I can personally attest that there are still groups of Africans that are waiting for the Church to make it to their area in Africa. I correspond with two such groups and every e-mail I urge patience. We must grow stong were we are, and slowly expand from areas of strength to those areas. If we baptized people willy-nilly whereever anyone knew of the church and wanted to be baptized then what we would end up with is what happened to the Church in Antioch and Ephesus after Christ's apostles were killed. There must be constant communication and more importantly depth of leadership for the church to grow and stay on track. It is the Lord's church but it is still managed on a day to day basis by man through a chain back to the Prophet. Africa someday will be a juggernaut of wonderful people joining our Father in Heaven's church. And I believe it will have a huge peaceful affect on many places that are now war-torn.

How it fills my heart with joy to see our black brothers and sisters in our temples and chapels! Recently, on a trip overseas, I attended a sacrament meeting where there were gathered saints from 9 different continents including Africa and Asia. We all spoke different languages, had different cultures and skin color but we are all brothers and sisters bound together by a common bond! It was one of the best days of my life to see such a thing in my lifetime!

I meant 9 different countries!

I remember the day that the announcement was made. It was an awesome day! And I really like Gladys Knight she's a super example for anyone to follow. One can be succesful in the entertaining business and still stand up for their beliefs.

All men and women are sons and daughters of the same
God! Did he not form Adam and Eve? And if he created
bodies for them, then it stands to reason, that we are their decendents, the rest is simply genetics.
There is more that unites us, than divides us. :-)

Darius Gray is a great man. What more needs to be said to prove that.

I love the people of the Church but it's obvious the Church body as a whole wasn't ready to treat those of color as equals until 1978, and even today some still aren't worthy. I knew that entire fence-sitter stuff was garbage when I first heard it living in Arizona in the 60's. To be fair some good hearted people bought it to try and help rationalize. But...

As Pres. McKay wrote, contrary to McKonkie and others, withholding the priesthood from Africans was a "policy", not a doctrine just has Christ holding back the priesthood and the gospel from non-Jews was a policy, not a doctrine. The base had to be built. It took revelation to tell Peter the "policy" had ended and to take the gospel to the gentiles. In the Lord's time in the Lord's way.

Brother Gray has been a patient, faithful steward but is only one of many such patient, faithful people of color that have blessed this great Church and who will continue to do so.

Give credit where credit is due. If you thought the priesthood ban against black males of African lineage was wrong then give the LDS church credit for changing it in 1978.
If you feel the priesthood ban was a temporary yet necessary policy for reasons not yet revealed then lets be happy that it's been lifted so we can all move on in fellowship together.
Either way it's a win win situation.

I was raised in the South by parents who judged people by their lives led, not skin color. I left the Methodist church in 1969 to join the LDS. We had in my town a Methodist church AME where only Black Methodists went. There were no Black only LDS units. I knew that for whatever reason the Blacks were being denied the priesthood paralleled the fact that for whatever reason only the tribe of Levi could originally officiate in the priesthood. The Lord put my heart at rest on the "issue". How grand and glorious was the day as I sat there hearing the announcement over the radio, tears of joy streaming down my cheeks. I question not God's timetable and rejoice knowing He is calling the shots. The best players in life will follow the Coach and trust His game plan.

I was driving from High School to work when I heard the announcement on the radio of my car. I was very happy. I had believed that everyone would eventually be allowed full access to the gospel. Through out the old testament, the Lord has targeted certain groups to have or not have the gospel, or the priesthood. After Jacob, the Lord specifically concentrated on Israel. Did he not care about other people, of course not. It was clear that after Adam's time, and especially during and after Noah, that targeting a group was used.

Between Moses and John the Baptist, the Aaronic priesthood was limited to the Levites. Did the Lord not care about others?

We don't always know why the Lord causes, or allows things to happen. Sometimes we try to guess. We may or may not be correct. That is what happened with the Blacks and the priesthood.

The only documented reason for why the Lord targets groups at a specific time, that I know of, is the parable of the Olive Trees, with the best version found in Jacob Chapter 5. After reading that, who is to question the gardener.

There are actually only five temples in Brazil. I wish there were seven, but not quite yet.

There is a temple in the Dominican Republic, where virtually everyone has at least some African-Ancestry.

As a missionary in England in the summer of 1978, when news spread of the revelation, myself and everyone I knew within the Church, literally, shed tears of joy with this announcement.

