Follow us @WheatnTweet!
How White, Liberal Mormons are Making it Difficult for Mitt Romney and the Church
By: Jeff Spector
As we all know, what most people know about Mormonism could fill a thimble. And many people get whatever knowledge they do have in little sound bite pieces or headlines. Most do not do any in-depth investigation to find out more about us. They are more apt to react to a negative report about the Church like the fight over Prop 8, then say, one reporting on how the Church helped tornado victims.
So, if folks hear or read something that says, the “Mormon Church has a racist past,” or that the Church hates gay people, they are apt to believe it at face value without understanding if it is even true. And when they hear it from someone, generally white and usually a liberal Church thinker, acting as an inside authority on the Church, it can be far worse.
So when one of these unofficial spokespeople says, the Church has a racist past, it is even true? I maintain the answer is no.
There is no doubt the Church, except in rare instances, prohibited men of African descent, from holding the Priesthood and restricted Blacks from Temple Ordinances until June 1978. There is no clear cut doctrinal reason why this ban was upheld for so long and the outgrown of it was vile explanations by some in Church Leadership and so-called scholars as to the reason. But, did it rise to the level of racism as some might claim by today’s standard?
I suppose it depends of how you define racism.
As we should all agree, Racism is bad. Any kind of active, hatred, xenophobia, separatism or violence perpetrated on people because of their race, color, or national origin is an affront to society and especially to God. I’ve always viewed racism as an active thing, not just thoughts, but deeds as well. To me, there is a difference between been a racist and being prejudiced.
According to the dictionary, prejudice is
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
As I look at the two words, I do see a huge difference. Having said that, The Church, by the very nature that it allowed an idea of Black race inferiority to be perpetuated within it, it did rise to the level of racism. But, that alone, does not qualify to make the Church a racist Church, like, let’s say, White Southern Baptists.
But, the policy of exclusion from the Priesthood, seems more rooted in prejudice than in the racist idea of inferiority taught in The LDS Church and other Churches throughout the land.
One needs to look at the actual actions of the Church to get a better picture of this. The LDS Church did not restrict anyone from joining the Church because of their race. Some joined in spite of the ban. There were not many, but on the other hand, many of us did not even know any African-American people. I, for example, did not have one single black kid in my schools until the 9th grade. And throughout high school, there were not more than 10 in an entire school of 5000 students in suburban Southern California. We had other races and cultures in our schools growing up, but few Blacks.
Compared to other Churches, organizations and parts of the country, the LDS Church and its members, as a whole (There are always exceptions), were not actively advocating or performing acts of violence against Blacks. There were not fiery, racist talks advocating separatism given in General Conference after the 1800s. While there were some prejudicial actions excluding Blacks from some facilities in Utah, it did not rise to the level that you saw in the South, for example.
By today’s standards, all of this might be considered racist, but when measured against the times when it happened, it was normal, albeit repugnant to us today.
As we know by personal recollections, when the 1978 revelation was announced, many members were overjoyed that the ban was finally lifted. And leaders like Bruce R. McConkie openly admitted he and other Church Leaders were wrong about his assessment and teachings about the ban. So, it is pretty clear that a great majority of the Church was ready and eager for the news. Hardly the mark of a Racist organization. Some probably did leave as a result, but they were the exception.
I am not arguing for the ban, sympathetic to the erroneous and vile explanations justifying it or anything like that. But, I am also not in a position to say with complete confidence, like one particular LDS correspondent, “we were wrong.” I don’t dismiss the possibility, but frankly, I don’t know enough and the foremost experts in LDS Church History also do not know.
And for me, it is the ultimate insult to those Black members, who did join in spite of the ban, who exercised that much faith, to turn around and call their Church and ours, racist. Especially, in light of the fact their brothers and sisters were being killed and discriminated against in the worst way in other places simply because of their skin color.
And, to get back to the original point, to have some, mostly white, liberal members throwing around those terms to a sound bite hearing, headline-reading crowd who already knows little about the Church, who thinks we are weird anyway, hurts the campaign of Mitt Romney and the image of the Church.
