The Articles of Faith and Official Declaration 1 & 2
The following invitation is useful when considering this block of text for this week’s study of Come Follow Me:
“We believe that [God] will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Articles of Faith 1:9), even when those things mean changing Church policies and practices. With this principle in mind, review Official Declarations 1 and 2, and look for words and phrases that strengthen your faith in continuing revelation. What other examples of continuing revelation to the Lord’s prophet can you think of? How have these revelations affected your life? How have they advanced the work of Heavenly Father’s kingdom?
Official Declaration 1
Reasons for ending the practice of plural marriage
I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. …
The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.
The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?
The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.
… I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …
I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us.[1]Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.
Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. … All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it.[2]From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Official Declaration 2
Historical Background
From the Gospel Topics Essays[3]I have adapted this essay to fit with the show notes for this podcast. There is so much material from outside sources that are worth examination, but for the purpose of this podcast, and due to the … Continue reading:
In theology and practice, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the universal human family. Latter-day Saint scripture and teachings affirm that God loves all of His children and makes salvation available to all. God created the many diverse races and ethnicities and esteems them all equally. As the Book of Mormon puts it, “all are alike unto God.”[4]2 Nephi 26.33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth … Continue reading
The structure and organization of the Church encourage racial integration. Latter-day Saints attend Church services according to the geographical boundaries of their local ward, or congregation. By definition, this means that the racial, economic, and demographic composition of Latter-day Saint congregations generally mirrors that of the wider local community.[5]To facilitate involvement of Church members who do not speak the dominant language of the area in which they live, some congregations are organized among speakers of the same language (such as … Continue reading The Church’s lay ministry also tends to facilitate integration: a black bishop may preside over a mostly white congregation; a Hispanic woman may be paired with an Asian woman to visit the homes of a racially diverse membership. Church members of different races and ethnicities regularly minister in one another’s homes and serve alongside one another as teachers, as youth leaders, and in myriad other assignments in their local congregations. Such practices make The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a thoroughly integrated faith.
Despite this modern reality, for much of its history—from the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.
The Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in the United States. At the time, many people of African descent lived in slavery, and racial distinctions and prejudice were not just common but customary among white Americans. Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion. Many Christian churches of that era, for instance, were segregated along racial lines. From the beginnings of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity could be baptized and received as members. Toward the end of his life, Church founder Joseph Smith openly opposed slavery. There has never been a Churchwide policy of segregated congregations.[6]At some periods of time, reflecting local customs and laws, there were instances of segregated congregations in areas such as South Africa and the U.S. South.
During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Abel, also participated in temple ceremonies in Kirtland, Ohio, and was later baptized as proxy for deceased relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. In a private Church council three years after Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young praised Q. Walker Lewis, a black man who had been ordained to the priesthood, saying, “We have one of the best Elders, an African.”[7]Historian’s Office General Church Minutes, Mar. 26, 1847, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, spelling and punctuation modernized.
