Changing the Anti-Black Doctrine

Chapter 10

Part 1

    On June 9, 1978, Mormon church leaders announced a very important change in their doctrine concerning blacks. They stated that blacks would now be given "all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords" (Deseret News, June 9, 1978). Prior to that time blacks of African lineage were not allowed to hold the Priesthood nor go through the temple even though they lived exemplary lives. The Mormon position concerning blacks was clearly stated in a letter written by the First Presidency on July 17, 1947: "From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it 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" (Letter from the First Presidency, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, by John J. Stewart and William E. Berrett, pp.46-47).

    Bruce R. McConkie, who now serves as an apostle in the Mormon church, wrote the following in a book published in 1958:

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.... Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned ... (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, p.477).

Black Skin and the Pre-Existence

   As we have previously brought out, in Mormon theology "a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind" (Juvenile Instructor, vol. 3, p.157). This idea comes directly from Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon which says that the skins of the Indians became "dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression ..." (Book of Mormon, Alma 3:6).

    Although Mormon theology has taught that anyone born

291

292

with a dark skin was inferior, blacks of African lineage were placed at the bottom of the scale. President Joseph Fielding Smith explained the LDS view concerning blacks:

Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have came into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fulness [sic] of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning....

But what a contrast! The sons of Seth, Enoch and Noah honored by the blessings and rights of Priesthood! ... And the sons of Cain, denied the priesthood; not privileged to receive the covenants of glory in the kingdom of God! ...we will also hope that blessings may eventually be given to our Negro brethren, for they are our brethren--children of God--notwithstanding their black covering emblematical of eternal darkness " (The Way to Perfection, Salt Lake City, 1935, pp.l0l-2).

    In a book published in 1966, Wallace Turner, a correspondent for the New York Times, set forth the limitations blacks were confronted with in the Mormon Church:

The Negro Mormon can hold no office whatsoever in a church which offers some office to every one of its male members at some time in his life. A gray-haired Negro Mormon who may have spent his adult life in the careful practice of all the complicated and demanding rules set down by the LDS church stands disenfranchised before the altar where a youth whose beard is just beginning to fuzz may preside. A twelve-year-old boy may become a member of the Aaronic priesthood, more than this Negro man has been able to achieve through a lifetime of devotion. To hold any church office, a Mormon must be a member of the priesthood (The Mormon Establishment, pp.243-44).

    Some Mormons who questioned this doctrine found themselves in serious trouble with the Church. For example, Grant Syphers related:

"In all humility I must say that God has not inspired me to feel good about the Church's practices regarding Negroes.... when my wife and I went to San Francisco Ward's bishop to renew our temple recommends, he told us that anyone who could not accept the Church's stand on Negroes as divine doctrine was not supporting the General Authorities and could not go to the temple. Later, in an interview with the stake president we were told the same thing: if you express doubts about the divinity of this

292

293

if you express doubts about the divinity of this "doctrine" you cannot go to the temple (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 1967. p.6).

    To understand the Mormon attitude concerning blacks, a person must first understand the doctrine of pre-existence. One of the basic doctrines of the Mormon church is that the spirit of man existed before the world was created. Joseph Smith once stated:

... the soul, the mind of man, the immortal spirit. All men say God created it in the beginning. The very idea lessens man in my estimation; I do not believe the doctrine, I know better... I am going to tell of things more noble....

The mind of man is as immortal as God himself... God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p.615, reprinted in History of the Church, vol. 6, pp.310-ll).

    From this doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul, came the idea of some spirits being more noble than others. Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham talks of "the noble and great ones" (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham 3:22). The Mormon leaders taught that the "more noble" or choice spirits are born as Mormons. Blacks, on the other hand, were considered to have been more unfaithful in the pre-existence than any of the spirits who were allowed to take bodies. Apostle McConkie maintained that "those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the Negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin (Mormon Doctrine, pp.476-77).

    Mormon historian B.H. Roberts asserted that in the pre-existence the Negroes "through their indifference or lack of integrity to righteousness, rendered themselves unworthy of the Priesthood and its powers, and hence it is withheld from them to this day (The Contributor, vol. 6, pp.296-97).

    Apostle Mark E. Petersen presented the Mormon thinking concerning the doctrine of pre-existence:

Is there reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not a reflection of our worthiness or lack of it in the pre-existent life? ... can we account in any other way for the birth of some of the children of God in darkest Africa, or in flood-ridden China, or among the starving hordes of India, while some of the rest of us are born here in the United States? We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as

293

294

some as Latter-day Saints. These are rewards and punishments, fully in harmony with His established policy in dealing with sinners and saints, rewarding all according to their deeds....

Let us consider the great mercy of God for a moment. A Chinese, born in China with a dark skin, and with all the handicaps of that race seems to have little opportunity. But think of the mercy of God to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. In spite of whatever they might have done in the pre-existence to justify being born over there as Chinamen, if they now, in this life, accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. Isn't the mercy of God marvelous?

"Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory (Race Problems--As They Affect The Church, Address by Mark E. Petersen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954).

Descendants of Cain Through the Flood

    In Joseph Smith's History of the Church, we read that "the negroes" are the "sons of Cain" (vol. 4, p.501). Apostle Bruce R. McConkie explains the curse put on Cain as follows:

Though he was a rebel and an associate of Lucifer in pre-existence, and though he was a liar from the beginning whose name was Perdition, Cain managed to attain the privilege of mortal birth.... he came out in open rebellion, fought God, worshiped Lucifer, and slew Abel....

As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage. He became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition. As a result of his mortal birth he is assured of a tangible body of flesh and bones to eternity, a fact which will enable him to rule over Satan (Mormon Doctrine, 1958. p.l02).

    In the "Book of Moses," a revelation given to Joseph Smith in

294

295

December 1830, it is stated that the "children of Canaan" were black: "For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people" (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses 7:8).

    Brigham Young declared that the flat nose and black skin were part of the mark put upon the descendants of Cain: "Cain slew his brother... and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin ..." (Journal of Discourses, vol, 7, p.290).

    Mormon leaders taught that it was Ham's descendants who were "cursed as to the priesthood" after the flood. They claimed that Ham married a black woman named Egyptus, and that the curse was continued "through Ham's wife." Bruce R. McConkie said that "Noah's son Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the Negro lineage through the flood" (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, p.477).

    John Taylor, the third president of the church, likewise maintained: "And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God..." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 22. p.304).

    In the "Book of Abraham" (a part of the Pearl of Great Price, one of the four standard works) the following appears:

Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden.

When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham. sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham....

Pharaoh, being a righteous man,... seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers ... even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but

295

296

cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham 1:21-26).

    Mormon writer Arthur M. Richardson made this statement concerning blacks: "Referring to Elder Hyde's statement we find, then, that those assigned to a dishonorable body on this earth came through the accursed lineage of Canaan through Ham's wife who was a descendant of the first murderer Cain ..." (That Ye May Not Be Deceived, pp 6-7).

    Briefly stated, then, the Mormon doctrine concerning blacks was this: In the "pre-existence" the blacks "lent an influence to the devil." Because of their "unfaithfulness in the spirit world," they were "assigned to a dishonorable body on this earth." They came through the "accursed lineage of Canaan," and were "marked" with a "flat nose" and a "black covering" which is "emblematic of eternal darkness." They were an "inferior" race. In fact, they were a "representation" of the "devil" upon the earth. They were "not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned," and they were "not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." They were "denied the priesthood," and they could not be married in a Mormon temple. But, "in spite" of all they "did in the pre-existence," they could be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost. If a black man was faithful all his life he could enter the celestial kingdom.

One Drop Disqualifies

    Because of their doctrine Mormon leaders have been strongly opposed to intermarriage with blacks. The following appeared in the Juvenile Instructor, volume 3, page 165: "In fact we believe it to be a great sin in the eyes of our Heavenly Father for a white person to marry a black one. And further, that it is a proof of the mercy of God that no such race appear able to continue for many generations."