Especially, because it is not true today and was not really true in the past. I know that many of us want the Church to have been better than the other organizations at that time and the fact that maybe the ban was rooted in prejudice is troubling given the divine guidance we claim. But, we must keep the entire history in the perspective of the time in which it occurred.
Jeff, I have to vigorously disagree with you on almost everything you’ve written in this post. Fact is, the church had racist policies toward certain people of African descent. Even if they allowed these people to be baptized, the priesthood/temple ban discriminated against a group on the basis of race. They have never apologized for the policy, causing people like Randy Bott to not only stick up for the racist statements of past church leaders in order to make sure prophetic authority isn’t challenged, all the while causing those same defenders to be thrown under the bus because their statements make the church look bad (never mind that they are just saying exactly what the church and its leaders used to say was doctrine, binding and authoritative).
Without a repudiation AND apology, racist perceptions and attitudes will continue to be implicitly tolerated in the membership, at the expense of people of color everywhere. It doesn’t matter if the racism lacks malice or overt hatred–it’s still racist if one discriminates against a person or group based on race. period. You hear it all the time in the membership: comments about how this or that group is lazy, never cleans up after themselves, doesn’t have the same work ethic as white people, doesn’t have “culture”, should be appreciative (to whites) for having the opportunity of hearing the gospel, is unreliable, etc. Even in jokes, these attitudes are racist. They may not foment violence or segregation, but they reinforce negative attitudes and perceptions.
The Church has repudiated racism in its most recent press release responding to Bott’s comments. That’s all well and good, but it doesn’t go far enough. It’s time to actually apologize for our past and stop downplaying the very real effects it has had on members, investigators, and non-members, particularly over the past 50 years. Without the apology, we can only expect more of the same from members and the PR office. We all deserve more.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
34
One more thing: an apology isn’t about holding people or the organization to a higher standard than their contemporaries. An apology isn’t about rejecting a past because present sensitivities have changed. An apology IS about moving forward, about atonement, and about healing wounds that may have gone untreated because people in the past were unable to detect their presence. I want to believe we can do that collectively, that repentance isn’t only for individuals. The reason that racism in the Church matters is because it implicates us all as members of the organization. We bear some of the responsibility for the perpetuation of those policies and attitudes. The sooner we can collectively acknowledge and repent for those things, the sooner we can all move forward in building God’s Kingdom with everyone included.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
18
Also, this post has nothing to do with Mitt Romney, unless somehow Jeff perceives that it’s every member’s duty to support Mitt’s candidacy, and those rascally liberal Mormons are making it harder for him to succeed when they bring up problems of racism, sexism, and fear of homosexuals and intellectuals in the Church.
Also, I agree with Jeff that racism is different than prejudice, but not in the same way he claims they are different (actually, since he didn’t define “racism” in the post, I’m not completely sure I know how he perceives them differently, but….). For me, racism, sexism, nationalism, ageism, homophobia, etc. are all subsets of the larger term “prejudice”. Each of the subsets is prejudice toward or against a specific group, be it a big or small group. Racism doesn’t have to be violent or aggressive; it is at its core an attitude that promotes discrimination based on a characteristic that is beyond another individual’s power to change (race, gender, country of origin, sexual orientation, age, etc.). Out of that attitude may come violence, but violence isn’t a necessary feature of racism.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
19
Really great perspective!
Controversial! What do you think?
2
SteveS,
I allow that people can differ in their perception so I can apprecaite what you have written, though, of course, i disagree with the premise.
“Also, this post has nothing to do with Mitt Romney, unless somehow Jeff perceives that it’s every member’s duty to support Mitt’s candidacy”
NOT AT ALL
Controversial! What do you think?
3
SteveS,
I do think that racism and prejudice are very different as I realize that racism is the “term dujour” of our time.
As I stated, to me, racism is a very active belief whereas prejudice is more passive and stems from lack of experience or lack of knowledge.
Those who are overly racist know they are and want to be. many who are prejudice, which includes everyone on earth, to a degree, are typically just lacking knowledge and can change their attitudes with exposure and learning.
Most real racists will not.
And as with most prejoritives, it is easily thrown around.
Controversial! What do you think?
