Black Pete, as he was known, was born in 1775 in western Pennsylvania.  (Staker speculates that his last name may have been Carroll, but it is unclear.)  Pete’s owner John Kerr stipulated that Pete would be freed 10 years after Kerr’s death, so Pete was freed at the age of 29.  Pete continued to work for the Kerrs, as well as the Carrel family.  The two families later moved to Ohio (near Kirtland), and Pete moved with them.  About 1820, Black Pete associated with Sidney Rigdon and the Reformed Baptist movement.

It is believed that Black Pete’s mother Kino came from the Slave Coast of Africa, which includes the modern day countries of Guinea, Mali, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Liberia, The Gambia, and Guinea-Bissau.  Staker says she was probably a Muslim, and probably was brought to America in the 1750s-1760s time frame.  Pete was immersed  in many of these ecstatic religious experiences of the time.

Slaves in America developed their own kind of religious worship by combining elements of Muslim worship, Christianity, and Native American influences.  Slaves often practiced ecstatic religious expressions such as speaking in tongues and dancing, and other expressions, sometimes known as the “slave shout.”  Many of these practices became part of the Second Great Awakening in America and were adopted by white communities as well, including Methodist and later Mormon religious services.

In late October 1830, Joseph Smith received a revelation that Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, Parley Pratt, and Ziba Peterson were to go on a mission.  They met Sidney Rigdon in Mentor, Ohio; Rigdon initially was quite unreceptive to the missionaries message.  The missionaries continued on to Kirtland, and found that they were much more successful there.  One of the first converts in Kirtland was the Morley family, and this led to many other baptisms in Kirtland.  Rigdon came to the Morley farm to perform a wedding on November 4, and was a bit more receptive to the missionaries.  On November 8, Sidney and his wife Phoebe were baptized, and Sidney abandoned his role as a minister for the Baptist Church.

The missionaries soon headed south to Cincinnati, leaving the early church members with no real leadership. Staker discusses how Black Pete was one of the citizens that filled the vacuum on pages 64-65.

Black Pete had lived on the Whitney property during their communal experiment and may have continued to do so for a time.  He became a central figure in the new religious community by early December.  The typical pattern for slaves’ conversion to various Christian congregations was through “a radical encounter with spiritual beings” as they sought divine manifestations from the spiritual world.⁸⁵ It seems probable that Black Pete, as a “revelator” in the new religious community, would have built on the ecstatic religious world he knew well.  Because he left no written records, his beliefs and role in the movement can be glimpsed only through the eyes of others as his involvement intensified that winter.

Short lists of those who were ordained and commissioned to preach after their baptism never included Black Pete.  However, the men who wrote about their baptisms note they were also ordained and commissioned as part of their conversion process, and many of the early converts were not included in lists of commissioned preachers, leaving Black Pete’s authority to preach and baptize uncertain.  As part of Kirtland’s ecstatic religious experiences, a number of the men received “letters” that fell from heaven which were copied onto paper before the original letter disappeared.  Black Pete was among those who received one of these letters, his delivered by a black angel.  Because the letters were apparently divine commissions to travel the countryside and preaching and baptizing and because Black Pete was among those who went about the country preaching, it is likely he also performed baptisms during January of 1831.  Careful studies of the relationship between black members and priesthood ordination confirm that some early black members were ordained to the priesthood well after Black Pete’s conversion.⁸⁶ Although the beginning date for a priesthood ban on black members is not firmly established, it is clear that during Black Pete’s period of involvement in early Latter-day Saint history, there were no priesthood restrictions on black members.  Black Pete may well have acted in his role as Book of Mormon preacher in an authorized capacity.  Nevertheless, the newly founded religious movement in Ohio quickly looked to Black Pete for direction; and as this small Church of Christ spread, it seemed to take on a life of its own.

Following his conversion to Mormonism, Staker notes that Pete went with some missionaries (probably Levi Hancock, Edson Fuller, and Heman Bassett) to the shores of Lake Erie in Astabula County.  On February 5, 1831, the Ashtabula Journal “identified Black Pete as a leader in this new religion, suggesting that the group of young men recognized him as their chief source of influence.”  The footnote references “The Golden Bible or the Book of Mormon,” Ashtabula Journal, 3, no. 10 (February 5, 1831):  Levi Hancock in later years became a close friend of black Latter-day Saint Elijah Abel and took special note of blacks in his writings.

In chapter 8, Staker describes many examples of ecstatic religious experiences in the “Mormonite” community in Kirtland.  Of course, may members and non-members were uneasy about the practices.  Sidney Rigdon and Edward Partridge went to New York to meet Joseph Smith, arriving in January 1831.  Joseph quickly sent John Whitmer to preside over the branch.  The missionaries returned in March 1831 and the practices were perceived as “unusual.”  Whitmer wrote years later that (quoting from page 94) ‘a false spirit misled members and that “the devil blinded the eyes of some good and honest disciples.”‘⁶ Staker notes that “Whitmer was apparently unable to resolve concerns about enthusiasm”.

Joseph soon left New York and arrived in Kirtland in February.  Church members looked to him for direction.  Staker notes on page 103,

Black Pete and his associates were forbidden to preach and baptize on the basis of letters from heaven: “It shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church” (D&C 42:11).

It is known that Joseph Smith was aware of Black Pete.  On page 105, Staker writes,

Some of these accounts of Morley family meetings subtly expressed discomfort that a black man would be in a familiar relationship with white women.  ”White women would chase him [Black Pete] about,” recalled Reuben Harmon.¹⁰ The interest apparently went both ways as Lovina Williams, Frederick G. Williams’s youngest daughter, became the object of Black Pete’s affections.  She turned fourteen a month before the missionaries arrived from New York.  According to W. R. Hine, “Black Pete claimed to receive a revelation to marry her.”  Hine also recalled that D. P. Hurlbut “before he left the Mormons” likewise “courted Dr. Williams’ beautiful daughter, and told her he had a revelation to marry her; she told him when she received a revelation they would be married.  Everybody about Kirtland believed he had left the Mormons because she refused him.”¹¹ Henry Carroll claimed that Black Pete sought a revelation from Joseph Smith after his arrival in Kirtland “and wanted to marry a white woman.  Jo Smith said he could get no revelations for him to.  Pete claimed he [Black Pete] did.”¹² Three years later, Lovina married Burr Riggs, one of Black Pete’s close associates, on November 19, 1834.

Concerning Black Pete, Staker concludes with this on page 188:

Black Pete’s presence in the Mormonite community raised numerous other questions about gifts of the Spirit and discerning the things of God that provided a revelatory response.  These revelations continue to provide spiritual insight and answer additional questions within the Latter-day Saint tradition today.  After modern revelation had completely transformed the Morley family in Kirtland, Black Pete disappeared from the community sometime between 1831 and 1834.  On March 3, 1837 Joseph Smith, Sr., father of the Prophet, ordained a former slave, Elijah Abel, an elder.⁶⁹  Abel continued to play a role in the community for the rest of the centure and was probably its best-known black Latter-day Saint.  Other black Latter-day Saints also contributed to the early development of the Restoration.  However, it seems that none of them had as much influence on the early development of the movement as Black Pete.

I am amazed at the large role Staker puts on Black Pete.  How about you?  Were you aware that the first black Mormon was baptized within the first 7 months of the founding of the church? Do you think Staker presents evidence that Pete held the priesthood?

Douglas A. Wallace, a Mormon High Priest and Vancouver, Washington, attorney was one such individual.  In April 1976, Wallace, acting on his own, ordained a black man, Larry Lester, to the Mormon priesthood.  While Wallace conceeded that he was “stepping outside the bounds of the church” in his action, he said that he hoped that it would “force the issue” of black priesthood denial before the Mormon General Conference meeting in Salt Lake City the following week.⁴⁰ At the conference Wallace tried to confront Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball with his complaints.  However, Wallace and his two companions were swiftly ejected from the Tabernacle.⁴¹ A few days later, Wallace was excommunicated from the church for “open and deliberate disobedience of the rules and regulations of the church in violation of the outlines of the church.”⁴² As for the ordination of Larry Lester, it was declared null and void by church officials in Salt Lake City.⁴³ That did not stop Wallace’s actions against the church.   Immediately following his excommunication, Wallace sought a rehearing on his ouster, and in October he tried once more to bring the black issue before Mormon General Conference.  Wallace’s latter action was deferred by a court order prohibiting him from attending Mormon church conferences.  Undaunted, Wallace then filed a counterclaim against the church asking for $200,000 in damages.⁴⁴ In April 1977, Wallace made a third attempt to appear at the Mormon General Conference in order to protest Mormon antiblack practices. Against, attorneys for the church obtained a temporary restraining order.⁴⁵ Wallace promised further protests and legal actions against the Mormon church.⁴⁶

Another militant Mormon dissident who directly confronted the church on the Mormon-black issue was Byron Marchant, a Latter-day Saint Boy Scout leader.  Marchant was the scoutmaster of the Mormon Boy Scout troop that was the focal point of the 1974 NAACP controversy over the eligibility of blacks for leadership positions in Mormon-sponsored troops.  Even though this issue was settled, Marchant continued to express his opposition to the general practice of Mormon priesthood denial.  Marchant did this by casting a dissenting vote against sustaining Spencer W. Kimball as church president during the Mormon General Conference in October 1977.  A few days later Marchant was excommunicated from the church for his conference behavior and open opposition to Mormon racial practices.⁴⁷ Despite his excommunication, Marchant staged another protest on Temple Square during the Mormon General Conference in April 1978.  Even though Marchant was arrested for trespassing on church property, he filed a civil suit against Spencer W. Kimball and promised to organize and stage a protest march on Temple Square during the next Mormon General Conference in October 1978.⁴⁸

I doubt these protests held a lot of sway with the leaders, but the timing of this last protest is interesting.  On June 8, 1978, the priesthood ban was officially lifted with what is now Official Declaration 2 in the Doctrine and Covenants.