    Brigham Young stated that if a person who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with a black the penalty is death on the spot: "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p.110).

    One reason the Mormon leaders were so apposed to intermarriage was that they taught "one drop of Negro blood" would prevent a person from holding the priesthood. Apostle Mark E. Petersen explained as follows:

296

297

    A photograph of the Journal of Discourses, vol 10, page 110. Brigham Young claimed that marriage to an African should be punished by death on the spot.

297

298

Apostle Mark E. Petersen explained as follows:

Now what is our policy in regard to inter-marriage? As to the Negro, of course, there is only one possible answer. We must not inter-marry with the Negro. Why? If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would all be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn't any argument, therefore, as to inter-marriage with the Negro, is there? There are 50 million Negroes in the United States. If they were to achieve complete absorption with the white race, think what that would do. With 50 million Negroes inter-married with us, where would the priesthood be? Who could hold it, in all America? Think what that would do to the work of the Church! (Race Problems-As They Affect The Church, Address by Mark E. Petersen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954)

    Outwardly the Mormon doctrine concerning blacks seemed to be firm and absolute. "One drop of Negro blood," the Mormon leaders declared, would prevent a man from holding the Priesthood. The truth is, however, that some people with much more than a "drop of Negro blood" were being ordained to the Priesthood. In the Salt Lake City Messenger for November, 1965, we demonstrated that a black man by the name of Elijah Abel was ordained to the Priesthood in the days of Joseph Smith. and that both his son and grandson were later ordained. Many of Abel's descendants pass as whites and although the Mormon leaders were aware of the situation, nothing was done to take the Priesthood from them. The hypocrisy of this whole matter was made plain in a letter from Joseph E. Taylor to President John Taylor.

Now comes a case of a young girl residing in the Eighteenth Ward of the City by the name of Laura Berry whose mother was a white woman but whose rather was a very light mulatto. It appears she has fallen in love with brother Barons Son and it is reciprocated.

But the question of jeopardizing his future by such an alliance has caused a halt. She now desires to press her claim to privileges that others who are tainted with that blood have received. For example, the Meads family in the Eleventh Ward Mrs. Jones Elder Sister; (the former now resides in Logan) I am cognizant of all these having received their endowments here.

Brother Meads is a white man he married his wife many years ago; she was a quadroon and died some three years ago their children (the oldest a girl, are married to a white man) are all very dark.

298

299

The question I desire to ask is: Can you give this girl any privileges of a like character? The girl is very pretty and quite white and would not be suspected as having tainted blood in her veins unless her parentage was known ... (Letter from Joseph E. Taylor to President John Taylor September 5, 1885, LDS church historical department, John Taylor Letter file, b1346, Box 20, file #3, typed copy).

    Mormon writer Lester Bush claims that President David O. McKay allowed the church rule to be broken in some cases: "With the concurrence of President McKay, a young man of known Negro ancestry was ordained to the priesthood after receiving a patriarchal blessing which did not assign him to a "cursed" lineage. In another case, President McKay authorized two children with Negro ancestry to be sealed in the temple to the white couple who had adopted them (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1973, p.45).

    The Mormon leaders certainly had a double standard concerning this matter. While the Abels and others were allowed to hold the priesthood, Lester Bush says that on August 28, 1947, "the Quorum upheld a decision by John Widtsoe denying a temple recommend to a 'sister having one thirty-second of negro blood in her veins'..." (Ibid., p.66, n.184).

Objections to Doctrine

    Many objections to the anti-black doctrine have been pointed out. One of the most important is that it is not in harmony with the Bible. In Acts 10:34 we read: "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." In Acts 10:28 Peter said: "... God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." William E. Berrett admits that the Bible does not really lend support to the idea that blacks should be forbidden any rights in the church: "While the Bible contains no account of a Negro bearing the Priesthood of God, one would find rather scant materials upon which to base any policy limiting the rights and participation of the Negro in God's Church" (Mormonism and the Negro, part 2, p.3).

    Although the Book of Mormon states that the Indians were cursed with a dark skin, it does not say anything concerning blacks. It states, in fact, that "all men are privileged the one like unto the other and none are forbidden" (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 26:28). In 2 Nephi 26:33 this statement appears: "...he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond

299

300

and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."

    Ninth President David O. McKay conceded: "I know of no scriptural basis for denying the Priesthood to Negroes other than one verse in the Book of Abraham (1:26); however, I believe, as you suggest that the real reason dates back to our pre-existent life" (Mormonism and the Negro, part 2, p.19)

     Tenth President Joseph Fielding Smith admitted that he could not find any scriptural basis for not allowing blacks to hold the Priesthood other than the statement in the "Book of Abraham," which is part of the Pearl of Great Price: "It is true that the negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him, although we know of no such statement in any revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or the Bible" (The Improvement Era, vol. 27, p.565).

Blacks and the Gospel

    The Bible teaches that the gospel is to be carried to all people. Jesus is recorded as saying: "... go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). Jesus also said: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19). Philip was actually commanded to preach the gospel to an Ethiopian (see Acts 8:26-39). An Ethiopian is defined in the dictionary as a Negro. Jeremiah asks, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin" (Jer. 13:23). Acts 8:38 tells us that Philip baptized the Ethiopian.

    Although the Bible teaches that the gospel is to be carried to all people, including blacks, the Mormon church tried to avoid doing missionary work among the black people. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated: "The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them ..." (Mormon Doctrine, p.477). William E. Berrett said that "no direct efforts have been made to proselyte among them" (Mormonism and the Negro, part 2, p.5). The Mormon writer Arthur M. Richardson very bluntly stated: "... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has no call to carry the gospel to the Negro, and it does not do so" (That Ye May Not Be Deceived, p.13).

    The Pearl of Great Price, considered Scripture by Latter-day Saints, was used to justify not taking the gospel to blacks. In the "Book of Moses," which is part of the Pearl of Great Price, we read: "...and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

300

301

... And it came to pass that Enoch continued to call upon all people, save it were the people of Canaan, to repent" (Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses 7:8, 12).

    Joseph Fielding Smith claimed that "the Canaanites before the flood preserved the curse in the land; the Gospel was not taken to them, and no other people would associate with them" (The Way to Perfection, p.108).

    Apostle Mark E. Petersen concluded: "When he told Enoch not to preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation" (Race Problems as They Affect the Church, Address by Mark E. Petersen, August 27, 1954).

    Arthur M. Richardson in the same vein declared:

Also, the gospel was not carried to this segregated black group ...the Negroes tread the earth with black dishonorable bodies as a judgment of God because at the time of decision in the pre-existence they were faint-hearted and exhibited an infirmity of purpose -- they were not valiant in the cause of the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, they were entitled to no better earthly lineage than that of the first earthly murderer, Cain. They were to be the "servant of servants." They were to be segregated. No effort was made to carry the gospel to them as a people (That Ye May Not Be Deceived, pp.9-10).

Rooted in Prejudice

    An examination of early Mormon history plainly reveals that the doctrine concerning blacks grew out of prejudice. At the time the Mormon leaders were formulating their doctrine concerning blacks, slavery was an accepted practice in the southern part of the United States and other parts of the world. In many places blacks were treated like animals. Some people thought they were "without souls and made only to serve the white man."

    The Mormons, of course, would not want us to believe that their leaders were influenced by the prejudice of their time. John J. Stewart in defense of Joseph Smith wrote: "To suppose that he would curry the favor of the world by manifesting a prejudice against the Negro is an affront to this courageous man, and to the known facts of history" (Mormonism and the Negro, part 1, p.15).

    Actually, the truth of the matter is that Joseph Smith and other early leaders of the Mormon church did show prejudice against blacks and were influenced by the views of their time.