So yes, I do completely relate to Mitt Romney's feelings when he heard the news. He pulled off the side of the road and wept. This "was" the reaction of everbody I knew within the church. The day which was promised, had arrived.

It's an odd thing for some people to understand, but if this was indeed, merely blatant racism, as many have stated, then it seems to me, that there would have been a measurable backlash to this announcement, within the the church membership itself, but there was not.

Because, we were always made aware, as President Kimball stated, that at some point the Priesthood will be extended to all worthy males.

The unbelievable faith and devotion demonstrated by our black brothers and sisters is something most of us can only hope to achieve some day. They have been inspirational examples to us all.

ajarizona

I'm always amazed at how all southerners were Atticus Finch and no one they ever remember was racist. I guess all that news footage showing how southerners behaved during the Civil Rights struggle was filmed in Hollywood, eh?

The Church has a long way to go before they can make up for many of the terrible things its past prophets and apostles have said about the black race. Maybe this is a good start.

The only reason that the blacks were given the Priesthood in 78 was because the Church was pressured to do so! It was purely an Image thing and always will be. In reality their should have never been a distiction of them Not having the Priesthood. The Church was worried about its image, just like they are today. Image is everything, regardless of whether it is true or not. Isn't it sad that the Church of Jesus Christ has turned into worring more about image than really caring for their own? How about taking care of the many Utahn'sthat are hungry and out of food instead of always sending the food elshere? How about the Bishops in this church in Utah be more compassionate? things are not well in Utah in the Church, if you don't believe me Come on down to St. Greed and see! Image is everything, compassion is nothing!

If the Church was "pressured" to do so, then why did the Southern Baptist Convention not change their views until 1995? Didn't the SBC get equal pressure? Have some LDS church leaders been historically racist? Yes, but so too have those atheist and religious.

I'd invite anyone to look at the official statement of the First Presidency to BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson, dated August 17, 1951, quoted in John Lewis Lund, The Church and the Negro, p.89.

The LDS First Presidency clearly stated, and I quote, "It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization..." They go on to say, "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..."

Integrity demands an apology and a repudiation, not a weak distancing or a half-baked reversal.

"The only reason that the blacks were given the Priesthood in 78 was because the Church was pressured to do so! It was purely an Image thing and always will be."

As someone who was born in 1960, grew up knowing President Kimball, and knew him in 1978, your statement could not be more wrong. President Kimball's life was dedicated to all members of the church, regardless of skin pigmentation. He was a pure man, not worried about image, and the right man to recieve the revelation and implement it.

Once again, Mr. Troutman, your post is based upon issues in your own life. It is pure speculation, and inaccurate. I guess you have insecurities about living in St. George, but don't let your own issues distort what happened.

To Aaron:

I think I have read John Lewis Lund's book. Despite its title and its year of publicantion (1967) it actually has a very positive position on the whole issue.

I would urge reading this book before making an accross the board statement about church members positions before 1970.

Actually, Aaron I like your comment, it is some others who need to tone down their vitriol.

Whether or not pre1978 LDS members in general can be generalized one way or another, one thing is absolutely clear: the priesthood ban and the theology used to justify it were not only put forth as official doctrine from the First Presidency, but they also functioned as official doctrine in having severe impact on real people.

Mormonism has never been a religion of "sola scriptura".

Actually I think I responded to Aaron too early.

Mainly I think he misunderstands the quote, and maybe I am confused about what book I read. However they are only saying that the standing of people before the Lord in this life reflects what happened to them in the preexistence. They do not indicate how this correlation exists.

Anyway, consider Bruce R. McConkie's statement on the matter after the revelation.

I am just tired of all these people claiming Spencer W. Kimball did not recieve a revelation. He did recieve a revelation. He had been seeking to know the will of the Lord on this matter for years. He knew this was a major action and needed to be taken with deliberation. Unlike some of you people he did not just assume because some people had made mistakes in the past they were false. He did not assume because he did not understand the will of God, that must mean that God is non-existant.

Maybe God sent his very noble spirits among the Africans because he knew that they would be the most open to accepting the gospel in the spirit world, or the most able to accept it there.

Just because something relates to what occured in the spirit world does not mean that there is anyway that we know what the correlation is.

Actually the book that it would be most helpful to read is John J. Stewart's "Mormonism and the Negro". Although in 1978 when he wrote it it was a bit outdated in its language, the author is sincere in his love for other people.