There were practical problems in administering the ban.  Bringhurst notes on page 188,

In Hawaii, it was disclosed in 1932 that a man of African descent had been ordained to the priesthood and had, in fact, “presided for some time over a branch of the church until it was discovered he was a Negro instead of a dark-skinned Hawaiian.”⁶⁴ Four years later, Hawaii was again the scene of a similar problem. Two Mormon priesthood holders were found to be “one-eighth negro.”  This situation was further complicated because the two individuals had performed “some baptisms and other ordinances.”  They were apparently told to stop exercising their priesthood authority.  Apostle George Albert Smith was then sent to Hawaii to determine the number of people involved in the ordinances performed by these black priesthood holders and the action to be taken.⁶⁵ In 1947, the president of the New Zealand mission noted a similar problem where in “an instance or two…men with a trace of Negro blood were ordained to the priesthood.”  He asked church leaders what should be done about these individuals and whether a person with “colored blood in his veins may received the Priesthood.”  The New Zealand mission president was told that no one “known to have Negro blood in his veins…should be ordained to the priesthood.”  Also those Mormons of African descent mistakenly ordained were “instructed not to attempt to use the Prieshood in any other ordinations.”⁶⁶ A year later, another facet of the Mormon-black issue in the South Pacific came up in conjunction with the problem of “deciding who was to be admitted” into the Hawaiian temple from that region’s “melting pot population.”

The church had avoided actively teaching black people.  In 1946, a Nigerian man by the name of O.J. Umordak somehow discovered the church and asked for missionaries.  The church delayed action until 1959 when it sent some missionary tracts and a representative to Nigeria.  In 1963, the church decided to set up a mission there.  However, the Nigerian government learned about race restrictions and denied visas to the missionaries for the next 3 years.  Then civil war broke out in Nigeria, ending the missionary effort.  From page 190,

“Some five thousand [Nigerian people] applied for baptism” into Mormonism according to Apostle Hugh B. Brown.⁷⁴

Church missionary efforts in Brazil were very complicated.  From pages 190-191,

a 1947 Church First Presidency investigation which found “the races…badly mixed” because “no color line is drawn among the mass of people”  It concluded that “a great part of the population of Brazil is colored.”⁷⁶ Later this same year J. Reuben Clark, a member of the Church First Presidency, referred again to the Brazilian situation, noting that “it is very difficult if not impossible to tell who has negro blood and who has not.”  He admitted, “if we are baptizing Brazilians, we are almost cdertainly baptizing people of negro blood, and that if the Priesthood is conferred upon them, which no doubt it is, we are facing a very serious problem.”⁷⁷

…

The Brazilian situation took on added significance during the mid-1970s, when the church unveiled plans to build a new temple in Sao Paulo, Brazil.  The expected completion of the Brazilian Temple in the fall of 1978 brought to head the “major problem” and “often impossible” task of determining which Brazilian “Church members have black ancestry” and which do not.⁷⁹

It was certainly a combination of events that led to the momentous event.  Bringhurst notes that Joseph Freeman, Jr was the first black member to officially receive the priesthood following the 1978 revelation.  Comments?

Warner “William” McCary was NOT half-Native American, although he claimed to be Choctaw. His mother was an African American slave and his father was her white master, a carpenter born in Pennsylvania. McCary made up his Native American heritage and traveled around the country putting on shows as an “Indian”, claiming to be the lost son of Moshullah Tubbee, a great Choctaw chief. It was a scam to make money.

I found some more detailed information about William McCary from the book Saints, Slaves, and Blacks by Newell Bringhurst.  Following the Mormon exodus from Nauvoo in 1847, the saints traveled to Winter Quarters, Nebraska to start their journey to the west.  It is at this point in history that (from pages 84-86),

McCary had arrived in the Mormon Camp sometime during that bleak winter of 1846-1847.  At first, Brigham Young and other Church leaders welcomed or at least accepted McCary into their midst.  McCary, an accomplished musician, entertained the encamped Saints during the months of February and March 1847.²

However, by late March 1847, McCary fell from Mormon favor.  Young and others were apparently upset with McCary for using his powers as a musician and ventriloquist to claim supernatural powers of transmigration, that is, the ability to assume the “identity” of certain Old and New Testament peoples.  At a “meeting of the twelve and others” McCary exhibited “himself in Indian costume” and purported “to be Adam, the ancient of days.”  He “claimed to have an odd rib which he had discovered in his wife.”³ Then McCary “Showed his body to the company to see if he had a rib gone.”  At this same meeting, McCary also tried to pass himself off as the ancient Apostle Thomas.  He did this by throwing his voice and announcing that “God spoke unto him and called him Thomas.”⁴ Young and other church leaders were not impressed.  The expelled McCary from Winter Quarters, and Apostle Orson Hyde preached a sermon “against his doctrine.”⁵

Undaunted, McCary remained in or returned to the area around Winter Quarters and proceeded to set up his own rival Mormon group; drawing followers away from Brigham Young.⁶ Accordint to a July 1847 account, the the “negro prophet” exerted his influence by working “with a rod, like those of old.”⁷ By the fall of 1847, McCary’s religious practices took a new turn when the black Indian taught his own form of plural marriage of polygamy.⁸ McCary’s ritual involved a number of women,

seald to him in his way which was as follows, he had a house in which this ordinance was preformed his wife…was in the room at the time of the proformance no others was admitted the form of sealing was for the women to go to bed with him in the daytime as I am informed 3 diforant times by which they seald to the fullist extent.

These activities angered Brigham Young and his followers, particularly the relatives of McCary’s female disciples.  One irate Mormon threatened “to shoot” McCary for trying “to kiss his girls.”  But McCary, aware of the ruckus caused by the disclosure of his unorthodox practices, “made his way to Missouri on a fast trot.”⁹

The storm caused by William McCary, however had consequences far beyond the black Indian and his small following.  In the wake of McCary’s activities at least two Mormon leaders were willing to affirm that blacks could not hold the priesthood.  The earliest-known statement came from Apostle Parley P. Pratt in the spring of 1847.  Pratt maintained the “McCary had ‘got the blood of Ham in him which linege [sic] was cursed as regards [to] the priesthood.’”¹⁰  Brigham Young alluded to this same position during the fall of 1847 when he suggested that blacks in general were ineligible to participate in certain sacred temple ordinances.¹¹

It might be tempting to trace the priesthood ban to this particular episode.  Certainly it played a part, but Bringhurst argues on page 86,

black priesthood denial did not emerge simply as the result of William McCary’s bizarre activities.  A number of factors, complex and interrelated, caused Mormon leaders to deny blacks the priesthood.

The rest of the book discusses these complex factors.  I have to say this is an amazing book.  What do you make of William McCary?

The church has also tried to reach out to black community leaders.  Following the 1992 LA riots (after the Rodney King verdict), Mauss notes on page 89,

A few leading Mormons in the immediate vicinity and nearby launched a campaign to bring relief to the south-central inner city.  The effort went forward under the auspices and initiative especially of the presidents in the Palos Verdes and the Los Angeles stakes.  While much of the city was still smoldering, a series of Mormon car and truck caravans began delivering food and other supplies to the First AME and Mount Zion churches from Mormon congregations in neighboring stakes.  The campaign went on for several days, including a Sunday when some of the LDS congregations even canceled their usual meetings in order to collect and distribute supplies.

The AME pastor, the Reverend Cecil Murray, had heard little about Mormons except their traditional racial doctrines; but he was apparently so gratified that he gave a public pronouncement encouraging people in the vicinity to talk with the local Mormon missionaries, who had theretofore been largely ignored or even threatened.  This episode established an ongoing religious and social relationship between the First AME Church and the local LDS stakes that was still active at least a decade later, when a Latter-day Saint apostle was invited on behalf of the LDS Church president, this congregation’s Lovejoy Award, in recognition of the outreach efforts by local Mormons during recent years.

Murray and other local black leaders apparently also intervened with Tom Bradley, then the black mayor of Los Angeles, to get his help in ending a six-year delay in the issuance of a building permit for a  Mormon stake center in the area.  The construction of the new stake center, in turn, pumped twelve million dollars worth of jobs and goods into the economy of South Central.  Local Mormon leaders believe that the goodwill of black religious leaders such as Murray has also been responsible for protecting the new stake center against vandalism and for opening doors to Mormon missionaries.  During Black History Month in February 2002, that same stake center served as a site of a large conference on genealogical research for black Americans, sponsored jointly by the LDS Church, the African American Heritage Society, and the California African American Genealogical Society.

