for us so that we can reach out to him and commune with him and receive knowledge from him, and step by step progress, in spite of our humanity. I’m grateful that the Lord continues to speak to each of us by revelation, and often that in doing so, he shows us our imperfections. Joseph Smith indeed spoke prophetically when he said, “We believe that He [God] will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”
I had been so wrapped up in giving the lesson that I hadn’t noticed the strong spirit that was present until the volunteer for the closing prayer mentioned it in the prayer. Indeed, it was there. I did get good comments, but not any more than, well, than usual. The bishop had been in and out, but said that the parts he heard were very good. One ward member did come up to me afterward and we talked for a good few minutes about a friend he had that was struggling with this issue. He said he just didn’t know enough to know what to tell him and he asked for help. I told him I’d help in any way with any issue that might be bothering him.
All in all, it was a good time. I felt good about how it went. I felt that I had done some good.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
[1] See some examples of Connell O’Donovan’s excellent work here and here.
Past JI posts include:
Poll: The Origins of the Priesthood Ban
William Appleby, Intermarriage, and the Ban
Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan
Universalism, Mormon History and the 1978 Revelation
Wallace Thurman, Mormon Utah, and Blacks in the West
How Wide The Divide? Historicity and the Priesthood Ban
Summary of the 30th Anniversary of the Priesthood Revelation
Teaching About Racism (Including the Priesthood Ban) in Sacrament Meeting
Thanks for sharing, Jared. I think lessons of this sort are valuable, and am encouraged by the positive response you received.
Also, I didn’t realize how many posts had been written at JI on the subject. Wow.
Comment by Christopher — December 7, 2009 @ 8:50 pm
Sounds like a great lesson, Jared. Well done.
Comment by Kevin Barney — December 7, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
Thanks, Chris and Kevin.
And Chris, I think there are still others I didn’t consult or link to. Indeed, this is a subject that has a lot of potential for analysis.
Comment by Jared T — December 7, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
I should not neglect to link to Connell O’Donovan’s excellent work on Walker Lewis and some more recent and very important work on some of the inconsistencies in applying the ban in 19th century Utah.
Comment by Jared T — December 7, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
Thanks for sharing this, Jared. And agreed, well done.
Comment by J. Stapley — December 7, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
Awesome Jared. Thanks for providing detailed notes. Wow, 11 votes for the Curse of Cain option. I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised, but I was kinda hoping that the number wouldn’t be so high. Were you able to follow up with anyone who participated in the quiz to see how (if) the lesson changed their views?
Comment by David G. — December 7, 2009 @ 11:41 pm
“Hugh B. Brown believed that since the ban was a policy, that an administrative decision could change it. He was basically alone in this view among the apostles and first presidency and his views did not prevail.”
I am not sure I agree with this. As I understand it, Brown was able to persuade the members of the 12 (while Lee was absent) to change the policy, but upon Lee’s return, he insisted that something more by way of “revelation” was needed.
Moreover, I am not sure what the difference is between an “inspired administrative decision” and “revelation.”
As far as I can tell, the difference seems to be one of degree, than of kind. All or most decisions of the FP and 12 are supposed to be unanimous, with all members feeling comfortable with the decision that it is right (presumably feeling God’s approbation).
It appears that the decision to end the priesthood/temple restriction practice followed that procedure–but perhaps the Brethren applied something more than a “feeling inspired” test. Maybe it was a higher level of inspiration or burning of the bosom test.
Comment by DavidH — December 7, 2009 @ 11:42 pm
Nice, Jared. Good instruction and good tact.
Comment by Ryan T — December 8, 2009 @ 12:03 am
Thanks David and Ryan.
David G., Haven’t followed up yet, but would like to. The nature of the question would have to change as I was only asking about what they’d heard not necessarily what they believed. I only got 12 survey sheets back (with multiple answers on each–a number had almost all the options circled, indicating they’d heard lots of different explanations).