My fellow Utah Blacks...please wake up. The Mormons said Blacks were the devil and evil and when their were threaten with a lawsuit, all of a sudden there is a revelation. Being born and raised as a Black Utahan, I have seen it all...to this very day most Mormons still discriminated against people of color and Black Mormons. Read your true history in the King James "Bible" and your Black History Books. We, Blacks are a very forgiving race that have endured mistreatment for many years...but change is coming. Why aren't their Blacks in the qurom of 12 or a Black LDS president? Study your history.

Are you "righteous" enough to be in the quorum of the 12 or a Black LDS President? And who says "black" anymore, but African American? Methinks you are a pretender.

We do not know, and that includes all of us, why the priesthood was withheld from blacks generally until 1978. Even Church leader views are just opinions, unless formally adopted by the Church in General Conference. People who quote even authoritative statements need to be careful, or their interpretations may be wrong. It is better to consult a living Church leader now about these kinds of issues.

I am sorry that some people feel such hatred and anger toward the Church that they find fault with anything and everything rather than try to love and understand. They would do well to realize that the standards they hold for others will be the ones by which they will be judged. If someone wants to judge others harshly, in this case the Church, then Jesus indicates that they themselves will be judged the same way.

I don't think any of us want harshness to be the guide when we are judged, but rather mercy. If this is the case, then we all need to be merciful.

Before writing, we all should ask God to help us show love rather than be judgmental.

Phillip C. Smith, Ph.D.

Brigham Young comments about blacks:

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 290).

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)

JOHN TAYLOR

And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation a upon a the earth as well as God;.. "

JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH

"I would not want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. "Darkies" are wonderful people, and they have their place in our church."

"Cain became the father of an inferior race, the negroes."

I read the above statements from Troutman, The Truth and Jessica and it seems that anything good the LDS church does in wrong. Pres. Kimball if you would read the account of this important Revelation, said that he had wrestled with the question of the blacks holding the Priesthood for some time. He DID inquire of the Lord on several occasions to see if it was the will of the Lord to grant the priesthood to all worthy members. He said that if it was not to happen he would never be PRESSURED to do likewise no matter what would happen.But if The Lord wanted it to happen then every worthy male could hold the Priesthood. After much prayer and fasting the Lords will was done.I have been a member for 60 years and the critics could not be more wrong of this great event.

Back in about 1976, my parents sold their home up near the east bench, it was a totally white neighborhood. Either right after or before that a black family moved into the area, this was very disturbing to some of those of the "old school".

The church was not popular in the time of Joseph Smith, because they spoke out against slavery.

This is God's church and His decision, the growth of the LDS church has been based on the times and the seasons. I believe that 85% of church members before and after 1978 were longing for the blacks to receive the priesthood, so why didn't it happen?

What was the national view of blacks in the mid-70's, were they being embraced and given equal treatment? What kind of feelings would have happened towards the church if they had done this before the world was turning away from prejudice?

Our time is not God's time and He had to know when this wonderful thing would happen and not cause riots from the general society. I believe that the blacks and all members in the church were ready long before, but the nation was not. But I will smile tomorrow.

This post was made to another story in yesterday's Des News by Carrie Moore.

It was the then new Temple in Brazil that
"pushed" the change. Spencer W. Kimball was the
President of the Church then (1978). He had the fortitude to question decades of tradition of denying the Priesthood blessings to some of God's children.

He had the fortitude to really ask God if it was time to change that policy. As others have posted,
Spencer Kimball "wrestled with" that issue for many many years. He always had a compassionate heart to the American Indians and other people of color.

On this issue, others who preceeded him basically
didn't want to rock the boat. As a youth of the
60's growing up in the Church, we were always told the policy would someday change. Didn't expect to
see it happen in my lifetime. I'm really glad that Spencer Kimball was in the right position at the right time for change.

Being that Joseph Smith ordained Bro. Abel in the 1840's, the policy looks like it parallels "American Attitude" during the Civil War years.

Determining who could use the (1978) new Temple in Brazil caused "Front Burner" attention.

Until I see a "black" member of the twelve, Mormon prejudice and racist views will still be an active part of their beliefs. I don't expect that to happen for a long, long time.

John said, "However they are only saying that the standing of people before the Lord in this life reflects what happened to them in the preexistence. They do not indicate how this correlation exists."

Allow me to quote from the statement:

"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..." (Official statement of the First Presidency to BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson, dated August 17, 1951, quoted in John Lewis Lund, The Church and the Negro, p.89).

