I have heard it said that the reason most Blacks had the priesthood withheld from them throughout the late 1800s and the mid 1900s was because they were cursed with the Curse of Cain. If this is true, why did Spencer W. Kimball not mention such a curse had been lifted when gave the Official Declaration that all worthy male members of the Church could hold the priesthood?
Curse of Cain
We’ve discussed this, in part, before but I think that when the church leaders have inspiration which just happens to coincide with social pressures on the church, I’d have to side with Occam.
Please see:
http://mormonstories.org/?p=83
What about it, Kurt? I listened to the podcast last week, which did not mention why President Kimball did not announce a lifting of the Curse of Cain. Was there something specific you wanted to point our readers to?
Occam?
I also was taught the reason blacks were denied the Priesthood was because of the curse of Cain. If this was a true statement, then we would have to assume that for the past 6,000 years, blacks have been denied the PH. A possible option for this belief might be that during the 1800’s and most of the 1900’s the LDS faith was mostly a white man’s religion. In order to grow the church had to change the doctrine.
With the change in this doctrine, has the church grown more than if it had stayed with the old doctrine? The number of new converts each year have stayed about the same number year after year with the new teaching.
Actually, Bill, the growth of converts accelerated every year throughout the 1980s. In the 1990s, it slowly began to drop. It has only been in the last three years that we have seen what could be a trend in stabilised growth.
But that really has little to do with why the Curse of Cain was not announced by Kimball to have been lifted.
“Occam?”
Yes Bill, Occam – as in Occam’s Razor
The simplest explanation most likely being the correct explanation; in this case the Official Declaration being the church caving in to social pressures of the time, just like they had with polygamy earlier.
Rick,
Your Dig aboslutely evaded Kim’s question. Kim asked why no reference was made to the curse of Cain in the OD. He did not ask why the OD was brought forth.
I believe that President Hinckley’s last conference talk indicated that the Curse of Cain was never sound doctrine.
Personally, I believe that the ban existed because of the sin of racism among church members (and leaders). We robbed ourselves of the benefit of African membership until 78 and I’m sure the church suffered for it. I believe the revelation occured because racism had subsided enough to allow for us to successfully admit black people into our leadership. From what I understand societal pressures had loosened somewhat by teh late 70’s. Then again, I was born in ’78 and didn’t join the church until ’03, so what do I know?
“Personally, I believe that the ban existed because of the sin of racism among church members (and leaders). We robbed ourselves of the benefit of African membership until 78 and I’m sure the church suffered for it.”
I agree with this. I think it was the bias and ignorance of the members that created this ban (as in Joseph Smith’s time there was no ban on black members of the church recieving temple ordinances or the Priesthood).
I was 7 when the ban was lifted, and I have to admit I didn’t know a lot about it, when it was announced I think my thought was “Oh, some poeple couldn’t have the priesthood before now?”.
Some people still can’t have it now, Mary … unless you don’t think the ladies are people. ;)
Kim, the Curse of Cain is nothing more than a folk doctrine perpetuated by McConkie’s _Mormon Doctrine_. He didn’t lift it because it was never there.
My sister has an opinion that it has more to do with the sign of the times of the gentiles started to be fulfilled. You also have to consider that the Brazil Temple was about to be finished. There would have been very few people that would have been able to attend the temple in that country, let alone fill the need for temple workers. It had less to do with the social pressures in North America, and more about the readiness of Black Saints across the world.
Well, Rick, it depends on how you look at the priesthood. Personally I don’t have an issue with not holding the priesthood, because I understand it,undertand why, and don’t want to be a priesthood holder, can access it, and don’t see it as being a “right”. Some people don’t see the connection, but women are able to bear children (whether in this life or the next) whereas men don’t. There is a reason for all of this.
of course women are people :)
Gwen,
Readiness of Black Saints??
So were black people less righteous pre 1978?
What about Elijah Abel?
I’m sorry, but any effort to attribute the priesthood ban to black people is incorrect and holds the church back. I believe that the 78 OD was a result of revelation. But whose sin had caused the injustice that needed correcting? Keep in mind what our prophet asked the priesthood last month.
” How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?”
BTW,
The question is rhetorical. :)
President Kimball did not have to say why he did what he did. He only has to account for his stewardship to one person. Anymore then any other prophet has to tell us why they give us guidance/doctrine/principles etc. It would be NICE and considerate if they did especially for SOME of us that have a need to know the whys of every single thing on earth and hate taking things at face value but I just add it to my ever growing list of questions to ask in my next life.