Mauss highlights other noteworthy projects.  The church helped assemble electronic records of the Freedman Bank, (from page 93), “a Reconstruction-era institution that had gone defunct in 1874 but had left behind the banking records of thousands of freed slaves.”  This project was well-received by the black community, though there was a testy moment at a news conference.  Mauss notes on page 93,

one of the reporters in attendance asked whether this project and the attendant publicity were offered as part of a church gesture of conciliation to the nation’s black people in light of traditional racist doctrines.  The church public relations official in charge bridled at the question and offered a rather abrupt response.  Fortunately for the Public Affairs Department, a skilled church authority was present from the Seventy and intervened with a much less defensive and more appreciative response to the reporter.⁴⁴

Mauss discusses how the church attempts to handle different different situations regarding race.  From page 103,

the church has tried in various ways to emphasize the positive and beneficial effects of its program in the lives of black people.  Where this objective can be achieved without reminding anyone of earlier priesthood policies (e.g., in various outreach efforts through genealogy or humanitarian efforts in Africa), the church as an institution has sought to be identified as closely as possible with such efforts.  On the other hand, wherever the embarrassing past is likely to be suggested in any celebration or commemoration, the church has generally preferred to see that these events take place under direction less closely connected to the church hierarchy.  Tacit support has nevertheless often been given by sending a church official as an observer or speaker, but not to conduct the event.

The church has often been seen as a white church, and it can be hard for blacks to fit in.  On page 84, Mauss notes,

A major drive during the early 1980s by the Mormon mission in North Carolina brought in some nine hundred black converts, but a few years later only a hundred remained active in the church.¹³ The president of the California mission in Oakland during 1983-1985 gave special proselyting attention to the large black population in that area, and his missionaries succeeded in baptizing nine-three new black members, constituting 5 percent of all the converts in the mission during that period.¹⁴ … This level of growth and enthusiasm did not not long survive the normal change of mission presidents, but several black families went on to gain some prominence in local Mormon congregations.15 … Temporary surges in missionary success with black Americans elsewhere have often been reported anecdotally.

Mauss has interviewed many black church members, and has pulled information from the Oral History Program of the Charles Redd Center for Western Studies at BYU.  While these samples can’t be considered “random samples” where large conclusions can be drawn, Mauss notes several reasons why blacks don’t stay active in the church on page 86, (formatting changed)

• These reasons included (in no particular order) discomfort over class and cultural differences with white Mormons in most congregations;
• feelings of being treated categorically as blacks instead of as individuals;
• exaggerated attention as “novelties” of some kind in their treatment by whites;
• continuing undercurrents of racism in such LDS popular beliefs as the curse of Cain;
• white resistance to intermarriage or even to interracial dating;
• and in general a level of white acceptance that was considered civil but not warm.

At the same time, the black interviewees recognized that these difficulties were the kinds that tended to occur between blacks and whites in America generally, not just in LDS Congregations.

…

One black couple in Riverside, California, reported that their children had dropped out of the church because of teasing by their white peers about their supposed descent from Cain.²³

Some irritants came out of sheer insensitivity, such as the occasion reported by Marva Collins when her ward Relief Society sisters decided to raise funds through a “slave auction,” in which members would perform household tasks for the highest bidders.  The women were totally oblivious to the impact of such an idea on their only black member.²⁴

… [page 87]

While these accounts of life in the church for new black converts contained much that was reassuring and inspirational, the recurring problems with white ignorance and insensitivity were also readily apparent, even among those still active in the church.  Indeed, the president of the Genesis Group was quoted in an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune as saying that the single most important reason for the attrition of black members was the attitude of some white members.²⁵ Whatever the number of those offended enough to drop out, their departure would be understandable and presumably a source of great concern to church leaders from the top down.  So far, however, this official concern has focused less on challenging the racist residue among white Mormons than on maintaining public relations outside the church.

Many blacks are aware of the priesthood ban.  Mauss summarizes some studies done by sociologist about this issue.  From pages 98-99,

How does a black member of the LDS Church negotiate an identity that manages the cognitive dissonance between an ethnic or racial definition that he or she can’t escape and a demeaning religious tradition that he or she was once encouraged to accept in the process of conversion?  As we might expect, this negotiation yields different resolutions for different black Mormons.⁵⁸

…

Fortunately this task was undertaken by two sociologists, O. Kendall White Jr. and Daryl White.⁵⁹ They studied the Embry-Cherry interview transcripts and abstracted five different modes of identity negotiation that emerged in those interviews, as the black Mormon respondents articulated the relationship between their racial and religious identities…  The five different modes seemed to arrange themselves along a conceptual continuum.  At one end of the continuum were respondents who gave precedence to their newly found Mormon identity over their racial one, and at the other end were those who did the opposite.  In between were different combinations of racial and religious explanations for the identities that black Mormons embraced in their relationship to God and to the church.

(formatting changed)

1. The first type of identity resolution embraced the truth-claims of Mormonism while recognizing the traditional racial ideology that seemed to go with it.  The erstwhile denial of the priesthood for blacks was explained as a lack of historic or even moral readiness on the parts of blacks themselves and their supposed ancestors back to Cain or Ham rather than as any error in the church.  This mode was especially common among black Mormons who had joined the church in earlier years, while the priesthood restriction was still in force.
2. The second type of identity resolution also gave precedence to the Mormon religious identity, while explaining the traditional racial ideas and policies as simply a great quandary, one which all would understand some time in the hereafter but that should not be allowed in the meanwhile to keep anyone from the true faith.
3. The third mode called for relegating all racial issues in the church to the past.  Whether the traditional teachings had a divine or human origin was no longer relevant, and nothing was to be gained by hashing it over.  The main thing these black Mormons wanted to do was to assert their own new identities as members of the true church and look to the future rather than to the past.  Black Mormons assuming this posture, such as the oral history interviewee Marva Collins, were, in effect, validating the public comments of church leaders, especially President Hinckley, about the need to forget the past.⁶⁰

The fourth and fifth modes, while still embracing a Mormon identity, put the responsibility for the traditional racist teachings entirely on the whites.

4.  In the fourth mode, the explanation was that the church had simply allowed human error to influence church policy, because of political compromises (in Missouri or Utah) or because of the need to mollify a few slave-owning converts. Black Mormons taking this position, even if they had joined the church before the priesthood policy change, always looked upon the racist elements in Mormonism as imported from the outside, never part of the true gospel, and certain to be changed eventually.  Interestingly enough, this was the posture taken, in the Embry-Cherry oral histories, by some of the most prominient black Mormons from the pre-1978 period.  These included Ruffin Bridgeforth, founding leader of the Salt Lake City Genesis Group; Catherine M. Stokes, of Chicago; and Cleeretta Smiley, of Washington, D.C.  Smiley candidly characterized the traditional Mormon racial teachings as “damnable heresies.”⁶¹

5.  Finally, the fifth mode reversed the moral positions of whites and blacks with the argument that blacks had been denied the priesthood all those years because God knew that whites were not morally and spiritually ready to accept black members into full fellowship.  This position carried the implication that the blacks had demonstrated superior moral strength through their patience and forgiveness.⁶² In transferring the burden of responsibility for racist teachings and policies to whites, the fourth and fifth modes maintained a positive identity for blacks while still embracing completely the Mormon religion and identity.

There was  very interesting story about a proposal for the church to make a public repudiation of the priesthood ban, and for the church to send a message about folklore associated with the ban.  From pages 90-92,

The news report about the impending repudiation first appears in a Los Angeles Times article on May 18, 1998, and was carried around the world in vaious media.³⁵ However, when confronted by the press at a news conference, President Gordon B. Hinckley denied the report, saying that “the matter…has not been discussed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.”  True though that denial apparently was, the repudiation in question definitely was under discussion at lower organizational levels; and thereby hangs a tale.³⁶

As recounted by Richard and Joan Ostling, the need for such a public repudiation had become apparent to Elder Marlin K. Jensen, a president of the third-ranked body of general authorities, the First Quorum of Seventy, and to some of the staff working under him in the church’s Public Affairs Department.³⁷ The discussions at Jensen’s level, however, had apparently not yet produced any specific proposal for consideration by the Twelve at the time of Hinckley’s comments to the press.  The main issue in question was the racist [page 99] residue remaining in authoritative books written by prominent Mormons leaders of the past.  These books (listed above earlier), some of them considered doctrinal “classics” among grassroots Mormons, had continued in print under church auspices long after the end of the priesthood restriction that had been “solved” in 1978, simply by the change in priesthood policy.

…

The twentieth anniversary of the end of the priesthood restriction seemed an especially propitious time to expect an announcement of such a disavowal.  However, when June 1998 approached with no indication that such a statement would be forthcoming, the black member of the ad hoc committee, who had initiated the process in the first place, became impatient.  In the apparent belief that the process could be accelerated with a little encouragement from the press, he sought and received an interview with a reporter from the Los Angeles Times and explained what had transpired.  The resulting press exposure had just the opposite of the desired effect, as church leaders refused to be prodded in their deliberations.  The whole process was thereby aborted, and the “disavowal” that Hinckley finally issued turned out to be nothing more than a denial that he was considering any such disavowal.³⁹ The rest of the ad hoc committee was chagrined and irritated that one of its own members had leaked the story to the media, and Jensen presumably suffered some embarrassment at the raised eyebrows of some of his superiors.