    It would appear that at first the Mormon church had no real doctrine concerning blacks. By the year 1833, however, some members of the church began to compromise with regard to

301

302

began to compromise with regard to blacks to appease their slave-holding neighbors. In the Mormon paper, The Evening and the Morning Star; July 16, 1833, the following appeared: "Having learned with extreme regret, that an article entitled, 'Free People of Color,' in the last number of the Star, has been misunderstood, we feel in duty bound to state, in this Extra, that our intention was not only to stop free people of color from emigrating to this state, but to prevent them from being admitted as members of the Church" (Reprinted in History of the Church, vol. 1, pp 378-79).

    By 1836 Joseph Smith himself was endorsing the idea of slavery. He wrote a letter for the Messenger and Advocate (later reprinted in the History of the Church) in which he attacked abolitionists and showed he favored the practice of slavery:

DEAR SIR:--This place [Kirtland] having recently been visited by a gentleman who advocated the principles or doctrines of those who are called Abolitionists,... I fear that the sound might go out, that "an Abolitionist" had held forth several times to this community,... all, except a very few attended to their own vocations, and left the gentleman to hold forth his own arguments to nearly naked walls. I am aware that many, who profess to preach the Gospel, complain against their brethren of the same faith, who reside in the South, and are ready to withdraw the hand of fellowship, because they will not renounce the principle of slavery, and raise their voice against everything of the kind. This must be a tender point, and one which should call forth the candid reflections of all men. and more especially before they advance in an opposition calculated to lay waste the fair states of the South, and let loose upon the world a community of people, who might, peradventure, overrun our country, and violate the most sacred principles of human society, chastity and virtue... I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall.

How any community can ever be excited with the chatter of such persons, boys and others, who are too indolent to obtain their living by honest industry, and are incapable of pursuing any occupation of a professional nature, is unaccountable to me; and when I see persons in the free states, signing documents against slavery, it is no less, in my mind, than an army of influence, and a declaration of hostilities, against the people of the South. What course can sooner divide our union?... I do not doubt, but those who have been forward in raising their voices against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling, unkind, and wholly unacquainted with the Gospel of Christ ...the first mention we have of slavery is found in the Holy Bible.... And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the

302

303

shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude.... I can say, the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purpose of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him; and those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do his own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel (History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, vol. 2, pp.436-38).

    In 1838 Joseph Smith answered the questions "which were frequently" asked him. Question number thirteen was concerning slavery:

    "Thirteenth-'Are the Mormons abolitionists?'
    "No, unless delivering the people from priestcraft, and the priests from the power of Satan, should be considered abolition. But we do not believe in setting the Negroes free" (History of the Church, vol. 3, p.29).

    Toward the end of his life Joseph Smith seemed to change his mind somewhat concerning blacks and even spoke against slavery. Under the date of January 2, 1843, Joseph Smith was supposed to have said the following: "Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization" (History of the Church, vol. 5, p.218).

    While Joseph Smith may have mentioned setting the slaves free toward the end of his life, he was basically a racist. Marvin Hill, who teaches history at Brigham Young University, agrees in this interesting comment:

Even Joseph's "calling for the end of slavery by 1850" in his Presidential campaign is not so liberal as Brodie supposes.... Joseph Smith was, therefore, to some degree a racist, a segregationist, a colonizer, and only incidentally a supporter of abolition. He had some elements of liberalism in his thinking, but these had definite limits. His record ... is marked by ambiguity (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1970, p.99).

Slavery in Utah

    Because the Mormon leaders believed blacks were an "inferior race" it was easy for them to accept the idea that they should be slaves. Slavery, therefore, became an accepted practice in the territory of Utah. The following appeared in the  Millennial Star in 1851: "We feel it to be our duty to define our

303

304

define our position in relation to the subject of Slavery. There are several men in the Valley of the Salt Lake from the Southern States, who have their slaves with them" (Millennial Star, 1851, p.63).

    In 1855 Brigham Young said: "You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham..." (New York Herald, May 4, 1855, as cited in Dialogue, Spring 1973, p.56).

    In his Master's thesis, James Boyd Christensen observed: "In 1850 Utah was the only western territory which had Negro slaves.... In short, they countenanced slavery of Negroes among them..." ("A Social Survey of the Negro Population of Salt Lake City, Utah," Master's thesis, University of Utah, pp.11-12).

    Brigham Young taught that slavery was a "divine institution" and therefore the Civil War could not free the slaves:

Ham will continue to be servant of servants, as the Lord decreed, until the curse is removed. Will the present struggle free the slave? No; but they are now wasting away the black race by thousands....

Treat the slaves kindly and let them live, for Ham must be the servant of servants until the curse is removed. Can you destroy the decrees of the Almighty? You cannot. Yet our Christian brethren think that they are going to overthrow the sentence of the Almighty upon the seed of Ham. They cannot do that, though they may kill them by thousands and tens of thousands (Millennial Star, vol. 25, p.787; also in Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p.250).

    In his book History of Utah, page 618, A. L. Neff gives us a further affirmation concerning Brigham Young's views on slavery:

The Mormon viewpoint with reference to the peculiar institution of the South was admirably set forth in the famous interview between abolitionist Horace Greeley, ... and President Brigham Young, at Salt Lake City, July 13, 1859:

"H. G.--What is the position of your church with respect to slavery?

"B. Y.--We consider it of divine institution, and not to be abolished until the curse pronounced on Ham shall have been removed from his descendants.

"H. G.--Are any slaves now held in this territory?

"B. Y.--There are.

"H. G.--Do your territorial laws uphold slavery?

304

305

"B. Y.--Those laws are printed-you can read for yourself. If slaves are brought here by those who owned them in the states, we do not favor their escape from the service of those owners."

    The Territory of Utah gave up the practice of slavery along with the slave-holding states; however, the fact that they countenanced it when it was being practiced shows how insensitive they were to the feelings of black people. Even after the slaves were set free the Mormons continued to talk against blacks. In the year 1884, Angus M. Cannon said that "a colored man ... is not capable of receiving the Priesthood, and can never reach the highest Celestial glory of the Kingdom of God" (The Salt Lake Tribune, October 5, 1884).

    The idea that blacks were inferior and should only be servants to the whites persisted in Mormon theology. In fact, Mormon leaders seemed to feel that blacks would still be servants in heaven. On August 26, 1908, President Joseph F. Smith related that a black woman was sealed as a servant to Joseph Smith:

The same efforts he said had been made by Aunt Jane to receive her endowments and be sealed to her husband and have her children sealed to their parents and her appeal was made to all the Presidents from President Young down to the present First Presidency. But President Cannon conceived the idea that, under the circumstances, it would be proper to permit her to go to the temple to be adopted to the Prophet Joseph Smith as his servant and this was done. This seemed to ease her mind for a little while but did not satisfy her, and she still pleaded for her endowments ("Excerpts From The Weekly Council Meetings Of The Quorum Of The Twelve Apostles as printed in Mormonism- Shadow or Reality? p.584).

    The idea that a black is only worthy of the position of a servant has deep roots in Mormon theology. Mark E. Petersen, who is now serving as an Apostle in the church, once said that if a "Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory" (Race Problems-As They Affect The Church, a speech delivered at Brigham Young University, August 27, 1954).

Civil Rights

    The Mormon church has been very slow in allowing blacks equal rights. In the First Year Book in the Seventy's Course in Theology, written by the Mormon historian B. H. Roberts, and published in 1931, the idea of integration and social equality for blacks is condemned. Mr. Roberts declared:

305

306

Mr. Roberts declared:

Perhaps the most convincing book in justification of the south in denying to the Negro race social equality with the white race is the one written by William Benjamin Smith, entitled The Color Line.... from which the following is a quotation:

"Here, then, is laid bare the news of the whole matter: Is the south justified in this absolute denial of social equality to the Negro, no matter what his (personal) virtues or abilities or accomplishments?

