When I was a priest, the adult advisor was excited to teach us a lesson about the premortal existence. He bounded up, grinning from ear to ear as usual, and said “I’ve been doing lots of reading, and I have some great stuff to share,” and he did. For the most part, it was an excellent lesson. Then, suddenly, he pulled out a quote from some obscure seventy back in the 1950s that said that we were blessed according to how we had lived in the premortal existence, and we must have been pretty awesome to have been born into the One True Church, as opposed to the Blacks who were denied the priesthood because they were all less-faithful prior to being born.
I was disturbed to hear someone classifying who had been good and who had been evil in a prior life based on their skin color and ancestry. I said, “That doesn’t seem right. I don’t think that’s what we believe any more.” The advisor shrugged and said, “Hey, I’m just quoting the Brethren.” At that time I still believed everything a General Authority said must be the Gospel truth, so I grudgingly backed off and slumped down in my seat for the rest of the lesson.
The next day, I was carpooling with another quorum member to high school and asked him why he hadn’t said anything about it as well. He responded that it just seemed like such an obviously wrong statement that it was a dead issue to him. The fact that it came up, however, would indicate that it isn’t a dead issue. Though less likely to be believed in the Church today than some of the narratives about cursed lineage from Ham and Cain, it is still part of the legacy of historical anti-Black teachings in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and worth addressing.[1]
In this post, I will explain why Latter-day Saints should not embrace, teach, or repeat the idea that Black individuals were less faithful in the premortal existence. I will do this by examining the historical development of the doctrine, parse the scriptural canon of the Church that relate to premortal existence, and discuss why this idea doesn’t fit into the broader canvas of Latter-day Saint doctrines.
Development of the Premortal Theory
The earliest indications of a priesthood ban beginning to take shape were some statements of Parley P. Pratt in 1847, with the ban being officially announced by Brigham Young in 1852. Rationales for the ban mirrored the rationales given for the enslavement of Black Africans. The idea that people with Black ancestry were born into a cursed lineage because of poor choices in the premortal existence is more unique (Christians from the Orthodox-Catholic tradition have regarded premortality as a heresy since the sixth century), but developed as a corollary to those justifications.
The earliest mention of the idea was from Orson Hyde. In 1845 (two years before the earliest known mention of a priesthood ban), he suggested the idea in a March meeting of the Council of Fifty,[2] and then reiterated it in late April in a general meeting:
At the time the devil was cast out of heaven, there were some spirits that did not know who had the authority, whether God or the devil. They consequently did not take a very active part on either side, but rather thought the devil had been abused, and considered he had rather the best claim to the government. These spirits were not considered bad enough to be cast down in hell, and never have bodies; neither were they considered worthy of an honorable body on this earth.
But it came to pass that Ham, the son of Noah, saw the nakedness of his father while he lay drunk in his tent, and he with “wicked joy,” ran like Rigdon, and made the wonderful disclosure to his brethren … The conduct of [Ham] brought the curse of slavery upon him. … Now, it would seem cruel to force pure celestial spirits into the world through the lineage of Canaan that had been cursed. This would be ill appropriate, putting the precious and the vile together. But those spirits in heaven that rather lent an influence to the devil, thinking he had a little the best right to govern, but did not take a very active part any way were required to come into the world and take bodies in the accursed lineage of Canaan; and hence the negro or African race.[3]
Note that the priesthood ban was not what Hyde’s theory justified—it was developed to explain and justify enslavement of Africans.
President Brigham Young opposed the idea. He may have been responding to Orson Hyde when he said that
the Spirits of the Chil[dren] of Men are pure & holy without transgress[io]n or any curse upon them—& the diff[erences] that you see around you is on acc[oun]t. of the circumstances that surround them … some have taught that bec[ause] persons are poor that it is on acc[oun]t. of transgress[io]n. it is false doctrine—from beginning to end.[4]
President Young, instead, focused on the curse of Cain to justify slavery and—later on—the priesthood ban, on account of his view of innocence at birth.
After Brigham Young announced the priesthood and temple ban officially in 1852, however, Elder Orson Pratt began to revive the theory that Orson Hyde suggested in relation to slavery and applied it to priesthood. In April of 1853, Pratt wrote that “if rewards and punishments are the results of good and evil actions, then it would seem that the good and evil circumstances under which the spirits enter this world must depend upon the good and evil actions which they had done in the previous world.” Applying this to the ban, he added that “some spirits take bodies in the lineage of the chosen seed, through whom the priesthood is transferred, others receive bodies among the African negroes or in the lineage of Canaaan whose descendants were cursed, pertaining to the priesthood.”[5] This was an alternative approach to the way Young justified the ban, and it would prove persistent.
President Young would once again come out and denounce the idea. In 1869, he stated that
there was No N[e]utral spirits in Heaven at the time of the Rebelion[.] all took sides. He said if any one said that He Herd the Prophet Joseph Saiy that the spirits of the Blacks were Nutral in Heaven He would not Believe them for He herd Joseph say to the contrary all spirits are pure that come from the presence of God.[6]
Despite these protests, the idea outlived Brigham Young. In the 1880s, for example, B. H. Roberts incorporated the idea that Blacks were less valiant during the war in heaven into some of his influential and widely-read writings and Wilford Woodruff speculated that Blacks had been “neutral” in the war in heaven, and were “astride the fence.”[7] Later on, Joseph Fielding Smith enshrined the teaching that those who were born with Black ancestry were less valiant in premortal existence in his writings, which were extremely influential in the Church throughout much of the 20th century.