DavidH. On Brown-Lee, I assume you’re leaning on Prince for that description. Maybe you could point me to some specific source or page number. Unless I read the wrong portion, how you’ve described it does not match my reading. And even if it does, it seems clear to me that Brown was “basically” (remember the qualifier) alone in the hierarchy in believing that the decision to extend the priesthood to all blacks could be as “easy” to make as the earlier decision to stop requiring pedigrees (as before mentioned in the lesson). Others might have gone along, but they did not seek it like Brown did. So, I feel that characterization stands.
As far as the diff between “inspired administrative decision” and “revelation”, I’m not sure what your point is, but I think you’d have to ask Pres. Brown as he seems to be the one making the distinction. It’s clear to me that he felt there was a difference, but I’m not prepared to speak for him about the nature of it.
Comment by Jared T — December 8, 2009 @ 12:36 am
Way to go, Jared. I enjoyed reading your account. I have to think that a large part of your success was your preparation ahead of time. Still, I’m having a hard time imagining anything close to this in the Gospel Doctrine class I attend. You must live in a special Ward. Thanks again.
Comment by Hunter — December 8, 2009 @ 1:37 am
Jared, even though your sample is very small, it would be interesting to know how some of the answers to your questionairre related to the age of those being questioned.
AB
Comment by Aaron Brown — December 8, 2009 @ 2:08 am
Thanks Hunter. It’s a great ward. It’s a university married student ward, so you have younger attendees who, as students, are largely being exposed to wider perspectives on a lot of issues than might be common in other settings, and who I’ve found very receptive to expanded views on a host of issues. I think a lot of credit is due the Sunday school president for being open to the idea and to the Bishop for approving the idea. This bishop is relatively new, but before that he was a stake high councilman with whom I worked closely in my calling. Hence, I’ve known him longer than probably anyone in the ward and we have a good rapport. I believe that his familiarity with and trust in me played a role, and I’m thankful for that trust.
Which speaks in part to Aaron’s question. The current ward high councilman was the only person old enough to have remembered the 1978 revelation who was present to take the survey (the bishop arrived after the survey had been administered). Assuming he completed the survey, you can expect that 11 of the 12 respondents were born post-ban.
On a slightly comical note, afterward, one person said he appreciated the lesson and said that this could not have been done in his brother-in-law’s ward in Montana.
Comment by Jared T — December 8, 2009 @ 2:40 am
Jared,thanks for this. On top of the others things I know you’re doing, I don’t know where you get the time and energy for such preparation. Your ward is fortunate to have you in such a role. Aside from what Sunday School attendees got out of your lesson, your report here is another example of “JI”s value. As the old familiar saying goes, if “JI” weren’t already around, we’d have to invent you.
Comment by Bill MacKinnon — December 8, 2009 @ 8:53 am
Sounds like a great lesson. I hope for more of these in wards across the Church. (And I’m curious how it would go over in a non-student family ward).
Comment by Clean Cut — December 8, 2009 @ 9:02 am
The incident referred to above between Pres. Brown and Pres. Lee can be found in Pres. Brown’s book “Abundant Life.”
An interesting question is whether, had Pres. Lee lived longer, this historic change would have taken longer, given Pres. Lee’s longstanding feelings against changing the ban.
Comment by Ray — December 8, 2009 @ 9:04 am
Thank you Bill
CC, thank you. I think being informed, being yourself faithful, having the trust of leaders, and only doing such a lesson with approval would be key to building the kind of trust necessary for lessons like this to happen.
Ray, thanks I’ll check it out. That narrative did seem familiar, but I didn’t encounter it this past week. I neglected to consult Abundant Life. As I mentioned in 9, even so, I think my characterization fits.
Comment by Jared T — December 8, 2009 @ 10:59 am
Does anyone know how many Blacks received the Priesthood in 1978? Or if there was an increase in Black converts?
Comment by Bob — December 8, 2009 @ 11:31 am
Thanks for this great resource. I think these sorts of grass-roots discussions set in the context of faith will be important to our corporate spiritual recovery from the ban.
Comment by smb — December 8, 2009 @ 11:40 am
Jared T. Great Lesson. I’d be interested to know how you would have handled the lesson differently had you had black converts present who you knew for a fact were not aware of the ban. This is not hypothetical, but a dilemma I face in my own ward.
