priesthood – Page 2 – What Do Mormons Believe?

Blacks, Mormons, Priesthood, Racism, Answers

First: Are there racist Mormons?

Answer: Yes. Sadly.

Second: Is the LDS Church a racist organization?

Answer: NO. From the Book of Mormon, “[The Lord] inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 26:33).

cookies1

Racism in all its forms is disgusting. It is an evil wholly at odds with the gospel of Jesus Christ and has a pernicious effect on society. Those members of the LDS Church and other faiths that have race-superiority issues (which they often try to base on scripture or statements of church leaders) are in sin.

However, such people in the Church are few and far between. My personal experience in the Church has been a wholly positive one. I have attended church services in Brazil, China, Mongolia, Germany, and in various congregations in the United States and have witnessed firsthand the unity that the gospel of Jesus Christ brings as people of varying ethnicity worship together. Growing up I had a black foster sister. Admittedly, Mikayla was in the minority attending church with my family in the predominantly white state of Utah. Naturally, Mikayla would ask questions about it. But not once in the years I sat beside her in the chapel pews did I witness any form of racism against her. I love that. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a multicultural church (more members live outside the U.S. than within) welcoming sons and daughters of God of all ethnicities.

I am willing to admit there are problems. Racism is a resilient poison that people in the U.S. and elsewhere have had difficulty purging. Just because overt acts of racism don’t occur publicly often doesn’t mean it isn’t present beneath the surface. And yet I think the Church is doing well. Plus, we can hardly point a finger at others; are any of us truly free of hurtful prejudice of any sort? Let’s pray we all continue to do better. Do better together.

missionpicture1

Next topic: Why was priesthood denied to black male members of the church prior to 1978?

Our age of click-and-publish internet ramblings has brought with it a barrage of ill-supported commentaries which force the modern reader to be a skeptic of everything he or she reads. In light of this, I have tried hard to cut through the haze and get an accurate answer to this controversial and sensitive question. The answer I found: there is no satisfactory answer.

Some clamor that the priesthood ban was a product of traditional racism in early America; that it was a church policy based on unrighteous social norms. They have their evidences. Some insist that it was a divinely inspired command from God. They have their evidences. Still others claim it was a policy implemented by the Church based on correct doctrinal principles. Likewise, they have their evidences. The Church itself hasn’t said anything official and definitive on the subject. A paucity of facts invites a diversity of opinion. As far as I am concerned, it also makes any opinion on the subject mere speculation.

What I do know is that a prophet of God received a revelation on Thursday, June 1st, 1978 that enabled all worthy male members of the Church to receive the priesthood. History shows that it was a day of rejoicing. And it wasn’t the first of its kind. It was reminiscent of the New Testament scene where Peter told the new members of the Church that God had revealed to him that the gospel of Christ was now to be preached to the Gentiles. It was a policy change in the church: a policy change God gave (as He often does) without explanation. Acts 11:18 gives their reaction to Peter’s news, “When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God.”

In closing I say to white members of the church: Be careful in how you explain the priesthood ban to yourself and others. Perhaps Alma Allred in his essay “The Traditions of Their Fathers: Myth versus Reality in LDS Scriptural Writings” (found in the book Black and Mormon cited below) was near the truth when he urged white members to, instead of looking for what blacks did to receive the ban, look at themselves to make sure they were not the cause.

And to all members of the Church and other curious truth seekers: if it really bothers you, do the research. Come to your own conclusions. But remember that there aren’t always definitive answers. God moves in mysterious ways. Our Old Testament friend Naaman was confused when he was commanded to go wash in Jordan seven times to be made clean (2 Kings 5:10). God didn’t explain but he had faith and did it anyway. There are plenty of things I don’t understand, yet I can get by with the limited light I have. I do try to learn all that I can-I am not satisfied with ignorance. But I recognize that the ignorance and incomplete understanding that remain with me are mine and not God’s.

This takes you to an official church site touching on the subject.

Suggested further reading:

Bringhurst, Newell G. and Smith, Darron T. Black and Mormon. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2004.