The ban was lifted in 1978, though it took time for the belief to fade in the consciousness of Latter-day Saints. President Spencer W. Kimball seemed uncomfortable addressing the doctrines that had supported the ban, though Richard Ostling did report a conversation about the topic: “Mormons … have long taught that people are born into the black race because they somehow failed God during the pre-existence. [Spencer W.] Kimball says flatly that Mormonism no longer holds to such a theory.”[8] In 2013, a document published under the First Presidency’s direction addressed the theory forcibly, stating that:
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous 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.[9]
That statement alone should give faithful Church members pause about the theory of premortal sins resulting in being into born into “cursed lineages,” as it signals that the idea is condemned at the highest levels of the Church’s hierarchy.
Lack of Scriptural Support
Having addressed the history of the theory from its inception to death-knell, I will now turn to discussing scriptures that have been used to support the theory to show that they do not actually support it.
Over the years that the premortal existence theory was in use, several high-ranking Church leaders observed that the theory was not rooted in scripture but was speculative in nature. A few examples:
- In 1907, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote that the theory that Blacks were “cursed for taking a neutral position in that contest” was “not the official position of the Church, merely the opinion of men” and “there is nothing in our standard works, nor any authoritative statement” that supported the idea.[10]
- He changed his mind by the 1920s and became the foremost advocate of the idea for the next fifty years. Eugene England claimed that at some point, he asked President Joseph Fielding Smith to defend the idea from the scriptures and after some searching, Smith told him that “you do not have to believe that Negroes are denied the priesthood because of the pre-existence. I have always assumed that because it was what I was taught, and it made sense, but you don’t have to to be in good standing because it is not definitely stated in the scriptures. And I have received no revelation on the matter.”[11]
- In 1912, President Joseph F. Smith and his counselors wrote, “So far as we know, there is no revelation, ancient or modern, neither is there any authoritative statement by any of the authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in support of that which many of our elders have advanced as doctrine, in effect that the negroes are those who were neutral in heaven at the time of the great conflict or war.”[12]
- In 1944, Apostle John A. Widtsoe wrote, “The opinion is held by many members of the church that because the negro was a neutral in the great council, held in the heavens before the foundations of the earth were laid, he has been punished with a black skin. There is no evidence, as far as found, to justify this belief. On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the church doctrine that all who have been permitted to come upon this earth and take upon themselves bodies, accepted the plan of salvation. Those who did not accept it were cast out and became the angels of the evil one.”[13]
- In 1954, Apostle Adam S. Bennion led a committee of apostles in investigating the basis and history of the ban. They compiled a large collection of documents, including council deliberations dating back to the earliest days of the Church as part of their analysis. The resulting report indicated that the ban was not based on revelation, that it did not have sound scriptural support, and that the premortal existence hypothesis could not be reconciled with statements in the scriptures. Further, it added, “The trouble with the pre-existence,” is that it was “a catch-all for the unanswered questions,” serving as “the answer for too many and too much. Every unanswered question relative to the conditions of man can be thrown into this hopper with the result that we neglect our religious and moral responsibility in relation to these problems.”[14]
Taken together, these statements create an interconnected and ongoing witness that the idea that Blacks were less valiant or fence sitters in the premortal existence was never fully accepted as official doctrine in the Church and that the basis of the idea was speculation rather than scripture.
An analysis of the scriptures bears this view out. Latter-day Saints have generally focused on three scriptures in the Bible as proof texts for the idea of a premortal existence:
- Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:4–5.)
- This verse is taken as an indication that Jeremiah existed as a spirit before he was formed in the womb and that God can appoint people prophets before they were born.
- As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work.” (John 9:1–4.)
- If the man was born blind and the disciples are asking if his sin caused the blindness, the theoretical sin would have to have occurred before his birth. This suggests that some early disciples of Jesus believed that sin in the premortal existence has an effect on conditions in this life, though it also seems like Jesus dismisses the idea and states that what really matters now is doing God’s work during this life.
- And war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon. The dragon and his angels fought back, but they were defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. The great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Revelation 12:7–9.)
- This is the suggestion of a war in heaven between Satan and Michael’s forces that was central to the premortal existence theory of the ban, but doesn’t reveal much beyond a divide between Satan’s forces and Michael and his angels.
In addition, there are a few Restoration scriptures that add to the Biblical verses. Key among these are the following:
- That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever. Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; and he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. (Moses 4:1–4, recorded sometime between June 1830 – October 1830.)
- A slightly different outline of the war in heaven as a contest between Satan and the Only Begotten, with Satan being cast down.
- And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency; and they were thrust down, and thus came the devil and his angels. (D&C 29:36–37, September 26, 1830)
- Another gloss on the Revelation text that seems related to the Book of Moses text (they were revealed around the same time).
The most important discussion about the War in Heaven, however, is contained in the Book of Abraham:
And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all. …
Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; and God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.
And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; and we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; and they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever. And the Lord said: “Whom shall I send?”
And one answered like unto the Son of Man: “Here am I, send me.”
And another answered and said: “Here am I, send me.”
And the Lord said: “I will send the first.” And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.
Abraham 3:16–19, 22–28, March 1842
This is the most substantial engagement with the premoral existence in the Latter-day Scriptures, though it was also one of the last documents to be canonized (1880). It suggests that there were differences between premortal spirits, some being “more intelligent” or “noble and great” (also suggesting there were grades of spirits seen as less noble or intelligent, though no information about the cause of differences is given). It also elaborates on the war in heaven narrative presented in the Book of Moses, adding the idea of “estates” and that the devil and his angels lost their first estate when they were cast out.