Mauss finishes a few loose ends of that story, and then ends the chapter with a discussion on how to deal with this idea that the priesthood ban is based on “folklore”.  He discusses why it is so hard to get rid of.  From page 106,

To repudiate any of the cherished religious lore of their immediate ancestors seems to some Mormons, especially the older ones, almost like a repudiation of the grandparents themselves, to say nothing of their teachers, who might have walked with God.

He goes on to discuss the 1978 revelation on page 107,

Thus, when the priesthood restriction policy was dropped in 1978, this change was not portrayed as an actual reversal, since several earlier church leaders had predicted it would happen.  (Of course, several others, including Brigham Young predicted it would never happen.)  Even with the earlier abolition of polygamy, the practice was only “suspended” and could be restored at any time, since the theological basis was left intact.  This myth of continuity has the important function of validating the traditional claim of continuous revelation (which is canonical) and protecting the church against the charge of purely pragmatic and expedient change.

The second cherished organizational myth is related to the first: the myth of history as time-filtered–the organizational equivalent of the old adage that “time heals all wounds”–and similarly dubious ideas.  This myth is typically accompanied by an organizational posture of benign and selective forgetfulness.  Thus, if the church progresses in a continuous, linear path by divine guidance, then contemporary realities and understandings replace those from the past, which will eventually be forgotten.  Obsolete ideas and practices simply don’t count any more, even if they originated as divine revelations.  Where discrepancies appear between the present and the past, there is no point in reminding ourselves about the past.  Especially if an event in the past is embarrassing, then recalling it and dwelling on it, even if only to repudiate it, merely confuses the matter.  Such negative thinking has no place in the Lord’s kingdom.  If harm has resulted from earlier ways of thinking, then everyone involved should forgive everyone else and get on with construction a better future.  Apologies or ringing declarations of disavowal should not be necessary, since few peoples or individuals have histories free of offenses against others, and thus few are in a position to demand apologies.  With time, memories of these offenses will fade automatically, and we will all be better for it.  Meanwhile, if we have not made the requisite changes, let’s not stir up useless and uncomfortable old memories.

Mauss continues on this track, but I’ll stop here.  I thought it might be interesting to conclude with a poll about the ban itself, and I will pull the 5 responses from black members about the ban.  What do you make of the ban?  What do you make of the folklore? What do you think of Elder Jensen?

I don’t believe that LDS scripture allows for a restriction against blacks’ holding the priesthood.  Nor do I think that LDS theology can reasonably maintain that today’s blacks are descendants of Cain or that ancient intermarriage with Canaanites perpetuated any racial curse.  Too many scriptures collide with those ideas for them to be valid.

I found this perspective intriguing and  had to learn more.

LDS people have often believed that marriage to Canaanites (who were believed to be black) excluded one from the priesthood.  Yet Allred notes that intermarriage between blacks and white occurred routinely over centuries.  He notes intermarriage occurred in diverse cultures including Egypt, Portugal and the Greco-Roman world.  He notes a problem with LDS interpretations of scriptures.  From page 40,

Secondly, even though the terms Canaanite and Negro have been used interchangeably in the LDS Church, Canaanites weren’t black and they certainly weren’t African.  Biblically, Canaanites descended from Canaan, the fourth son of Ham.  African blacks are generally believed to be descendants of Cush, the first son of Ham.  This is important because the Canaanites were those who have been referred to as the “cursed” lineage while practically nothing is said about Ham’s other children.  It was Canaan who was cursed by Noah–not specifically Ham and not Ham’s other children.  According to Genesis, Noah cursed Canaan after Ham saw his father naked and drunk and ridiculed his father to his other brothers (Gen. 9:21-25).  Before this time, Ham had been righteous: “And Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed and they were called the sons of God.”  (Moses 8:13).  This scripture appears in the Pearl of Great Price, which also contains this statement:  ”And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Moses 8:27; italics mine).

These verses are particularly important because Mormon folklore contains the common belief that Ham wrongly married a descendant of Cain, bringing a curse upon himself and his descendants.  If such a commandment forbidding marriage into Cain’s lineage existed, how could Ham have contracted such a marriage and still have been considered righteous enough to get passage on the ark?   The answer has always been that Cain’s genes needed to be preserved; but this argument does not address the fact that Ham was righteous and “walked with God” after his marriage–a circumstance that, according to tradition, was impossible.

Although Canaan was not born until after the flood, there is a land of Canaan referred to in Moses 7:7 before the flood.  There is also a land of Cainan.  It is likely that both are variant spellings of the same word and refer to the same land.  This is because the Book of Moses was dictated by Joseph Smith and the two terms are homophones.  The decision to spell the antediluvian land “Canain” was entirely editorial.  Enoch came from the land of Cainan and called it “a land of righteousness unto this day” (Moses 6:42).  In Moses 7:4-8, Enoch sees a vision of the world “for the space of many generations.”  He describes how the people of Canaan (Cainan?) destroy the people of Shum.  After this, we are told the land is cursed with heat and that a blackness comes upon all the children of Canaan–it was not inherited from Cain.¹⁵

Allred continues further with this reasoning, and notes that on page 42,

Why curse Canaan for his father’s actions?….LDS theology affirms that children who repent are not punished for their ancestor’s faults.

He then quotes the 2nd article of faith, and notes some contradictions.  There are some spurious sources that claimed that Joseph Smith said that Cain could not hold the priesthood because he killed Abel.  However, if murder is the disqualifier, then all murderers should be disqualified.

If priesthood was withheld from Africans because their ancestor [Cain] was a murderer, why were King David’s descendants allowed the priesthood, for he too was a murderer?  Why are not white sons of murderers kept from the priesthood?

The Book of Abraham states that a descendant of Canaan discovered the land of Egypt and that all the Egyptians are descended from Canaan:

Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of Canaanites by birth.

From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.  (Abraham 1:21-22)

The problem that is immediately apparent is the fact that Abraham and Joseph each married an Egyptian woman.  One response offered to counter that damaging evidence has been that the Egyptians at the time of these marriages were Semitic Hyksos who had conquered Egypt and so were not really Canaanites.  This explanation contradicts Abraham 1:21-22.  It also contradicts history.  The Hyksos held power in Egypt for a maximum of only one hundred fifty years.  If they were Egyptians during Abraham’s lifetime, it is not possible for them to still have been in power in Joseph’s day.¹⁸

On page 43, Allred notes that Hugh Nibley said that Asenath

“was the daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis and hence of the pure line of Ham; she was also the wife of Joseph and the mother of our own vaunted ancestor Ephraim.”²⁰ Ephraim, son of a Canaanite mother, acquired the birthright by blessing from his grandfather Jacob.  According to LDS theology, the impact of this blessing cannot be underestimated.  The birthright was the right to preside in the priesthood, as will be explained later.

Allred continues to note other discrepancies about Canaanites in the Bible, and notes that Canaanites sometimes married Israelites–the Canaanite harlot Rahab was saved in Jericho, and is an ancestor of Jesus.  (Matt 1:5)  Allred notes that Edomites (Canaanites) were allowed in the the congregation of Israel (Deut. 23:7-8)  Moses also married an Ethiopian woman.  From the Bible, Allred concludes on page 45,

Little doubt remains that intermarriage between Canaanites and Israelites destroyed any chance for a pure, non-Canaanite race among the chosen seed.  One third of the house of Judah is Canaanite with an unknown portion among the other tribes.  What then can we make of the curse pronounced by Noah and of Abraham’s comments about Pharaoh’s lineage could not have the ‘right of the priesthood’? (Abr. 1:27).  It may be that Mormons have simply misunderstood those passages of scripture.

Regarding Abraham 1:27, Allred says it was Abraham that had the right to preside over the priesthood, rather than Pharaoh.  He notes that Joseph and his son Ephraim had the right to preside even though they weren’t of the Tribe of Levi.  From page 45,

even though the priesthood did not remain exclusively with Ephraim, the right to preside did.  Moses presided over Israel even though he was of the tribe of Levi.  Joseph Smith, however, claimed to be the “lawful heir” because he was of the tribe of Ephraim (D&C 86:8-11).  Since this authority was passed from father to only one son, when Noah gave it to Shem, Ham could not be the heir.  Ham and Japheth, together with their descendants, did not have the right to administer the priesthood because it was given to Shem.  Esau lost the right to Jacob.  Reuben lost the right to Joseph.  Manasseh lost that right when Jacob conferred it to Ephraim.  Each man who lost the birthright did not lose the right to be ordained to the priesthood; [page 46] rather, he lost the right to preside as the presiding high priest in a patriarchal order.  The scripture does not saw that Pharaoh could not hold the priesthood; it says that he could not have the “right to the priesthood” (Abr. 1:27)  This right had been given to Shem, who in turn gave it to his successor in the patriarchal office.

Years after the right of the priesthood had been passed to Abraham, the Pharaohs were feigning claim to it from Noah.  They did not merely claim priesthood; they claimed the right to preside over the priesthood.  Pharaoh, the son of Egyptus, established a patriarchal government in Egpyt; but he was of the lineage by which he could not have the “right of the priesthood” or “the right of the firstborn,” whic belonged to Shem and his posterity.  In response to Pharaoh’s claims, Abraham states, “But the records of the fathers, even the patriarchs, concerning the right of the priesthood, the Lord my God preserved in mine own hands: (Abr. 1:31; italics mine).  In other words, Abraham retained the right to preside over the priesthood.