Bringhurst, Newell G. Saints, Slaves, and Blacks: The Changing Place of Black People within Mormonism. Westport Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1981.

Embry, Jessie L. Black Saints in a White Church: Contemporary African American Mormons. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993.

Lund, John Lewis. The Church and the Negro: A Discussion of Mormons, Negroes and the Priesthood. Salt Lake City: Paramount Publishers, 1967.

Taggart, Stephen G. Mormonism’s Negro Policy: Social and Historical Origin. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1970.

The Restoration

The Lord follows every apostasy with a new dispensation and a restoration of authority. Here is a short film produced by the Church which shows how the current dispensation was opened through the young man, Joseph Smith.

This is the second half of the same film.

“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you” (Matthew 7:7).

Heavenly Father will answer your prayers, too. Ask Him whether Joseph Smith was a prophet.

Joseph Smith and Authority

Keys Q. What kind of a God would go through all the trouble of Salvation, teach his apostles so many things, and wait until 1820 to give Joseph Smith authority? That, my friends, does not make sense. I am really worried about you guys and I will truly pray for you. You know nothing of Church history or the teachings of Christ who by the way wanted his apostles to spread his good news. Why would he then wait for Joseph Smith?

I am glad that you asked this question. It is apparent that there has been misunderstanding of what we believe. God didn’t wait to give his authority to Joseph Smith. The original 12 apostles had the authority, but it was not passed on after their deaths. We believe that God restored his authority through Joseph Smith.

In answering this question, I first need to define apostasy. According to Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, apostasy is “An abandonment of what one has voluntarily professed; a total desertion or departure from one’s faith, principles, or party.” Evidence that there was apostasy happening at the time of the apostles (Acts 20:29-31, 1 Cor. 11:18, Galatians 1:6-7, 2 Tim. 1:15, 2 Tim. 2:16-18, 1 John 2:18-19) and that the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ would be lost over time (2 Thess. 2:1-3, 1 Tim. 4:1, 2 Tim 4:3-4, Amos 8:11-12) is evident from study of the New and Old Testaments.

The priesthood, or the God-given authority to act in His name, is a crucial part of the foundation upon which the Church of Jesus Christ must be built. For instance, In Matthew 16:18-19 we discover that Christ gave unto Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven.” In other verses of the New Testament we read that conferral of authority to another was marked by the laying on of hands of him who held the authority to do so (1 Tim. 4:14, 2 Tim. 1:6, Heb. 6:2). Furthermore, in Hebrews we read “No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron” (Heb. 5:4). It is clear that there are several things that the early Church had: God-given authority to act in God’s name, this authority gave those men who held it the right to administer the ordinances of the church and it was passed from the prophet/apostles to other men by the laying on of hands.

Jesus Christ ordaining the Twelve Apostles

After Christ’s death the apostles did what they were commissioned to do: spread the Gospel to all of the earth. However, as a consequence of martyrdom and geographical separation, the priesthood keys were not passed on. The early bishops of the church did not have the apostolic authority that Peter, James and John did, or else they would have been called apostles. For example, Linus the first bishop of Rome (often assumed to be the head of the church after Peter’s death), according to Eusebius of Caesarea, was a bishop (i.e. a local congregation’s minister), not an apostle (Church History, Book III, Chapter II). Eusebius, while he calls these early bishops successors of the apostles, he speaks of these bishops as men who were called to lead that particular group of people under the direction and guidance of the apostles (Church History, Book III, Chapter IV). Now, I am not saying that Linus or any of the other bishops were bad men, but what I am trying to say is that with the apostles and the keys of the kingdom gone, there was no clear direction from God on how to run the Church. I am sure they did the best that they could, but eventually there began to be major disagreements in the church. This is evident by the Council of Nicaea, which met in part to discuss the Arian controversy. The disagreement was centered on the relationship between the Father and the Son. This issue would have been resolved very quickly had there been a prophet who could receive divine revelation and held the authority to determine church doctrine. As it was, Constantine, the Emperor with no ecclesiastical authority took the lead in the council and made them come to a decision.