"We affirm, then that the south is entirely right in thus keeping open at all times, at all hazards, and at all sacrifices an impassible social chasm between black and white. This she must do in behalf of her blood, her essence, of the stock of her Caucasian race.... The moment the bar of absolute separation is thrown down in the south, that moment the bloom of her spirit is blighted forever... That the negro is markedly inferior to the Caucasian is proved both craniologically and by six thousand years of planet-wide experimentation; and that the commingling of inferior with superior must lower the higher is just as certain as that the half-sum of two and six is only four...." (First Year Book in the Seventy's Course in Theology, pp.231-33).

    Mark E. Petersen, a present-day Apostle in the Mormon church, defended segregation in 1954:

The discussion on civil rights, ... has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe.... We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not be led astray by the philosophies of men....

I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat ... it appears that the negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feeling to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace." ...

Now let's talk segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation.... When he told Enoch not to preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation....

306

307

Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them.... The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negroes we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that He placed a dark skin upon them as a curse-as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. (2 Nephi 5:21) And he certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there....

Now we are generous with the negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, "what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Only here we have the reverse of the thing--what God hath separated, let not man bring together again (Race Problems-As They Affect The Church, an address delivered by Apostle Mark E. Petersen at Brigham Young University, August 27, 1954).

    With regard to this speech it is important to note that Apostle Petersen is now second in line to be president of the Mormon church.

    In his book Mormon Doctrine (1958, pp.107-8), Apostle Bruce R. McConkie reasons:

Certainly the caste systems in communist countries and in India, for instance, are man made and are not based on true principles.

However, in a broad sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.

    Since 1968 the Mormon-owned Brigham Young University has received a great deal of criticism for its racist policies. Many of the schools where BYU's athletic teams played have had demonstrations against these policies. On November 13, 1969, the Salt Lake Tribune announced that Stanford University said "it will schedule no new athletic or other competitions with Brigham Young University because of alleged racial

307

308

because of alleged racial discrimination by the Mormon Church." Obert C. Tanner, professor of philosophy at the University of Utah, called Stanford's action "easily the sharpest criticism of the Mormon religion in this century" (Ibid., January 7, 1970).

    Mormon leaders made a number of concessions to avoid trouble with the black people. For instance, on November 15, 1969, the Denver Post reported: "The Church of the Black Cross,... is calling for: Boycott of Mormon goods, such as record albums of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir."

    Shortly after this article appeared, Mormon leaders decided to bring blacks into the choir. Wallace Turner reported: "Recently the Mormon Tabernacle Choir took in two Negro women as second sopranos, and reportedly, is about to welcome a Negro tenor" (New York Times, January 25, 1970).

    That many members of the Mormon church were dissatisfied over the anti-black doctrine became very evident. Mormon defender John J. Stewart said that "there are at least two points of doctrine and history of this Church about which many LDS themselves--to say nothing of many non-Mormons--feel ill at ease or critical. One of these is its doctrine regarding the Negro" (Mormonism and the Negro, part I, p.7).

    Wallace Turner observed: "A ferment is working in the Mormon community over the Negro question, particularly among the intellectual element. The mistreatment of Negroes by the LDS church is the reason given by many intellectuals who candidly admit that they have become silent, concealed apostates. Even among many who cling tenaciously to their belief, there is a swelling opinion that the church is dead wrong on this issue" (The Mormon Establishment, p.246).

The New "Revelation"

    The Los Angeles Times for August 27, 1967, carried an article which reported: "The deeply rooted Mormon attitude apparently discriminating against Negroes because of their race is becoming a burning issue in that church--and beyond the church.... The increasing heat of racial pressure in the country has brought it into focus as one of the few encroached fortresses of discrimination."

    For eleven years after the Los Angeles Times published this criticism the Latter-day Saints continued to cling tenaciously to a policy of discrimination. Church leaders claimed that the doctrine could only be changed by revelation from God. Finally, on June 9, a> the Mormon church's carried a startling announcement by the First Presidency which

308

309

which said that a new revelation had been given and that blacks would be allowed to hold the priesthood:

... we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the upper room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color (Deseret News, June 9, 1978, page 1A).

    Since we probably printed more material critical of the Mormon anti-black doctrine than any other publisher, the new "revelation" seemed to be a vindication of our work. We printed our first criticism of this doctrine in 1959, and this was certainly not a popular cause to espouse in those days. In 1967 the original papyrus from which Joseph Smith "translated" the "Book of Abraham" was rediscovered. Immediately after the papyrus came to light we began publishing material which showed that Joseph Smith was completely mistaken in his purported translation. The papyrus was in reality a copy of the Egyptian Book of Breathings, a pagan text that had absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or his religion. Since the "Book of Abraham" was the real source of the church's teaching that blacks could not hold the priesthood, we called upon the Mormon leaders to "repudiate the Book of Abraham and renounce the anti-Negro doctrine contained in its pages" (Salt Lake City Messenger, March 1968). For a complete treatment of this subject see chapter 11 of this book.

    The translation of the papyrus by noted Egyptologists caused many of the intellectual Mormons to lose faith in Joseph Smith's work and consequently the church's anti-black doctrine began to be more openly criticized by members of the church. Some were even excommunicated because of their opposition to the church's position.

    Those of us who have criticized the Mormon church for its racial teaching have been ridiculed for attempting to change the doctrine. Mormon apologist Armand L. Mauss wrote: "My plea, then to the civil rights organizations and to all the critics of the Mormon Church is: get off our backs! ... agitation over the 'Negro issue' by non-Mormon groups, or even by Mormon liberals, is likely simply to increase the resistance to change" (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 1967, pp.38-39).

309

310

    John L. Lund said that "Those who believe that the Church 'gave in' on the polygamy issue and subsequently should give in on the Negro question are not only misinformed about Church History, but are apparently unaware of Church doctrine.... Therefore, those who hope that pressure will bring about a revelation need to take a closer look at Mormon history and the order of heaven" (The Church and the Negro, 1967, pp.104-5). On page 109 of the same book, Mr. Lund emphasized that "those who would try to pressure the Prophet to give the Negroes the Priesthood do not understand the plan of God nor the order of heaven. Revelation is the expressed will of God to man. Revelation is not man's will expressed to God. All the social, political, and governmental pressure in the world is not going to change what God has decreed to be."

    When Stewart Udall, a noted Mormon, came out against the church's anti-black doctrine, Paul C. Richards responded:

The Church is either true or it isn't. If it changes its stand on the strength of the "great stream of modern religious and social thought," it will be proven untrue. If that happens, the more serious members would do well to join the Cub Scouts. It's cheaper and there is less work and less criticism....

If the Church is true, it will hold to its beliefs in spite of its members. If it is false, more power to the easy-way-out philosophers who claim to know the "imperious truths of the contemporary world" (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1967, p.6).

    In the Salt Lake City Messenger for March 1970, we commented: "The Lord plainly reveals to us, as he did to Peter many years ago, that 'GOD IS NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS' (Acts 10:34). To accept the anti-Negro doctrine is to deny the spirit of revelation. If we allow others to do our thinking on this vital issue it could lead to violence or bloodshed. Because we felt that it was not right to put our trust in man, we separated ourselves from the Mormon Church."

    As early as 1963 we printed a sheet entitled, "Will There Be a Revelation Regarding the Negro?" At the bottom of this sheet we predicted: "If the pressure continues to increase on the Negro question, the leaders of the Mormon Church will probably have another revelation which will allow the Negro to hold the priesthood." In other writings we pointed out that if the church should change its policy and allow blacks to hold the priesthood, it would not be the first time that Mormon doctrine

310

311

was revised to fit a changing world. We showed, for instance, that twenty-five years before the Mormon church gave up the practice of polygamy it was declaring that no such change could be made. In the Millennial Star, October 28, 1865, the following appeared: "We have shown that in requiring the relinquishment of polygamy, they ask the renunciation of the entire faith of this people.... There is no half way house. The childish babble about another revelation is only an evidence how half informed men can talk." As the pressure increased against polygamy, Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto (now claimed to be a revelation) which suspended the practice of plural marriage.