8
OK, so I retract a portion of my statement about Mitt, but maintain that this post isn’t about Mitt Romney at all. This is a post about the perpetual problem of racism in the Church. One self-evident sentence about how press about racism in the Church’s past negatively impact Mitt Romney and the Church at large doesn’t make it the focus of the blog post.
I agree with you, Jeff, when you say that the issue of racism will continue to hurt the Church and Mitt Romney’s candidacy, but I don’t agree that the blame can be placed on liberal mormon bloggers won’t let the issue go. The issue won’t go away because the Church refuses to do the final thing that would allow us all to move on: to apologize.
I appreciate the work of Joanna Brooks and others who are willing to call a spade a spade because it exposes the “spin” cycle of the PR arm of the Church for what it is, and forces us to really confront these unresolved issues, hopefully moving toward a resolution.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
18
Since you have appealed to the dictionary,let’s see what it has to say about racism:
I don’t see how the pre-1978 church escapes those definitions, especially #2.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
22
Last Lemming,
I just find that defintion to be incomplete, not that is is not true but it does not represent all that racism is. So, it canot quite apply in this situation.
Controversial! What do you think?
4
SteveS,
“The issue won’t go away because the Church refuses to do the final thing that would allow us all to move on: to apologize.”
So, I am wondering then, just what do you think an apology would accomplish? Would it satisfy those anguished white, liberal members that just cannot let it go? Does it give anything back to those Black members, who joined and were denied? Or for those who didn’t join and have not joined bacause someone told them the Church was racist?
Controversial! What do you think?
7
“call a spade a spade”
Ouch. Just ouch.
Are you familiar with what that means?
Ouch.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
8
I think the Church leaders are in a difficult situation here. Suppose they came out and said:
What would come of that? Look at the potential upside. People would STILL look back at our earlier history the same way. People who were already against the Church would still likely be against the Church. But more importantly, look at the potential downside. The current leaders would be shooting themselves in the foot. It could cause current members to question which things taught today as doctrine are, in reality, also personal opinion and biases.
So, the upside potential is limited, while the downside potential is great. Therefore, I don’t know that we’ll see an apology like that. I think the statements like what we have seen is all we’re going to get.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
8
re 11,
Stephen,
hahaha! SteveS doesn’t even know what he just walked into…but let’s not confuse a suit of cards with a tool for digging, now…
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
6
I think it’s fascinating that this post, which has virtually nothing to do with Mitt Romney or the impending POTUS election, cries out that anyone acknowledging the racist past of the LDS church is “making it difficult” for “Mitt Romney and the [presumably LDS?] Church.” Jeff, what prevented you from simply arguing your case against charges of racism, as opposed to making it an accusation that acknowledgers are “hurting Mitt and the [presumably LDS?] Church”?
Some would observe within the above post a semi-conscious acknowledgment that LDS members sense both a personal and institutional stake in having Mitt Romney elected—that they feel his election would benefit their church, validate their personal religious opinions, etc. The cause of electing Mitt Romney has been inextricably linked, in the above post, with the cause of the [presumably LDS?] church.
Sorry, Jeff, but your post speaks VOLUMES, while having very little to say about racism itself.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
20
haha had no idea about the racial connotation that seems to have arisen in the early 20th century (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_call_a_spade_a_spade)
my apologies.
Like this comment?
4
Mike S,
I have looked at it in that utilitarian way. Where full disclosure has minimal advantage. However, I think in the long term they are going to cause greater damage with people losing trust in confidence in them because of their economy of truth. If they come clean then they will have a short term upset with members who can’t deal with the idea of actual fallible leaders rather then theoretically fallible leaders. But, those it upsets are probably going to be the fundamentalist, slightly crazy, members. At the moment it seems that the church is doing more to keep them then the rest of the church.
I think they are better to upset them and
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
13
I am going to have to agree with SteveS from post#1. “Jeff, I have to vigorously disagree with you on almost everything you’ve written in this post.”
I have had too many personal experiences talking to people in the church, of leadership positions like GAs and lay members, about views on curses and skin color trying to make sense and justify past actions (not just beliefs or thoughts), that I can’t see it as anything but racism perpetuated for generations in the church.