So what do you think of Allred’s arguments?  Is there any scriptural basis in support of the priesthood ban?

On page 4, the two authors note that the church has “obscured and/or misrepresented in official church publications.”  For example, shortly after the revelation was announced in 1978, the June 17 issue of the Church News did not acknowledge that

Joseph Smith had allowed for the ordination of blacks as founder and leader of the LDS Church; and second, that Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith, initiated a practice of denying blacks the priesthood.

The church is finally starting to acknowledge some of these facts.  On page 29, Bringhurst noted that Apostle M Russell Ballard attended the dedication of a monument to Elijah Abel on Sept 28, 2002.  Ballard remarked that Abel was

“one of the few black members to receive the priesthood in the early Church.”  In stating that “black members were not allowed to hold the priesthood from 1852 to 1978,” Ballard conceded, “We don’t know all the reasons why the Lord does what he does….It’s difficult to know why all things happen.”⁷¹

In Chapter 1 of the book, Bringhurst explains the changing scholarship between 1945 to present concerning the priesthood ban.  Fawn Brodie in her 1945 book No Man Knows My History put forth the “Missouri Thesis” as an explanation for the priesthood ban.  In a nutshell, she said that conflicts between slave-supporting Missourians and anti-slavery Mormons erupted into problems.  The Mormons, in order to accommodate Missouri sensibilities, acquiesced on the issue and became more pro-slave.  Brodie noted that the Book of Abraham upheld that descendants of Ham should be servants of all, and that blacks should be denied the priesthood.

At first, other scholars supported the Missouri Thesis.  In the 1950s and 1960s, several authors supported the Missouri Thesis, with Stephen Taggart’s 1970 article being the most influential (called Mormonism’s Negro Policy: Social and Historical Origins.)  He noted WW Phelps 1833 article called “Free People of Color” caused non-Mormons to accuse Latter-day Saints  of “tampering with our slaves” which could “instigate them to bloodshed.”  In an “Extra”, Phelps responded that the article was “misunderstood”, but non-Mormons soon destroyed the Mormon printing press.  Taggart called this incident “the first hint of the emergence of the practice of excluding Negroes from the priesthood.”  Taggart said that the Extra “illustrates the process by which social stress was the instrumental factor in causing the Missouri Mormons to abandon their northern attitudes in favor of an anti-negro posture.”⁹ Taggart did note that some blacks tried to be baptized in 1835 or 1836 but there was a lack of “general consensus or Church-wide policy covering the subject [or black priesthood ordination] as late as 1838″, but there was no theological justification for denying the priesthood to blacks at this early period.  Bringhurst notes on page 17 that

“With the publication of the Book of Abraham [in 1842] all elements for the Church’s policy of denying the priesthood were present,” Taggart wrote, although he conceded that the “ordination of Negroes continued within the Church as late as 1841.”²⁰

In 1970, Lester Bush disputed some of Taggart’s claims.  Also from page 17,

Bush concedes that Taggart’s study “appear[s] more comprehensive than previous treatments, and…cites some uncommon, though seemingly very relevant references.”  Thus it gave the “impression that a very good case is being made.”  But despite its “generally accurate and well-documented rehearsal of the Jackson County period,” Bush found that it was marred “by an increasing incidence of speculative statements and secondary sources, and a sprinkling of factual errors….Most disturbingly…a number of relevant points [were] omitted from” Taggart’s treatments of “Mormon history and doctrine and the general setting in which they arose.”²³

Bush challenged Taggart’s undocumented assertion “that the early Mormons, were, in fact, abolitionists.”  Bush also questioned Taggart’s effort to place the origins of the Mormon black priesthood denial in the 1830s and found unconvincing the 1879 testimonies of Coltrin and Smoot.

…

[page 18] Bush questioned Taggart’s assertion that Joseph Smith intended the Book of Abraham as a “theological justification” for black priesthood denial.  Bush pointed to Taggart’s own admission that the Book of Abraham was “vague and cannot by itself be said to justify denying the priesthood to Negroes.”  Bush also noted the “lack of evidence that Joseph Smith ever used the book of Abraham to justify priesthood denial (nor apparently did any other Church leader, until the Utah period.)”²⁵ In fact, according to Bush,the earliest or “first known documentation of the policy of priesthood denial” came in 1849, five years after Joseph Smith’s death.  “There remains no period source to support the contention that Joseph Smith was the author of [Mormon black priesthood denial].”  Bush conceded that “Joseph Smith did express the then-prevalent opinion that Negroes were descendants of Canaan and Cain; yet he did not relate this to the priesthood in any account now available.”²⁶

So, we have a difference of opinion as to whether the Missouri Thesis was a correct interpretation for the implementation of the Priesthood ban.  Since the 1970′s most scholars have questioned the Missouri Thesis, including Ronald K Esplin, Michael Quinn, and Armaund Mauss to name a few.  Bringhurst sums up the scholarship to present on page 28,

In conclusion, what is the significance of all of these varied scholarly examinations?  It is evident that both Fawn M. Brodie and Stephen L. Taggart overstated their cases relative to the Mormon Missouri experience.    What about the contradictory, sometimes conflicting findings of John L. Brooker, D. Michael Quinn, Armaund L. Mauss, Robert Ben Madison, Rex E. Cooper, Klaus Hansen, and Lester Bush?  What do they tell us about the LDS presence in Missouri relative to evolving Mormon attitudes on race and the place of blacks?

In a sense, one is left with more questions than answers.  But what is clear is that the Mormon sojourn in Missouri left a mixed legacy–both negative and positive.  On the negative side, the Mormon presence in Missouri caused Joseph Smith and other church spokesmen to express tolerance for black slavery, which was most evident in the church’s official 1835 statement in which the Latter-day Saints pledged not to “interfere with bond-servants” or “influence them to become dissatisfied with their situations.”  This statement was eventually incorporated as section 134:12 in the Doctrine and Covenants and thus accepted as Mormon church canon.

…

[page 29] In contrast on the positive size is the fact that Mormon black priesthood denial did not emerge during the 1830s, despite the negative developments outlined above, all of which occurred as the Latter-Day Saints struggled to establish their Missouri Zion.  Thus, the central tenet of the Missouri thesis lacks historical credibility.  In fact, the practice of Mormon black priesthood denial was not implemented until 1847, three years after the death of Joseph Smith.  Moreover, at least two African American Latter-day Saints received their priesthood ordinations during the Mormon prophet’s lifetime–the most noteworthy being Elijah Abel.

While there were certainly problems in Missouri, how much of an impact on the priesthood ban were these problems?

The curse of Ham has been invoked as a reason why blacks were somehow unworthy to hold the priesthood.  Genesis 9:20-27 discusses a really odd incident between Noah and his son Ham.  In a nutshell, apparently Noah is drunk and naked in his tent.

And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his brethren without.  And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father;  and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness.

And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.  And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.  And he said, Blessed be the Lord god of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.”

I don’t know about you, but I really find this passage vague.  What exactly did Ham do to Noah?  I don’t know, but it is apparent that Noah is upset.  Noah is the drunk guy here, and that seems to me to be the real source of wrong in the story–not some vague thing that Ham happened to see his dad naked–unless there is more to the story–apparently there is more to the story.  Martins discusses an apocryphal tale on pages 12-13.

One of the traditions based on version of the above account found in apocryphal Judeo-Christian texts⁷[footnote reads, "For details on these traditions and how popular they were among Protestant clergy in the early 1800s, see Goldenberg, The Curse of Ham, and Stephen R. Haynes, Noah's Curse] states that Noah possessed a special item of clothing that had been handed down by his ancestors since Adam.  Some argue that this clothing had been given by God to Adam in the Garden of Eden, and that it still carried “the smell of paradise.”  Some traditions also state that this garment conferred upon whoever wore it supernatural powers (priesthood).

The texts claim that Canaan (or Ham in some sources) stole Noah’s garment and claimed to have Noah’s power.  When Noah came to himself and learned what had happened, he punished either Ham or Canaan for the attempted priestly coup d’etat with a “curse” by which they would have no claim on the priesthood but would be subjected to (be a “servant”) the leadership of Shem and Japheth.

The story is largely unknown to the general public, but knowledge of it seems to have been reasonably widespread among the clergy.  Because centuries-old traditions claim that Black Africans are the descendants of Ham and Canaan, for centuries this apocryphal story was used among traditional Christian denominations as an endorsement of slavery.  What the early Latter-day Saint leaders did was to make public a piece of information that until then had been disseminated only in the most restricted ecclesiastical circles.

I was hoping that he’d go into more detail, but instead he starts talking about our premortal life, the war in heaven, and debunks any claims that blacks were “fence-sitters” there.  I would have preferred that he kept with this apocryphal story.  Marcus tries to discuss why the ban wasn’t addressed sooner, and I found his classification of church presidents interesting.  From page 42, (I have changed formatting)

• “The main focus of the administration of President John Taylor (1877-87) may be said to have been defending the Church against unrelenting federal persecution as a response to polygamy.
• Later, the administration of President Wilford Woodruff (1887-98) deals primarily with the social, economic, and political adaptations needed to obtain statehood for Utah.
• The short-lived administration of President Lorenzo Snow (1898-1901) focused on avoiding financial bankruptcy.
• President Joseph F. Smith’s tenure (1901-18) dealt with restoring the Church’s financial stability, building a friendlier relationship with the federal government, and later dealing with challenges brought by World War I.
• President Heber J. Grant’s administration (1918-45) focused on the excess of the so-called ‘Roaring Twenties,” then the social turmoil caused by the Great Depression, and finally on the challenges of members of the Church on both sides of World War II.