Brigham Young Misrepresented

    We feel that the Mormon church's change on the doctrine concerning blacks is a very good move because it will undoubtedly help blacks obtain equality in Utah and will probably prevent much bloodshed and trouble. Nevertheless, we must point out that Brigham Young and other leaders have been misrepresented in order to make the change palatable to the Mormon people. For instance, the church's Deseret News would have us believe that the change was a fulfillment of a prophecy uttered by Brigham Young: "The announcement Friday fulfilled statements made by most LDS Church presidents since Joseph Smith that blacks would one day obtain the full blessings of the church, including the priesthood. Speaking against slavery, Brigham Young once told the Utah Legislature, '... the day will come when all that race (blacks) will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have' " (Deseret News, June 10, 1978, p.1A).

    While it is true that Brigham Young believed that blacks would eventually receive the priesthood, he made it clear that this was not to happen until after the resurrection. The context of the speech which the Deseret News cites reveals that Brigham Young believed it would be a sin for the church to give blacks the priesthood before the "last of the posterity of Able [sic]" had received it. He went on to say that if the church gave "all the blessings of God" to the blacks prematurely, the priesthood would be taken away and the church would go to destruction. This address is preserved in the church historical department. Michael Marquardt has provided a typed copy (which retains the spelling errors of the original). We extract the following from Brigham Young's speech:

311

312

We extract the following from Brigham Young's speech:

What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth.... the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the priesthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able [sic] had received the priesthood, until the redemption of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain ... they cannot bear rule in the priesthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue [sic] of the posterity of Michal [sic] and his wife receive the blessings.... until the times of the restitution shall come ... Then Cain's seed will be had in remembrance, and the time come when that curse should be wiped off....

I am as much opposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term, it is abused. I am opposed to abuseing [sic] that which God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants.... Let this Church which is called the kingdom of God on the earth; we will sommons [sic] the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishoprick [sic], and all the elders of Isreal [sic], suppose we summons them to appear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed, with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with with [sic] us and be pertakers [sic] with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to desstruction [sic],--we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood untill [sic] that curse be removed (Brigham Young Addresses, Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, dated February 5, 1852, located in the LDS church historical dept.).

    The Mormon people are now faced with a serious dilemma; if they really believe Brigham Young was a prophet, then it follows from his statement that the church has lost the priesthood, been put under "the curse" and is going to destruction! In spite of Brigham Young's emphatic warning against giving blacks "all the blessings God has given us," the present leaders have announced that blacks will now receive "all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords" (Deseret News, June 9, 1978).

    After the First Presidency made their statement, many people became confused over the church's position on interracial marriage. It soon became apparent, however, that the church's ban on marriage to blacks had been lifted. Joseph

312

313

Joseph Freeman, the first black man ordained to the priesthood after the change, indicated that he wanted to be sealed in the temple to his wife who was not of African descent. Church spokesman Don LeFevre said that such a marriage would be possible and that although the church did not encourage interracial marriage, there was no longer a ban on whites marrying blacks: "That is entirely possible, said Mr. LeFevre.... 'So there is no ban on interracial marriage. If a black partner contemplating marriage is worthy of going to the Temple, nobody's going to stop him--if he's marrying a white, an Oriental ... if he's ready to go to the Temple, obviously he may go with the blessings of the church' " (Salt Lake Tribune, June 14, 1978).

    On June 24, 1978 the Tribune announced that "Joseph Freeman, 26, the first black man to gain the priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Friday went in the Salt Lake Temple with his wife and sons for sacred ordinances ... Thomas S. Monson, member of the church's Quorum of Twelve Apostles, conducted the marriage and sealing cerenonies [sic]."

    In allowing temple marriage between whites and blacks, the church is completely disregarding what President Young referred to as "the law of God in regard to the African race." The reader will remember that President Young taught that the "penalty" for interracial marriage "under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p.110). Since Brigham Young taught that this "law of God" could never be changed, the new policy will present a serious problem for some Mormons. As late as 1967 the Mormon writer John L. Lund wrote:

Brigham Young made a very strong statement on this matter when he said, "... Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the CHOSEN SEED mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be to sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death.... It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-one hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is still the same.... To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a "Nation of Priesthood holders" (The Church and the Negro, 1967, pp.54-55).

    Although we have no way of knowing exactly how many interracial temple marriages have been performed since the

313

314

change in policy, there is reason to believe that several have taken place. As early as June 9, 1978 Brigham Young University's newspaper, The Universe, reported that "Debbie Hall, an elementary education staff member from Seattle, Wash., said a good friend of hers, who is black, is a member of the church and married a white girl. 'It's going to be neat to see them go through the temple,' she said." In the same issue we find the following: "Mrs. Frazier, and her five children are all black but her husband John is white and an Elder in the church.... One event that Mrs. Frazier said she has long yearned for is temple marriage and the chance to see her children be able to pass the sacrament."

    On page 4 of the same issue of The Universe, we find that a black Mormon by the name of Robert L. Stevenson "married Susan V. Bevan about six weeks ago. She is white and also LDS." The paper quoted Stevenson as saying: "We are already planning our temple marriage."

    At any rate, the Church Section of the Deseret News for June 17, 1978 says that "former presidents of the Church have spoken of the day when the blessings of the priesthood would come to the blacks." A quotation from a sermon by Brigham Young which appeared in the Journal of Discourses, volume 7, is cited, but when we go to the original book we find that it has been taken out of context. In this sermon Brigham Young plainly taught that blacks could not receive the priesthood until all of Adam's other children receive it:

Cain slew his brother ... and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.... How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pp.290-91).

    Brigham Young also taught this doctrine in other published sermons:

When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth,

314

315

    A photograph of Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, page 143. Brigham Young maintained the curse should not be removed from the blacks until after the resurrection.

315

316

and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity ... he is the last to share the joys of the kingdom of God (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.143).

They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to (Ibid., vol.11, p.272).

    In 1949 the First Presidency of the Mormon church issued a statement in which they cited Brigham Young's teaching that blacks cannot receive the priesthood until after the resurrection (see Mormonism and the Negro, by John J. Stewart and William E. Berrett, 1960, part 2, p.16). Joseph Fielding Smith, who served as the tenth president of the Mormon Church in the early 1970s, taught that blacks would never hold the priesthood as long as "time endures":

Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel.... they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning (The Way To Perfection, 1935, p.101).

    In a meeting held in Barratt Hall on October 11, 1958, Joseph Fielding Smith commented that "the Lord will, in due time, remove the restrictions. Not in this world but the time will come..." N. Eldon Tanner, a member of the First Presidency who finally signed the statement granting blacks the priesthood, was completely opposed to the idea in 1967: " 'The church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro,' N. Eldon Tanner, counselor to the First Presidency told SEATTLE during his recent visit here. 'Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the priesthood. There's really nothing we can do to change this. It's a law of God' " (Seattle Magazine, December 1967, p.60).

    Mormon writer John L. Lund claimed that if the president of the Mormon church gave a revelation that blacks were to hold the priesthood, members of the church would accept it, but he emphasized that such a revelation would not be forthcoming because the "present prophets are in complete agreement with Brigham Young and other past leaders on the question of the Negro and the Priesthood":

 316

 317

Brigham Young revealed that the Negroes will not receive the Priesthood until a great while after the second advent of Jesus Christ, whose coming will usher in a millennium of peace....

In view of what President Young and others have said, it would be foolish indeed to give anyone the false idea that a new revelation is immediately forthcoming on the issue of the Negroes receiving the Priesthood.... our present prophets are in complete agreement with Brigham Young and other past leaders on the question of the Negro and the Priesthood. President McKay was asked by a news reporter at the dedication of the Oakland Temple, "When will the Negroes receive the Priesthood?" He responded to the question over a national television network saying, "Not in my lifetime, young man, nor yours ...