And Mary that was exactly my same thought when they were given the Priesthood in 78. We had just barely joined the church and I thought they just got it now? What did they use before … thinking that there was a different Priesthood then the other 2. And I was told no they did not have any priesthood then and I started with the beginning of my very long journey of “but why” continuing with my also increasing frustration of hearing “cause that’s the way it is”.
Yes Bill, Occam – as in Occam’s Razor
I still do not get it. Pleae explain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
I was a RM when this revelation was announced. The US Government was going big time righting the wrongs of segregation. The Church was right in the Cross Hairs of the Government and it looked like they were going to take the Church on. I remember thinking the leadership was going to follow the Lords commands and fight the US Government on this one. Boy was I wrong on this one. The revelation came out just in time to stop the US Government from exercising their power. Just as revelation on Polygamy stopped the US Government from crushing the Church, the revelation regarding Blacks also stop the US Government from crushing the Church. We had several long time members leave the Church over this revelation.
The LDS Church of today is not the same as it was 30 plus years ago. The LDS Church my children have grown up in is far different than the one I grew up in.
bill, what evidence do you have to support what you are saying regarding the US Govt and the LDS Church? Nothing. What nonsense.
“We had several long time members leave the Church over this revelation.”
Good ridance
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by frost.
Point being if someone is going to “leave the Church” they will find a reason to do so usually something going on at that time. Real people do not leave the Church cause someone stepped on their toes or they get their feelings hurt. They already wanted to leave in the first place and were just looking for an excuse so they didn’t have to feel guilty.
Every Prophet from Joseph Smith to President Hinckley have had revelations and have told us about changes that would happen. It is always about choice to follow their guidance. There will always be people that will say I am not going back till they go back to the old ways. I remember saying when we first heard word that the Sunday meetings would be conglomerated into a 3 hour block that there would be no way I would go if they changed over. All I could see was having 5 children sitting on my lap for 3 hours!!
28 years later I am still here and have a hard time remembering going to church 3 separate times on Sundays. We all have to pray whether we want to follow a Prophet’s revelation when it comes to changes. Some of us will automatically do it just cause the Prophet said so. Some will question it and some will completely walk away. It was no different on the war in the Spirit World. Some followed obediently some questioned but why (me leading the pack) and some walked away complaining the whole way.
It’s always about choices.
Mum’s right. No one leaves the church for some solitary reason and certainly if people left because of the 1978 revelation, then they hadn’t strong enough testimonies or commitments to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the first place. They were looking for, and found an excuse.
And, yes, it is all about choices. I certainly don’t base my testiony of Jesus Christ and His gospel on other’s. Thank goodness.
“They already wanted to leave in the first place and were just looking for an excuse so they didn’t have to feel guilty.”
If this would true, I imagine it makes those people that much more easy to marginalize. I mean they obviously were’nt righteous enough anyway, right?
Rick do you think that if people are being righteous that they are so easily led away? If you have your feet firmly planted in the ground with roots you aren’t going to be swayed by every little breeze aka new revelation that comes along your way.
Do you think that all people who stop active participation in the church are not righteous?
I have heard several stories of people finding their way out of the church through rigourous examination of church history – something one would not do if they were not righteous and in fact interested in becoming a better member.
“Real people do not leave the Church cause someone stepped on their toes or they get their feelings hurt.”
Actually, I have met many real people who left the Church precisely for these reasons.
“They already wanted to leave in the first place and were just looking for an excuse so they didn’t have to feel guilty.”
Of those I know who left because of someone offending them, most, if not all, have never indicated any other reason for leaving. They have never indicated a problem with doctrine (actually, many profess belief in all the doctrine) or sinning (many still live the same lifestyle they had before they left).
Kurt # 20 – sorry to hear that you are not open to hearing the truth. If you were an adult during the time period you would know what was happening then or you had your head in the sand. the most likely problem is that you were not old enough then to know what was happening. Revelation can and does happen when needed.
The 3 hour block came about because of the gas crunch. It was done as a means of keeping the cost of travel down for the saints. The church found that their cost of doing business also went down, the cost of buildings went down (more congregations sharing buildings). Before the 3 hour block, members had more time to socialize and become friends. Some of the problems people have with the Church might be due to them not being aboe to socialize with other members.
