D&C Official Declaration 2

Official Declaration 2 is a subject that is near and dear to my heart because my ex-husband is African American, thus making my kids half African American as well. I believe that any self-respecting man of color has to come to terms with the concept of the “priesthood ban” before they can fully accept the gospel. I’ve thought long and hard about this concept and I have a few theories of my own, I’m not sure that I’ll discuss them here, we’ll see. I really like the section heading found in the D&C because I feel that it’s the most comprehensive and the least confrontational. It says, “The Book of Mormon teaches that ‘all are alike unto God,’ including ‘black and white, bond and free, male and female.’ Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male faithful members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation come to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.” It’s really interesting when things like this happen, when one group is excluded for unknown reasons, what reasons people come up with. Many theories abounded, for instance one theory was that black folk were not as valiant in the pre-existence, therefore they were denied the priesthood here in mortality. It seems to me that the exact opposite would be true, that those spirits who were the most valiant in pre-mortal life would be given challenges to grow their faith even further, such as being denied the priesthood here. Another theory was that it was the mark of Cain, and that doesn’t make any sense because we know that everyone is judged for their own sins and not for that of their parents. Some of it was even preached from the pulpit, it’s just an example of how the Church is run by flawed people and the Lord works with what He’s got. The more I think about this concept the more I feel that it was just a human error, but that we live/lived in a complicated racist society and that the reasons might be varied and complicated as well. But what we MUST keep in mind in order to reasonably consider this topic is that the atonement covers this as well, the Lord knows exactly what it’s like to be denied the priesthood, He knows exactly how it feels to be called racial slurs and hated, and through the atonement, all will be compensated above and beyond their losses. With that in mind, let’s move on.

The culminating phrase of the declaration is “Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, 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.”

There are a few facets of this revelation that I think are profitable to study. Like we saw yesterday, the Lord does not bend to the will of the people. The Church has been criticized harshly for waiting so long after the civil rights movement to make this change. As far as I understand, back in the 50’s and 60’s it was actually a pretty common practice for churches to be segregated or to have membership restrictions. In that way, perhaps the Church was considered progressive in their policy of allowing members of color and I know that their stance on abolition was a key factor in their being driven from the US, especially in Missouri. Joseph Smith was known for his fairness and love of all people. I heard a story where once as Mayor of the city of Nauvoo, he had to fine an escaped slave who was illegally selling goods in order to raise money to buy his wife and children out of slavery. He said that he had to be just and execute the law, so he was fined all the money that he had earned. The next day, Joseph Smith sold his favorite horse and gave the man the money so that he could buy his family out of slavery. That’s the kind of attitude that prevailed in Nauvoo. So back to civil right era church politics, it was a very racist time and when the civil rights movement made so much progress, most other churches fell in line, changing their policy so that they could be more inclusive. The Church was widely criticized for not doing the same thing, and the fact that it took 10 years longer for the Lord to move this issue forward shows to me that He doesn’t bend to the will of the people. From the outside, it might look like a bunch of seriously racist old white guys who were putting off inclusion as long as possible, where in actuality it was a bunch of seriously troubled and loving old white guys who were petitioning the Lord for full inclusion for YEARS.

Another facet is the grooming process for the saint in Africa who were to build up the kingdom there in the coming decades. Just like the trials of Missouri, Nauvoo, and the death of Joseph Smith were purifying processes for the Church in the early days, this might to have served as an opportunity to teach and strengthen those who would lead the Church during later times. I’ve always remembered a story that I heard in the October 2013 general conference by Elder Ulisses Soares entitled, “Be Meek and Lowly of Heart,” in which he tells the story of Brother Moses Mahlangu. The account says, “His conversion began in 1964, when he received a copy of the Book of Mormon. He was fascinated as he read this book, but it was not until the early 70’s that he saw an LDS Church sign on a building in Jahannesburg, South Africa, as he was walking down a street. Brother Mahlangu was intrigued and entered the building to learn more about the Church. He was kindly told that he could not attend the services or be baptized because the country’s laws did not allow it at that time. Brother Mahlangu accepted that decision with meekness, humility, and without resentment, but he continued to have a strong desire to learn more about the Church. He asked the Church leaders if they could leave on of the meetinghouse windows open during the Sunday meetings so he could sit outside and listen to the service. For several years, Brother Mahlangu’s family and friends attended church regularly ‘through the window.’ One day in 1980 they were told that they could attend church and also be baptized. What a glorious day it was for Brother Mahlangu. Later the Church organized a branch in his neighborhood in Soweto. This was possible only because of the determination, courage, and faithfulness of people like Brother Mahangu who remained faithful for so many years under difficult circumstances.” This isn’t the exact same scenario, but it’s around the same time and deals with the same concept of racism. People whose faith can be purified through trials like this become incredible leaders to others, which was definitely a side effect of what happened during these times.