Edward Kimball Article on 1978 Revelation

[Just_A_Guy]

In the past I've cited to this article by Edward Kimball about the 1978 revelation ending the ban on people of African descent being ordained to the priesthood.

The article, which used to be accessible only for a $2 charge, can now be downloaded for free from the publisher's website. I highly recommend it.

[HiJolly]

Here's another vote. Wonderful article!!

HiJolly

[Tyler90AZ]

1.That is interesting that it was about lineage rather then color of skin.

2. My heart ached when it said blacks were asked to give up their priesthood.

3. Any worthy African-american that was or is in the church will receive a higher reward in eternity then me(white), God is just. I don't think I would be able to withstand this trial.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Originally Posted by Tyler90AZ

1.That is interesting that it was about lineage rather then color of skin.

Just throwing this question out there ... Does the phrase "seed of" as spoken by Brigham young in "“Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane [sic] in him Cannot hold the priesthood & if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it.” have to refer to lineage?

Why is Edward Kimball so sure that the Brigham Young reference is to "ancestry" and not to worthiness? "Thus Brigham Young consistently attributed priesthood denial to a man’s ancestry, not to color, appearance, or premortal delinquency, and he held that any Negroid ancestry, however remote, tainted and disqualified a man for priesthood."

In other uses of the word "seed", as with the seed of Abraham, it is in the obedience that one receives the title or not. Even if a person is the literal seed of Abraham, the promises don't apply unless the person is obedient. So, in that light, why could it not be that Brigham Young is referring to the "seed of Cane" as a "seed" of disobedience and rebellion regardless of race? Maybe those who heard it were applying their own interpretation of race to that phrase. Obviously, if a person has a drop of Cain's blood in them then they also have a drop of Adam's blood, unless the "drop of blood" refers to the love of evil and not the literal ancestry. Even Cain's curse himself is because of the love of evil not because of ancestry.

An additional question is what does mortal lineage have to do with anything as far as rights and privileges anyways? That is something that I have never really understood. As a daughter or son of God, literally, why does it matter who my mortal parents or mortal parents parents etc. were anyways? Yes, I understand how it was viewed in the past under the preparatory laws of Moses. But with the higher law of Christ, the new testament, I don't see any reason to use mortal lineage at all. I don't see where mortal lineage plays a role within the new testament.

[Tyler90AZ]

Originally Posted by Seminarysnoozer

Just throwing this question out there ... Does the phrase "seed of" as spoken by Brigham young in "“Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane [sic] in him Cannot hold the priesthood & if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it.” have to refer to lineage?

Why is Edward Kimball so sure that the Brigham Young reference is to "ancestry" and not to worthiness? "Thus Brigham Young consistently attributed priesthood denial to a man’s ancestry, not to color, appearance, or premortal delinquency, and he held that any Negroid ancestry, however remote, tainted and disqualified a man for priesthood."

In other uses of the word "seed", as with the seed of Abraham, it is in the obedience that one receives the title or not. Even if a person is the literal seed of Abraham, the promises don't apply unless the person is obedient. So, in that light, why could it not be that Brigham Young is referring to the "seed of Cane" as a "seed" of disobedience and rebellion regardless of race? Maybe those who heard it were applying their own interpretation of race to that phrase. Obviously, if a person has a drop of Cain's blood in them then they also have a drop of Adam's blood, unless the "drop of blood" refers to the love of evil and not the literal ancestry. Even Cain's curse himself is because of the love of evil not because of ancestry.

An additional question is what does mortal lineage have to do with anything as far as rights and privileges anyways? That is something that I have never really understood. As a daughter or son of God, literally, why does it matter who my mortal parents or mortal parents parents etc. were anyways? Yes, I understand how it was viewed in the past under the preparatory laws of Moses. But with the higher law of Christ, the new testament, I don't see any reason to use mortal lineage at all. I don't see where mortal lineage plays a role within the new testament.

To me it is clear that Brigham Young was referring to ancestry and not disobedience in general. I would be willing to accept it was about disobedience if it was not just a certain ancestry that was denied the Priesthood. Yes, they were denied the Priesthood because of Cains disobedience, not just because of disobedience in general. If the "seed of cane" refers to anybody who is disobedient it would have been some white, Latino and black people that were denied the Priesthood.

As far as mortal lineage playing a role, I have read and heard from Prophets that if we are righteous our posterity will be blessed. It is essentially covenants made to our forefathers that need to be kept, God keeps his covenants. Off course most of the covenants made depend upon personal worthiness of the posterity. It is also interesting to think about lineage, knowing what we know about genetics.

