Of late I've been looking into some of the more controversial topics related to the church. It always amazes me (though it shouldn't) that each time I do so, there is less to see than I expected and the answer is more simple than I thought it would be.
A perfect example of this is the question of blacks and the priesthood (or lack of priesthood). I've heard many "explanations" of why the priesthood was withheld during the modern era until Official Declaration 2 was released in 1978. They run the gamut from blacks being the children of Cain (and thus cursed by his actions) to the lineage of the sons of Noah (Ham being the father of African nations, and cursed by his seeing Noah's pee-pee). There are those that believed (or parroted) that those spirits were not fully on-board with God's plan in the pre-mortal state, or were somehow less eager to follow the plan of God. All of the explanations I've heard are more than a bit of a stretch, with some small sprinkling of scriptural support for each. I can vaguely remember the release, but I was only seven at the time. It was a big deal at church, I recall that much. I remember Mom telling me at the time that it was a very happy thing that people had prayed to have come about. Anyway, of the many explanations given for why it was withheld previously, none of them felt authentic, even to my younger and less scripturally inclined self. That is to say, while they might have made some fashion of sense in their logical presentation, each left more questions than answers, each had holes logically, and none was backed up by the proper feeling of reinforcement from the spirit that I expected. I'm not exactly the first to have these misgivings (excerpt from http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_LDS_Church_and_the_Race_Issue.html):
"Indeed, it was apparent to many of us even four decades ago that certain scriptural passages used to explain the denial of priesthood to black members could not legitimately be so interpreted without an a priori narrative. Such a narrative was gradually constructed by the searching and inventive minds of early LDS apologists. With allusions to the books of Genesis, Moses, and Abraham, the scenario went something like this : In the pre-existence, certain of the spirits were set aside, in God's wisdom, to come to Earth through a lineage that was cursed and marked, first by Cain's fratricide and obeisance to Satan, and then again later by Ham's lèse majesté against his father Noah. We aren't exactly sure why this lineage was set apart in the pre-existence, but it was probably for reasons that do not reflect well on the premortal valiancy of the partakers of that lineage. Since the beginning, the holy priesthood has been withheld from all who have had any trace of that lineage, and so it shall be until all the rest of Adam's descendants have received the priesthood, or, for all practical purposes, throughout the mortal existence of humankind."
For some reason that particular topic has been on my mind of late. I've been reading a lot in 1-2 Nephi, and probably got tripped that way from the passages regarding the marks and cursings. So I've done some research. One of the better treatments of the subject I've found is here: http://www.blacklds.org/Perkins
In my personal study, I've come to the conclusion that there is no scriptural basis for withholding the priesthood from blacks. There were multiple black folk which were ordained in the early days of the church, and their ordination did not appear to become an issue until questions of Utah's statehood and the influx of Southern states converts to the Utah territory. As the political climate changed and the church was populated more heavily with those having a stake in the slave trade, things changed in the church as well as for Utah.
I don't wish to draw a lot of conclusions from my study yet; too easy to be wrong in inferring too much from the little I know. I have two conclusions at this point. First, that we, as a church, are taken from the greater population. As such, our biases and prejudices are influenced by the world at large that surrounds us. We are usually most influenced by those in our own country, more heavily by those in our state, even more heavily by those of our community and circle of friends. I know that the views of church members in The Netherlands regarding some topics were influenced by their form of government, for example. They did not pursue independent activity (owning businesses, fending for self, attitudes toward welfare programs and high taxation) in the same way that US based members do. They still live the gospel to its fullest, and yet there's a slightly different flavor to life, even in the church."In the Church we spend a lot of time "likening the scriptures unto ourselves," to use Nephi's phrase (1 Nephi 19:23). This approach has the advantage of making the teachings of the scriptures and early Church leaders apply to us, so they become agents of change in our lives, rather than just artifacts to be studied in a detached way.
The disadvantage of this approach, though, is that it can build the perception that past prophets were "just like us" — having all the same assumptions, traditions, and beliefs. But this is not the case at all. Prophets in all dispensations have been "men of their times," who were raised with certain beliefs and interacted all their lives with others who shared those beliefs.
For example, the Old Testament peoples believed the earth was a flat expanse, with the sky a solid dome made out of a shiny, brass-like substance. But this was the way everyone understood things at that time, so we don't begrudge Isaiah and Ezekiel of speaking of the "four corners of the earth" (Isaiah 11:12; Ezekiel 7:2), or Job for thinking the sky was a mirror (Job 37:18), or the Psalmist for thinking the earth stood still while the sun went around it (Psalms 93:1; Psalms 19:4-6)." (From http://en.fairmormon.org/index.php?title=Racist_statements_by_Church_leaders)
In much the same way, history prior to the 1970s in this country had blacks relegated to anything but a full standing member of society. Mostly they were treated as property, as opposed to human at all. The standing of blacks in our country gradually improved over time from it's founding to the present day. There are still struggles made and freedoms gained even in this present day. It comes as no surprise (though to some disappointment) that we would be a simple cross section of the society in which we live.
The second is simply a restatement of earlier: I can't find scriptural evidence of why it should have been withheld, though I can find evidence of why it never should have been withheld. Nephi speaks continually and repeatedly of the gospel covenants being for all people. He does so in his own self-professed plain language. Paul, in writing to Philemon, encourages Onesimus (a slave) to be set free...not just treated well, but to exceed all expectation that Paul has in embracing this slave as a brother in the gospel in full fellowship, as though Onesimus were Paul himself (Philemon 1:17, 20-21). Paul knew what he asked of Philemon was a hard thing. Philemon was a convert, and a slave owner. To free Onesimus was to open a HUGE can of worms with the other slaves, and slave trade was an enormous market. That is a parallel we can draw to our recent history, regardless of what skin color Onesimus happened to have.
Finally, I'm glad that change the change has come. I'm grateful to understand it better, even if there is not an answer for all things. One of the things Jacob teaches in chapter 5, the allegory of the tame olive tree, is that the bad will not be removed out of us all at once, but rather that as we bring forth good and grow stronger in doing so, the bad will be removed from us. As such, it is time to have this false teaching swept away (verse 65).
From http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_LDS_Church_and_the_Race_Issue.html:
"Much of the conventional "explanation" for the priesthood restriction was simply borrowed from the racist heritage of nineteenth-century Europe and America, especially from the slavery justifications of the antebellum South. Understandable--even forgivable--as such a resort might have been for our LDS ancestors, it is neither understandable nor forgivable in the twenty-first century. It is an unnecessary burden of misplaced apologetics that has been imposed by our history upon the universal and global aspirations of the Church. Until we dispense with it once and for all, it will continue to encumber the efforts of today's Church leaders and public affairs spokespersons to convince the world, and especially the black people of America, that the Church is for all God's children, "black and white, bond and free, male and female."
