LDS Church Publishes New Essay On "Race And The Priesthood", Effectively Summarizes The History And Origin Of The Priesthood Ban

Just when we thought the issue of the Priesthood ban had been put to bed, it has been awakened once again. Both Buzzfeed and Politix reported that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has published a new essay entitled "Race And The Priesthood". While it is undated, it appears during the same time frame as the official LDS statement of condolences upon the death of former South Africa President Nelson Mandela.

Update December 10th: More background. According to KSL Channel 5, the essay on "Race and the Priesthood" was posted last week, following publication of "First Vision Accounts" and "Are Mormons Christian?". It is part of the improved "Gospel Topics" pages which are found under the "Teachings" tab at the top of LDS.org, and is intended to use scholarship, historical perspectives and outside resources transparently to help parents answer questions children might encounter online. This is part of part of a larger, long-term effort to help families improve personal and family gospel study.

The essay is the most comprehensive and coherent document yet published, including all the pertinent historical milestones attendant to the Priesthood ban. It establishes the beginning of enforcement of the ban in 1852, although it acknowledges no revelatory origin. The essay also paints a portrait of the racial attitudes which prevailed at the time the ban was formalized by Brigham Young, hinting that this might have been influential. The LDS Church also reiterates that the previous theories used to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions have no doctrinal foundation and are strictly considered folklore today. Here are three key paragraphs:

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

This shows that the formalization of the ban can be traced to 1852. The next excerpt shows how the advent of the Sao Paulo Temple in Brazil in 1975 gave renewed urgency to efforts to persuade the Lord to provide an answer to the Church leaders' entreaties to lift the ban:

Brazil in particular presented many challenges. Unlike the United States and South Africa where legal and de facto racism led to deeply segregated societies, Brazil prided itself on its open, integrated, and mixed racial heritage. In 1975, the Church announced that a temple would be built in São Paulo, Brazil. As the temple construction proceeded, Church authorities encountered faithful black and mixed-ancestry Mormons who had contributed financially and in other ways to the building of the São Paulo temple, a sanctuary they realized they would not be allowed to enter once it was completed. Their sacrifices, as well as the conversions of thousands of Nigerians and Ghanaians in the 1960s and early 1970s, moved Church leaders.

Because the Church had been commanded to go forth and preach the Gospel worldwide, continuing the Priesthood ban against blacks would hinder the spread of the Gospel despite the fact that many Africans had joined the Church even with the ban in place. Their faith needed to be rewarded. Finally, the answer came through in 1978:

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings. In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [Salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation. “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,” the First Presidency announced on June 8. The First Presidency stated that they were “aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us” that “all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood.” The revelation rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination. It also extended the blessings of the temple to all worthy Latter-day Saints, men and women. The First Presidency statement regarding the revelation was canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 2.

The LDS Church concludes the essay by stating unequivocally that they disavow the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. Of course, there is one remaining official Church manual, Aaronic Priesthood Manual #3, dated 1995, which quotes Spencer W. Kimball as saying in 1976, “We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question”, but there's no implication in this statement that one race is preferable above another. And note that President Kimball stated that marrying within the faith is the most important of all.

The Church's essay effectively summarizes the origin and promulgation of the Priesthood ban under one roof, and promotes understanding about cultural influences upon the Church in earlier times. Some LDS members like Gina Colvin are dissatisfied and think the Church should offer an apology. However, an apology not only might leave the LDS Church open to nuisance litigation, but is clearly unnecessary since there was no evidence of malicious intent. Those who were victimized by the ban have long since left this mortal coil and could not possibly benefit from an apology. And who are we to sit in judgment of people who lived during an earlier time, were subjected to different political and cultural influences, and possessed less knowledge and light than us? Remember the Second Article of Faith:

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression".

While written specifically to rebut the doctrine of infant baptism, this article also infers that we bear no responsibility for historical sin so long as we correct the policies which led to it. It is unfair to hold someone responsible for past actions over which they had no control.

Other LDS Reaction: On Mormon Church History, Jared welcomes the essay, stating "The words 'in any form', as I read them, extend not only to individual racism but institutional. The temple/priesthood ban was racist in that it denied the blessings of the priesthood and temple to black Church members based solely on their racial background. The institution as well as individuals bear responsibility for its perpetuation. The Church has now owned that. Maybe not as explicitly as some may hope, but it has owned it and disavowed it. So can we".

BYU Professor Randy Bott Responds To LDS Church Statement Disavowing Bott's Remarks About Race

BYU Professor Randy Bott has now responded to the official statement by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints disavowing remarks about race attributed to Bott in the Washington Post. BYU University Communications also released a statement on February 29th, in which Dean of Religious Education Terry Ball said “The comments attributed to Professor Bott do not reflect the teachings in the classroom at Brigham Young University”, and BYU Spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said Bott’s discussion of this topic is being handled as an internal matter. See previous post for more details on the Church's statement and the fallout.