The caveat is that many many members try to follow Christ and be loving and accepting, so most deplore violence or activism of extremes, but the unfortunate teachings have lingered and affected people’s beliefs and therefore, actions, even if passive.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
16
#12:
But more importantly, look at the potential downside. The current leaders would be shooting themselves in the foot. It could cause current members to question which things taught today as doctrine are, in reality, also personal opinion and biases.
Why is causing current LDS members to question whether current teachings arise from personal opinion and biases (as opposed to divine revelation) a “downside?” If teachings are genuinely divine, such questioning should strengthen faith. If such teachings do arise from personal opinion and biases, they ought properly to be questioned.
The only “downside” arises if one accepts unquestionably that any and all teachings from LDS general authorities must be taken as divinely inspired. Are you sure that’s really where you want to place your bets?
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
18
Jeff, Mike S, etc.:
Certainly an apology would have big ramifications about the reliability and authority of continuing revelation in the Church. But the historical record remains for anyone to read, and it is full of wacky, incorrect, damaging, bigoted, sexist, and racist remarks. Even giving individuals the benefit of the doubt about the milieu in which these statements arise doesn’t let God off the hook, who presumably could operate and reveal without regard to historical circumstance and cultural bias. Fact is, racism is wrong. period. It’s hard to believe that God would advocate racist policies that denied exalting ordinances to large groups of people (no temple ordinances for black people until 1978). So what’s worse: a God that is racist, or a Church full of fallible human beings that made racist mistakes?
An apology would reaffirm our belief that God is not a respecter of person, and that (as the recent press release mentioned) God denies no one, regardless of social class, race, gender, or age (2 Ne. 26:33). An apology would show the members of the Church and the world that human beings, even inspired leaders, don’t always interpret God’s messages clearly, and don’t always make the right choices. An apology would show both white liberal bloggers, white conservative TBMs, black, asian, polynesian, latino, arabic, and other racial minority mormons, post-mormons, ex-mormons, lapsed mormons, and non-mormons who pay any attention to our Church whatsoever that we are a compassionate people humble enough to come clean about our mistakes, ask for forgiveness, and move forward with greater resolve to protect the rights of all individuals to approach God. I simply don’t see how an apology would in any way dishonor the sacrifices of black members who joined before or after the 1978 policy change.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
9
Heber13,
“to make sense and justify past actions (not just beliefs or thoughts), that I can’t see it as anything but racism perpetuated for generations in the church.”
What “actions” are you refering to other than not letting them hold the Priesthood?
Like this comment?
2
Nick,
I am glad you are fascinated.
Like this comment?
0
SteveS,
I just basically disagree with your assessment of an apology. the fact that BRM said that Church leaders, including himself, were wrong, has had zero effect and that was 30 years ago.
“It’s hard to believe that God would advocate racist policies that denied exalting ordinances to large groups…. ”
That’s not what the scriptures seem to show.
Controversial! What do you think?
5
#18 @Nick: Why is causing current LDS members to question whether current teachings arise from personal opinion and biases (as opposed to divine revelation) a “downside?”
The perspective of my comment wasn’t clear. Personally, I think addressing things like this and getting things much more open would be welcomed.
From the point-of-view of the existing leadership, however, I am sure they look at it as potentially damaging. The recent spate of talks have been about “Follow the Prophet” and the 12 points, etc. I just can’t see them potentially undermining themselves.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
4
Why does it seem that institutional reputation and preservation has superseded the full search for truth in our Church? Why are we circumscribing truth within our own paradigms instead of allowing the Lord to reveal His paradigm in our hearts and souls?
If prophetic authority is being exercised incorrectly or for ulterior motives then it needs to be challenged. Sustaining our leaders does not mean an end of questioning – both personally and communally.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
10
Jeff:
In regard to BRM, that was a personal statement that has no words of apology in it (it does use the word “negro” six times, though). He essentially says forget what any previous church leader has said if the current church leader says something different. That’s not an apology, but that’s exactly what an apology asks its members to really do: it gives the members the ability to be safe in rejecting the words of previous church leaders on this subject without fear of reprimand from current leaders. It categorically rejects all of the crazy supposition about marks of Cain, less valiant premortal spirits, etc. that acted as justifications for past racism, and mandates that members of the church move on from these troubling and damaging perspectives.
