Sunday, February 1, 2015

A Word of Caution

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have often struggled with the before called "Negro Doctrine"; the idea that until 1978 when church president Spencer W. Kimball had a "revelation", God himself barred lacks from being ordained to the priesthood. It begs the question: "If God created everyone a certain way for a certain purpose, and if all men are equal, then why did it take so long for the church to overcome the racism?"

For the most part in my 5 years as a church member, I have come to live with the idea. I leave it in the hands of the Lord Jesus Christ himself. However, I am absolutely convinced that this idea was man-made; there is not one ounce of truth in the idea that this practice was approved by the Lord. Any who believe this sadistic nonsense need to repent.

We find no inference of this idea in the Prophet Joseph Smith. Some of the prophets closest friends were black, and he approved of their ordination himself.  In the case of Elijah Abel, he ordained him an elder himself. How can any argue that blacks were not be ordained when the Prophet himself ordained? I do not understand it.

I can get that the church was restored in an era of slavery and racism, which the church opposed to its credit. What I cannot understand is how members today still act as though the ban itself was not racist. It clearly was. If the church seeks for truth, why not condemn this action and condemn the man who put in place, Mr. Brigham Young? Because the church worships it leaders, and sees them as demigods. Until this ceases, we will have to come to grips with the fact that the church will be of no help in certain matters.

Why do I bring this up? In an institute class this past week, the instructor said that this was similar to St. Peter not going to the Gentiles originally until he had a vision. It is indeed similar, but not for the reason that the instructor said. It is similar because St. Peter (along with many other Jews) believed that only the Jews would be saved, and he therefore hated the Gentiles This is similar to the fact that in Brigham Young's day, the negro was considered less than a human being and not of the same worth on Earth or in Heaven as a Caucasian. Jesus was a revolutionary, and his vision was to end racism and bring all into the family of God. Further, the vision would have been unnecessary if St. Peter had obeyed the Master's original instruction to take the gospel to the world with no restriction (Matthew 28: 19-20). Any who use this story to prove that the restriction o blacks had warrant from heaven should be treated with disgust, contempt, and ridicule.


  1. I have a question about the last sentence. Are you saying that the person or the idea "should be treated with disgust contempt and ridicule"? I agree if you are talking about the idea, not the person.

  2. I generally agree with your assessment of the doctrine, although I find it's pretty useless to try to point fingers. However, per the golden rule and Joseph's teaching (you know the one about being trammeled over doctrine and it feels like the Methodists) we should treat everyone with kindness and mercy. Even if we find someone's beliefs abhorrent and uncharitable, we must be charitable, and treat them the way we would like to be treated, not with disgust, contempt, and ridicule.

    1. Julie,

      Thanks for your comment and for reading. I would say that I agree with Joseph's saying, but I am not attacking an idea as much as an idea. Ideas can be treated in the way I stated, not people.