Comment by Matt W. — December 8, 2009 @ 11:43 am
Lesson 42 – Continuing Revelation to Latter-day Prophets only barely mentions the Priesthood Ban and Official Declaration 2. That topic was only a tiny part of the lesson, certainly not the focus or the message. It sounds like you departed significantly from the lesson manual from some reason.
Also, the materials to be used almost exclusively in preparing and presenting lessons are outlined at the beginning of the lesson manual. It sounds like the primary sources for your lesson materials were well outside of the prescribed sources.
You sound pretty proud of your lesson too and how you perceive it that came out – proud enough to post on the internet in detail about it.
Comment by T — December 8, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Thanks for the info, Jared. I’m going to download Kimball’s article also and read through it.
I linked to a few of your previous posts and enjoyed the alternative interpretation of Gen. 9 concerning maternal incest found in “Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan (Gen. 9:18-27)”. However, how does that interpretation explain Shem and Japeth’s subsequent actions of laying a garment on their shoulders and walking backwards to cover Noah (or Noah’s wife) nakedness?
(Sorry for commenting here, but since this post was the most recent, I thought might not get a response from the previous post)
Comment by Jeremy — December 8, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
T: As Jared clearly indicated, he prepared his lesson with the full approval and knowledge of his local leaders. Why don’t you let them, with the inspiration they receive according to their stewardship, worry about whether Jared was out of bounds?
Jeremy, I’m glad you like the post. The maternal incest reading of Gen. 9 does not rely on a literal interpretation of the chapter, so we don’t necessarily have to understand the description of Shem and Japheth as a literal rendering of what actually happened. Rather, if we read “seeing his father’s nakedness” as a euphemism for maternal incest (as supported by Lev. 18), then we can read “covering the nakedness of their father. . .that they did not see their father’s nakedness” as a veiled way of saying that Shem and Japheth did not do what Canaan had done.
Comment by David G. — December 8, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
I can’t believe it took 20 comments for some self-righteous blowhard to criticize the departure from the lesson manual and its list of “prescribed sources” and complain that this post is nothing more than the prideful boastings of a clearly-apostate academic.
Comment by Christopher — December 8, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
Exceptionally well done, Jared.
I also appreciate the notes and references you’ve shared. I’ll probably crib from them and maybe even directly plagiarize them if I ever teach a lesson or give a talk on this topic. Hope you don’t mind.
Comment by Mark Brown — December 8, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
I’ll respond to the rest in a second, but I need to address T first.
T, I think you are pretty well out of line. You should remember the divine injunction in D&C 46:1-2, “Hearken, O ye people of my church; for verily I say unto you that these things were spoken unto you for your profit and learning. 2. But notwithstanding those things which are written, it always has been given to the elders of my church from the beginning, and ever shall be, to conduct all meetings as they are directed and guided by the Holy Spirit.”
You have absolutely no stewardship in this matter, you were not there, and you did not feel the spirit that was present, you know nothing of the preparations involved, you ignore that I didn’t force this on anyone but intentionally told the SS pres to consider it and take it to the bishop who approved of the idea. Each did so within the prerogative of their stewardship. As to the pride issue, your reading is misguided, self serving in its own right, and mistaken.
Self-righteous comments such as yours will not be indulged on this thread. This is yours and any other lurker’s only warning.
Comment by Jared T — December 8, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
Thanks for posting such a detailed write-up. It was informative and interesting. Your ward is fortunate to have you.
Comment by Keri Brooks — December 8, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
Bob, not sure, hopefully someone else has something for you on that.
Thanks smb and Matt W. Matt, that’s a good question. I would have to really think and pray about how to approach that. I think it would definitely make a difference and would be very important to do “right”. Of course, the “right” way would surely differ from person to person. Honestly, I think I would consider making the effort to speak personally with that individual first in a frank way before the lesson ever happened. I think that would be helpful and you may consider that.
That is the course I’m interested in pursuing with this individual who seems to be having issues with the ban. I am going to propose to this ward member that we three meet together and talk about it.
Thanks Jeremy and David. Chris, I’m a bit surprised too, and even thought that we might make it through without such, but oh well, the gospel net gathers of all kinds.
Mark, thank you. Feel free.