As for your implication that the scriptures (Bible, BoM?) seem to show God as a racist and willing to deny saving ordinances, are you suggesting that the bible is infallible, or that the people in the stories of the bible always made inspired, correct choices? I don’t share that perspective at all. In the Bible I see the efforts of men (yes men, no women writers, probably) attempting to communicate their best understandings of the divine using faulty linguistic signifiers. It includes some history, but lots of limited perspective and unqualified speaking for the Lord. Just because people preserved these records instead of others doesn’t mean that they accurately describe God’s mind, God’s will, or God’s true dream for humanity. It’s not just the “Jews”; there’s sexism and racism and inequality in the New Testament writings as well. I’m simply unwilling to believe that God truly had only one chosen people, and that that favoritism would persist into the modern era, even if the Bible said “thus saith the Lord…”.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
8
#22:
I just basically disagree with your assessment of an apology. the fact that BRM said that Church leaders, including himself, were wrong, has had zero effect and that was 30 years ago.
The only thing BRM said they were wrong about was when men of African descent would be given the LDS priesthood. He and others had predicted that it couldn’t happen until the Millenium, based on Brigham Young’s declaration that not one of “Cain’s seed” could have the LDS priesthood until “every one” of Abel’s potential offspring had received it (evidently via being born through different lineages). BRM admitted that this specific interpretation was wrong—not that it was ever wrong to deny the LDS priesthood to men of African descent.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
8
Stephen S,
To call a spade a spade, not racist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_a_spade_a_spade
Like this comment?
3
For that matter, BRM’s statement didn’t even say that it was wrong to believe that men of African descent were the “seed of Cain.” Ugh!
Like this comment?
3
Whoops, didn’t see #15 before I posted. Guess it was already said. Oh the bastardization of words! The good and bad. :\
Like this comment?
0
Jon,
It’s still not good.
Like this comment?
0
The Church, by the very nature that it allowed an idea of Black race inferiority to be perpetuated within it, it did rise to the level of racism. This is quite understated when BY’s comments are considered.
By today’s standards, all of this might be considered racist, but when measured against the times when it happened, it was normal, albeit repugnant to us today. It was normal for some certainly not all. Was it normal for Joseph Smith? The church claims to be lead by divine revelation so something doesn’t add up here, either it was wrong or it was not wrong or divine revelation isn’t all that it’s siad to be; can’t be lead astray.
I am also not in a position to say with complete confidence, like one particular LDS correspondent, “we were wrong.” So you disagree with BRM?
Like this comment?
1
@Jeff,
If one is sophisticated enough they can look at the connotations and meanings of speech rather than look at the literal meanings. I hold, there is nothing wrong with saying, “call a spade a spade.” It is not racist, but those who wish to be offended when no offense if intended can be. Are we to bleach language to the point where it means nothing?
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
11
#20 Jeff, the actions I’ve witnessed are at the local level of the church, where lessons include comments about pre-mortal worthiness related to this mortal experience and being a member of certain races.
I lived in Oakland, CA when they organized branches so certain people were more comfortable meeting together, which divided saints based on skin color.
Even so, I tend to agree with Nick that I’m not sure this racism discussion about the church has direct impact on Mitt Romney’s electability, as I think Mitt is more affected by the perception that Mormons are viewed as a non-Christian cult.
Like this comment?
0
Howard,
“am also not in a position to say with complete confidence, like one particular LDS correspondent, “we were wrong.” So you disagree with BRM?”
As someone earlier pointed out that BRM’s statement about being wrong was that he and others stated that the ban would not be lifted in their lifetime. And, also the reasons they were teaching ( mark of Cain, valiance were also wrong because the ban was indeed lifted.
Does that automatically that we know for a certainty the “real reason>” No, it does not, therefore, we are not in a position to say “we were wrong” about the ban, just in the reasons why thought the ban was in place.