That’s really about all the details about the premortal existence and war in heaven that have been accepted as binding on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by inclusion in the canon. Anything beyond that is speculation and should be regarded with caution. That is why so many Church leaders stated that there isn’t sufficient evidence of the premortal theory to sustain the idea.
Other Observations
The priesthood and temple ban fits into a larger paradigm of racial hierarchy that was embraced and refined by White Latter-day Saints. The paradigm came to incorporate ideas from White supremacists, British Israelism, and ideas about race presented in the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses. It posited that northern Europeans were direct biological descendants of the lost tribes of Israel and thus heirs to the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Ephraim. Higher missionary success in Great Britain and Scandinavia was attributed to this theory of British Israelism. Indigenous peoples of North and South America (as well as Polynesians), were seen as descendants of Lehi and Sariah (Israelite refugees) and thus also heirs to the promises, though their darker skin was believed to be a sign of a curse from God on their ancestors for unrighteousness, thus putting them in a lower tier than Whites. Other Brown peoples seem to have been viewed as being part of a third tier, while people with Black African ancestry were seen as the bottom rung—cursed to endure slavery and denied the priesthood because of supposed descent from Ham and Cain.
I’ve worked to dismantle some aspects of this lineage doctrine in my posts about Reconsidering the Curse of Ham and Reconsidering the Curse of Cain, pointing out that a lot of aspects of it are suspect. And the shift towards a greater focus on Christ has diminished the importance of lineage in Latter-day Saint discourse. As Armand Mauss wrote, “The final stage in this universalization process has been the disappearance from the discourse of church leaders of virtually all references to the significance of lineage, whether cursed or favored. … In symbolic terms, one might say that the blood of Christ has finally replaced the blood of Israel as the more important theological idea.”[15] The relevant point, however, is that Latter-day Saints who believed in the premortal existence theory often taught that those born into White, Latter-day Saint families were noble and great in premortality and thus were placed into a superior and choice lineage while Blacks were the dregs of society in premortal existence and thus assigned to a cursed lineage as punishment. I see several problems with that idea in a Latter-day Saint doctrinal context, however, including how God decides to whom spirits are born to best support their growth, displays of personality shaped in premortality peaking through, and the fact that the doctrine conveniently mirrors racial prejudices in the United States (among other things).
I believe in a merciful God who sets up God’s children for flourishing to the fullest extent possible in a fallen world while maintaining their moral agency.[16] President Henry B. Eyring offered an interesting insight into that process in general conference a few years ago:
Years ago a friend of mine spoke of his grandmother. She had lived a full life, always faithful to the Lord and to His Church. Yet one of her grandsons chose a life of crime. He was finally sentenced to prison. My friend recalled that his grandmother, as she drove along a highway to visit her grandson in prison, had tears in her eyes as she prayed with anguish, “I’ve tried to live a good life. Why, why do I have this tragedy of a grandson who seems to have destroyed his life?”
The answer came to her mind in these words: “I gave him to you because I knew you could and would love him no matter what he did.”
There is a wonderful lesson for us all. The way for loving parents and grandparents and all of God’s servants will not be easy in a decaying world. We cannot force God’s children to choose the way to happiness. God cannot do that because of the agency He has given us.[17]
By this account, God assigned the boy to his family because he was a challenging child and his family-to-be was righteous and loving and thus would help him through his struggles. What this indicates is that people born into Latter-day Saint homes are intended to be a mix of all kinds of people by design (rather than all being noble and great), in order to provide the best chance to flourish for children who need extra support. Thus, every race and creed—including Latter-day Saints—should include individuals who come from across the entire spectrum of premortal grades of worthiness to create balance and support for progression in mortal life.
Second, Latter-day Saint leaders have taught that our experiences in the premortal existence gives shape to our personality in this life. For example, Elder B. H. Roberts wrote that
All the light and intelligence unto which man attained in his pre-existent state has not been blotted out and obliterated by his coming to this world. Sometimes like the fragments of a half forgotten dream, knowledge and intelligence unto which man had attained in Iris pre-existence comes back to him. …
I believe that character primarily is based upon the nature of the spirit, the extent of its development, the amount of growth it had before it tabernacled in the flesh; and that parentage, instead of creating character, can only modify it; that instead of environment creating character, it can only modify it.[18]
The implication of this is that if a specific grade of people from the premortal existence were assigned to a specific group of people, then we should expect to see that grade of character consistently show through. The data do not support this in regards to race. As Joseph Smith the Prophet explained when asked about the situation of Black people in his time and place,
they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with the Whites and they would be like them. They have souls and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati, or any City and find an educated negro, who rides in his Carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability.[19]
If there are differences between races, it is due to the circumstances they are placed in and the advantages and disadvantages they are dealt in life by the society in which they live. One of my most intelligent and capable friends is a Black woman, and one of the best men in my ward is Black. If their character was shaped in premortal existence and their skin color was truly a reflection of them being more sinful or less valient in the premortal existence, I would expect that I would not be able to make that statement. My experience is that every grouping of people by lineage, ethnicity, or race expresses a full spectrum of capabilities and character, indicating that the premortality theory for the ban is bogus because it is not the lived reality.
Finally, it feels too convenient that the racism that the premortal existence theory promotes aligns so perfectly with the racial prejudices found in the country where the Church developed and is based. Most of the discourse around the priesthood and temple ban was based on what people said to justify slavery and the oppression and exploitation of Black people. The premortal existence theory, while unique to Latter-day Saints, was an outgrowth of those beliefs and justifications in a speculative attempt by the Orsons to make sense of existing racist assumptions. It wasn’t an inspired teaching, it was a racist tail wagging a theological dog.