Thank you Keri. I’m the one that’s lucky.
Comment by Jared T — December 8, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
Jared, I think another option is to find out what resources Genesis has to offer. I know Darius has put together a couple of DVD’s on the subject, and rather than reinvent the wheel, it would be good to get on the same page with what they’re doing. Another avenue is to reach out to other African American stake members and, if something isn’t in place already, set up some kind of stake-wide support group.
Comment by David G. — December 8, 2009 @ 2:27 pm
Jared, thanks so much for sharing these notes. It’s sobering to read the results of the “survey” after thirty years — which to me points to the fact that the Church really has allowed the folklore to persist — but genuinely inspiring to hear the response of the class. I think they’ll never be the same or hear the history in the same way. Paul (my husband) taught this lesson and his chief non-manual sources were “Lengthen Your Stride” and Jim Allen’s JMH article, “Would-Be Saints.” As nearly as he could tell, though, he was the only person who thought the Church had inflicted a lot of unnecessary pain with its on-and-off policy in Nigeria. Everybody else thought it showed the Lord’s infallible wisdom. It’s a good topic to think about within a day of Dale LeBaron’s death — his oral histories are priceless for the genuine feeling that comes through what are obviously scripted expectations.
–Lavina
Comment by Lavina Fielding Anderson — December 8, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
David, definitely, thanks for reminding us of that. That sounds like the way to go.
Comment by Jared T — December 8, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
Thank you, Lavina.
Comment by Jared T — December 8, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
Sounds like a great experience, Jared. It’s interesting to see this played out from the perspective of those who were too young to remember the 1978 revelation. In our ward, our gospel doctrine teacher spent about one third of his time on other aspects of continuing revelation, such as the correlation program, and the balance on the revelation on priesthood. With an older ward, we occasionally get some funny ideas, like the one member who insisted, until I showed him the dates in the D&C, and also in the BYU Studies article, that the announcement was made in March of 1978, as he remembered it “so well”. Perhaps not so much.
Comment by kevinf — December 8, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
Wow I wish my ward had lessons that good. Excellent.
Comment by AYdUbYA — December 8, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
I especially liked your survey, I thought that was really interesting to see. It shows how much influence a doctrine in the scriptures can influence thinking in modern day issues.
Comment by AYdUbYA — December 8, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
Thanks Kevin and AW. I certainly can’t take all the credit, in this context as a Sunday school lesson, I affirm that as I prayed and pondered the material, that I was guided by the Spirit in putting it together and the Spirit was present during the lesson. It really was a faith-affirming experience.
Comment by Jared T — December 8, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
A few months ago I was eating breakfast on a Sunday morning and tuned in to KBYU tv. One of the taped scripture discussions with BYU reled faculty was on – about the PGoP. I was surprised to see the “discussion leader” imply that if those present didn’t think Joseph initiated the ban that they needed to repent. Not his exact words, but it seemed clear to me. It made me think that there must be some fair variation over there about the issue and certainly the origin of the ban. If I’m not mistaken the leader was Bob Millet, but I could be wrong. I just remember being a bit startled by the statement. Anyway, thanks for the post Jared.
Comment by WVS — December 8, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
PoGP (Pearl of Great Price), not PGoP.
Comment by WVS — December 8, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
BTW, our SS teacher is in reled and he spent virtually no time on the ban. The 78 revelation was only briefly discussed. He’s a friend, but I didn’t approach him about why he didn’t take the opportunity to do a little more. I got the impression that there was some discomfort with the topic.
Comment by WVS — December 8, 2009 @ 8:35 pm
Re: 36, 39: Ugh. That is a terrible update.
Comment by Christopher — December 8, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
Ok! Behind the times on that one! I’m sure the motive was (is?) to protect the reputation of all the intervening church leaders. I can understand that. But I don’t think it serves the modern church. However, current church leaders are likewise reluctant to give some appearance of discontinuity in understanding. Reled as an institution views itself as a kind of mirror site for Salt Lake. Just a bit of distortion along the way I suppose. But its not a monolith. There is plenty of fun, below the surface, doctrinal battling. Bob laying land mines for the rest of the group was kind of funny, if it wasn’t preserving fabulous history in the minds of the innocent.