In 1852,[8]It is on this point that I would, in a minor way, disagree with the author of the Gospel Topics essay. Some historians, for example John Turner and Angela Hudson, have clearly demonstrated that … Continue reading President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church…
Removing the Restriction
Even after the 1852 statement by Brigham Young, at least two black Latter-day Saints continued to hold the priesthood. When one of these men, Elijah Abel, petitioned to receive his temple endowment in 1879, his request was denied. Jane Manning James, a faithful black member who crossed the plains and lived in Salt Lake City until her death in 1908, similarly asked to enter the temple; she was allowed to perform baptisms for the dead for her ancestors but was not allowed to participate in other ordinances.[9]Margaret Blair Young, “‘The Lord’s Blessing Was with Us’: Jane Elizabeth Manning James, 1822–1908,” in Richard E. Turley Jr. and Brittany A. Chapman, eds., Women of … Continue reading The curse of Cain was often put forward as justification for the priesthood and temple restrictions. Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings.[10]Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, for example, wrote in 1907 that the belief was “quite general” among Mormons that “the Negro race has been cursed for taking a neutral position in that great … Continue reading
By the late 1940s and 1950s, racial integration was becoming more common in American life. Church President David O. McKay emphasized that the restriction extended only to men of black African descent. The Church had always allowed Pacific Islanders to hold the priesthood, and President McKay clarified that black Fijians and Australian Aborigines could also be ordained to the priesthood and instituted missionary work among them. In South Africa, President McKay reversed a prior policy that required prospective priesthood holders to trace their lineage out of Africa.[11]Edward L. Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” BYU Studies 47, no. 2 (Spring 2008), 18–20; Marjorie Newton, Southern Cross Saints: The Mormons in Australia (Laie: … Continue reading
Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.[12]Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” 21–22. Gregory Prince’s biography of David O. McKay has a chapter that must be read to realize the full context of the … Continue reading
As the Church grew worldwide, its overarching mission to “go ye therefore, and teach all nations”[13]Matthew 28.19. seemed increasingly incompatible with the priesthood and temple restrictions. The Book of Mormon declared that the gospel message of salvation should go forth to “every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.”[14]Mosiah 15.28; 1 Nephi 19.17. While there were no limits on whom the Lord invited to “partake of his goodness” through baptism,[15]2 Nephi 26.23, 28. the priesthood and temple restrictions created significant barriers, a point made increasingly evident as the Church spread in international locations with diverse and mixed racial heritages.
Brazil in particular presented many challenges. Unlike the United States and South Africa where legal and de facto racism led to deeply segregated societies, Brazil prided itself on its open, integrated, and mixed racial heritage. In 1975, the Church announced that a temple would be built in São Paulo, Brazil. As the temple construction proceeded, Church authorities encountered faithful black and mixed-ancestry Latter-day Saints who had contributed financially and in other ways to the building of the São Paulo temple, a sanctuary they realized they would not be allowed to enter once it was completed. Their sacrifices, as well as the conversions of thousands of Nigerians and Ghanaians in the 1960s and early 1970s, moved Church leaders.[16]Mark L. Grover, “Mormonism in Brazil: Religion and Dependency in Latin America,” (PhD Dissertation, Indiana University, 1985), 276–78. For a personal account of events in Brazil, see Helvecio … Continue reading
Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings. In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [Salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation. “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,” the First Presidency announced on June 8. The First Presidency stated that they were “aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us” that “all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood.”[17]Official Declaration 2. The revelation rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination. It also extended the blessings of the temple to all worthy Latter-day Saints, men and women. The First Presidency statement regarding the revelation was canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 2.
This “revelation on the priesthood,” as it is commonly known in the Church, was a landmark revelation and a historic event. Those who were present at the time described it in reverent terms. Gordon B. Hinckley, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, remembered it this way: “There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren. … Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing. … Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same.”[18]Gordon B. Hinckley, “Priesthood Restoration,” Ensign, Oct. 1988, 70, available at ensign.ChurchofJesusChrist.org. The impressions of others who were in the room have been compiled in … Continue reading
Reaction worldwide was overwhelmingly positive among Church members of all races. Many Latter-day Saints wept for joy at the news. Some reported feeling a collective weight lifted from their shoulders. The Church began priesthood ordinations for men of African descent immediately, and black men and women entered temples throughout the world. Soon after the revelation, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle, spoke of new “light and knowledge” that had erased previously “limited understanding.”[19]Bruce R. McConkie, “All Are Alike unto God” (CES Religious Educator’s Symposium, Aug. 18, 1978); available at speeches.byu.edu.
The Church Today
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.[20]Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Need for Greater Kindness,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2006, 58–61.
Since that day in 1978, the Church has looked to the future, as membership among Africans, African Americans and others of African descent has continued to grow rapidly. While Church records for individual members do not indicate an individual’s race or ethnicity, the number of Church members of African descent is now in the hundreds of thousands.