Conclusion:
My hope is that this essay will help shift beliefs among Church members to better align with the statement that “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life … Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”[20] May no one have the same experience I had in priests’ quorum again.
Further Reading:
Race and the Priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
There is Work to Do First, by Stirling Adams
[1]Jana Riess noted that in the results of the Next Mormon Survey, “Overall, fewer than a quarter of Mormons said they had ever heard that taught in a church meeting or lesson, though the numbers were a bit higher among African American Mormons (30 percent). The encouraging news about these figures is that they are low, suggesting that this particularly upsetting folk belief may finally be passing out of existence. That does not make the experience easier, however, for Mormons like Lillian who have encountered such ugliness.” (Jana Riess, The Next Mormons: How Millennials Are Changing the LDS Church (Oxford University Press, 2019), 119.)
[2] Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846; Volume 2, 1 March–6 May 1845, p. 209, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 18, 2024, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/council-of-fifty-minutes-march-1844-january-1846-volume-2-1-march-6-may-1845/212.
[3] Orson Hyde, Speech of Elder Orson Hyde Delivered Before the High Priests Quorum in Nauvoo, April 27th, 1845 (City of Joseph, Ill.: Printed by John Taylor, 1845), 30.
[4] Historian’s Office general Church minutes, 1839-1877; 1839-1845; Thomas Bullock booklet (#3), 1845 April 6-20, 1845 August 3; Church History Library, https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/9acf0f86-f2c5-4ad1-8b76-27a266919b4c/0/34 (accessed: July 17, 2024)
[5] Orson Pratt, “The Pre-Existence of Man,” The Seer (Washington, D.C.), April 1853.
[6] Wilford Woodruff Journal, December 25, 1869, “Journal (October 22, 1865 – December 31, 1872),” December 16, 1869 – December 25, 1869, The Wilford Woodruff Papers, accessed July 18, 2024, https://wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/p/kRRN.
[7] Wilford Woodruff, “Eternal Variety of God’s Creations,” July 14, 1889, in The Deseret Weekly 39 (July 20, 1889): 114.
[8] Richard N. Ostling, “Mormonism Enters a New Era,” Time, August 7, 1978, 55.
[9] “Race and the Priesthood,” Gospel Topics Essays, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng.
[10] Smith, Joseph Fielding, 1876-1972. Joseph Fielding Smith letter, Salt Lake City, Utah, to Alfred M. Nelson, Tooele, Utah, 1907 January 31 , https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/317076f6-261b-49cd-b37e-1bf8642c1a06/0/0?lang=eng (accessed: July 18, 2024)
[11] Eugene England, “The Mormon Cross,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8, no. 1, 83-84. There are some problematic aspects to this story – Joseph Fielding Smith was extremely familiar with the scriptures, had stated in 1907 that it wasn’t official doctrine, and would have been aware of the other statements listed here, including the Bennion report. It is virtually impossible that it was only at that late stage in his life and at the promptings of England that President Smith came to that conclusion.
[12] First Presidency to Milton H. Knudson, Januray 13, 1912, in Minutes of the Quroum of the Twelve and First Presidency, 1900–1909, 3:35.
[13] John A. Widtsoe, “Were Negroes Neutral in Heaven?,” Improvement Era 47, no. 6 (June 1944): 385.
[14] “The Negro and the Priesthood” [May 1954], Box 20, Folder 2, Lowell L. Bennion Papers, Church History Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Cited in Matthew L. Harris, Second-class Saints: Black Mormons and the Struggle for Racial Equality (Oxford University Press, 2024), 57–59.
[15] Armand L. Mauss, “In Search of Ephraim: Traditional Mormon Conceptions of Lineage and Race,” Journal of Mormon History, 25, no. 1 (Spring 1999): 131-73.
[16] See 2 Nephi 26:24.
[17] Henry B. Eyring, “To My Grandchildren,” in Conference Report, October 2013.
[18] Collected Discourses Delivered by: President Wilford Woodruff, His Two Counselors, the Twelve Apostles, and Others, edited by Brian H. Stuy, 5 vol. (Burbank, California: BHS Publishing, 1987-1992), 4:235-236.
[19] History, 1838–1856, volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843], p. 1434, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 18, 2024, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843/77?highlight=confined%20to%20their%20own%20species.
[20] “Race and the Priesthood,” Gospel Topics Essays, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng.
Nice to have all of this in one place as a resource. Thank you.
(How far in the past was this Priests Quorum lesson?)
That lesson would have been in 2008.
Nibley used the doctrine of little children being alive in Christ to refute the notion of blacks being less valiant in the premortal world. He spoke of the many black children who had died before the age of accountability–and how the celestial kingdom will be filled with them.
Also, with regard to spirits being unequal in intelligence–we have to remember that the great rebellion in the premortal world was led by some of the “great and noble” spirits–the adversary and his cohorts. And so, it seems (to me) that our “greatness” or “smallness” had little to do with which side we took in the war in heaven.
I have a serious question posed me to years ago. I have never been able to form a satisfactory answer despite serious study and prayer. Why would the Lord allow His prophets to get something so vitally important (access to the blessings of the temple) so incredibly wrong? Further, if the Lord did allow His prophets to get something like this so wrong, does He continue to allow them to be wrong about important issues?
Nice essay. Thank you. So many of our strange traditions are incompatible with what the scriptures teach. It has taken me a lifetime to unlearn much of what I learned back in the day.