Correct me where I am wrong please...

[annewandering]

Very good article. It has so much information! I have read most of the points before but this is and excellent compilation of the records of how the revelation came about.
It does not say its about lineage by the way. It was supposed that was the reason by some people. We are still in the position, as the church has stated very recently, of not knowing why then or why it was changed. All are guesses and surmises.

[Magen_Avot]

Originally Posted by Tyler90AZ

Yes, they were denied the Priesthood because of Cains disobedience, not just because of disobedience in general.

Correct me where I am wrong please...

I don't know if this will help and I'm no expert, but I've always wondered if Cains seed was preserved through the flood? Likely not through Noah. One of his wives? Didn't Japeth get cursed by Noah?

There was so many non-doctrinal statements made back in the day and so much speculation since.

It would be nice if the truth was available though, but annewandering probably nailed it,... "the church has stated very recently, of not knowing why then or why it was changed".

[annewandering]

Tyler the information is in that link on the OP's beginning post. You do have to read most of it to get the whole picture.

[Tyler90AZ]

Originally Posted by Tyler90AZ

To me it is clear that Brigham Young was referring to ancestry and not disobedience in general. I would be willing to accept it was about disobedience if it was not just a certain ancestry that was denied the Priesthood. Yes, they were denied the Priesthood because of Cains disobedience, not just because of disobedience in general. If the "seed of cane" refers to anybody who is disobedient it would have been some white, Latino and black people that were denied the Priesthood.

As far as mortal lineage playing a role, I have read and heard from Prophets that if we are righteous our posterity will be blessed. It is essentially covenants made to our forefathers that need to be kept, God keeps his covenants. Off course most of the covenants made depend upon personal worthiness of the posterity. It is also interesting to think about lineage, knowing what we know about genetics.

Correct me where I am wrong please...

The real reason, in my mind, for the banning of blacks on the Priesthood was because members were not ready. If they would have been allowed the Priesthood in Brigham Young's time, how many white members would have left or would the blacks be mistreated. It is important to look at this in the context of the era, racism was rampant. As far as why it lasted so long, it was because the Church Leaders did not want to have it as a mark against the truthfulness of the church. They did not want a situation similar to the polygamy removal, where they did it because they had too. No matter which way anybody looks at it, I think we can all agree black members will receive a special blessing for building up Zion.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Originally Posted by Tyler90AZ

If the "seed of cane" refers to anybody who is disobedient it would have been some white, Latino and black people that were denied the Priesthood.

Off course most of the covenants made depend upon personal worthiness of the posterity. It is also interesting to think about lineage, knowing what we know about genetics.

Correct me where I am wrong please...

The priesthood is denied to "some white, Latino and black people". To whom is not worthy, the priesthood is denied, regardless of genetics.


All of the covenants made depend upon personal worthiness. Lineage is a non-issue. In reality, if we are to ponder this a bit, it is the circumstances a person is born into or adopted into that provide the blessings, not the genetics or the lineage. If a baby is adopted into an LDS family, does that not speak louder than who the biological parents were? Really, lineage - genetics, means nothing.

Well, that is the question ... knowing what we know about genetics, how does that relate to worthiness of any kind?

If anything, in our religion, we believe if a person is born with "bad" genes (for example - trisomy 21) then they are more worthy, they go straight to the Celestial Kingdom. I tend to believe that there is no linear relationship with the body we are born with in this life and the pre-mortal "worthiness" of an individual. The only relationship between what type of temporary body a person gets in this life and their pre-mortal worthiness has to do with what a person was called to do in this life, or not do for that matter, and the associated set up to make that happen.

If a person has gotten straight "A's" throughout the semester, so much that the final exam really doesn't count for much, then the final exam for that person may look a lot different than the final exam for the person who really needs to earn the "A" with the final exam. In other words, the tests in this life and the stewardships we carry in this life are not, as a whole, linearly related to how well we did in the previous life. I think that is a highly judgmental stance to suggest that it is. Each person may have some insight as to how well they did in the pre-mortal world based in personal revelation and the patriarchal blessing etc. but as a whole we don't know, just by looking at someone or their circumstances (who are their parents) how well they did before. Only God knows that. Did Lamen and Lemuel do well in the pre-mortal life? Did Cain do well in the pre-mortal life? Did they get their blessed circumstances at birth from their mortal father or the opportunity was based on their own pre-mortal works? We don't know.