Is this really something the LDS faith wants to celebrate?

So did God make a mistake in denying Blacks the priesthood?
(Things that make you go hmmmm)

"Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty… The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them…." (Mormon Doctrine, 477, 527-28; 1966 org. ed., changed in the current; see above).

Revelation??? The Federal Government, because of the anti discrimination act, and the Naacp and all of those groups were coming down hard on the Mormon Church over their polices on the Black people. Kind of handy to have those revelations when needed?

Anyone who bothers to actually learn and study about the church, would know that although they were denied, the promise was always there, from the Lord, that they would be able to receive the priesthood at some point in the future. This was never a forever ban. The revelation in 1978 was just the completion of that promise that they would, someday, be able to receive the priesthood.

No it means that god, but more likely whom ever made up the Book of Mormon, should have never denied a particular race the priesthood in thefirst place.

I just read that the Deseret News is planning on becoming more "Mormon". Is that possible?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot escape their racist past. For nearly 150 years, the Mormon Church had taught that ALL blacks were cursed. Hence, a black Mormon male could not hold the highly regarded LDS Priesthood1 because of his dark skin. And since he could not hold this Priesthood, he could not enter the Mormon Temple. This doctrine in no way, shape, or form can be substantiated in Scripture. Only in the LDS scriptures does this racist doctrine exist.

It was the issue of the then new Temple in Brazil
that pushed this issue to its change. Spencer W.
Kimball had the fortitude to question the practice of denial of priesthood rights to some. He had the fortitude of bringing it up to the Lord for Clarification. The new Temple and WHO could use it
in a very mixed raced environment was the situation.

Not the government. Thenk God that President Kimball was in a position to make a change. Others
probably wouldn't have asked the Lord at that time.

I dont understand how a black person can actually look at the history of the church and then join. But then there are gay republicans. I guess if it makes them happy, more power to them.

Nice try enlightenment
but racism is racism.
Why do you think Romney has't a chance at the White House? Ever?

People always seem to forget that Brigham Young also said this:
If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent. Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p. 110.

Of equal note is that the Southern Baptist Convention took an additional 17 years to make apology in 1995. Mormons were progressive compared to them.

David,

When did the LDS church apologize?

Moses 7:22 ".for the seed of Cain were black and had not place among them."

A thousand pardons, but this sounds racist to me.

Rich,

The LDS Church wasn't exactly established in the south during the time of slavery.

I've never understood this issue. Up until 1978 blacks were denied the priesthood. By definition the priesthood is divine-given authority to act in behalf of Diety. If you're not a believer in the LDS Church, what do you care that it was denied blacks since the Church didn't have anything legitimate to give to them anyway. If the Church in fact does have Divine authority to bestow, then it is of God and y'all should follow the Church's counsel.

I wish I could be there to attend. I was so happy when the revelation was announced that like many others, I cried.

We don't know the things of God, we can only guess unless there is revelation. I have no idea why only the sons of Aaron were allowed to handle the sacred things in the Old Testament. I remember where once a fellow stumbled and put out his hand and touched the Ark of the Covenant to steady himself, and zap, he was dead. So, it isn't like there isn't precedent for this type of thing.

I'm just glad the ban is long gone and that black members are joining the Chuch and in leadership positions. It's a beautiful thing. I know God loves his children of every hue, and the more the merrier.

The Church is celebrating the revelation of God. The "Long Promised day". I guess it depends partly on a lot of different things. This is a good time for the church to do outreach to the African-American community.

I'm surprised more news is being had about the announcement of the revelation on June 8th than the actual revelation itself on June 1. In my opinion the celebration should be about the revelation that finally came and not about the announcement of it by The Church a week later.

I belong to the true church which is=FLDS> This is totally absurd. We believe differently then break off lds.

So where are the black faces in the 70s, the 12, the presidency? Isn't it telling that this entire article is based on quotes from a stereotypical white Mormon man telling us how wonderful the 1978 revelation was? Where the proof of this fantastic event???

I look forward to the day----maybe 50 years from now. after gay rights have been fully achieved. At that time, the prophet will receive a similar "revelation" and gays will assume their rightful place in the church. The precidence is there.

Joseph Smith did ordain several African American men to the priesthood. There was no ban originally. Some misunderstandings (that Bruce R McConkie admitted to) led to the ban. McConkie said, "Forget everything I have said on the matter. We now know the truth." (or words to that effect). They simply didn't have the understanding that would come later, like many other people of the 19th century and early 20th centruy. God gave them a revelation to help them with that understanding. Don't fault them for following that revelation.

By the way, the scriptural meaning of black usually means a blackened spirit, not a darker brown skin than their fellow brethren and sisters. Look up what Marvin Perkins has to say about that subject.

There are at least three men of African descent in the 3rd Quorum of the Sevnety, and actually I think it is more than that.

The First Presidency (in 1947 in a letter to a prominent member) wrotes:

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel. "

This letter was signed by George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, Jr. and David O McKay.

Seems like Elder Child might be lying about the folklore/doctrine issue. The First Presidency said it was "doctrine"

A CITATION, re: your quotation from "Mormon Doctrine":

1) The Preface to 1966 Mormon Doctrine says,
"For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility." The 2nd edition's Preface repeats this and adds, "In publishing this Second Edition, as is common with major encyclopedic-type works, experience has shown the wisdom of making some changes, clarifications, and additions."
.
2) "Mormon Doctrine" was published by Bookcraft, then an independent (i.e. not LDS-Church owned) publisher.
.
Also, after its publication, its author had a "coaching and counseling" session with the LDS First Presidency.
.
So, the book itself states that is only the author's personal views and it was published by a not-LDS-Church company. I hope that it's clear from this that it never is appropriate to use "Mormon Doctrine" as an authoritative source for, well, Mormon doctrine.

KLIMBER510, Re: your comment, "If you're not a believer in the LDS Church, what do you care that it was denied blacks since the Church didn't have anything legitimate to give to them anyway. If the Church in fact does have Divine authority to bestow, then it is of God and y'all should follow the Church's counsel."
.
I used to wonder this, but here's what I've learned: The issue out there is/wasn't whether we hold and withheld the true priesthood. It's that *we* believed that we were justified in using race to withhold something that *we* believed was valuable. This in itself was disconcerting, but it also led to questions about what other things we would withhold -- never quite hiring/promoting black workers, or what about renting a dwelling, or which painting contractor did we choose, or to which dentist would we take our kids, or how do we rate applicants as a lending officer, or which students do we admit if we work in the Admissions office, or, or, or... Tough sell to say that God told us to do one but we'd never do the others.

Elder Childs was not denying that the policy of restricting the Priesthood from Men of African descent was not Official LDS Doctrine.

He is stating that the REASONS for the restriction was not ever LDS Doctrine. The various justifications for the restriction are speculative. There have never been official explanations offered.

BKB