Comment by WVS — December 9, 2009 @ 12:50 am
To Bob,
I was in the Hyde Park Branch in Chicago in June of 1978. Before then there was one young Black woman who attended regularly–but almost immediately afterward the missionaries began teaching among the large Black communities surrounding Hyde Park. The numbers were few at first–among the notable early converts were Betty Johnson (later Bridgeforth) and Catherine Stokes.
As to ordinations, there were a number in the New York Stake almost immediately. Ray Rivera, who served as a high councilor for years afterwards, and Reggie Allen (both of Brooklyn, where I’ve lived the last 29 years) were among those early ordinations.
Comment by Mark B. — December 9, 2009 @ 9:10 am
Great post, Jared. I attend the gospel essentials class, so I miss lessons like these. Thank you for sharing your lesson.
Comment by Brian Duffin — December 9, 2009 @ 9:50 am
I just spent the last 45 minutes or so reading through David’s post (and all comments) linked to in #39. Wow. I’d forgotten how fun, frustrating, and ridiculous the commentary was.
Comment by Christopher — December 9, 2009 @ 10:21 am
I searched the byub.org website for the episode in question. It appears that the episode page and MP3 have been pulled from the site. The PoGP page features the following list of episodes (210 is noticeably missing from the list):
I also checked the program schedule for the next two months. I didn’t find any scheduled broadcasts of the episode.
Comment by Justin — December 9, 2009 @ 10:55 am
Awesome, thanks Justin.
Comment by David G. — December 9, 2009 @ 11:01 am
Fantastic, Justin; that is really good news.
“I’d forgotten how fun, frustrating, and ridiculous the commentary was.”
Ditto. We were introduced to three fantastic characters there: NOYGB, MG, and ML Brown. Fun times.
(Remember how the latter of those three remained “investigating” the blog for like five days, commenting off and on, and then finally denouncing us after discussing it with his stake president and patriarch? That was an exciting week.)
Comment by Ben — December 9, 2009 @ 11:18 am
That’s great, Justin. Thanks for taking a look at that. Now, uh…I hope someone saved the mp3 before it was pulled, hehe.
Comment by Jared T. — December 9, 2009 @ 11:36 am
I remember all the angst, too, and am glad that the episode appears to be “round filed.” Bravo to KBYU for being responsive to viewer concerns.
Comment by Hunter — December 9, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
#47 I missed that completely. I didn’t know there was a witch hunt against the JI with a SP and a Patriarch involved in the process! I am a passive lurker, but enjoy reading all those things. Will have to go back and read.
Good job JI for standing your ground. And the lesson sounds very good. There is so much that can be included in a 45min lesson and this one seemed very rich.
Comment by Recorder — December 9, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
Thanks Recorder.
Haha, I don’t know if it was witch hunt against JI, only that this ML Brown persona was poking around for a few days and said that after showing the site to some of his close mentors that they asked him why he was bothering with such Spirit-less nonsense and then he left.
Comment by Jared T — December 9, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
Speaking from personal experience, I would just add that the ban had been on the mind of the most lowly members during the 70s. I had prayed about it just 2 days before the change was made public. I’ll never forget seeing that newspaper headline announcing the change. There are more than a few of us who to this day, cannot remember this change, without tears.
Comment by Rick in Nashville — December 9, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
Jared, thanks for this thoughtful discussion. Today is my first day to visit your blog, and this is the first post I read. I appreciate your careful approach.
My parents were living in Lagos, Nigeria at the time of this revelation, and were present to witness the advent of missionary work there and in Ghana. I was serving a mission at the time, and enjoyed reading of the remarkable growth of the church there as a direct result of this action.
Again, thanks for the careful treatment of the history.
P
Comment by Paul B — December 11, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
One point about the priesthood ban that never makes it into discussion is the missing revelation for black women. Black women were banned from all activities in the temple including simple things like proxy baptisms, or being sealed to adoptive parents. The ban for women also included holding callings in the church.
OD2 says “all worthy males”, does the ban for women need to be lifted by revelation also? And if so where is it?
Comment by Jake D. — December 11, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
That’s a most interesting point indeed, Jake D.
