Why did Mormon's never ban Native Americans from the Priesthood?

Hmmmmm.

Must have absolutely nothing to do with skin color then, eh?

I'm surprised there aren't more answers either. After reading the Open Heart's comments a quote came to mind.

Said Elder McConkie:

"There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things.... All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the ***** matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles."

The Savior changed many misconceptions that existed at the time as did other prophets found within the bible. Set the time back a few thousand years and I wonder if the critics would be saying..."Moses said only the lineage of Levi could have the priesthood but now Peter received a revelation opening the gospel to all the world....how dare he."

The Bible is self evident that we don't always understand God's dealings with us. Never has a prophet claimed to know all the will and mind of God at once. The restoration occurred precept upon precept as the people were prepared to receive it.

As for the ban on Native Americans.... That ban is shown to be lifted when directed by the Lord in the Book of Mormon. Alma the Younger and others were called and obviously authorized to serve missions among the Lamanites. Subsequently, in the Book of Mormon we see Samuel the Lamanite who was called a prophet and called repentance to all who wouldn't believe. This history exists for the Native Americans. For the blacks, no such history exists. It would seem traditions governed their understanding and until the time was right...the light and understanding was given.

All good answers.

It has always been my understanding that the blacks were deprived of the priesthood as a lingering effect from the curse of Cain, which continued after the flood via Ham and his wife, Egyptus. The theory, put forth by Alvin R. Dyer, was that there were certain spirits in heaven that opted not to have the responsibility of priesthood while in mortality so God created a mark for us to know who those spirits were. It was always understood that the day would come when the ban would be lifted and all would have the priesthood. That day came in June, 1978.

As for the Lamanites, they were and are descendants of the House of Israel, tribe of Joseph. They belong to the covenant people of the Lord and the priesthood has always been available to them based upon worthiness. Thus, when the Lamanites were unworthy, they did not partake in the blessings of the priesthood but when they repented and were worthy, they enjoyed all the same blessings as the Nephites. Of course the reverse was also true. When the Nephites were unworthy, then the spirit was withdrawn from them as well.

you've answered this yoruself....."IF what critics..claim is true..."

that's all speculation of men trying to determine a reasoning for the priesthood ban on blacks....we actually have NO known reason for the ban.

~there is no contemporary, first-person account of it's implementation

~there is no known written revelation instituting the ban - no revelation was ever published

and as you know - there was not always such a ban in place.....most interestingly would be enoch abel being ordained an elder in 1900 --- elijah abel (grandson) ordained an elder in 1935 -- and fijans were given the priesthood in 1958 and phillipinos held the priesthood even earlier.

what we have is GAS in 1949 - (statement from 1st pres)

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time."

so he @least (and some others from their remarks), believed that there had been a revelation of some sort......or BY, or JFS, or.....

and there have been some who believed it may have tied into the pre-existence.....

and there have been some who assumed it was made evident in skin color......

and early members were converts from the protestants and brought many ideas with them.....

and we know that the mark is different than the curse - the bible does not name the mark, but clearly indicates that it was given for protection rather than a curse...and presents the curse as the removal from the presence of God. the BoM holds the same - aside from alma who does seem to present the mark as the curse - however - although alma refers to the mark as the curse, it also later makes a distinction between the curse and the mark...and indicates that the curse was applied PRIOR to the mark. also we don't know the personal opinions of the writers - which can obviously penetrate records. AND when nephites (whom the critics claim as white) joined the lamanites (whom the critics claim as dark) their skin color did not change although scripture makes it clear that the curse applied to them as well.....making it evident that lamanite/nephite was an issue of CULTURE (AND fully reversible) and not COLOR. in fact a close reading of the BoM text makes it untenable to consider that literal skin color was ever the "curse."

Brigham Young was a critic of the LDS church?

An early statement by Young about a priesthood ban in the LDS Church was made on February 13, 1849. The statement — which refers to the Curse of Cain as the reason for the policy — was given in response to the question, "What chance is there for the redemption of the *****?" Young responded, "The Lord had cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood."

In 1852, while addressing the Utah Territorial Legislature, Young stated, "Any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the Priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spoke it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it."

On another occasion, Young said, "You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind …. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the ‘servant of servants’; and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree."

Was George Albert Smith a critic of the LDS church?

In 1949, the First Presidency under the direction of George Albert Smith made a declaration which included the statement that the priesthood restriction was divinely commanded and not a matter of church policy. It stated:

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

It seems quite clear that George Albert Smith presented the reason for blacks not having the priesthood in that General Conference. On what basis do you now say that you don't know the reason for it or that only critics of the church think it was because of a "cursing"?

As for why the Native Americans wouldn't also be under this "curse", it is clear from many LDS leaders' comments that it had to do with a person's lineage through Ham or Cain, not just their black skin. Of course, now that the official church position is, "we just don't know", it makes the policy/doctrine/whatever even more questionable.\

At the very least, you've helped direct me to some very interesting reading on Wikipedia.

;-)