Not a Cougar, that’s the tough question with all of this. I don’t have a good answer.
Yes, thanks for this, Chad. Cougar (and Chad) for me this issue (and many others) have led me to think of our leaders in terms of a different paradigm. I see the leaders (then and now) as caretakers of the church and not how we tend to view prophets, seers, and revelators (PSR). I know that’s a big shift and contrary to what we teach, but this issue (and many others) to me points in the direction: caretakers not PSR.
I see them as receiving inspiration at many times, but not dictating God’s will in every (or even most) decisions. Again, I see the history of the priesthood/temple ban as making that clear. Inspired caretakers isn’t a bad thing, and I believe that God wants us all to seek him through our own personal revelation.
The simplest answer to Cougar’s question is too frightening for us moderns to consider. And that’s perhaps one of the reasons why it’s OK to leave the whole thing in the “I don’t know” category.
As a modern, the most straightforward answer is that our church leaders are not inspired or directed by God. Is that what you had in mind Jack? Or is it something along the lines of believing in a God who is racist?
I appreciate your comment, Stephen. I’ve played viewing them more in terms of high priests rather than PSRs, with similar ideas in mind.
Chad, instead of implying that ten consecutive prophets allowed racist notions to block inspiration on the issue–it’s far simpler (IMO) to assume that God had his own reasons for not lifting the ban sooner than he did. Now that may be uncomfortable to us–but even so, I think we do ourselves a disservice by assuming that the apostles–particularly the president of the church–must not be prophets because this particular issue was not resolved in the way we think it should’ve been.
Has anyone read D&C 88:51-61? I think it answers the question of why Joseph Smith’s tenure was so different than those of subsequent presidents of the church; indeed, what other purpose can there be for that parable?
There is a tremendous amount of man-made thought in the tapestry of Mormon thought that is often (but erringly) viewed among us as doctrine. Each Latter-day Saint really must seek the Spirit him- or herself.
The “revelation” in 1978 didn’t come until the brethren in the church’s leading councils approached the Lord in unity — I believe that the answer could have come sooner, if there was unity sooner. After working with the Twelve for years, President Kimball picked a day when the two members of the Twelve who would not have joined the prayer in unity were conveniently absent. And then, the revelation that was received was a simple confirmation, not a “new doctrine” or “it’s time” revelation.
I don’t think there’s necessarily a contradiction here. God calls people to be prophets, seers and revelators (and a lot of other things, both as formal church callings and in other roles) and also entrusts a lot of things to them to figure out as best they can based on inspiration and reasoning and everything else (just as he entrusts a lot of things to us in the same way). Then we make a bunch of choices that have consequences, including consequences that hurt innocent people (have you tried parenting lately?). After seeing the consequences of my own decisions (including some decisions that I still wouldn’t change, even knowing the consequences), I try to keep any criticism I’m inclined to make in perspective.
Jack, I think it says a lot about the differences in paradigms you and I have on this matter that I feel like it’s more straightforward to say that a racist policy is more likely uninspired and rooted in human governance of the Church while you’re more open to the possibility that God would impose a racist policy than leaders of the Church could get something so wrong for so long. I understand where you’re coming from, but I just can’t believe that God would do that as a just and equitable being. But I suppose that goes to your original point that it might be best to just leave that question unanswered with our current understanding.
I will say that my thoughts about their status as prophets isn’t something I can easily capture in short comments (maybe a blog post or series someday). I do believe that they have inspiration and revelation guiding them to some extent. I don’t believe that it’s a constant mind-meld with God or that Ahman or Jesus show up very often to chat with them about policy. And I believe that they have made many missteps along the way, even as they do their best to follow what they believe to be God’s will. And to be clear, the lower level of trust that I have in Church leaders isn’t just due to this issue, though it is part of the picture.
I think Jonathan got at some of my thoughts about prophets better than I did.
Chad,
Thanks for keeping cool. I need to do better in that department.
I believe that God could have any number of reasons for imposing that kind of restriction that have nothing to do with racism–at least not on his part. And so–just to be clear–even though I’m doubtful about the prophets getting it wrong for such a long period of time–that’s not to say that I agree with the explanations for the ban that were popular in those days. While I do have some ideas vis-a-vis the social aspect of things–the whole thing’s really a mystery to me.
Chad, I agree with your “high priests rather than PSRs” designation. I do understand the importance of leadership as well as our leaders’ religious role. Jonathan, if that’s how we define PSR–a calling with agency to do our best while prone to plenty of error–then that definition works for me. But that’s not what we tend to hear in general conference or church. And that’s okay, I just view things differently than how we tend to define PSR (again, I like your definition).
And yes, we ought to respect and appreciate our leaders, and be supportive of the difficult callings they have. But the theology of making sense of what Chad (and others) have laid out, makes me think that “lots of human error” is the best explanation. And, yes, I understand my own extensive errors. But again, we tend not to talk much about our leaders’ (many?) mistakes.
When I was a missionary in Brazil back in the early 1970s, the issue of the racial ban was a serious potential problem– you can imagine what might happen when a faithful member and maybe ward leader does genealogy and discovers that he or she has African ancestry– and so we were required to teach a “lineage lesson” to everybody before they were baptized. But the mission didn’t have any official lesson, so elders just had to make up their own lesson. Interesting to think of 20-year-olds being entrusted with that task! In any case, some elders devised a fence-sitter, “less valiant” type of lesson. For myself, I would read with investigators the verses in which Jesus told his disciples to go only to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. Then we would read how later missionaries were told to go to the whole world, both Jews and Gentiles. I would then ask why Jesus followed this time table. Sometimes people would offer answers, but my own answer was: Jesus didn’t say the Gentiles were less worthy or less righteous; he didn’t explain his time table; we don’t know why he has a time table; but we try to follow it. Today, likewise, . . . .
