MoronicPriesthood Central has their long standing policy of excluding "anyone with a drop of Negro blood" from Priesthood - which meant no Temple Attendance for either the men or women for so long.

Did this extend to Temple work for the DEAD?

The church had no problem with Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and so many other dirtbags becoming members via dead dunking, even sealing them in marriage. But - what about dead Black people?

Was the Temple work done for Martin Luther King, Jr before 1978? How about Frederick Douglas, George Washington Carver, Jack Johnson and the like? All dead before the change.

Was "The One True Church" true to its beliefs and doctrine once these people were dead?

I don't know but probably not

thedesertrat1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know but probably not

Okay. This begs the question: how would the people who were determining which names would be "baptized for the dead" know if the person they were considering for the "service" was black or white. In no case is a corpus delecti used during the ceremony, and many black people had the same first and last names as Caucasians.

I could see with a few famous names (Booker T. Washington, Martin Luther King, Malcom X, and some others) where the church could say "We won't baptize that person, because we know he was of the race of cursed skin." But come on! I'm sure that there were a lot of black people named John Smith or Robert Jones. So how would your former church know which former living persons had cursed skin and which persons didn't for purposes of the ceremony.

The church has addressed this.

"It will be worked out in the millennium"

Isn't there some way to look up whether or not "temple work" was done for prominent African Americans before 1978?

After all, I've seen documents online re. Albert Einstein being "sealed" to both his wife and his ex-wife.

In a casual search, I found this SLTrib article: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/06/28/groundbreaking-database/

Here's the final little story at the end of the article, of a Black woman...

"Then there’s Freda Lucretia Magee Beaulieu.

"She declared that July 21, 1978, was the 'happiest day of her life.' That was the day she traveled one thousand miles from New Orleans to Washington, D.C., to be 'sealed' by proxy to her husband, Pierre Rudolph Beaulieu, who had died six years earlier.

"It was 69 years and 23 days after her baptism before she was allowed to enter an LDS temple, and that came only after the June 8, 1978, announcement ending the church’s century-long ban on blacks boys and men being ordained to the all-male priesthood and on girls and women entering its temples."


Based on just this story, I don't think los mormones gave one whit about Black people and their place in heaven, prior to the United States Internal Revenue Service scaring mormon ghawd into granting the priesthood to the children of Cain.

False doctrine alert: The IRS had nothing to do with the 1978 "revelation". Churches can discriminate at will. They can ban anybody they want from their temples, and routinely do. They can marry or not marry any couple for any reason or no reason. They can and still do discriminate against allowing women into their priesthood. That threatens their tax status not a bit.

BYU could have been in trouble with the IRS over discrimination, however BYU did not have an official policy of discriminating against students based on race. Black students could attend and graduate from BYU, regardless of ancestry. Why they would want to is another question, but that would not concern the IRS.

The policy changed because of bad publicity and social pressure, largely by other universities against BYU, and by the fact that the first temple in Brazil was weeks away from opening, and there were many mixed race members in Brazilian wards and branches. Excluding faithful members from the temple because they had some African ancestry would have ripped the church apart in Brazil. I served a mission there pre-1978, so I saw the situation there up close and personal.

Back in the day (1970s), I think the church started to push members to research their own families and hoped that there were no "fence sitters" in their family trees.

I don't think the church started to do a major name extraction program for all people until 1990 and on.

I believe that Brazil was a major reason the church realized that were very few pure family trees.

Women don't get the PH, it's not necessary for them (or certain male children) to enter the temple.


I don't believe that ChurchCo was coerced into giving the PH to Africans by any gov't actions or plans;

I personally have insider info it was more about intermarriages in S. America; ChurchCo was 'up against a wall' with regard to black African marriages (& offspring) of varying past generations. When some of these became known, ChurchCo made the DECISION that they couldn't grow in S. America (and later Africa) without changing to policy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2021 07:59PM by GNPE.

Either way, GNPE, the church wasn't, and isn't, true.

something new there?


it IS a valid, legally(?) operating organization, so in that (& only) sense it's 'true'.

They fudge on the application of their own rules & 'principles' that makes them FALSE!

They claim to disburse Charity, but that claim stretches the definition / application of the term Charity; with them it's mostly a self-serving claim.

they claim all the transparency that 'we can do' but that's also False / Misleading.

There's little if any confidence in the numbers they do disclose as to how they were determined and the date that they were claimed to be accurate or even represented of actual reality.

they appear to be torn between maintaining - upholding their core beliefs / principles and mainstreaming to seem conventional Christians.

Okay, you win. I'll start attending again...

Just send your tithing (including arrears) to me, that will help!

I know that in Brazil pre-1978, if a male was ordained to the priesthood, and later found that he had African ancestry, his priesthood was not cancelled/revoked/withdrawn, but he was asked/told "not to exercise his priesthood".

Also, patriarchal blessings did NOT trump actual genealogy. If the blessing placed you in a tribe of Israel, but your genealogy had a branch in Nigeria, no more priesthood for you.

The missionary rumor mill in Brazil thought that in other parts of the Church, if the patriarchal blessing placed no restriction on priesthood, you were good to go. I can't vouch for that, though it sounds believable. I do know that in Brazil, genealogy, not the patriarch, took precedence.

Another interesting policy in Brazil was that divorce was illegal. At most you could get a legal separation. That being the case, there were a lot of married-to-other-people couples living together.

The policy was that if a couple were living together as if married, but were not legally allowed to marry because of a previous marriage, they could still join LDS Inc, but first they had to be interviewed by the MP to determine if they would marry if they could. You know, the "is this a real family" interview. Blech.

Come to think of it, I don't know what happened to those couples when temples started opening in Brazil. Could they be sealed for eternity, but not married "for time"? Hmmmm.