All these issues affected the entire membership of the Church, whereas the priesthood ban affected only what appers to be, in the absence of precise statistics, a small percentage of membership of that era.

While I applaud Martins’ desire not to point blame, it seems to me that the “small percentage” could have been larger if the church had actively proselyted blacks.  For some reason, Martins skips the George Albert Smith (1945-55), David O. McKay (1955-1970), Joseph Fielding Smith (1970-72), Harold B. Lee (1972-73) administrations.  While I understand Joseph and Harold were very short in duration, it seems to me that McKay was the president that really made the church a worldwide institution.  But Martins says that it was under President Kimball that the church became worldwide.  I’m not sure that I agree with that with McKay building temples in New Zealand, and expanding missions in Europe and South American like never before.  Prince outlines that McKay even called a mission president to Nigeria, though a civil war brought that mission to a premature close.  Anyway, let me continue quoting from page 43,

Only during President Spencer W. Kimball’s administration (1973-85) did the Church began to position itself as a truly worldwide institution.  It was only at that point in the history of the Church that the priesthood ban moved up in the scale of priorities and became an issue that affected not only a large number of members but also the very identity of the Church, then beginning to be recognized as a truly worldwide religion.

Well, I don’t think he read Prince’s book, so I disagree with his characterization.  (I plan to write a series of posts on the McKay biography, but I wanted to get a few other posts in before then.  McKay’s biography by Greg Prince in 2005 pre-dates Martins book in 2007.)  Anyway, I wanted to discuss how Martins characterized the 1978 revelation.  Bishop Rick commented that the 1978 revelation “was not the product of revelation” and he characterized it as a vote.  Martins seems to disagree with that point of view.  From page 52,

we have modern witnesses of a powerful revelation confirming the universal scope of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and the broad reach of its promised blessings.  Some of the Brethren who were present when the Lord manifested his will in 1978 have laft their solemn testimonies to the world.  Elder McConkie said the following:

“[When] President Kimball finished his prayer, the Lord gave a revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost….On this occasion…the Lord…poured out the Holy Ghost in a miraculous manner, beyond anything any then present had ever experienced…

“The revelation came to the President of the Church; it also came to each individual present.  There were ten members of the Council of Twelve and three in the First Presidency there assembled.”²⁶ [McConkie, "All are Alike unto God," 152-55]

Contrary to expectations, it was not just President Kimball receiving the revelation and asking his councilors and the Twelve Apostles to concur.  All thirteen prophets, seers, and revelators present in that meeting received the same revelation.  All of the then-living prophets, seers, and revelators, with the exception of two–Elder Mark E. Peterson, who was traveling abroad, and Elder Delbert Stapley who was gravely ill at the hospital–received the same revelation at the same time.  Elder David B. Haight in a general conference address in 1996 testified of that experience:

“I was in the temple when President Spencer W. Kimball received the revelation regarding the priesthood.  I was the junior member of the Quorum of the Twelve….I was there with the outpouring of the Spirit in that room so strong that none of us could speak afterwards.  We just left quietly to go back to the office.  No none could say anything because of the powerful outpouring of the heavenly spiritual experience.” [Haight, "This Work is True," Ensign, May 1996, 23.]

President Gordon B. Hinckley expressed in similar words his own testimony of that miraculous event:

“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.  the Spirit of God was there.  And by the power of the Holy Ghost there came to the prophet an assurance that the thing for which he prayed was right, that the time had come, and that now the wondrous blessings of the priesthood should be extended to worthy men everywhere, regardless of lineage.

“Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing.  No voice audible to our physical ears was heard.  But the voice of the Spirit whispered with certainty into our minds and our very souls.  No one of us who was present was ever quite the same after that.  Nor has the Church been quite the same.”28 [Hinckley, "Fireside Marks 159 Years Since Priesthood was Resored," Ensign, August 1988, 75-76.]

While we don’t know why there was a priesthood ban, we do know that the ban ended when the Lord himself gave a powerful revelation to his living prophets.  I believe the testimony of those men.  They were prophets of God.  So whatever the reason for the ban, it remains with the Lord himself.

So, what do you think of the Curse of Ham, the 1978 revelation, and Martins portrayal of events?

Following her presentation, I asked her if she would share her PowerPoint presentation, which she graciously did.  I have intended to post this much sooner, but have had a backlog of posts on Mormon Schismatic groups (see my Introduction, and details about Fundamentalist Mormons, the Bickertonites,  the Strangites) and the David O McKay Biography (first and second posts), to go along with the Mormon Matters implosion.  I’m finally getting around to Jack’s presentation.  (Better late than never, right?)  If you’d like a copy of her PowerPoint slides, she has made them available on this link to her website.

In her presentation, she said that “female priesthood” is a somewhat anachronistic term, but it is clear that women participated in ordinances that we would consider priesthood ordinances.  She noted that in the New Testament period and onward, there is evidence for

• Women as apostles, bishops, elders, priests and deacons
• Women performing baptisms and administering the Eucharist

She references several types of evidence to support this position

• New Testament data
• Canonical commentary
• Early Christian texts
• Inscriptions on monuments
• Artistic depictions of women
• Polemical evidence (church fathers condemning the already existing practice of ordaining women.)

She references Romans 16:7, which references Andronicus and Junia.  Some translators changed the name Junia (female) to Junis (male.)  Clearly Junia was an apostle.  Early Christian Father John Chrysostum (who lived from 347-405 AD) is quoted as saying,

Greet Andronicus and Junia…who are among the apostles’:  To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles—just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtuous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.” (In ep. ad Romanos 31.2)

Jack refers to female Deacons in Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Tim 3:8-11.

“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.”

“Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not indulging in much wine, not greedy for money;  they must hold fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them first be tested; then, if they prove themselves blameless, let them serve as deacons. Women likewise must be serious, not slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things.”

Ancient Church Father Origen (185-253) also discussed Phoebe.

“’I commend to you Phoebe . . .’ This passage teaches by apostolic authority that women also are appointed in the ministry of the church, in which office Phoebe was placed at the church that is in Cenchreae. Paul with great praise and commendation even enumerates her splendid deeds . . . And therefore this passage teaches two things equally and is to be interpreted, as we have said, to mean that women are to be considered ministers in the church, and that such ought to be received into the ministry who have assisted many; they have earned the right through their good deeds to receive apostolic praise.” (Commentary on Romans 10.17)

John Chrysostum discussed 1 Tim 3:11,

“’Likewise women must be modest, not slanderers, sober, faithful in everything.’ Some say that he is talking about women in general. But that cannot be. Why would he want to insert in the middle of what he is saying something about women? But rather, he is speaking of those women who hold the rank of deacon. ‘Deacons should be husbands of one wife.’ This is also appropriate for women deacons, for it is necessary, good, and right, most especially in the church.” (Homily 11)

Theodoret of Cyrrus (lived 393-460 AD) said,

“’In the same way, women’ that is, the deacons, ‘are to be serious, not irresponsible talkers, sober, faithful in everything.’ What he directed for the men, he did similarly for the women. Just as he told the male deacons to be serious, he said the same for the women. As he commanded the men not to be two-faced, so he commanded the women not to talk irresponsibly. And as he commanded the men not to drink much wine, so he ordered the women should be temperate.” (Commentary on 1 Timothy)

Jack refers other women mentioned in the New Testament.  The following are definite or probable church house leaders.

1. Lydia (Acts 16:14-15; 40),
2. Nympha (Col. 4:15),
3. Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11),
4. Stephanas (1 Cor. 16:15-16),
5. Priscilla (Rom. 16:3-5),
6. and possibly the “elect lady” and her “chosen sister” in 2 John.
7. Euodia & Synteche are mentioned in Philippians 4:2-3.  Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350 – 428) read this as a struggle between the two women for leadership.

Some may wonder if a deaconess is simply the wife of a deacon.  However, Jack says that wives of male deacons were generally not given the title of “deaconess”.  She says that descriptions of their function don’t start appearing until the late second and early third centuries.  She also shows a painting possibly depicting women administering the Eucharist (LDS refer to this as the Sacrament.)  Archaeologists are split as to whether this truly represents the Sacrament.

In the 5^th century, Testamentum Domini 2:20 states that if pregnant women could not attend church on Sunday, deaconesses could take the Eucharist to their home.  She also notes that in 511 AD, 3 Gallic bishops were chastised for allowing women to assist with the Eucharist.  This obviously indicates that women were involved in the practice.  Canonical Resolutions 24 (6^th century) states that deaconesses could distribute the Eucharist to their female companions who lived in convents in Edessa.

Jack describes the practice of baptisms by women.  Acts of Paul and Thecla (2^nd century) depicts Thecla performing a self-baptism similar to the story of Alma in Mosiah 18:13-14.  She also notes that early church Father Justinian said it was acceptable for women to baptize as long as they met certain requirements.  In several texts as early as the first half of the third century, female deacons are described as assisting with baptisms and anointing the bodies of the female converts with oil before or after baptism.  In others, it is the women themselves performing the baptisms.