The Church proclaims that redemption through Jesus Christ is available to the entire human family on the conditions God has prescribed. It affirms that God is “no respecter of persons”[21]Acts 10.34. and emphatically declares that anyone who is righteous—regardless of race—is favored of Him. The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: “[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”[22]For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and … Continue reading
References
↑1 | Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891. |
---|---|
↑2 | From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah. |
↑3 | I have adapted this essay to fit with the show notes for this podcast. There is so much material from outside sources that are worth examination, but for the purpose of this podcast, and due to the sensitive nature of this topic, I am staying with the Gospel Topics essay. I have added items that I have felt were important into the footnotes of this essay, however. Because of this, not all of the footnotes in this essay are from the author of the Gospel Topics essay. By placing my comments and sources in the footnotes, I am working with the limited time that I have available to communicate the pertinent information without having to rewrite all of the available material. I ask for your patience in this regard. I would add that the post A segment from the book “Lengthen Your Stride” by Edward Kimball is worth reading, as Kimball has diligently worked to include information that is crucial in understanding the history of the priesthood ban as well as its removal in the administration of President Spencer W. Kimball. |
↑4 | 2 Nephi 26.33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and 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 and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. |
↑5 | To facilitate involvement of Church members who do not speak the dominant language of the area in which they live, some congregations are organized among speakers of the same language (such as Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, or Tongan). In such cases, members can choose which congregation to attend. |
↑6 | At some periods of time, reflecting local customs and laws, there were instances of segregated congregations in areas such as South Africa and the U.S. South. |
↑7 | Historian’s Office General Church Minutes, Mar. 26, 1847, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, spelling and punctuation modernized. |
↑8 | It is on this point that I would, in a minor way, disagree with the author of the Gospel Topics essay. Some historians, for example John Turner and Angela Hudson, have clearly demonstrated that President Young put in place the things necessary to initiate the priesthood ban as early as February of 1849. Other historians disagree. (See: John Turner, Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet, Harvard University Press, 2012, p. 221-223. See also: Angela Hudson, William McCary, Lucy Stanton, and the Performance of Race at Winter Quarters and Beyond, Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 41, No. 3, July 2015. For the other side of this argument, see Esplin, Brigham Young and the Priesthood Denial to Blacks: An Alternate View, BYU Studies Quarterly, 1979, Vol. 19, Issue 3, Article 12. Esplin actually pushes the date back further to 1846, and then issues “his feeling” that the doctrine was introduced by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo by 1843, but he also stresses that he does not have documentation to back up this claim. See pgs. 396-399.) This issue (the priesthood ban) may have been connected to the behavior of one Warner (or William) McCary, a once-slave from Mississippi who had musical talents. According to Turner, McCary “escaped (from slavery) and moved to St. Louis, then was baptized in Nauvoo by Orson Hyde and married a white woman named Lucy Stanton, before relocating to Cincinnati and building a congregation around his own prophetic and messianic authority.” According to Hudson, interracial marriage did “create a climate of anxiety” among many in the United States at this time. At the time of McCary’s marriage to Stanton in Nauvoo, state laws held that marriage between blacks and whites was punishable by fines, whipping, and prison. (See: Angela Hudson, William McCary, Lucy Stanton, and the Performance of Race at Winter Quarters and Beyond, Journal of Mormon History, Vol. 41, No. 3, July 2015, p. 113. See also: Peggy Pascoe, What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America, New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 22–27. She cites the 1845 Illinois law on 329 note 44.) After his experiences in Cincinnati, McCary traveled to Winter Quarters, where he met with Church leaders. After Brigham Young’s pioneer camp left Winter Quarters, William McCary would fall out of favor with the leaders of the Church as, according to some historical sources, he was sealed to several white women in his “own version of celestial marriage.” (Hudson, p. 121. See also: Whipple, “History of Nelson Wheeler Whipple,” 30-37, Perry Special Collections.) In December 1848, President Young met with William Appleby, who had recently