Clearly, the correlation is made between "the position of the Church regarding the Negro" and "the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence..."

Where is the official apology for outrageous statements like these?

The term "black" or "blacks" is still appropriate to use. Guess what, not all blacks are African-American. I am Brazilian, and always correct people's assumption that I am African American.

Someone above said, "Even Church leader views are just opinions, unless formally adopted by the Church in General Conference."

This is an statement, and I don't think the person realized that it cuts both ways. The 1978 doctrinal/policy reversal was put into effect before formally adopted in General Conference. So if you want to make formal acceptance at Conference a prerequisite, you need to be consistent. Like I've said elsewhere, Mormonism has multiple standards for adopting new doctrines and policies; it seems each is simply used when most convenient.

Woops, I meant, "This is an [odd] statement..."

The speculations by some Church leaders, as to why the Blacks were witheld the Priesthood until 1978, was never, ever, "Cononized" into scripture.

Many of those leaders alive at the time in '78(McKonkie) repudiated even their own words and clearly stated that they were out on a limb in their speculations.

Church leaders are never perfect, in dealing with the Lord's ways, and have not been in any of the dispensations of time. That is a given and well understood and accepted in Mormonism.

What is consistant, are the anti-Mormons continual
rants against the LDS Chutrch, on any subject and at any time.

While the anti's continue to belly-ache, Ad Nauseum, the Church has moved on and the Kingdom is growing quite well, thank you, in black areas, all over the globe.

Why? Because, their conviction is not based on pontificating blow-hards, but rather, on the whisperings of the spirit to their spirits. The still small voice of Moroni 10:4,5.

It's more powerful than any debate or counter argument ever will be.

Do any of you really think that young 19 year olds
can bring in a million people every 2.5 years without a higher influence?

ajarizona

ajarizona,

I don't think the kingdom is growing nearly as quickly as you might believe. I would like to know how many converts remain "active" - I would wager it's less than 15%.

BRUCE R. McCONKIE

"The negroes are not equal with other races when the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned"

"As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the negroes"

"Cain and the whole negro race have cursed with a black skin, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry."

MARK E. PETERSON

"At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the negroes we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that He placed a dark skin upon them as a curse - as a punishment and as a sign to all others."

"If there is one drop of negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse."

SPENCER W. KIMBALL

"The day of the Lamanites in nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation."

How can the Church disavow these statements?

It is repulsive to see the Mormon Church try to wiggle their way out of blantantly racist doctrine.

I'd invite anyone to look at the official statement of the First Presidency to BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson, dated August 17, 1951, quoted in John Lewis Lund, The Church and the Negro, p.89.

The LDS First Presidency clearly stated, and I quote, "It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization..." They go on to say, "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 more...

On August 17, 1951, the First Presidency made an official statement on the "Negro question":

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is NOT a matter of the declaration of a POLICY but of direct commandment from the the Lord, on which is founded the DOCTRINE of the Church from the day of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time." [emphasis added]

Jessica asks how the church can disavow troubling statements? They can't and they won't. Just like Barak Obama cannot disavow the comments of his own racist pastor. (Funny how he gets a pass when 50 year old opinions from church leaders don't)

Being called to a high position of the church neither denies the right to a personal opinion or does it elevate personal opinions to the status of church doctrine. Current church leaders do not have the authority to apologize for their opinions any more than they do for yours.

It is difficult to read the comments to this article as people attempt to claim that the negro stance and its 'pre-existance' cause were not doctrine, even in the face of the authoritative First Presidency statements posted by members of this board.

It is even more frustrating to see the church condone and promote obfuscation rather than simply coming clean. What would be the problem with

"We had a doctrine and the Lord changed it via revelation. All the luke warm, fence sitters in the pre-existance have been born and died, therefore there is no longer a need to prevent blacks, into which line they were born, from being ordained. As an organization, we apologize for the racist remarks made by some of our past leaders, but we cannot apologize for the Lord who saw fit to command us to withold the PH until the glorious revelation. This is and always be his church, and we are bound to follow his lead in all matters."

Now wasn't that easy?

Michael

I look at the sixties and blacks weren't welcome in churches. They were segregated. That's when Baptists etc. started to accept integration. The church was coming to grips with this for many years. The Lord had to change some hearts which he did with the revelation in 1978.
Call it what you want Mr. Troutman. I would suggest that you still haven't accepted it.