Take the example of Peter making doctrinal decisions from Acts chapter 11; it is clear that Peter held the keys to decide such matters. He received a revelation that the Gospel was to go to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. Those present at the meeting accepted Peter’s statement, because they recognized that he held the authority to institute practices and doctrine for the entire Church. The process was simple, and it was not a matter of politics. This pattern was repeated in Acts 15. Had there been a prophet on the earth in the fourth century, there would have been no need for the Council of Nicaea. How could something so fundamental as the character of God and his Son come into question by the leaders of Christ’s church? This alone is evidence enough that the leaders of the church at that time did not have the authority to receive revelation from God for the church, nor did they have the authority to act in his name.

Christ didn’t waste his time, nor did the apostles. Rather, there was an apostasy. This pattern has been repeated numerous times through history. We see it with Adam, Abraham, Noah, Moses and so on. God calls a prophet to teach the people and gives him authority. Some people accept what the prophet has taught, but eventually the people turn from the truth. No one had the authority to speak in God’s name nor did they have the authority to administer the ordinances necessary for salvation after the original twelve apostles were killed. True, there were many men who tried to reform what they thought was the truth, but these men were not called of God as the ancient prophets were.

In addition to the above evidences of apostasy, Peter taught that at some future time there will be a restoration or ‘restitution of all things’ (Acts 3:21). In order for a restoration to occur, there had to be a loss. Thus, according to the scriptures and prophets, there would be an apostasy and then there would be a restoration of not only the truth, but of all things (Ephesians 1:10).

In 1820, God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith and called him to the work. He was given the priesthood authority—that is, he was given the keys of the kingdom. Through Joseph Smith, Christ’s church has once again been established on earth. The keys of the kingdom that Joseph Smith held have been passed in an unbroken chain down to the current prophet, seer, revelator and president of the church. The Living Prophet: Thomas S. Monson His name is Thomas S. Monson; we have a quorum of twelve apostles who spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ all over the world. They are called of God and set apart by the laying on of hands by those who have the authority to pass the priesthood on.

We have a massive missionary force, almost 53,000-strong, who are in nearly every country in the world. They all proclaim that God has once again spoken to his people through a prophet and that the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which was lost through apostasy, is once again upon the earth. We proclaim that Jesus lives and that he is the Savior of all mankind and that all can partake of salvation through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (by someone holding priesthood authority).

I hope this answers your question and clears up your confusion. Think about what I have written. God knows if it’s true. Ask Him about it in prayer. I invite you to contact the missionaries who are in your area by going to this website and entering your information. A pair of young men or young women will come to your door to teach you further about what we believe. Thanks for your inquiry.

Truth

Q. I’ll throw a quick question at you. How can you claim your church tells “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” if historically they have changed their beliefs because of social pressure? (i.e. polygamy, blacks receiving the priesthood, and even changing the Book of Mormon from “cursed” to whatever they changed it too.)

Good question. The essence of what you’re saying is “if you say you belong to the TRUE church of Jesus Christ, then why isn’t that truth unchanging?” Right?

We’ll get to the “social pressure” in a minute.

Well, the thing is, God commands and His servants obey. Sometimes God tells His servants to do one thing, and then tells someone else to do the opposite. Both things are commandments, though, and both things are right in their context.

Examples?

How about when Jesus came and overturned the ENTIRE system of Mosaic law? It must have really made some people mad when Christ started saying,
“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time. . .
don’t commit adultery,
don’t kill,
divorce is okay with the proper documents,
don’t swear by your own self–swear oaths in the Lord’s name,
an eye for an eye, and tooth for a tooth,
love your neighbor and hate your enemy.

But I say unto you . . .
don’t even lust,
don’t even get angry,
divorce isn’t okay unless the reason is fornication,
don’t swear oaths at all,
resist not evil and turn the other cheek,
love your enemies.

Talk about changing policy!

You would respond (as I would) that it was the necessary evolution of the religion–that Jesus came to FULFILL the Law of Moses, as part of the grand design of the earth and our salvation. You would say that it is God’s will that Jesus came and taught us the Higher Law. I agree. I also agree that God can keep doing that. When we tell God that He can’t keep giving us higher instruction, we damn ourselves.