If it turns out it was solely due to prejudice, then perhaps an apologize might be in order.
Like this comment?
1
Heber13,
“I lived in Oakland, CA when they organized branches so certain people were more comfortable meeting together, which divided saints based on skin color.”
so, are you saying that the current policy of having ethnic and cultural branches is wrong?
Because in Oakland they have had Chinese, Hmong, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, Spanish, Tongan, Samoan and other branches including Young Adults. Were they all and are they all due to racist policies?
Like this comment?
2
Jon,
“If one is sophisticated enough they can look at the connotations and meanings of speech rather than look at the literal meanings.”
Many choose not to be, so it best not to use a word that would be misconstrued.
Like this comment?
1
Thanks for figuring out this has little to do with Mitt Romney per se, other than the fall out he receives for being a member of the Church and having a large anti-Mormon vote based on the perceptions of votes, evangelicals and non-evangelicals alike.
It was never my intention to focus any of the post on Mitt Romney.
PS, I have never voted for a Republican candidate for President in a general election going back to 1972. I am not sure I would start now.
Like this comment?
1
Jeff,
BRM also added: It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 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.
Like this comment?
1
Howard, it DOES make a difference what they all said about the Negro matter before June 1978. It goes to the heart of the prophetic calling and credibility. BRM was wrong in saying that.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
10
I could understand branches being organized for language purposes, but I was never comfortable with the 9th Branch (don’t know if it is still called that now) which wasn’t organized on geography or language.
Like this comment?
0
Heber13,
I’ll have to look that up. I have the Oakland Stake history on the bookshelf.
Like this comment?
1
Michael and Howard,
It only matters to the extent they believed it was doctrinal and defended it as doctrinal, not that it was doctrinal.
But you are not allowing for the fact that they can be prophets and be wrong because it was so unclear and was not fully questioned.
Like this comment?
1
Jeff,
EXACTLY! The primary responsibility of a prophet is to make God’s Will known to humankind. This responsibility DEMANDS constant questioning and constant seeking of answers. When a prophet takes the lazy route and substitutes their own impressions, biases or opinions for true questioning and seeking they are technically “taking the name of the Lord in vain” – according to the true meaning of that commandment. It can be said they are failing in their responsibility and leading people astray.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
9
Michael,
I don’t have a really big argument with what you are saying. but we are talking about “big P” prophet, not “little p” prophet. So it was up to the President of the church and not the Apostles to make the doctrine clear. What BRM might have written, Mark E Peterson, Delbert Stapley is not at issue.
Like this comment?
1
Jeff,
I beg to differ. All 15 are sustained as prophets, seers and revelators. The big “P” prophet in our church is almost always used to refer to Brother Joseph. If someone is sustained in the prophetic calling, they need to be measuring up to the responsibilities.
Most often doctrinal clarification and determination is a matter of collective and consultive unity amongst all 15. They take the charge in the Doctrine and Covenants to be of one mind and one voice very seriously. This has been stated many times by Apostles. It also explains why 1978 did not happen until the racist ones passed away. There is a natural tension between the power of the First Presidency and that of the Quorum.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
8
“There is a natural tension between the power of the First Presidency and that of the Quorum.”
Yes, but, if President Monson came in one day and said he had a Revelation to do such and such, they cannot disagree and must pretty much go along. If he wants to discuss it, then they can. If not, he has the final say.
If you are talking about debates and discussion on policy, then I agree. They might debate the wording of the Proclaimation on he Family, but the other 14 men have no authority to declare doctrine other than that which has been given by the Lord through his Prophet, big P. the President of the Church.
Like this comment?
1
Jeff, what you describe is not what happens in reality. The 15 men have talked many times about the process in how revelation is currently received.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
5
Race issues aside, I am a little frustrated that liberal ‘Mormon Scholars’ have become the defactor spokespeople for the church. They may be Mormon and Scholars, but do not specialize in Mormonism as a field. This may be that the Church doesn’t take the bait from biased groups like the Huffington Post, but certain self-appointed spokespeople do. I emailed a writer for HP to correct a significant error and asked why she didn’t contact the Church. She said that she did, but they didn’t get back with her in time to meet her deadline.