All I know is: I remember where I was ( in California, at work ) when I heard it on the news on the radio. I was excited, surprised, amazed, relieved & happy. It was a historical moment. And it also felt like: it's about time, too.

The things of God cannot be understood by the spirit of men. It is impossible to always measure and weigh all spiritual things by man's yardstick or scales... I have wished the Lord had given us a little more clarity in the matter. But for me, it is enough. The prophets for 133 years of the existence of the Church have maintained the position of the prophet of the Restoration that the Negro could not hold the priesthood nor have the temple ordinances which are preparatory for exaltation. I believe in the living prophets as much or almost more than the dead ones. They are here to clarify and reaffirm. I have served with and under three of them. The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation. When the time comes, he will do it I am sure. These smart members who would force the issue, and there are many of them, cheapen the issue and certainly bring into contempt the sacred principles of revelation and devine authority. (6/15/1963)

DANG........

Carl won't believe until an African American is a member of the council of the 12.

Troutman is too worried about the "image" of those in St. "Greed".

Mr. O'Comnnell, you say the churchcan't wiggle out of facts, and they are facts, the church understands that African Americans we not allowed to be members but not hold the preisthood until 1978, this is not argued.

The LDS Church came through difficult times in NY, MO and ended up in UT.

Mormons were persecuted, martyred and at thattime, African Americans were not a big issue, so you get a few people throwing around the "ideas of their times" around. Ideas formed listening to their parents and neighbors.

It doesn't become a huge issue until the 1960's, and is dealt with in 1978 in the Lord's Time.

Look how far the church has come in the past thirty years.

IN ALL. I WOULD SAY THIS ISSUE IS BETWEEN EVERY INDIVIDUAL AND THEIR LORD.

Carl, Fishman, O'Connell, I wish you luck as you spread your angst. I allow you your angst, pleas allow others their freedom of belief, love and peace.

Try going to a "black" church in the inner city or the south. You can see racism anyday there. I've been there, and it's thick.

The LDS church has moved to beome more inclusive than any religion over the past thirty years.

Fight it all you want, from the outside, something many can't understand.

The gospel to those who believe, is a glorious thing, and can't be understood.

The bottom line is that worthy Black males are allowed to hold the priesthood today. Thank you Lord!
There are good and bad in ALL races. Having spent 11 years in South Central L.A. with LAPD, I saw good and bad Black AND White people, including cops.
Unfortunately, racism will probably never totaly end, even from members of the Church.
I have great admiration and respect for Black people. They have endured much over many years of racism, hatred and segregation. I love Gladys Knight! She is a wonderful ambassador for the Church!

Thoughout the history of the world, often the Lord (by revelation) changes policies and practices, but His doctrines never change. Case in point: Peter, then the senior apostle, received a revelation that changed the proselyting policies of the early church to include other races of people(not just Jew). Was Peter a racist? Did he hate gentiles? Or was it just time to change policy according to the Lord's will? Such is the probably the case with this issue! Perhaps the church was not ready until our time to change priesthood policy. And for those of you who quote pervious church leaders about this issue. Paul taught that women should be silent in the church. Was this Christian doctrine? Or his opinion? Is it possible that someone might have an errant opinion? Gee, wasn't Paul perfect? Neither is anyone else and, yes, our leaders can have opinions but not have it be doctrine! There is a difference between opinion and revelation!

Some here keep repeating a document sent to Ernest L. Wilkinson in 1951. Wilkinson was not President of BYU in 1951.

I was a missionary in the South during the civil rights era. I was not happy with the exclusion of the blacks from the Priesthood, but I accepted it.

I remember the day the policy extension of the priesthood was announced. My wife and I and our four children were driving to see LDS friends about 100 miles away. When we arrived we spoke of nothing else. And this in reverent and thankful terms.

I think the change would have come sooner if it had not looked like a caving in to pressure.

I highly recommend chapter 4 of the "David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism" (University of Utah Press, 2005) for those who are interested in the debate over whether it was policy or doctrine that was the basis for denying blacks the priesthood. The 1951 First Presidency Letter notwithstanding, this question was the source of a serious differences between members of the First Presidency and quorum of the 12 for much of President McKay's tenure. McKay said that he had "prayed and prayed and prayed" over the issue and was ultimately told "the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone." Blessedly, that time came in 1978, for which I am deeply grateful.