Comment by SC Taysom — December 11, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
Thanks for the post, Jared. Sounds like a great lesson. Who knew you’d turn the apologist?
Well done.
Comment by BHodges — December 11, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
Jake D., your statement is incorrect in all its parts. Quoting from the David O. McKay diaries in response to each statement:
Black women were banned from all activities in the temple including simple things like proxy baptisms,
WEDNESDAY, December 14, 1966
Negroes – Baptism for Dead by Colored Girl
We discussed two or three items, one of which was contained in a letter from Bishop Kenneth L. Woodward of the Arden Ward, American River Stake, stating that the youth in the American River Stake frequently have opportunity to attend the Oakland Temple by means of Stake excursions to do baptisms for the dead. He mentioned a young colored girl in his ward, 12 years of age, who is a baptized member, faithful in her Church activities, and inquires if there would be objection to permitting her to participate in these excursions and to do work for the dead.
We agreed that there would be no objection, if she is otherwise worthy, to granting her permission to do baptismal work in the Temple for the dead.
or being sealed to adoptive parents.
TUESDAY, September 27, 1966
Temples – Sealing to Parents of Children with Negroid Blood
After considering all the facts presented regarding the desire of a couple who have been sealed in the Temple to have sealed to them two children with Negroid blood, I indicated that I could see no objection to the sealing being done.
The ban for women also included holding callings in the church.
TUESDAY, July 5, 1966
Negroes – Individuals with Negro Blood May be Used as Officers in Auxiliaries
In a letter from Spencer W. Kimball, dated June 27, he presents a question raised by President Jesperson of the Andes Mission as to whether members of the Church with leadership ability who have Negro blood may be used as Superintendent of the MIA or of the Sunday School, or whether they may teach in the various Auxiliary organizations.
We decided to answer Brother Kimball that these people may be used in the auxiliaries in leadership positions, but in no capacity where the Priesthood is required.
>>>
Those are the first extracts found by my text search. There are others that could be supplied.
The priesthood restriction was terrible for those it affected. These decisions by President McKay may not have been applicable at all periods, or been applied even-handedly throughout the church, especially when local leaders did not ask for advice as did those in the cited instances. I make no attempt to discredit the experience of anyone, but do think it is important not to make the effects of the restriction appear even harsher than they actually were.
Mostly, I think it’s important that nobody perpetuate the mistaken idea that black women remain under some kind of ecclesiastical disability because they were not specifically mentioned in the priesthood revelation.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — December 11, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
(I do know the difference between “affects” and “effects” — if one of you guys were to correct the next to last paragraph to read “not to make the effects of the restriction” so that I didn’t look quite as stupid as I might be, I’d appreciate it.)
Comment by Ardis Parshall — December 11, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
Blair, thank you.
Also, that word does have a range of meaning, but because of its traditional baggage, it’s not a word I would use to refer to myself or what I do.
Comment by Jared T — December 11, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
Ardis, I knew there might be issues with some of the points Jake made, but didn’t have the inclination to check, so thanks for doing that. I think, however you might cut Jake some slack in light of the qualifications you mention toward the end.
Aside from that, I hadn’t read Jake’s comment like you did, but now that you mention it, I can see how that comment can be read as positing a continued curse.
I had read it in simple terms of the fact that this issue is always spoken of in terms of men and priesthood ordination rather than taking time to address the effects on women.
Comment by Jared T — December 11, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
I’m sorry, Jake, if my tone or wording was too harsh. I know that none of these concessions mentioned by David O. McKay would likely have been allowed in earlier administrations (just as earlier administrations would not have permitted me, a single white woman, to receive my endowment). I also have no doubt that some blacks who might very well have wanted to participate in proxy baptisms were denied recommends by their bishops who assumed they were ineligible and didn’t ask higher authority. It’s easy to understand why the general church membership today might have the mistaken impression of how far the restriction extended.