Social pressure and even government sanctions cannot be expected to bring forth a new revelation ... all the social pressure in the world will not change what the Lord has decreed to be....

The prophets have declared that there are at least two major stipulations that have to be met before the Negroes will be allowed to possess the Priesthood. The first requirement relates to time. The Negroes will not be allowed to hold the Priesthood during mortality, in fact, not until after the resurrection of all of Adam's children. The other stipulation requires that Abel's seed receive the first opportunity of having the Priesthood.... Negroes must first pass through mortality before they may possess the Priesthood ("they will go down to death"). Reference is also made to the condition that the Negroes will have to wait until after the resurrection of all of Adam's children before receiving the Priesthood ... the last of Adam's children will not be resurrected until the end of the millennium. Therefore, the Negroes will not receive the Priesthood until after that time ... this will not happen until after the thousand years of Christ's reign on earth....

The second major stipulation that needs to be met ... is the requirement that Abel's seed receive the opportunity of holding the Priesthood first....

The obvious question is, "When will Abel's seed be redeemed?" It will first of all be necessary that Abel marry, and then be resurrected, and ultimately exalted in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom so that he can have a continuation of his seed. It will then be necessary for Abel to create an earth for his spirit children to come to and experience mortality. These children will have to be "redeemed" or resurrected. After the resurrection or redemption of Abel's seed, Cain's descendants, the Negroes, will then be allowed to possess the Priesthood (The Church and the Negro, 1967, pp.45-49).

    On pages 109-10 of the same book, John L. Lund reiterates:

317

318

John L. Lund reiterates:

"First, all of Adam's children will have to resurrect and secondly, the seed of Abel must have an opportunity to possess the Priesthood. These events will not occur until sometime after the end of the millennium."

    As late as 1974 Apostle Bruce R. McConkie questioned the spirituality of church members who believed it was time for a new revelation on the blacks. In a conference message delivered October 4, 1974, Apostle McConkie said:

Am I valiant in the testimony of Jesus if my chief interest and concern in life is laying up in store the treasures of the earth, rather than the building up of the kingdom? ...

Am I valiant if I am deeply concerned about the Church's stand on who can or who cannot receive the priesthood and think it is time for a new revelation on this doctrine? ...

Am I valiant if I engage in gambling, play cards, go to pornographic movies ... (The Ensign, November 1974, p.35).*

    Even though most Mormons claim they are happy with the doctrinal change with regard to blacks, there is evidence that the "revelation" came as a real shock. A class at Brigham Young University which conducted a "random telephone survey" of Utah County residents found that 79 percent of those interviewed did not expect a change at this time. Furthermore, many people compared the news to an announcement of some kind of disaster or death:

Some 45 percent of those who heard of the doctrine from personal sources expressed doubt that the news was true. This compares with only 25 percent of those who learned from media sources. Sixty-two percent of the former group expressed shock, compared with 52 percent of the latter...

*After the revelation was given Apostle Bruce R. McConkie actually gave a speech in which he chastised those "disbelieving people" who were reluctant to accept the new revelation because it contradicted things taught in the past: "There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, 'You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?' And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsover [sic] has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.... We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness.... It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978). " ("All Are Alike Unto God," by Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Council of the Twelve, pages 1-2)

318

319

Those surveyed appeared surprised by the announcement, Haroldsen said. Thirty-nine percent said they did not think "it would ever happen"--that the priesthood would ever be given to blacks.

Another 40 percent expected it years in the future, after Christ's return, during the Millenium [sic], or "not in my lifetime." ...

In trying to explain how they reacted to the news, 14 persons compared its impact with that of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Another 13 compared it to the news of the death of an LDS Church president. Eight compared it to a natural disaster, especially the Teton dam break.

Others compared the news with the death of a family member or friend, with a declaration of war, or other major political event (The Daily Universe, June 22, 1978).

    After the "revelation" was announced a number of Mormons who could not accept the new teaching left the church. A full page advertisement attacking the change was published in the Salt Lake Tribune on July 23, 1978 by a group calling themselves "Concerned Latter-day Saints." From this article it would appear that members of this group are also disturbed because of the earlier doctrinal change relating to plural marriage.

Better Late Than Never

    Writing in the New York Times, June 11, 1978, Mario S. DePillis observed: "For Mormonism's anti-black policy a revelation was the only way out, and many students of Mormonism were puzzled only at the lateness of the hour." That the Mormon church was forced into the revelation is obvious to anyone who seriously examines the evidence. We have already pointed out that athletic teams from the church's Brigham Young University were the target of very serious protests and that in 1969 Stanford University announced it would "schedule no new athletic or other competitions with Brigham Young University." Immediately following the announcement of the new "revelation," Gary Cavalli, athletic director for Stanford University, said, "I think the ban will be lifted" (Salt Luke Tribune, June 21, 1978).

    In 1974 the Mormon doctrine of discrimination against blacks brought the Boy Scouts into a serious confrontation with the NAACP. The Boy Scouts of America do not discriminate because of religion or race, but Mormon-sponsored troops did have a policy of discrimination. On July 18, 1974, the Salt Lake Tribune reported: "A 12-year-old boy scout has been denied a

319

320

"A 12-year-old boy scout has been denied a senior patrol leadership in his troop because he is black, Don L. Cope, black ombudsman for the state, said Wednesday... Mormon 'troop policy is that in order for a scout to become a patrol leader, he must be a deacon's quorum president in the LDS Church. Since the boy cannot hold the priesthood, he cannot become a patrol leader.' "

    Mormon leaders apparently realized that they could never prevail in this matter and a compromise was worked out:

Shortly before Boy Scout officials were to appear in Federal Court Friday morning on charges of discrimination, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a policy change which will allow black youths to be senior patrol leaders, a position formerly reserved for white LDS youths in troops sponsored by the church.... An LDS Church spokesman said Friday under the "guidelines set forth in the statement, a young man other than president of the deacons quorum could (now) become the senior patrol leader if he is better qualified" (Salt Lake Tribune, August 3,1974).

    Since 1976 the Mormon church was repeatedly embarrassed by one of its own members who became alienated over the anti-black doctrine and decided to take matters into his own hands. On April 3, 1976 the Salt Lake Tribune reported that Douglas A. Wallace "ordained a black into the priesthood Friday, saying he did so in an attempt to force a revision in Mormon doctrine about the Negro race.... Wallace said he has long been bothered by the Mormon Church's bias against blacks, and he feels the time has come to challenge it. He said often all that is required to change a policy is for someone to break out of tradition ... he hopes there are no recriminations against him for his action, such as excommunication."

    On April 13, 1976 the Salt Lake Tribune revealed that "Douglas A. Wallace was excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Sunday for ordaining a black man into the church's priesthood." After a confrontation with church personnel at an April conference session, Mr. Wallace was ejected from the Tabernacle. Later he was served with "a court order barring him from attending conference" (Ibid., October 4, 1976).

    Although we did not agree with some of Mr. Wallace's ideas on religion, we did not consider him to be dangerous and we were rather surprised to notice the close surveillance the police kept him under when he walked along the public sidewalk outside of Temple Square. The fear of the threat Mr. Wallace presented to the church seems to have led to a tragic incident where a policeman was accidentally shot and permanently

320

321

permanently paralyzed. This occurred at the time of the church's conference held in April, 1977. The Salt Lake City police had placed a stakeout around a home where Wallace was staying and at 4:20 A.M. on a Sunday morning one of the policemen accidentally shot his partner. At first the police "denied" that they had Mr. Wallace under surveillance (see Salt Lake Tribune, April 5, 1977), but when Wallace pressed for an investigation the police were forced to admit the truth about the matter: "Salt Lake City police officers admitted Thursday that the accidental wounding of an undercover officer occurred during surveillance of Mormon dissident Douglas A. Wallace.... Reports released Thursday by both the county sheriff's office and the county attorney show that six officers were on stakeout around the John W. Fitzgerald home ... where Mr. Wallace was staying" (Salt Lake Tribune, April 8, 1977).