How about the revelation that Peter received on the housetop that he should start preaching the gospel to Gentiles? That shook some people to the core. It was such a departure from the way it had been before! But God’s timing was (of course) infallible and the church grew.

You ask about changing beliefs because of social pressure, which I think is an important point to examine. Plural marriage was introduced in the church by Joseph Smith and then discontinued by Wilford Woodruff, the 4th president of the Church. This was the scene in the Church after the Edmunds-Tucker Act was passed in 1887:

“The church was disincorporated, the Perpetual Emigration Fund Company was dissolved, and all property belonging to the Church, with the exception of buildings used exclusively for religious worship, was escheated to the government. Hundreds of men who had contracted plural marriages were heavily fined, and imprisoned. All persons who could not subscribe to a test oath which was provided especially for those who practiced or believed in the practice of plural marriage, were disfranchised [lost political power, voting, etc.]”. (Clark, James R., ed. Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. 5:320. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-1975).

It seems to me that if social pressure was going to sway him to change course, he would have done it before the Church fell down around him.

Woodruff said, “I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write”

The same kind of scenario was repeated with the Priesthood being made available to all worthy male members of the Church. The fact is, not until God said go, did the church go. This is not to say that the Church didn’t uphold the Civil Rights movement, or believe that all people should be given equal rights. This just means that God hadn’t told the Prophet to extend the Priesthood to everyone yet (see the Peter example, above). But it was time to extend it to a broader population. He still hasn’t given the Priesthood to everyone, though. Women still don’t hold the Priesthood and there is plenty of social pressure currently to make that happen, but it hasn’t. And it most likely won’t. The Church doesn’t do things because “everyone is doing it”. We do things when God commands.

So I end this post with a question to you: People may accuse us of “flip flopping”, but can you find a church that is honestly more consistent with the church that Christ formed when He was on the earth? With prophets, apostles, teachers, priests, elders, missionaries, miracles, healing, continued revelations, fasting, tithing, temples, ordinances and priesthood ordained from God?

The only way to really know is to pray about it.

Women and the Priesthood

Q. What is the LDS position on women as priests/pastors/leaders/whatever they are called?

woman-preacher Well, the Church’s position is that women are very capable leaders. The women’s organization (Relief Society) is led by 4 women (president, 1st counselor, 2nd counselor, secretary) with the same organization in the Primary (children’s classes). Women also lead the teenage girls (Young Women Organization) in the same fashion. Women give sermons for the whole church, and they teach Sunday school lessons. However, the main body of the congregation (called a ward, or a branch) is led by men.

As far as women being priests, pastors, or whatevers, that just isn’t women’s job. Okay, that sounds sexist, but it isn’t, just hear me out (and know that I am a woman).

See, God isn’t running a democracy and He doesn’t have to give His power to everyone to be fair. He is running a theocracy; and it works well because He knows everything, understands what we need, and is completely Good.

So He has assigned the worthy men the role of carrying his authority to preside over the church, give Priesthood blessings, and serve as God himself would serve. This is really good for men, in general. It gives them the opportunity and responsibility to take care of others, serve, and become selfless. Men sometimes have a hard time looking outside themselves, and with this responsibility solely on their shoulders, they are solely responsible to God for how they do. If they don’t do what they are supposed to bad things can happen. That’s how apostasy comes about.

marybabyjesus

He gave women an equally responsible job–they are in charge of raising their children to be God-loving, respectful, and well-balanced. This is a huge job: like the Priesthood, they are accountable to God for how they do; and, like the priesthood, the responsibility helps them take care of others, serve, and become selfless. If they don’t follow through with their duties, and their children grow up without knowing God, or keeping His commandments, bad things can happen. That’s why the earth was flooded.

Both men and women are heading for salvation, but since our natures are so different, God has given us different responsibilities to round out our weaknesses and accentuate our strengths. That’s why God’s theocracy works–everyone in His kingdom is working toward the same goal and He has tailored their roles to get them there.