And I don’t think that you necessarily believe that black women are still somehow handicapped by not having been mentioned in OD-2. But if there is misunderstanding about the participation of black women pre-1978, there could easily be misunderstanding — if not by you, then by others — that such a handicap still exists. I would be very saddened to hear of a black woman who, perhaps, called as a Relief Society president was challenged by a ward member who claimed that she was ineligible due to race. That’s why I wanted to clear up the misunderstandings mentioned in your comment.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — December 11, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
Jane Manning James, an early black convert, was permitted to do baptisms for the dead, but was not allowed to receive her endowments. She appealed to John Taylor, WW, and other leaders but was denied. I doubt that McKay was aware of this precedent when he made the decisions Ardis cited.
Comment by Paul Reeve — December 11, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
The reason I associate the word apologetics here is because I believe the “traditional baggage” associated with the word is sometimes misplaced and misapplied. Further, it isn’t so “traditional” as it is recent, from my view. It has come to mean something like “trying to make excuses for the church by doing damage to history and reason.” In fact, the efforts you describe here, which seem to me to be something like “faith seeking understanding” portrays an effective and important aspect of apologetics in the truer traditional sense, which is giving reasons for the hope that is in us, and sometimes confronting difficult issues in the process. The description you give in this post of your research, intention, and some of the outcomes of this particular lesson do a great job of depicting an important and effective form of apologetics. That’s the way I see it. I’ll have more to say on this sometime in the future when I’m not supposed to be studying for finals!
Comment by BHodges — December 12, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
I understand that Blair, but I don’t think it’s misplaced or misapplied. When “apologetics” in general can show me that it’s more interested in the types of approaches you mentioned and less in judging people like me as the enemy and challenging the faithfulness of those like me, etc., then maybe I could consider it. I think that won’t be for a while, though, since I don’t think you and Kevin Barney can do it yourselves. In the meantime, I’ll do what I do and do it as best as I can.
Please, I reject the label, don’t try to foist it on me.
Any further comments about “apologetics” on this thread will be immediately deleted. Take it elsewhere.
Comment by Jared T — December 12, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
#53, Paul B. Sorry, your kind comments got drowned in some chatter. Thank you, and I hope you’ll continue to read the JI.
Comment by Jared T — December 12, 2009 @ 11:02 pm
Let me clarify my #64. I was a bit gruff where I should have been a much lighter in tone.
I meant to say that this discussion of “apologetics” was a threadjack (that I am partially responsible for) and it was time to take it elsewhere. Not any sort of censorship or anything like that, and nothing against any particular individual. This discussion can play out elsewhere on or off JI, but not here, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Thanks.
Comment by Jared T — December 13, 2009 @ 10:51 am
Ardis,
No offense taken, and I didn’t know of the exceptions made by David O. McKay. My observation was merely to the fact that the ban existed for both men and women in the church but the lifting of the ban was made implying it was only a priesthood lineage issue.
I’m not implying that some believe a ban may still exist for black women just pointing out that their ban and subsequent lifting is ignored in OD2.
Comment by Jake D. — December 14, 2009 @ 11:51 am
[...] Esto es una traducción de una página anterior que se encuentra aquí. [...]
Pingback by Juvenile Instructor » Ensenando Sobre la Restricción del Sacerdocio y Declaración Oficial 2 en la Escuela Dominical — January 4, 2010 @ 3:03 am
[...] es una traducción de una página anterior que se encuentra aquí. [This is a translation of my earlier post about teaching about Official Declaration 2 and the [...]
Pingback by Ensenando Sobre la Restricción del Sacerdocio y Declaración Oficial 2 en la Escuela Dominical « La Voz Del Desierto: Un Blog de Historia Mormona — April 25, 2010 @ 10:35 pm
54. & 57.
.
RE: Temple restrictions of black women and need for revelation for black women because Proc. 2 only refers to worthy *men*.
.
My wife, who is black and a 3-yr convert, had the opposite question. She was aware of the restriction of the priesthood from black men but had been a member for more than a year before she heard that this in any way affected black women. Her different-but-very-logical assumption had been that because women of any color now enter the temple without holding the priesthood, a *priesthood* restriction against blacks would not have had any effect upon black *women*.
.
The question may not be “should there be a revelation to allow black women into the temple?” but “what was there about the priesthood restriction to keep them out?”
Comment by manaen — May 2, 2010 @ 4:57 pm