The BYU Daily Universe reports that although Professor Bott told them he was not available for comment, he later released a statement saying he fully endorsed the Church’s statement regarding the article in the Washington Post. Furthermore, his students said he discussed the interview in class and said he felt he was misrepresented. “He said they had a nice long interview, like two hours long,” said Quinn Rice, a freshman in Bott’s mission prep course. “He said that he was misquoted, and misrepresented. He’s such a great and spiritual professor. He wouldn’t go against the Church’s principles.”

Meanwhile Carri Jenkins, who also explained that BYU's media policy is that they ask members of their campus community not to speak for the university or the Church, added that Jason Horowitz, the author of the Washington Post article, made no attempt to contact the University Communications office when he arrived on campus. “We were aware when [Horowitz] came. He did not make any contact through our office,” Jenkins said. “He did not contact us before he came. We were made aware through members of our campus community, but he did not work through our office. I know that in some cases he simply appeared in people’s offices.” The fact that Horowitz did not contact the Communications office has triggered speculation that he was hoping to portray the LDS Church as racist by entrapping BYU people into giving unfiltered statements.

One Black student reacted in a mature fashion. Camlyn Giddins said she found little to worry about in it, saying “It’s just an opinion, so why should I get mad". However, a group of BYU students from the Provo Peace Forum plan a two-hour protest on March 2nd. From 10:30 A.M. until 12:30 P.M., they plan to distribute fliers on BYU’s campus. The students are careful to emphasize that they are not protesting Professor Bott or his comments directly, but rather that their goal is to assist generally in eliminating racism from the modern Mormon narrative.

A comment posted by Eric to the BYU Student Review story records reaction from Ryan Bott, identified as a son of Randy Bott:

“As many of you know, my dad (Randy) has been in the news… The explanation is simple… yes, he did grant an interview to Washington Post to discuss 'Mitt Romney'. The reporter told him that he had cleared the interview with BYU and the Dean of Religion – which he found out this morning was a lie. The reporter misquoted and misrepresented the majority of the interview. My dad has been asked by BYU and the church to remain silent, but I feel his side should be told.

Some have noticed that we have deactivated the Know Your Religion Blog [Ed. Note: webcache available HERE]… This was not done as an admittance of guilt, but was done at the request of BYU until things settle down.

Any of you who personally know my father, know that he is definitely NOT a racist, as the media would have you believe. It amazes me that no one at BYU or the church seem to care to give him the benefit of the doubt, investigate what was really said; instead it seems easier to just believe a liberal Washington Post Reporter, go on 'hear-say', and throw my dad under the bus.

Here’s hoping that people will take the time, and reflect on their experiences with my dad and judge him according to his works, rather than lies that a reporter makes up to stir the pot during an election season.

Just thought you should know the truth behind the story…"

LDS Church Rigorously Condemns Statements On Race Made By BYU Professor Randy Bott, Reiterate Their Absolute Opposition To Racism

On February 29th, 2012, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints found it necessary to publicly reiterate their absolute opposition to racism. This was manifested in the form of two official statements. The first one, undated and entitled "The Church and Race: All Are Alike Unto God", sets forth the Church's current doctrine on race. The second one, entitled "Church Statement Regarding 'Washington Post' Article on Race and the Church", was issued as a rebuttal to remarks about race attributed to BYU Professor Randy Bott in a Washington Post article entitled "The Genesis of a church’s stand on race". Utah media stories published by the Deseret News, the Salt Lake Tribune, and KSL Channel 5.

In the Post article, Bott made remarks about race that are no longer considered doctrinal and are relegated to the historical folklore category. Based upon his interpretation of scripture, Bott believes that Cain is the common ancestor of all Black people because he interprets the mark of Cain as black pigmentation. He also believes that Ham's wife Egyptus brought the seed of Cain through the Great Flood. He cites the Book of Abraham as suggesting that all of the descendants of Ham and Egyptus were thus black and barred from the priesthood.

Professor Bott also pointed out that God has always been discriminatory when it comes to whom he grants the authority of the priesthood; the fact that the Old Testament Israelites only allowed members of the tribe of Levi to hold the priesthood is proof. But then Bott makes a comparison which does sound a bit insulting, comparing Blacks who wanted the priesthood before the 1978 revelation ending the ban with a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her father’s car. One can understand why adult Blacks would resent being compared with children.

Professor Bott then concluded by saying that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on Earth — although not in the afterlife — protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers. This statement is a bit misleading -- only sons of perdition go to the "lowest rungs of hell", and one must commit the unpardonable sin of denying the Holy Ghost once one has had a personal manifestation of it and entering into full-blown apostasy to be adjudged a son of perdition. Professor Bott suggests that, in reality, the Blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.