served as the president of the church’s eastern branches. In Lowell, Appleby had encountered Walker Lewis, a black elder in Massachusetts. Appleby had found that Lewis’ son (Enoch Lovejoy Lewis) was “married to a white girl” and fellow church member. Appleby wrote to President Young, “I wish to know if this is the order of God or tolerated in this Church… (to allow)… amalgamation” (Turner, 221). Following this exchange, during a council meeting in February 1949, Brigham Young gave a speech in which he stated that the “seed of Cain” was cursed (Turner, 222). According to John Turner, “Under Young’s leadership, the church did not ordain black men as elders, did not allow black men or women to receive the endowment, and did not seal the marriages of its few black members” (Turner, 222). Turner continues, “Although fragmentary documentation obscures the reasons for Young’s hardening position, his revulsion over the specter of interracial procreation apparently played a major role in his thinking” (Turner, 223). |
↑9 | Margaret Blair Young, “‘The Lord’s Blessing Was with Us’: Jane Elizabeth Manning James, 1822–1908,” in Richard E. Turley Jr. and Brittany A. Chapman, eds., Women of Faith in the Latter Days, Volume Two, 1821–1845 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2012), 120–135. |
↑10 | Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, for example, wrote in 1907 that the belief was “quite general” among Mormons that “the Negro race has been cursed for taking a neutral position in that great contest.” Yet this belief, he admitted, “is not the official position of the Church, [and is] merely the opinion of men.” Joseph Fielding Smith to Alfred M. Nelson, Jan. 31, 1907, Church History Library, Salt Lake City. |
↑11 | Edward L. Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” BYU Studies 47, no. 2 (Spring 2008), 18–20; Marjorie Newton, Southern Cross Saints: The Mormons in Australia (Laie: Hawaii: The Institute for Polynesian Studies, Brigham Young University–Hawaii, 1991), 209–10. Even before this time, President George Albert Smith concluded that the priesthood ban did not apply to Filipino Negritos. Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on the Priesthood,” 18–19. |
↑12 | Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” 21–22. Gregory Prince’s biography of David O. McKay has a chapter that must be read to realize the full context of the struggles that President McKay went through as he consistently sought to remove the priesthood ban, what McKay called a policy (as opposed to a doctrine). Prince writes, “He first softened the ban around the edges, intervening to extend priesthood blessings to individuals where he could, and repeatedly pleading with the Lord for a complete reversal. This record is nothing short of remarkable. Surrounded by voices that argued strongly in favor of maintaining the ban, save for the lone vision of Hugh B. Brown, he nonetheless was willing to move in a different direction. On uncounted occasions, he sought unsuccessfully to call down the revelation that would have changed the ban, a revelation that came to one of his successors eight years after his death. This largely undocumented and almost wholly unknown struggle means that it is no stretch to assert that David O. McKay built the foundation upon which the revelation to Spencer W. Kimball rests.” See: Prince, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, University of Utah Press, 2005, p. 105. |
↑13 | Matthew 28.19. |
↑14 | Mosiah 15.28; 1 Nephi 19.17. |
↑15 | 2 Nephi 26.23, 28. |
↑16 | Mark L. Grover, “Mormonism in Brazil: Religion and Dependency in Latin America,” (PhD Dissertation, Indiana University, 1985), 276–78. For a personal account of events in Brazil, see Helvecio Martins with Mark Grover, The Autobiography of Elder Helvecio Martins (Salt Lake City: Aspen Books, 1994), 64–68. For the conversions of Africans, see E. Dale LeBaron, ed., “All Are Alike unto God”: Fascinating Conversion Stories of African Saints (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1990); Pioneers in Africa: An Inspiring Story of Those Who Paved the Way (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Broadcasting, 2003). |
↑17 | Official Declaration 2. |
↑18 | Gordon B. Hinckley, “Priesthood Restoration,” Ensign, Oct. 1988, 70, available at ensign.ChurchofJesusChrist.org. The impressions of others who were in the room have been compiled in Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” 54–59. |
↑19 | Bruce R. McConkie, “All Are Alike unto God” (CES Religious Educator’s Symposium, Aug. 18, 1978); available at speeches.byu.edu. |
↑20 | Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Need for Greater Kindness,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2006, 58–61. |
↑21 | Acts 10.34. |
↑22 | For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and 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 and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. – 2 Nephi 26.33. |
At the beginning of this episode you mentioned a lady with the last name Mackley, I believe. Can you share more about her? I would like to read her book. Thank you for your podcast. I have learned soooo much. It has been such a blessing in my life.