These ‘Mormon Scholars’ are also fixated on the 5% of the church history that is more reflective of the flaws in human nature than what God has actually revealed. I believe the term is ‘presentists’ referring to those who judge people in the 1800′s and 1900′s through a 2012 paradigm.
Controversial! What do you think?
4
In the absense of strong leadership others tend to fill the vacuum.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
8
Wyoming,
The Brethren have decided that they no longer pro-actively & directly state doctrine or revelation. They only have the newsroom state what is NOT doctrine or revelation. There is no way in our Church to have anyone authoritatively declare what is doctrine. It has all become word games.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
11
I think the Brethren may focus more on proactive statements made in General Conference and formal declaration on the family (but I don’t entirely disagree with your point about doctrine). I also think the media is monumentally lazy. There are hundreds of Conference talks to refer to and Sacrament meetings every week to do research.
Like this comment?
0
#44:
So it was up to the President of the church and not the Apostles to make the doctrine clear. What BRM might have written, Mark E Peterson, Delbert Stapley is not at issue.
Bruce R. McConkie would have disagreed with you, Jeff. In an exchange of letters between himself and Eugene England, BRM wrote: “It is axiomatic among us to know that God has given apostles and prophets ‘for the edifying of the body of Christ,’ and that their ministry is to see that ‘we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.’ (Eph. 4:11-16.) This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent.”
#humilityinaction
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
4
Wyoming,
“I believe the term is ‘presentists’ referring to those who judge people in the 1800′s and 1900′s through a 2012 paradigm.”
I think this is a real problem. History is interpretative even on a good day without interjecting today’s bias toward it.
Like this comment?
2
Michael,
Since we are devoid of any real revelation from the Brethren lately, it is hard to tell. But, I am convinced that President Monson and those before, much like Joseph Smith, can receive revelation and present it to the Q12 and FP and they would accept it. As I said, if he chooses to have a discuss, he can, but I do not think he would need to if he chose not to.
Like this comment?
0
Nick,
“This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is.”
Teach Doctrine, yes, declare Doctrine, no.
Like this comment?
1
Racism Is to put people into groups by some kind of Biology. It is not limited to Blacks and Whites. It is to make a group superior over another. This is still a large part of Mormonism.
To say:
I am White
I have the blood of__in me
I belong to the Tribe of__
I am of the linage of__
Mormons are God’s people
The Jews are God’s people
I am adopted into__
Etc.
These are all Racist in thinking and should not be in the Church doctrines. As long as they are, others will judge Mormons as racist.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
7
Growing up, there were never more than two or three African American students in my school, even in high school, and none in my elementary school. We were the outer suburbs of Detroit, and de facto, African Americans lived south of 8 Mile Road. The congregation into which I was born probably had a few African American members when I was a toddler, and gradually became entirely African American as the more economically mobile white families were able to move into the suburbs in the 1950′s. So, I knew African American adults through stake activities, but otherwise had no experience except what was told me secondhand.
So, somehow there were these good African Americans whom I expected to behave like every other adult I might meet at stake conference (never questioning why no African American teenagers ever traveled to stake youth activities) and there were these “other” African Americans who lived in Detroit about whom I had to be wary if they lived in the suburbs. I was taught to pre-judge African Americans as a group, even if all African Americans I knew as individuals violated the meme.
It was even sillier with Hispanics. The only Hispanic I ever had contact with was my Aunt Liadena, who was Puerto Rican. Imagine my shock when I discovered, on a visit to New York City with my parents, that many New Yorkers regarded Puerto Ricans as inferior.
We all pre-judge people because of our personal experiencec and the experiences of our mentors. When the judgment focuses on a race or ethnicity as THE marker by which we generalize that experience to new situations, so that we become incapable of seeing individuals, that becomes racism.
My church experience was LESS racist than my societal experience. But then, my church did not ban African Americans from priesthood even in the post Civil War period. Sorry I can’t say the same regarding feminism or gay rights. (And probably a number of issues we haven’t noticed yet.)
Like this comment?