    Douglas Wallace claimed that the Mormon church "was behind April police surveillance ... that led to the accidental shooting of a Salt Lake City police officer" (Ibid., September 17, 1977). Finally, David Olson, the disabled police officer, took exception to a press release issued by the church. In a letter to the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune, January 18, 1978, Mr. Olson attacked President "Spencer W. Kimball for his incorrect press release concerning the police involvement combined with the LDS church's efforts to restrict Douglas A. Wallace from the temple grounds, specifically the Tabernacle, on April 3, 1977. His denial of these actions is wrong. Any man who can take such actions and still call himself a prophet deserves more than I to be confined to this wheelchair."

    Douglas Wallace filed lawsuits amounting to millions of dollars against the Mormon church, and although he was not able to prevail against the church in the courts, the publicity surrounding the suits caused the church no end of trouble. We feel that his actions and the embarrassment they caused the church played a part in bringing about the decision to have a new "revelation."

    Another Mormon who put a great deal of pressure on the church is Byron Marchant. Mr. Marchant took a very strong stand against racism in the church. The Dallas Morning News for October 20, 1977 reported: "The man who cast the first vote in modern history against a leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been excommunicated and fired as chapel janitor." When Mr. Marchant tried to distribute literature at Temple Square at the next conference he was arrested "on charges of trespassing" (Salt Lake Tribune, April 3, 1978). Mr. Marchant published a sheet in which he called for a dem-

321

322

onstration against the church's policy: "Next October Conference (1978) 1 will join all interested in a march on Temple Square in Salt Lake City... every person and/or group concerned about Utah Racism is encouraged to speak out and attend the October protest." Mr. Marchant's threat of a demonstration at the next conference may have caused Mormon leaders to think more seriously about having a new revelation. We feel that the church was wise to change its policy before the demonstration because the issue was so explosive that the slightest incident could have touched off a riot where innocent people could have been injured.

    However this may be, when the Mormon church yielded, Mr. Marchant dropped a civil suit filed "against Church President Spencer W. Kimball" (Salt Lake Tribune, June 10, 1978). Another article in the same issue of the Tribune observed that "the last three years have also seen repeated attempts by church dissidents to subpoena Mormon leaders into court proceedings, with the central issue often related to the church's belief about blacks."

Problem in Brazil

    Besides all the problems the church was having with dissidents, it was faced with an impossible situation in Brazil. Even the church's own Deseret News admitted that "a major problem the church has faced with its policy regarding blacks was in Brazil, where the church is building a temple. Many people there are miied [mixed?] racially, and it is often impossible to determine whether church members have black ancestry" (Deseret News, June 10, 1978).

    Mormon leaders have been aware of this problem for some time. Lester E. Bush, Jr., gave this revealing information in an article published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1973, page 41:

The decision to deny the priesthood to anyone with Negro ancestry ("no matter how remote"), had resolved the theoretical problem of priesthood eligibility, but did not help with the practical problem of identifying the "blood of Cain" in those not already known to have Negro ancestry....

The growth of the international Church was clearly bringing new problems. Brazil was particularly difficult.... J. Reuben Clark, First Counselor to George Albert Smith, reported that the Church was entering "into a situation in doing missionary work ... where it is very difficult if not impossible to tell who has negro blood and who has not. He said that if we are baptizing Brazilians, we are almost certainly baptizing people of negro

322

323

baptizing people of negro blood, and that if the Priesthood is conferred upon them, which no doubt it is, we are facing a very serious problem."

    The hypocrisy of the situation in South America was pointed out in 1966 by Wallace Turner: "A different thing is going on in South America where Mormon missionaries are pushing ahead full throttle. There the former careful selection to keep out "white Negroes" has been allowed to slide a little... 'There is no question but that in Brazil they have been ordaining priests who are part Negro,' said one careful observer" (The Mormon Establishment, 1966, p.261) [Correction: p.263].

    With the opening of the new temple in Brazil, the situation would have turned into a real nightmare. Actually, the Mormon church has the same problem in the United States. Patriarch Eldred G. Smith remarked: "I had a young lady who was blonde, a[n]d no sign or indications visibly of the Negro line at all, but yet she was deprived of going to the Temple.... We have these conditions by the thousands in the United States today and are getting more of them. If they have any blood of the Negro at all in their line, in their veins at all, they are not entitled to the blessings of the Priesthood.... No limit as to how far back so far as I know" (Patriarchal Blessings, Institute of Religion, January 17, 1964, p.8).

    Time Magazine for June 30, 1958, page 47, pointed out Dr. Robert P. Stuckert reached the conclusion that of 135 million Americans classified as white in 1950, about 28 million (21 percent) had some African ancestry. The church's stress on genealogical research placed many members of the church in a very embarrassing position. Many members of the church discovered they had black ancestors and attempted to cover it up. This situation has caused a great deal of unnecessary guilt among members of the church who have diligently followed the teaching concerning the necessity of genealogical research.

New "Revelation" Evades the Real Issues

    O. Kendall White, Jr., made these interesting observations six years before the revelation was given:

Since they believe in "continuing revelation," Mormons have a mechanism that enables them to reverse previous positions without repudiating the past.... That the church will invoke such a mechanism to resolve the racial issue is not too unlikely ... this approach has a serious drawback. It is the tendency not to acknowledge the errors of the past. While revelation could be used to legitimate a new racial policy and to redefine Mormon relations with black people, Mormons might still be unwilling to condemn the racism involved in their history. They might be

323

324

They might be inclined to argue that Mormons in earlier periods were under a different mandate than the one binding them. This obviously implies that the church is never wrong. Thus, change may come through the notion of continuing revelation, but the racist aspects of Mormon history will not necessarily be condemned (The Journal of Religious Thought, Autumn-Winter, 1973, pp.57-58).

    It would appear that church leaders have done exactly what Mr. White warned against, they have used revelation as a means of side-stepping the real issues involved. Mario S. DePillis pointed out that "the revelation leaves unsolved other racist implications of the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price--scriptures that are both cornerstones and contradictions" (New York Times, June 11, 1978).

    One issue that Mormon leaders now seem to be dodging is that concerning skin color. As we pointed out earlier, Mormon theology has always taught that "a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind" (Juvenile Instructor, vol. 3, p.157). The Book of Mormon itself is filled with the teaching that people with dark skins are cursed (see our discussion of this matter on pp. 208-15). President Spencer W. Kimball, who gave the new "revelation" which allows blacks to hold the priesthood, actually believes that God is changing the Indians "to whiteness and to delightsomeness" (Improvement Era, December 1960, pp.922-23). He feels, however, that this has to be done by the power of God and has suppressed Joseph Smith's 1831 revelation which commanded the Mormons to take "wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just." We seriously doubt that President Kimball will ever allow this revelation to be canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants since he has in the past discouraged intermarriage with the Indians. In 1958 he gave an address which touched on this subject. President Kimball's statement was reprinted in the Church Section of the Deseret News on June 17, 1978: "... there is one thing that I must mention, and that is interracial marriages. When I said you must teach your young people to overcome their prejudices and accept the Indians, I did not mean that you would encourage intermarriage."

    Although the Mormon church is now opening the door to temple marriages between blacks and whites, President Kimball is probably not too enthused about the matter. An endorsement of Joseph Smith's 1831 revelation encouraging intermarriage with Indians could now lead white members to seek marriages with blacks. Since blacks are no longer cursed

324

325

Since blacks are no longer cursed as to the priesthood, the revelation might just as logically be interpreted that Mormons should "take unto you wives" of the Ethiopians or Nigerians "that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just."