However, such things weren’t popular with everyone.  For example, Tertullian (c. 160 – 220) railed against women performing baptisms (On Baptism 17.4).  Jack gives several examples where baptisms performed by women were criticized.  Church councils in the 5^th and 6^th centuries condemned the practice, and as infant baptism became the norm, fewer adult female converts needed to be baptized, so the practice appears to have died out.

As far as female elders, Jack says there is less evidence; (there is more evidence in the Western Church than Eastern Church.)  She has noted 15 inscriptions referring to the feminine form of “elder”.  Jack says “Since the wives of elders were sometimes called by the term, we can’t be certain that every reference to a female presbyter is meant to denote an ecclesiastical office. However, usually when that was the case, the husband was titled and mentioned along with her.”  Jack showed several inscriptions referring to female elders.  For example, Guilia Runa is noted to have been “presbiterissa”, suggesting that she was a recognized leader of the Church of Saint Augustine in Hippo around the 5^th century AD.  Leta of Tropea, Calabria is noted as “The Presbyter”, but her husband is not honored as an elder.  There are other examples.

Jack mentions that Episcopa Theodora, was the mother of Pope Paschal I.  A painting of her is found in the Church of St. Praxedis, AD 820.  Her husband is mentioned in other texts and is not a bishop.  It appears that vandals tried to scratch off the “a” in “episcopa” in an attempt to obscure her gender.  Other inscriptions include:

1. “Here lies the venerable woman, bishop Q (uenerabilis fem[ina] episcopa Q), buried in peace for five [years] . . . +Olybrio.”  It is a damaged inscription at St. Paul’s Basilican Cemetary in Rome, 4^th-6^th century
2. Canon 20 of the Council of Tours (6^th century) mentions an “episcopa Terni”
3. A 5^th century fragmentary inscription is dedicated to a priestess in Solin. A cross on the inscription indicates that it was a Christian priestess, not a pagan one.

I have previously mentioned a heretical group called the Montanists.  Briefly, Montanus lived in the 2^nd Century AD in Turkey, and was an early Christian leader that traveled with 2 prophetesses.  Jack quoted Epiphanius of Salamis (310-403) describing the Montanists: “They consider Quintilla together with Priscilla as founder, the same as Cataphrygians. They bring with them many useless testimonies, attributing special grace to Eve because she first ate of the tree of knowledge. They acknowledge the sister of Moses as a prophetess as support for their practice of appointing women to the clergy. Also, they say, Philip had four daughters who prophesied. Often in their assembly seven virgins dressed in white enter carrying lamps, having come in to prophesy to ecstasy;”

So, there does appear to be ample evidence for female priesthood in the ancient Christian Church.  I would love to hear more from Jack on why female priesthood is considered “anachronistic”, because I don’t fully understand what she means.  But I absolutely loved her presentation, and I loved how she ended her presentation.

• Option 1 – We can Reject or Dismiss this information.  We can say things such as:

-        “We don’t care if apostate Christian groups were ordaining women”

• Option 2 – We could offer a polemic attack against Joseph Smith.

-        We can look at this data and say, “Look what Joseph Smith neglected to restore.”

• Option 3 – We can accept this information.

-        Yes, women did hold a priesthood in ancient times.

-        The 9^th Article of Faith allows that God still has things to reveal; gives Latter-day Saints room to be accepting of this data

Since Jack went to BYU, she is quite familiar with the Mormon concept of an apostasy.  She said, “I think it shows very well how the idea that women had the priesthood and it was taken away can fit into a Mormon apostasy narrative.”

In a letter from Atto, Bishop of Vercelli, wrote to a priest named Ambrose in the 10th century:

“Because your prudence has moved you to inquire how we should understand “female priest” (presbyteram) or “female deacon” (diaconam) in the canons: it seems to me that in the primitive church, according to the word of the Lord, “the harvest was great and the laborers few”; religious women (religiosae mulieres) used also to be ordained as caretakers (cultrices ordinabantur) in the holy church, as Blessed Paul shows in the Letter to the Romans, when he says, “I commend to you my sister Phoebe, who is in the ministry of the church at Cenchrea.” Here it is understood that not only men but also women presided over the churches (sed etiam feminae praeerat ecclesiis) because of their great usefulness. For women, long accustomed to the rites of the pagan and instructed also in philosophical teachings, were, for these reasons, converted more easily and taught more liberally in the worship of religion. This the eleventh canon of the Council of Laodicea prohibits when it says it is not fitting for those women who are called female presbyters (presbyterae) or presiders (praesidentes) to be ordained in the churches. We believe female deacons truly to have been ministers of such things. For we say that a minister is a deacon (diaconum) from which we perceive female deacon (diaconam) to have been derived. Finally, we read in the fifteenth canon of the Council of Chalcedon that a female deacon is not to be ordained before her fortieth year—and this was the highest gravity. We believe women were enjoined to the office of baptizing so that the bodies of other women might be handled by them without any deeply felt sense of shame…as as those who were called female presbyters (presbyterae) assumed the office of preaching, leading, and teaching, so female deacons had taken up the office of ministry and of baptizing, a custom that is no longer expedient.”

Personally, I’ve studied a bit about women and the priesthood, and I have a post planned that will show that Mormon women washed, anointed, and blessed the sick by the laying on of hands right up until 1946.  I agree with Jack that women’s loss of the priesthood fits very well with the Apostasy.  Of the options she mentioned above, I like Option 3 best.

She let me know of a couple of other links you might find interesting.

• Elder Joanna by Kevin Barney @ By Common Consent, June 16, 2007
• Ordained Women in the Early Church: Book Review by Mogget @ Faith-Promoting Rumor, March 17, 2006

So, what do you make of Jack’s presentation?

Martins joined the LDS church in 1972 with his wife Ruda and son Marcus. Grover describes in detail race relations in Brazil. From page 36,

“This racial climate is a positive factor in the functioning and success of Brazilians of African descent. It does not eliminate issues of race, but it places them in a difference context. Elder Martins is an example of how a person of color can succeed in this type of social system.”

Martins grew up very poor. Grover says on page 37,

“He liked school and had a firm commitment to education, so he was unhappy when, after the sixth grade, knowing that his parent needed help, he left school to begin earning money to help them. At age twelve, he found only low-paying jobs: picking oranges or digging ditches. It was a step up to become a courier at a law office.”

Grover says that Martin never regretted helping his family; instead it furthered his resolve to get an education. His greatest help ended up being his future wife, Ruda. She worked as a secretary in a law office, and encouraged his to continue to pursue his education. Ironically, Ruda’s family was his first exposure to racism. From page 38,

Ruda’s family were fair-skinned mulattos and were concerned about their daughter marrying someone darker. A common belief in the Afro-Brazilian community was that marrying someone darker would “weaken” their racial lineage. “They had feelings against those who were darker and were actually more intolerant because they were not white but yet did not want to marry someone who was darker,” Helvecio explained. “They felt that it would be better if their children married either mulattos or whites but never someone darker than they.

Ruda and Helvecio continued to study and date, and eventually Helvecio became a favorite of his mother in law. After they married, both continued to work; Helvecio finished a bachelor’s degree in accounting at night, and went on to take finance and business administration graduate classes, as well as a teaching certificate. He earned a job at the government owned oil company, Petrobas, and taught night finance and business administration classes at the State University of Rio de Janeiro. He moved up the corporate ladder very quickly at Petrobas.

Helvicio grew up with the Catholic faith, but adopted his wife’s religion of Macumba, “an Afro-Brazilian religion that included, among other beliefs, spirit possession and the worship of African gods.” Page 40 continues,

Thus, even as Martins became one of few blacks in a job environment and social circle that included Brazil’s president and was almost exclusively white, he and Ruda participated in one of the most distinct black cultural groups in the country—one that appealed primarily to poor and black Brazilians.

In 1972, he and Ruda felt the need to look for another religion. Missionaries arrived at this opportune time, and they were baptized on June 2, 1972. Their baptism created conflict with Ruda’s family, but Helvecio’s sister eventually joined the church as well. From pages 41-42,

Helvecio’s and Ruda’s acceptance of the priesthood restrictions was, surprisingly not difficult. In fact, it had been the first question they had asked the missionaries; and Helvecio, although he could not later remember the exact words, recalled that “it was very clear and precise and sounded so right that it didn’t bother me at all. At that time I accepted it as being the will and desire of the Lord” (28) In fact, they were somewhat annoyed that it became an issue that other members of the Church frequently brought up. In the beginning their complete acceptance of the restrictions and continued activity in the Church created some questions and even mild antagonism toward them from members who were struggling to understand the restrictions themselves. Many expected the family to leave the Church soon and were surprised when they remained active…

However, they then went from being a novelty in the Church to notoriety, attracting attention that they did not desire. In fairness to their ecclesiastical leaders, the Martinses were unique. There were other faithful black members, but most were poor. Helvecio probably had the highest social position and prestige of any Brazilian member, white or black. Few members had any political or economic influence, while Martins was on a first-name basis with the president of Brazil. He met often with cabinet members and other government officials or groups about the priesthood ban. They also gave interviews to the press who were curious about the restrictions and about the Martinses’ acceptance of those limitations.