Since the Washington Post failed to ask for comment from the LDS Church before publishing the story, the Church hastened to make the following statement:

The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. BYU faculty members do not speak for the Church. It is unfortunate that the Church was not given a chance to respond to what others said.

The Church’s position is clear — we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form.

For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.

The tone of the statement indicates that the LDS Church considers Professor Bott's remarks an honest mistake, and so it is unlikely that he will face any ecclesiastical sanctions upon his Church membership. It is hoped that his job at BYU is not jeopardized, either; he doesn't deserve to be witch-hunted. While malevolence is a sin, honest ignorance should never be considered a sin. One sign of fallout: Bott's personal blog has now been removed (Joanna Brooks identified the link as going to Bott's personal blog).

Unfortunately, none of the parties bothered to address the question as to why our Heavenly Father waited for around 130 years before issuing the revelation ending the priesthood ban. In fact, when President David O. McKay repeatedly importuned the Lord for permission to end it during the 1960s, the Lord basically told him to shut up and quit troubling Him on the matter. This does not mean that our Heavenly Father agreed with the ban, but it indicates that for reasons unknown to us, He chose to allow it to continue. It is not given to us to know all the mysteries of the kingdom in this life; if it were, we could not remain in the flesh thereafter.

The Priesthood Ban: Endlessly Picking At The Scabs Of LDS Church History Does Not Provide "Context", But Precludes Healing

You can almost set your watch by it. Once again, the ban against blacks holding the Priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prior to 1978 has become a subject of discussion on the LDS Bloggernacle. In No Death Before The Fall, R. Gary takes issue with a couple of posts where he believes the authors accuse a dozen Church presidents of wrongful conduct regarding the pre-1978 priesthood restriction.

The posts in question were both published on July 22nd, 2011 at By Common Consent. In the first one, "All God’s Critters: Some Thoughts on the Priesthood Restriction and Differing Opinions", Margaret Smith addresses two contrasting personal revelations obtained by black Latter-day Saints regarding the ban. While Keith Hamilton, the author of Eleventh Hour Laborer, said that “I…know unequivocally that the priesthood and temple restrictions formerly faced by blacks in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were the Lord’s doing. How do I know it? By personal revelation…”, another black Mormon, Darius Gray, said that he knew by personal revelation that the restriction was not imposed by God but allowed by Him, and when it became too much of a burden, it was undone by revelation given to President Spencer W. Kimball.

Actually, there's no real difference between the two personal revelations, because in both cases, it was the Lord's doing. The only difference is in personal perspective -- why the Lord did not provide a revelation to Church leaders much earlier. But Margaret Smith seems to lean towards Gray's version.

In the other post, "Teaching the Priesthood Restriction", J. Stapley primarily relates his experience in teaching the priesthood restriction and Official Declaration 2. Stapley notes that much of the discussion was based on Edward Kimball’s “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” BYU Studies 47, no. 2 (2008): 5-85, which he highly recommends. Stapley reiterates that the current scholarship at this time suggests that the restriction arose in response to marriages between white women and black men around 1847. In Utah in 1852, Brigham Young detailed his support of the priesthood restriction and slavery, although he also thought slavery was destructive and not right. I found nothing particularly controversial about this post.

One would think that when President Spencer W. Kimball proclaimed the end of the Priesthood ban by canonized revelation in 1978, that members of the Church would be elated over this news. Most were, but we still have anklebiters who want to second-guess the Brethren and demand that they humble themselves to the dust and grovel in apologia. In response to R. Gary's post, Kevin provided an explanation of why they can't let the past go; here's an excerpt:

For me the burden falls equally on those of us who were church members before 1978, not just our leaders, for not taking the scriptures at face value, as Elder McConkie pointed out in his remarkable talk in 1978.

The problem would seem to be that you are attaching motives of fault finding to J and Margaret, when in fact they both are just trying to help us understand some context so that such things do not get perpetuated in the church that we all love.

Context? Just what "context" is necessary? When the President of the LDS Church issues a revelation, it settles the matter. Period. Case closed. You can choose not to abide by it, but if you question the validity of it, your very faith is in doubt. This does not suggest that the President of the LDS Church is inerrant, but that he is authoritative.

Endlessly picking at the scabs of Church history does not provide "context", but instead precludes healing by perpetuating doubt and sowing division. Why can't these people just simply accept the fact that in 1978, the Lord decided it was time to end the ban and communicated that desire to His servants? We should rejoice in the fact that the Lord finally chose to act, rather than complain about how long it took. Rest assured that if President Monson was to issue an apology tomorrow, the anklebiters would not be satisfied; they'd demand black quotas on the Quorum of the Twelve.

Maybe we're frustrated that the Lord took 140 years to formally overturn the Priesthood ban, but we must remember that although to us, mortality may seem like an eternity, to the Lord, mortality is merely a pit stop on the highway to eternity.