Not sure that I would be satisfied with this explanation now, but I still think it was better than the “fence sitter” lessons.
Jack, Am I understanding that you believe the prophets were right with the priesthood ban, but that you don’t subscribe to the reasons they themselves endorsed and even declared? That doesn’t make much sense to me.
It works better for me to see church leaders as men who are doing the best they can, hopefully with some inspiration from the Holy Spirit (the same Holy Spirit that rank-and-file church members look for). I sustain church leaders in their assignments and decisions, as I believe in a house of order, but I am not yet ready to ascribe all of their decisions or pronouncements to God himself. I realize that other Saints see things differently.
This discussion is great. Thank you. I’ve moved from the prophet having a weekly sit down with Jesus to the view of most of the posters on this thread. GAs are not infallible. They’re on a mortal journey just like the rest of us and God allows them to make mistakes and learn just like the rest of us. I understand people holding to the infallible model. I also understand people leaving the church over imperfect administrative decisions. I sustain the leaders just as I imagine God does – “You want to try taking eight year old Indians out of their homes, go a head give it a try. You want to cede the Internet to anti-mormons for ten or fifteen years, see how that works out. You want to teach kids church history but leave out the “unhelpful” stuff, it’s your call. You want to prohibit baptism of kids in gay households, good luck.” The list goes on. I’ve hit the point in life where I care about Jesus but not so much what church administrators are doing or saying. It’s how I’m able to stay.
ji,
I don’t think there was one monolithic view among church leaders as to the reasons for the ban. Yes there were some ideas that had gained a lot more traction than others–but even so, I think there was plenty of wiggle room for disagreement. Even the idea of varying degrees of commitment among premortal spirits was not limited to people of African descent.
That said, I worry sometimes that we moderns get a bit cocky–speaking collectively–with respect to our view of history. My guess is that 50-100 years from now folks will look back and see how silly *our* assumptions were. And yet, in spite of how far off the mark we may be vis-a-vis the whys and wherefores I’m confident that the apostles are leading us in the right direction. So too vis-a-vis the whys and wherefores of the ban. Some of the early saints’ assumptions about folks of African descent seem silly to us moderns–but that need not be construed as evidence that ten consecutive prophets got the restriction itself wrong.
Thanks, Jack. Yes, based on your response, It seems I am correct in understanding that you believe the prophets were right with the priesthood ban, but that you don’t subscribe to the reasons they themselves endorsed and even declared — they were right, but the reasons they espoused were not.
Well actually I’m open to the possibility that they may have been wrong about the whole thing. I think it’s unlikely that they were wrong–but I can’t say that I know with absolute certainty that they were right. There’s just too much mystery surrounding the whole thing.
Thanks for hearing me out.
I’d say that research into the topic over the last few decades has taken the mystery out of the topic. The reason for implementing and keeping the ban are now pretty clear from a historical perspective. Making sense of it within out standard theology is what’s hard.
I guess I’d add two things.
While historians have cleared up a lot of the background, the one thing that we can’t know is where another path might have led. The nation literally tore itself apart over the issue of race, and the church was already facing military occupation ten years after reaching Utah. I deeply wish there had never been a priesthood ban, but we’re deluding ourselves if we think we know exactly how things would have worked out.
Beyond God saying “do this/don’t do this,” there are situations where God says “do something.” Brigham Young felt an urgent commission to organize the priesthood, and so he did, to the best of his knowledge and ability. I may wish that he had operated with different knowledge, but he was the one authorized at the time. I don’t have to accept the priesthood authority conveyed into the future through him, but there isn’t another option out there.
Here are my two cents worth on why the Lord would allow a policy like this to continue so long or at all. Keep in mind that 2 cents isn’t worth much these days. :-)
1) In the Book of Mormon we are taught that the Lord will try both our faith and our patience. He may use the mistakes of men (and women) to do that. Just a thought.
2) I have no source on this at the moment, but I vaguely recall that Elder McConkie expressed his opinion (and I believe it was just that) that had the ban not been in place, the growth of the church in Africa and among black people in general would have been so fast and big that the the tree, as it were, would not have had sufficient roots to support it. Again, this is a vague recollection of mine and I don’t have a source nor do I necessarily subscribe to that opinion. I’m in the “I don’t know” category. I will say that to Elder McConkie’s credit, when asked about his earlier teachings on the subject after the revelation was received, he said that back then he wasn’t operating under the same light and knowledge he now had after the revelation. But, that’s an aside.
We are here to learn, by our own experience, to distinguish good from evil. We do that by observing the consequences of good and bad decisions made by ourselves and others. Mistakes aren’t a deviation from God’s plan–they are God’s plan. That’s why the the plan needed a Savior.
Since our Heavenly Parents hope we will choose to become like them, they give us the opportunity to do what they do in miniature: create, parent, teach, lead, etc. Part of the reason we have both families and a Church is to give us those opportunities. But here again we learn by making mistakes.
If God so tightly controlled his prophets that they never made a significant mistake, that would be exempting them from a critical element of mortality. (It also raises questions about their agency.) Both we and they would lose the opportunity to learn from their choices. So I don’t think it should be surprising when the historical record strongly suggests God does not do that.