Helvecio spoke in stake conference shortly after his baptism and was introduced to all the General Authorities who visited Rio de Janeiro, including several apostles. His visibility was so extensive that his colleagues at work started referring to him as a “Mormon bishop.”

None of Helvecio’s reaction was artificial or compensatory. “I didn’t feel bad, I felt very good,” he states with the utmost sincerity. “I felt supported and blessed. Logically I realized there were many things I could have done and many ways I could have served that [were] not possible because I didn’t hold the priesthood. But I didn’t feel any less or inferior or rejected or relegated to a second-class citizen. Everybody supported me, everybody helped and assisted me, and I felt that things were even a bit easy for me.” (38)

Grover discusses Martins advantages growing up in Brazil. From page 43,

He did not see the priesthood restrictions as aimed at him personally but rather to a group of which he was part. That is an important psychological factor that meant he did not take the restrictions personally. Second, because he lived in Brazil, he did not have access to much of the literature in the United States giving various unofficial “reasons” that could have created confusion and conflict. This lack of information probably helped eliminate many potential concerns, and he could reconcile himself to the restrictions with what he knew.¹⁵

Third, the restrictions did not significantly affect his participation in the Church. Some Afro-Brazilians in Brazil report being baptized and then forgotten; but Helvecio’s leaders recognized and respected his status and experience outside of the Church. Within a week, both were immediately called to positions that did not require priesthood. Helvecio became teacher of the Gospel Doctrine class, while Ruda served as a counselor in the ward Primary presidency. Such callings quickly integrated them into the fabric of their ward and stake, giving them considerable interaction with the other members.

Finally, he was in a Brazilian congregation that did not exhibit the forms of racism that might have existed elsewhere, even in Brazil. Most in the congregation probably did not attach much significance to the racial restrictions except as an American practice that came with the gospel but was not essentially Brazilian. Most Brazilians dealt with the restrictions by ignoring them as much as possible.

Martins served in many positions, including Public Relations Director, stake executive secretary, and counselor in two stake presidencies, bishop, and mission president (twice). At the end of this second stint as mission president, he was called to the Second Quorum of Seventy in 1990. From page 47,

After a year in Brazil, he suffered a serious accident in June 1991. He fell in the shower and needed surgery on his neck to correct the effects of a fall in the shower and needed surgery on his neck to correct the effects of the fall and an earlier injury from a car crash in 1969. That surgery affected his ability to move, and he struggled to maintain his health. He continued to work hard through suffering chronic back pain. In October 1995 at age sixty-five, he was released after five years as a Seventy.”

Grover notes that Martins is “remembered only sparingly in connection to the black issue.” From page 48,

Although I think that knowing Elder Martins would greatly enhance anyone’s life, this comparative anonymity would actually please him. The last thing he wanted to be known as a symbol of his race. He stated firmly to me: “Soon after my call, some poorly informed people ironically tried to identify me as the Brazilian General Authority, or a representative of the black race to the Lord. This idea is a mistake. I was not called by the Lord to represent any people, nationality, ethnic group, race, or any part of society or group of His children. I was called as a representative of the Lord to his people, just as those who preceded me, those at my side now, and those in higher Quorums than the idea of one I now am a member….Consequently I formally reject the idea of representing any group; that is not what I am.” (76).

Finally, I enjoyed what Grover wrote about race issues. From page 51,

Much has been written about Mormonism and race issues in the United States with minimal reference to South America or the Caribbean. Brazil has by far the largest number of members of the Church (hundreds of thousands) who are black. A high percentage of some congregations are of African descent.³⁴

Numerous black bishops and stake presidents are serving and have served. Research that discusses race in the Church but which does not examine what is happening in Brazil, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Columbia, or other areas of Latin America, let alone Africa, will not be accurate. Focusing only on African Americans seriously distorts the overall picture of blacks in the church.³⁵

So, do you agree that we have a distorted view of blacks in the church?

The discovery of the relationship by Emma probably dates to the summer or fall of 1835.  Bradley recounted several people who have tried to pin down the date, and noted problems with each date.  Some authors have discussed an “embarrassing” incident of polygamy in August 1835.   Joseph left for Pontiac, Michigan possibly to avoid embarrassment for his role.  On Oct 14, 1835, Joseph describes “dealing with household issues”, possibly a reference to evict Fanny.  However, Mark Ashurst-Mcgee suggests this incident refers not to Fanny, but a problem with employees at the printing office.

Fanny left Kirtland in August or Sept 1836, so the incident must have occurred prior to that.  Bradley notes that dissenters condemned Joseph on July 24, and Joseph left for Salem, Massachusetts for a treasure trip the next day on July 25.  Bradley believes Joseph sent Fanny to Missouri at the same time.  William McLellin gave his famous quote about having “no confidence” in church leadership around this time as well.  Fanny soon married non-member Solomon Custer after just a 6 week courtship.  Bradley believes it may have been a cover of legitimacy if Fanny was indeed pregnant.

Following Bridget Jack Meyer’s wonderful presentation on Women priesthood holders in early Christianity earlier in the week, I thought Joshua Gillon’s presentation called “Mormon Women Had the Priesthood in 1843: Examining the Claims” might be interesting.  I was greatly disappointed.  Josh is a PhD candidate of philosophy at Princeton, having completed a BA at BYU.  His talk was nothing more than a rant against the church.  He mis-characterized Michael Quinn’s discussion of women and the priesthood.  He employed tedious grammar exercises to make his points, and finished off with an F-bomb to end his presentation.  It was definitely the worst presentation I have ever heard at Sunstone, though there was another terrible one later in the day.

I wasn’t very excited to go the the panel called “Glenn Beck: Likely Mormon or Unlikely Mormon”, but there wasn’t anything else that sounded interesting at that time.  As I reviewed the list of panelists, I was looking forward to hearing Joanna Brooks of Mormon Matters, and David King Landrith of Mormon Mentality.  (I had met him earlier in the week.) Kathryn Hemingway, Eric Samuelson, and Robert Rees weren’t nearly so interesting as Joanna and David, though they all made good points.  Rees was the moderator and not a fan of Beck.  Landrith and Hemingway were supporters of Beck, while Brooks and Samuelson were not.

I really enjoyed Landrith’s presentation.  Landrith showed that Beck’s rhetoric is very similar to political discourse over the past 200 years.  Early founding fathers often compared each other to monarchists, and spoke about each other more harshly than Beck does of his opponents.  I thought it was an interesting presentation.  Brooks really wasn’t that antagonistic toward Beck.  She basically said we should ignore Beck because his ratings are going down and he knows it.  There is no need to feed into the frenzy–Beck will go away on his own.

Following lunch, I attended a fantastic presentation by Apostle Susan Skoor of the Community of Christ.  She discussed her personal faith journey, showing how she has moved among Fowler’s stages of faith.  Her talk was titled “Faith in the Midst of the Difficulties of Life.”  Baptized at age 8 into the RLDS church, she discussed losing her testimony in her 30s, nearly falling into atheism.  Receiving a blessing, and asked “Do you want to believe?”, as Alma says, she let this desire work in her.  She discussed her new found faith as a stage 5 person, and said she knew she was too selfish to reach stage 6.  As I listened to her story, I marveled at how open she was about her life’s journey.  I don’t think an LDS apostle would admit to losing faith as she did, and I don’t think an LDS apostle would discuss spirituality in such as “secular” way as she discussed Fowlers Faith Stage theory.  I was truly moved.

Clair Barrus discussed “Oliver Cowdery’s Rod of Nature.”  It was a bit too technical for me, but I know others enjoyed it.  Finally, I listened to a panel discuss “Men and the Priesthood: Taking on the Feminine.”  Tom Kimball discussed being an unorthodox Mormon.  His previous bishop did not want to let him baptize or ordain his children.  As the bishop got to know Tom better, he decided to allow it.  Tom has previously discussed his story on Mormon Stories.  Tom’s new bishop has taken a more hard line approach, and Tom’s boys have not progressed in the priesthood.  Tom compared his situation to the idea that women can’t ordain daughters in the LDS church as well.

Robin Linkart, President of the 6th Quorum of Seventy for the Community of Christ spoke next.  She gave an excellent presentation and discussed the new revelation in 1984 allowing women to hold the priesthood.  Many in the RLDS church broke off (they lost nearly 1/4 of their membership.)  She discussed the challenges the RLDS church went through, and her personal journey in the priesthood.  It was excellent.

Holly Welker spoke next.  She gave a rant that the priesthood should be abolished in the LDS church.  During Tom’s, Lisa’s, and the Q&A session, she made faces of disbelief and disagreement.  Honestly I believe a 5th grader would have better behavior than she exhibited.  She was incredibly rude and unprofessional.  Her behavior was embarrassing.

Lisa Butterworth finished up the panel.  She started the blog at FeministMormonHousewives.  Being a feminist and an unorthodox Mormon, she was asked to speak in support of the idea of an all-male priesthood.  She did the best she could, but it was evident that she didn’t fully support the topic she was asked to address.

Overall, I enjoyed most of the sessions.  If you missed my first post on Sunstone, click here.  I’m not sure why I attended so many feminist presentations, but I guess they sounded the most interesting.  So what is your take on women and the priesthood?  Do you see it happening in the LDS church in the next 20-50 years?  Would you support or oppose such a move if the prophet received a revelation allowing women to hold the priesthood?