Before the Priesthood Ban Was Enacted– “Other Black men converted in the early decades of the Restoration, but not all of them were ordained to the priesthood. That, however, was nothing out of the ordinary. Not all white men were ordained, either, and no enslaved men were ordained in the South.17 In the nineteenth century, the purpose of ordination was to provide each congregation with leadership, not to ensure that all men held priesthood office. In 1842, the branch in Brandywine, Pennsylvania, for example, reported 124 total members, which included seven elders, two priests, three teachers, and two deacons, while the branch in Salem, Massachusetts, counted 66 members, with one elder and one priest.18 Not until the early decades of the twentieth century did the Church systematically ordain young men…
Joseph F. Smith's Notes from a conversation with Elder Elijah Able "Joseph said he was entitled to the priesthood and all the blessings. He received a patriarchal blessing under the hands of Father Joseph – and blessed as his own son."
In 1884, Jane James wrote to President John Taylor concerning temple admission: "I realize my race & color & cant expect my Endowments as others who are white," she wrote. "My race was handed down through the flood & God promised Abraham that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blest & as this is the fullness of all dispensations is there no blessing for me?" -Jane E. James to John Taylor, Dec. 27th 1884, Church History Library.- In 1889, Church Patriarch John Smith gave Jane a second patriarchal blessing:“The Lord has heard thy petitions,” Smith assured James. He continued, “He knowest the secrets of thy heart, He has witnessed thy trials and although thy life has been somewhat checkered His hand has been over thee…
”I had a great deal to fight," he later recalled, "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 until my death and fight for it and defend it as it was.” "The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation."
"The tribe of Levi analogy, however, begins with a false premise- -that only the tribe of Levi held the priesthood anciently. Book of Mormon peoples were not Levites, and they held the priesthood, as did other Old Testament leaders such as Melchizedek and Elijah. Even if we confine ourselves to the tribe of Levi's role in the tabernacle, I still believe it is a poor analogy. None of the other tribes were prevented from partaking of the ordinances necessary for their salvation in the way that the temple and priesthood restrictions prevented people of Black African descent from so doing. The tribe of Levi was given authority to administer tabernacle rituals for and in behalf of the other tribes. Their function was to welcome the other tribes into the tabernacle…
“The patriotism of Pennsylvania's religious teachers was pure. They threw in their whole weight of character and influence to promote a cause which made others equal with themselves; for the glorious privilege of seeing a people free. Her heroes bore the horrors of war, not to away the tyrant's scepter, or enjoy a lordling's wealth, but to found an asylum for the oppressed, and prepare a land of freedom for the tyrant's slave. Her statesmen, while in the councils of the nation, devoted all their wisdom and talents to establish a government where every man should be free; the slave liberated from bondage and the colored African enjoy the rights of citizenship; all enjoying equal rights to speak, to act, to worship, peculiar privileges to none. Such were Pennsylvania's sons at…
“We may soon expect to see flocking to [Nauvoo] . . . Persons of all languages, and of every tongue, and of every color; who shall with us worship the lord of hosts in his holy temple, and offer up their orisons in his sanctuary.”
“Lowell Bennion has articulated a useful guideline when the scriptures, or Church leaders, apparently contradict each other. He suggests we look for the great central principles that are repeated again and again, especially by Christ, and judge all other claims or notions by them. He writes, “I do not accept any interpretation of scriptural passages that portrays God as being partial, unforgiving, hateful, or revengeful. It is more important to uphold the character and will of God than it is to support every line of scripture.” In that spirit, it seems to me we must not accept any interpretation or scripture, or any statement by a Church leader or teaching in a Church meeting or Church school class that denies or diminishes the clear, central doctrine that all are alike…
“We may soon expect to see flocking to [Nauvoo] . . . Persons of all languages, and of every tongue, and of every color; who shall with us worship the lord of hosts in his holy temple, and offer up their orisons in his sanctuary.”
“Let us begin with what we do know, based on the documented history of the Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith advocated the ban, but did not prevent brother Elijah Abel from being ordained an elder and a seventy in Kirtland, in 1836. I should add that Brother Abel served three full-time missions for the Church. Something more that we do know for sure is that on June 4, 1879, President John Taylor ratified the priesthood ban based largely on the testimony of brothers Zebedee Coltrin and Abraham Smoot. On August 18, 1900, President Lorenzo Snow stated that he wasn’t sure whether the existing explanations for the ban had been personal opinions or actual revelations. This is very significant. Here we have one president of the Church saying that he didn’t…
