For many years, even in meetings like Gospel Doctrine and Elders Quorum, I have said out loud (sometimes quite emphatically) that the solution to why Blacks were denied the Priesthood is that Brigham Young was a racist.
It seems like a terrible, horrible, no good, and very bad thing to say about someone who is a "Prophet of the Lord"...but it keeps G_d very nice and clean, and puts all the blame for the "Priesthood Ban" on man (where I like to place most blame for the terrible things we do to each other). But, after I declare Brigham is a racist, I launch into my history lesson in which I point out that everyone in that time period (everyone is obviously used loosely, but a very high percentage to be less specific than "everyone") was racist. Heck, as an "American Culture" we bought, owned, and sold other human beings to and from each other. It's a despicable time period in human history that resulted in the Civil War (one of the bloodiest wars ever fought in North America). So, in reality, Brigham Young is a product of his time, and really no more racist than any other American of his time.
While there are certainly those who were "less" racist than Brigham, he wouldn't necessarily stand out as any "worse" for being a Racist than say George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, both of whom owned slaves (and are American "Heroes"). Yes, the "Lion of Zion" was merely as big a Bigot as everyone else who grew up and lived around.
This doesn't "excuse" his actions, but it certainly puts them in a lot more familiar right.
Something really awesome happened today, a new article on the official "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" website popped up addressing this very issue: Race and the Priesthood (PLEASE READ!). It has made official several fiercely held beliefs that I have:
1) There has never been, nor ever will be a "Church Policy" or even a "Doctrine" of Racism and any attempt to "legitimize" it is wrong: "Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."
2) Joseph Smith had no such prejudices and did, in fact, ordain black elders (this is not just hearsay): "During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Abel, also participated in temple ceremonies in Kirtland, Ohio, and was later baptized as proxy for deceased relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. There is no evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime."
3) Perhaps best of all, the Church outright condemns racism in any or all of its forms past, present, and future: "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."
The Church stopped short of outright calling Brigham a racist, as I have done, outright in the article. No big deal, Doctrine & Covenants 58:26 says clearly: "26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is (a)compelled in all things, the same is a (b)slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward." So I have no idea drawing a couple lines between what I have believed for years, and what was put in print by the Church today.
Well, by now, you have to be thinking that this sounds a whole lot like a prideful victory lap for good ol' Brad at this point. If I stopped here, you'd be totally correct. Heck, if I stopped an hour ago, it might just have been that tomorrow at Church. BUT, let us go one step forward and examine the events in light of Peter "denying" the Christ 3 times.
Let's open our New Testament to Luke 22, where we read in verses 60-62:
60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
61 And the (a)Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
62 And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.
Sure, it's easy to throw stones at Peter right. I mean, the guy denied the Son of G_d right in front of Him, after he was warned he would do so, and he vehemently disagreed with the Savior.
How about this? Peter is asked to deny his relationship to Jesus of Nazareth because he is to be the leader of the Church after the crucifixion. He argues with Jesus and tells him: "No way, bub! I'm not letting them take you without a fight!" Jesus insists that he MUST deny him, even 3 times, in order for them to believe it and for Peter to remain safe enough to continue leading the Church. Peter gets through the first two times without too much hardship...but the 3rd one hurt. The rooster crowed and it was too much. It went down just like Jesus said it was going to and now Peter knows He told the truth and the Savior of the world is going to be crucified and he couldn't die with him. He had to look like a backstabbing jerk to all the world, even though he loved Jesus with all his heart. In fact, it broke his heart and he ran away crying as they then blindfolded Jesus and beat him.
How hard that must have been for Peter, to pretend to not know who Jesus was. What he really wanted to do was to grab a sword and free Jesus. Instead, he was charged with the safety and well-being of the Church. He HAD to deny him or the Church would be destroyed.
Lets flip to 1952 when Brigham Young issued the "command" that no one who was of African descent can hold the Priesthood. What if he was "asked to do it" in order to ensure the survival of the Church? Brigham, one of Joseph Smith's best friends has to go against his Prophet/Friend and become the most famous racist in the LDS Church. Declaring it as he does saves Utah from being drawn into a Civil War in 1861 that led to the death of 600,000 Americans. The Civil War had divided the US almost up to modern times when as recently as the Civil Rights Movement didn't "conclude" it's work until 1968. This still hasn't ended widespread racism that has been a feature of "Southern Culture" into modern times.
It is conceivable that the "Church" as a whole wasn't ready to deal with racism in 1852 as the Saints had escaped Utah to avoid being eradicated by mobs and other hostiles back East. Governor Boggs had ordered Missouri Executive Order 44, also known as the Extermination Order, in 1838 in which he wished to kill every Saint in Missouri (the state he was Governor of). It's not far fetched to believe that the safety of the Church itself was threatened to the point that it didn't need a "Civil War" caliber problem to deal with while it was fighting for it's very survival.
So, rather than continue down the path Joseph started by ordaining Black Elders, Brigham "falls on the sword" and becomes the biggest racist in Church History, denying an entire race of people access to all G_d had recently revealed. Brigham himself stated that there would be a time they would have access to everything the rest of the membership enjoyed (ordination and temple ordinances).
So, for those who are totally uncomfortable with calling Brigham a flat out racist...it does seem interesting that the Church doesn't do so in the recent article. We will never be spoon fed everything we are to know or believe in this life. It's up to each of us to decide what we will do with things we learn, especially hard ones. For decades I've simply called Brigham a racist and moved on. How do you make congruent the stupid things he said regarding those who weren't white and the Priesthood Ban if he was simply "falling on the sword"? Who knows. Maybe he had to "make it believable" so that overturning the ban wasn't brought up repeatedly. It was nearly 10 years before the Civil War even started officially. That's a long time to dance around an issue that, for the safety of the Church's future, didn't have a good explanation.
It's nice for me to think, after all these years, that there might have been more to Brigham's ban than meets the eye. I don't have any definitive answers either way. Heck, I just thought about it. I now have to pray about it and work it out over the next few weeks.
What I will say is that I am excited to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. For a Church that doesn't change its doctrine, we sure have come a long way, even in the last 2 or 3 years! It's an exciting time to be LDS. With race and gender issues at the forefront of what is moving forward right now, it's wonderful to KNOW that the 12 Apostles who lead this Church are listening. They are listening to the LDS people. They are listening to answers from their prayers. They are listening. It's amazing and I can't wait to see how we we all be better next year than we were this year.