That doesn’t mean he doesn’t both call and guide his prophets, just that he doesn’t turn them into puppets. Now does it eliminate our need to follow them: a person doesn’t have to always be right to be worth following, they just have to be right more often than I am. Also, we have the assurance that the prophets won’t lead us astray, which I read as saying God does control them tightly enough that following them will never cause us to lose our salvation. But we should not expect them to never make mistakes–that’s asking for a faith crisis when we discover that they do.
I believe the idea that prophets will never lead us astray is folklore. I don’t believe God had anything to do with the temple ban. We don’t need to twist ourselves in knots trying to justify it.
I think the first words that the Savior speaks to the Nephites are rather stunning:
“Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.”
We’re all familiar with the dictum that the prophets are only prophets when they speak as a prophets. Even so, I’m not sure how meaningful the above quote would be if the prophets were known to be “hit or miss” with their official declarations.
Jesus also reminded the Nephites about the writings of Samuel the Lamanite concerning “that at the day that the Father should glorify his name in me that there were many saints who should arise from the dead, and should appear unto many, and should minister unto them. And he said unto them: Was it not so?”. Which was recorded but not added to the scriptural canon by Nephi,
“How be it that ye [Nephi] have not written this thing, that many saints did arise and appear unto many and did minister unto them?” 3 Nephi 23:11. The next verse shows the about face of Nephi. It, among other examples, are canonized examples when prophets get things wrong.
This is an example of how prophets are inserted in an ecosystem subject to their tradition, beliefs, etc.
that in some way restrict revelation and bind them to preconceptions. The same thing happens to us.
The Lord had to repeat several times to Peter that he should eat unclean animals in his vision because it was a concept deeply rooted in his upbringing. After Acts 10:34 he finally understands the meaning and decides to baptize the Gentiles.
If Peter was more than familiar with personal revelation and was trained directly by Jesus Christ… what is left for the rest of us mortals?
There’s an interesting irony in all of this. Racism is a cardinal sin to us moderns–as it should be. And naturally we are loath to involve Deity in the implementation and/or continuation of the ban. And so, the best we can come up with is that it must’ve been an artifact of racism among the apostles. But then–because racism is so repulsive to us we wonder how the Lord’s servants could ever have approved of such a policy. And then we’re left to assume that if they could be so terribly wrong about one thing–then it is only reasonable that they have been and will be wrong about other important issues. And continuing in that trajectory of thought–we arrive at the point of wondering why we should believe anything they say.
That being said, I think there are some important questions that we should ask ourselves–and the most important (IMO) is: do we really know the mind of God on the issue? Other questions might have to do with how well we understand both the problems and virtues of the past or the real disposition of past apostles–both generally and as it relates to this particular issue.
This is pretty-much where I’m at with the conundrum:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2018/06/why-i-cant-simply-dismiss-the-pre-1978-priesthood-ban-as-a-mistake.html
What I find disturbing is some people can write a history of the priesthood ban, be grateful that it was overturned in 1978 and yet they won’t allow their son/daughter date and African American. It would seem they intellectually accepted it but deep down they still haven’t accepted it and actually, in their heart, sustain a living prophet and end their racist attitude
The Church extensively addressed this topic some years ago, as found in the Gospel Topics Essays portion of the Gospel Library entitled Race and the Priesthood. I honor Church leaders and my black African brothers in the gospel for their willingness to admit mistakes and endure with patience respectively. Many gospel teachers today make mistakes, and it’s our responsibility as parents especially, and friends, to do our best to kindly help each other dispel errors in doctrine even by a well intentioned “”teacher”.
Alan, I don’t see much admitting mistakes on the part of Church leaders. “We disavow explanations given in the past” might indirectly throw some non-specified person in the past under the bus, but doesn’t exactly accept responsibility or even acknowledge that it was in fact a human error.
An admission by leaders that this was a human error would, in my opinion, be an extremely healthy, mature, honest, and helpful step.
An admission by leaders that [talks by general authorities in all settings are sincere and good faith attempts to be helpful] would, in my opinion, be an extremely healthy, mature, honest, and helpful step.
And I think this is really true. I do not think general authorities channel God when they give talks; rather, they do their best to be helpful. I do not think it would weaken the church for leaders to acknowledge this simple truth. Of course, others may see things differently.
I agree that it would be healthy, but it would be a shift for Church culture. After all, Church leaders have built up their divine right authority to the point that they couldn’t even admit that they didn’t destroy the Manti Temple mutals because of the public outcry. Instead, they said that the people who prayed for the temple to be preserved convinced God to change His mind, and He informed Church leaders of the change in plans.
If they can’t just admit that they were wrong and changed course when they recognized that for that one, I don’t see something as big as denying access to the priesthood and temple due to racism for 136 years as being something they would be willing to admit either. In some ways, it feels like they have insisted on obedience so strongly that they have painted themselves into a corner.
We need a green light or something during GC that comes on when they are speaking for God vs themselves. Disavowing what past “prophets” said/believed regarding race should have caused a huge shift in thinking by the members but it really didn’t. Like Not A Coug said, what else are they wrong about and if current ones are saying past ones are wrong then current leaders are open to the same mistakes or wrongness.
There is a reason IMO we dont add to the D&C. No new revelations. God is not telling us to sit in a circle in class, change mission ages, wear a tie and white shirt, dont wear pants to church, temple changes, get the jab. etc. Leaders doing their best to lead. I personally would hate to be the President of the church with members thinking everything I said in GC was from God. Yikes!
