Lifting the ban in 1969?

The Ban On Blacks & The Priesthood
Was 'Almost' Lifted In 1969... If Only.

Coming from Equality Time?
Click here for the Doctrine vs. Policy article.

I like to keep things real. I admire people who share that same quality. In my mind, as I've become familiar with the 'blacks and the priesthood' topic - both from when I was a true believer up until even recently as I'm looking back as a non-believer - I would wager that the LDS church leadership knew darn well that the ban on extending priesthood to the blacks probably had nothing to do with the Mormon God.

I flirt with the idea that they were emotionally and intellectually torn about how to make sense of the legacy they'd inherited from the previous generations.




It was Prophet David O. McKay who stepped back from the strongly preached doctrine of the LDS church in 1953 and bravely and deceivingly stated: 'There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it.'(Sterling M. McMurrin affidavit, March 6, 1979. See David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism by Greg Prince and William Robert Wright.)

He was lying, and he knew he was lying, but he said it. Surely, President David O. McKay knew he was lying. He knew what had been preached. (Click here for specific examples. It was definitely preached as doctrine.)

President David O. McKay also said; 'From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the church have taught that negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.'(Bringhurst 1981: 223)

Now, David knew that there were very specific reasons that had been preached in Mormonism concerning the blacks. But in my mind, he wasn't convinced. I think he knew it was wrong. He just didn't know quite how to fix it. I think he wanted to fix it but he wasn't sure how to gently break it to the LDS Mormon congregation that the prior leaders were full of horse crud.

And then future prophet and then Apostle Spencer W. Kimball made a revealing statement in 1963; 'The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation.'(Kimball, Edward L.. The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball. Bookcraft, 448-9)

It's these kinds of statements that lead me to believe the brethren weren't comfortable with the Mormon racist past. And they all didn't agree on why, either. Some of them thought the whole 'blacks and the priesthood' doctrine was an 'error.'

Sure, Apostle Bruce R. McConkie was full of horse crap. I really never liked Bruce. And he was a PR nightmare. He wrote some 'authoritative' gibberish in his book 'Mormon Doctrine' but you'll note that the First Presidency didn't really want anything to do with it.

They gave him a private rebuke and a spiritual beating of sorts, but made a point to keep it as private as possible so as not to start a public lack of confidence.

And I understand why. I get it. It's business.

But, It Almost Happened...
The Mormon God Almost Lifted The Ban

So, in that particular atmosphere, I really do think that something incredible ALMOST happened. That it was so close to happening.

It was 1969. First Presidency member, Hugh B. Brown, favored a leadership vote. A vote to rescind the ban. It's obvious that the current leadership (e.g. First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) didn't agree on the doctrinal basis for the racism that the LDS church had been preaching for so long. It was this very atmosphere that 'inspired' these leaders to make the change as early as 1969. That and all of the pressures of the Civil Rights Movement, but I think that's for a different article.

So, 'The Brethren' took a vote. It was unanimous. Except for one. Harold B. Lee. He was traveling. When he got back, he wanted a revote, and argued heavily that there shouldn't be a change without an official 'revelation.'

Now, call me silly, but when you have 14 out of 15 of the top leaders of 'God's' supposed true church voting to change something, that's about as loud as God should get, don't you think?

Which is another terrible blow for the LDS Mormon faith laying claim to any real divine leadership. So what if Harold B. Lee didn't like it? He was the minority. The Mormon God had 14 of his chosen representatives making the change. After all, wasn't it a majority of the 'Apostles' that voted to follow Brigham to Utah? So what if some of them didn't? God had supposedly spoken, right? By the majority. Harold could've - and quite frankly, should've - gone straight to hell.

But, in true LDS Mormon fashion, 'divine' leadership was impotent to make any changes.

But it ALMOST happened in 1969. The 'brethren' knew it wasn't right. They were torn, you could tell. But it's a romantic 'what if' that will forever linger in the hallways of LDS Mormon history.