    Another matter which the new revelation allowing blacks to hold the priesthood does not resolve is the teaching concerning pre-existence. In the past Mormon leaders have stressed that blacks were cursed as to the priesthood because of "unfaithfulness in the spirit--or pre-existence." Should a faithful Mormon continue to believe that blacks were unrighteous in a pre-existent state? It will be especially interesting to see how church leaders explain this matter to blacks in the church. Monroe Fleming, for instance, was converted to the church over twenty-five years ago. President Joseph Fielding Smith explained to him why he could not hold the priesthood, but since the new "revelation" he is being encouraged to be ordained. Now, was Mr. Fleming really unfaithful in a pre-existent state or did church leaders just make a mistake in the past when they said he could not hold the priesthood? Church leaders should explain if they believe black babies born after the new "revelation" were inferior spirits in a pre-existent state.

    Now that they have abandoned the idea that blacks cannot hold the priesthood, they should explain if they are giving up some of their teachings on the pre-existence. They should also explain if they are repudiating the Book of Mormon teaching that a dark skin is given by God as a "curse." By giving a "revelation'' on the blacks without explaining its implications, the Mormon leaders are leaving their people in a dense doctrinal fog. If the church continues to hide behind a purported revelation on the blacks and fails to come to grips with its racist doctrines, thousands of people are going to continue believing these doctrines and the church will be plagued with racism for many years to come.

Does the Revelation Really Exist?

    One thing that should be noted about the new "revelation" is that the church has failed to produce a copy of it. All we have is a statement by the First Presidency which says a revelation was received. Joseph Smith, the first Mormon prophet, printed many of his revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants and other church publications, and the early Mormon church even mocked the Catholics because they did not allow the revelations given by their popes to enter the "sacred canon." In refusing to canonize or even make public the new "revelation" on blacks, the Mormon leaders are now practicing the very thing

325

326

the Catholics were accused of doing. The Salt Lake Tribune for June 13, 1978 reported: "Kimball refused to discuss the revelation that changed the church's 148-year-old policy against ordination of blacks, saying it was a 'personal thing.' ... Kimball said the revelation came at this time because conditions and people have changed. 'It's a different world than it was 20 or 25 years ago. The world is ready for it,' he said."

    We seriously doubt that President Kimball will ever put forth a written revelation on the bestowal of priesthood on blacks. We doubt, in fact, that any such document exists. What probably happened was that the leaders of the church finally realized that they could no longer retain the anti-black doctrine without doing irreparable damage to the church. Under these circumstances they were impressed with the fact that the doctrine had to be changed and this impression was referred to as a revelation from God. In a letter to the Editor of the Salt Lake Tribune, June 24, 1978, Eugene Wagner observed:

... was this change of doctrine really a revelation from the Lord, or did the church leaders act on their own? Why don't they publish that revelation and let the Lord speak in his own words? All we saw was a statement of the First Presidency, and that is not how a revelation looks.

When God speaks the revelation starts with the words: "Thus sayeth the Lord ..." It seems when the Lord decides to change a doctrine of such great importance he will talk himself to the people of his church. If such a revelation cannot be presented to the members it is obvious that the first presidency acted on its own, most likely under fear of-public pressure to avoid problems of serious consequences and to maintain peace and popularity with the world.

    At the 148th Semiannual Conference of the Mormon church, members of the church were asked to "accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord," but the only document presented to the people was the letter of the First Presidency, dated June 8, 1978 (see The Ensign, November 1978, p.16).

    Some Mormons have put forth the rumor that the power of God was manifested as on the day of Pentecost when President Kimball gave the "revelation." Kimball himself seems to be trying to dispel this idea. The following statement about the "revelation" appeared in Time on August 7, 1978, p.55: "In other renditions it came complete with a visitation from Joseph Smith.... In an interview, his first since the announcement, Kimball described it much more matter of factly to Time staff writer Richard Ostling: 'I spent a good deal of time in the tem-

326

327

ple alone, praying for guidance, and there was a gradual and general development of the whole program, in connection with the Apostles.' "

    For some time after the anti-black doctrine was changed, Mormon leaders were reluctant to inform their own people of the details surrounding the giving of the "revelation." Finally, six months after the event, the church news staff asked President Kimball if he would "care to share with the readers of the Church News any more of the circumstances under which that was given?" President Kimball's answer is very revealing. He makes no reference to a voice or any written revelation. In fact, his statement gives the impression that it was only a feeling or an assurance that he received:

It went on for some time as I was searching for this, because I wanted to be sure. We held a meeting of the Council of the Twelve in the temple on the regular day. We considered this very seriously and thoughtfully and prayerfully.

I asked the Twelve not to go home when the time came. I said, "Now would you be willing to remain in the temple with us?" And they were. I offered the final prayer and I told the Lord if it wasn't right, if He didn't want this change to come in the Church that I would be true to it all the rest of my life, and I'd fight the world against it if that's what He wanted.

We had this special prayer circle, then I knew that the time had come. I had a great deal to fight, of course, myself largely, because I had grown up with this thought that Negroes should not have the priesthood and I was prepared to go all the rest of my life till my death and fight for it and defend it as it was. But this revelation and assurance came to me so clearly that there was no question about it (Deseret News, Church Section, January 6, 1979, p.4).*

*In his speech "All Are Alike Unto God," pages 2-3, Apostle Bruce R. McConkie told how the "revelation" was received. His description indicates that there was no spoken or written revelation-only a very good "feeling": "The result was that President Kimball knew, and each one of us knew, independent of any other person, by direct and personal revelation to us, that the time had now come to extend the gospel ... to ... the black race.... The Lord could have sent messengers from the other side to deliver it, but he did not. He gave the revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost. Latter-day Saints have a complex: many of them desire to magnify and build upon what has occurred, and they delight to think of miraculous things. And maybe some of them would like to believe that the Lord himself was there, or that the Prophet Joseph Smith came to deliver the revelation ... which was one of the possibilities. Well, these things did not happen. The stories that go around to the contrary are not factual or realistic or true.... I cannot describe in words what happened; I can only say that it happened and that it can be known and understood only by the feeling that can come into the heart of man. You cannot describe a testimony to someone."

327

328

    In putting forth his new "revelation" on blacks, President Kimball will not admit to any wrongdoing on the part of the church: "There are members of the Church who had brought to President David 0. McKay their reasons why it should be changed. Others had gone to Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee and to all the former presidents and it had not been accepted because the time had not come for it" (Ibid., p.15). We feel that it is wrong to attribute such a "revelation" to God. It makes it appear that God has been a racist for thousands of years, and that Mormon leaders by "pleading long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the upper room of the Temple" have finally persuaded God to give blacks the priesthood. The truth of the matter, however, is that "God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts 10:34-35). It is the Mormon leaders who have kept blacks under a curse. They have continually and stubbornly opposed the advancement of black people, threatening and excommunicating those who differed with them on the matter. Finally, when their backs were to the wall, the Mormon leaders were forced to change their position.

Impact of Revelation

    Some people believe the Mormon church is not sincere in opening priesthood advancement to blacks. We feel, however, that even though the Mormon leaders have failed to face some important issues, they have made a major concession which will gradually weaken racism throughout the church. The Deseret News, Church Section, January 6, 1979, reported that "Brother (Helecio) Martins (a black member) is now a member of the stake presidency."

    We feel that one of the important reasons the church decided to confer priesthood on blacks was that the anti-black doctrine was hurting missionary work. With a change in this policy, we anticipate that the church will make many more converts. On the other hand, many members of the church have become disillusioned because of the church's handling of the racial issue, and the new "revelation" has tended to confirm in their minds that the Lord had nothing to do with the whole matter. For those Christians working with Mormons, this may really prove to be an opening for effective witnessing.

328