The challenge of exercising authority is that authority has to be earned. People can be placed into positions of authority, but sooner or later, leaders have to demonstrate that they deserve to be followed. No leader can inherit genuine authority. Every leader has to earn the position on the merits of their work. In a living, vibrant body of people, leaders are not positions; leaders are people.
Earning respect as a leader is not a one-way process. It doesn’t depend only on what the leader does. Leadership doesn’t work without the goodwill and good faith of followers. Our commitment as followers means we are willing to give leaders the benefit of the doubt. We do this because we understand that nobody is perfect, and all of us—leaders and followers alike—need each other’s support, forgiveness, and forbearance.
The zone where a leader’s ability coincides with our mutual forbearance is the place we have to find in order to maintain a healthy church. (Shall we call this the “zone of righteous dominion”?) If leaders are not good enough, that zone doesn’t exist. If all of us are not sufficiently tolerant of mistakes, that zone doesn’t exist. The zone is always shifting, because how we define the zone in practice depends on whatever issues confront us now—and those issues are constantly evolving.
The belief that LDS leaders must be infallible is a crisis for the church because it undermines the basic process of leadership. We can’t maintain a healthy organization if we deny the need to be forgiving and forbearing. Imagine how horrible it would be if you were never allowed to forgive your loved ones because everyone is pretending that they can do no wrong.
It feels to me as if this crisis is one of the defining elements of the “zone of righteous dominion” for our generation. I pray that we can find our way through the crisis. The church can be good, and even great, but I doubt we can achieve this if we don’t deal with this problem maturely and intelligently. We need to become less brittle and more malleable in God’s hands.
Believing that prophets must be infallible is childish. Like Paul, we should be willing to grow up enough that we can put away childish things.
I believe the pattern of leadership in the Kingdom is based on the anointing. The Savior chooses his servants and anoints them that they may be one with him as he is one with the Father–as per John 17 & 3 Nephi 19. He then anoints all those who believe on the words of his servants that they also may be one with him. Thus the “first become last and the last become first” in terms of the purpose and meaning of the work of the kingdom.
The best reference I have read on the “ban” is as discussed in the McKay biography, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, by Prince and Wright (2005). Personal beliefs and prejudices implemented as policy. (it also, in my opinion, tells us why H.B. Lee died so young).
Our responsibility as members of the Church is to come to our own understanding of the Gospel, and even “policies” and formal practices (plenty of formal temple ceremonies were filled with presonal beliefs and biases, and implemented as God’s word). Leaders are all human, and if we look very hard we can find “dirt” on any of them. Almost everyone believes himself to be unbiased, but that is totally delusional.
Wizz, McConkie was correct about the Church being overwhelmed with the potential members in Africa. The Church had a policy of NOT baptising anyone who was converted in Africa, and to some extent in Latin America. There had to be conversion and baptism by sufficient number of educated, leadership types to keep up. Entire potential Stakes were delayed for many, many years. Missionaries were restricted from baptising. Referrals had to be of certain characteristics. Similar issues arose due to cultural problems. For years, and possibly ongoing now, there were cultural perceptions that caused major problems (many excommunicated former Stake Presidents and Bishops, because certain favors were due those in a position of authority, and a former SP or Bishop suddenly had to be defferential to a successor, especially one with less formal education or of a “lesser” occupation.
Neal, I recall the “Church leaders (or Prophets) will never lead you astray” as actually stated more along the lines of if you as an individual do something that turns out to be wrong because a prophet (or general authority”) instructed, counselled, admonished you to do so, you will not be held accountable. There are many who do not have the wherewithall to question and find out for themself what to do even though leadership has said something wrong. Those individuals must not be accountable.
As follow-up, I’m not sure anyone actually read the reference I gave? I believe that the quote “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.”
Perhaps to others this is not an acknowledgement of “mistakes”, but to me it seems that it is clearly just that. I hope we all will become gospel scholars and stay in the mainstream. I give to you a recent conference talk that hits this nail clearly on the head: “And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.
I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes.” Dieter Uchtdorf in Conference Oct 2013.
I submit it’s worth a thorough study as it addresses several issues discussed in this forum. I believe in the Living Son of God Jesus Christ, and that his church has been restored and is guided by living Prophets and Apostles. I’m so grateful for the joy of daily repentance!
Elder Uchtdorf’s statement isn’t exactly normative for what our leaders say, as highlighted by his demotion from the First Presidency afterwards.
Alan,
At the 40th anniversary celebration of the 1978 revelation, Dallin Oaks said in reference to the ban, “the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants.” It sounds like in his mind, the reasons given may have been human derived, but the ban itself was from God.
I’m amazed this thread is still active. Critchlow is right. Unfortunately you don’t spend almost 130 years making up stories about why people are inferior and change attitudes over night. I believe there is latent racism in the Mormon corridor and I blame the church. Read the justice report on the Davis County School District. The Church included material against mixed race marriages in its literature up until 12/13 years ago.
Stephen, I’ll go with our two demoted guys – Hugh Brown and Uchtdorf over the others every day.
Chuete, I have a hard time buying the no accountability idea. Although many folks seem willing to subordinate their agency to their idols/ heroes, the GAs. I picture the men who bludgeoned to death women and children at Mtn Meadows at the Bar saying, “President Haight and Bishop Killensmith told me to do it.” I don’t see that flying.
Yeah, “I was just following orders” didn’t work at Nuremberg (not to compare our leaders to Nazi, just that ins’t the best excuse). And such logic would make our leader especially culpable.
At the end of the day, the history of the priesthood ban makes a lot of dissenters (especially Brown) look really good in contrast to a lot of other leaders.