I disagree with the assumption that those who leave the Church have already made up their mind and are seeking an excuse. The 180 change of position regarding blacks and the priesthood was huge for some people. Imagine all your life being taught one doctrine and then you are told it is not valid. For example, we are taught that being a homosexual is wrong and that practicing homosexuals are exed. What if during the next General Conference it is announced that the Prophet had a revelation that a third councilor was to be called for each Bishop and this person was to be a flamming queen. Would that type of revelation cause problems with some active members?
Do you remember when all missionaries were called to 18 month missions? It was a failure. Was the 18 month mission policy revelation from God or was it the ideal of man? Either way it was church policy for awhile.
Hey Kurt – Do you have a hard time believing there was an 18 month mission for men? There was.
Bill, it’s good to see you’re still using your “If you question me, you’re not open to the truth” approach.
My Uncle Phil left the Church when this revelation was revealed. He had been very active and was not looking for a reason to leave the church. Phil could not believe the church was true any long after being taught that Blacks were denied the priesthood because of their before life actions and suddenly that was not doctrine when Civil Rights became the hot politcal topic. I remember him telling me that truth does not change just because of political whims.
I wonder if he would have had an equally hard time when told that it was now OK to eat pork and shellfish, when Peter and Paul announced that change to the Church. The truth doesn’t change just because of pressure from gentile converts, right?
There’s always an excuse not to follow the Prophet.
The religion of Peter and Paul was a new religion. It was based upon the foundation of what Moses had taught but it was new with new rules. Much like LDS is based upon the Christian religion but new with new rules. My Uncle was very religious and and did follow the Prophet until the Prophet changed the religion.
When the Prophet announced that deny Blacks the PH was not sound doctrine, he changed the religion. I think it is a good thing but he still changed it. I need to ask my Uncle what he thinks about this new change.
George, the religion of Peter and Paul was from the same God that taught Moses. The revelation announced by Spencer Kimball was from the same God, too. Why you call it a “new religion” I’m really not sure.
John Scherer, re: comment 7, President Hinckley’s conference remarks on racism said nothing whatsoever regarding the “curse of Cain” teaching.
†How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?â€
I guess you can argue that he never specifically mentions the Curse of Cain. However, I believe this statement debunks any notion that CofC was a true or necessary doctine in the church.
President Hinckley is obviously speaking in the present tense, with no reference at all to people or events before the 1978 revelation.
So, are you suggesting that his comments only apply to members of the Church after 1 April 2006; that there is no retroactive effect?
Is it only arrogant after 1978? Men “who [made] disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider [themselves] . . . true disciple[s] of Christ” before 1978? There was a “basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church” before 1978?
Kim, if you believe that President Hinckley was addressing his remarks to people 28 years ago, then I can’t agree. I believe he was addressing his remarks to people now. I don’t quite see how his remarks COULD have any retroactive effect, unless he traveled backward in time to deliver them.
So, that’s a “yes” for each of my questions?
He isn’t even addressing the issue of anyone or anything in the past. He’s talking about now. If you want to have a discussion about what was arrogant in the past or what guidance from Priesthood leaders was supposed to apply in the past, then don’t bring President Hinckley’s remarks from April 2006. They don’t address the topic.
So, that’s a “yes†for each of my previous questions?
That’s a “neither of your previous questions even makes enough sense to have a yes or no answer.”
…If you can even explain the concept of how an instruction to do (or not do) something can apply to the past, then I’ll read with rapt interest. President Hinckley says, “Don’t do this,” and you ask where whether his remarks have any “retroactive effect.” What is that supposed to mean?
There’s no way to give a “yes” or “no” answer to a question that lacks meaning.
…Maybe some of his listeners are planning to travel through time back to 1977 and obey his instruction given in 2006? Is that how you expect it to have “retroactive effect”?
His talk wasn’t just full of instruction.
See? Not a single bit of instruction in that paragraph.
See? Every sentence expressed entirely in the present tense. No reference, intended or otherwise, to any past persons or events.
Actually, there is at least one reference to the past. By saying “I remind you”, he is suggesting that these things are not new.
The last sentence is independent of a specific time frame, not being specifically in the past, present or future tenses.
Does anyone out there actually think that President Hinckley intends to condemn every significant Priesthood leader in the Church from the time of Brigham Young all the way through to the 1978 revelation as arrogant men who should not be considered true disciples of Christ?
I don’t.
So, then it is a “yes” to my questions in #37.
I think president Hinckley reminds us of our past mistakes and asks us to move forward. Pointing out where one has erred in the past is not condemning it is building upon.
LT,
Are you insinuating that the Curse of Cain is true doctrine? I just want to be clear on this.