1
Bob:
By the way, did anyone notice that the stained glass window picture on Mormon Heretic’s “Mary Magdaline” post pictures her as a BLONDE?
Like this comment?
3
Link to MH’s post is:
http://www.wheatandtares.org/2012/03/19/scandalous-behavior-of-jesus-around-women/
Correct title of post is “Scandalous Behavior of Jesus Around Women”.
Like this comment?
3
“In American jurisprudence, a suspect classification is any classification of groups meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an Equal Protection claim alleging unconstitutional discrimination is asserted against a law, regulation, or other government action.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification
Race falls in this category.
“A standard of Judicial Review for a challenged policy in which the court presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.
The strict scrutiny standard of judicial review is based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts use strict scrutiny to determine whether certain types of government policies are constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied this standard to laws or policies that impinge on a right explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to vote. The Court has also identified certain rights that it deems to be fundamental rights, even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution.”http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Strict+Scrutiny
I would argue that the Church would not have been able to show a compelling reason for the priesthood ban. Therefore it was most definitely racism and should not have been.
“As we all know, what most people know about Mormonism could fill a thimble.” I would apply this statement to many Church members as well and I would argue that this is the way the Church likes it.
An interesting web site that talks about this and many other issues is mormonthink.com.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
6
The practice of dividing up stakes in urban areas into more branches that are “ethnically” oriented reflects a reality…expecting urban blacks, or Hispanics, or Chinese, or Southeast Asians, or whatever group that tends to be insular to “integrate” into the white-bread-and-maynonaise culture that is common for most North American LDS wards isn’t realistic. Even white European wards (in Europe proper) has a distinct culture from that of their “Norte Americano” cousins. The Gospel is still true with a “hip-hop” flava…even Sister Arethrea Franklin joked that the Church music could use a little more “soul”. At least it’s a choice, or should be. I know a few brethren here in Suburban Sactown of the African persuasion, but to a man they’re only distinguishable from “honky” by skin color…a blind man couldn’t probably tell them apart! Here, we have Tongan and Samoan wards/branches, a Vietnamese branch and a Hmong Branch (don’t EVER mix the latter two together unless you want to re-fight the Tet Offensive!). My impression is that their activity rates are higher.
The idea is to at least attempt to serve the needs of the members. As long as the branch ain’t run by Bishop Jar-Jar Binks.
Like this comment?
2
Mitt will draw fire from so-called “Evangelicals” for being a “cultist” on the right, and then from arch-liberals, homosexuals, and feminists for being part of an “intolerant” faith. Will he care? Not a whit. Whatever criticism can be made of Mitt, it does seem that he’s a Latter-Day Saint first and an aspiring politician. But do remember that if Obi-Wan Kenobi could caution his Padawan Anakin about trusting even the lovely and sweet Padme Amidala because she was a politician, well, I can likewise not entirely Mitt because he smiles too dammed much for me.
I’m still going to post the bumper sticker come November 7th, “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Kodos!” regardless of who wins.
Like this comment?
1
Andrew S. — I am reminded of how you wrote about outrage being something that comes with privilege.
Not to mention, it is always the “other guy” who is racist, made a mistake, misused a term or is to blame, never ourselves, and the “other guy” whose apology is never good enough.
I admired Orin Hatch’s ability to step back, realize he had misused a phrase and publicly apologize after he was corrected.
Always interesting to see how for one person, the term n=g==r is just a historical phrase that has only become pejorative recently, for another it is a term that ought not to be used.
Anyway, this has been an instructive thread.
Appreciate your perspectives and thoughts, as always.
Like this comment?
1
I think in the final analysis I tried to make the point through the comments how incendiary a pejorative can be. And how we sometime minimize the real suffering that people went through under the hands of real racist.
We all have some prejudice in us or develop it through our experiences. In an attempt to be seen as a liberal thinker and progressive on social issues, some choose to classify everything as racist, when simple prejudice may really be at play. We’ve come this far because people got to know one another, not so much because they were forced to.
Like this comment?
2
Whitey knows very little about the affects of racism. We had two black college football players live with us for the last year because their financial aid was not what they thought it was going to be. I learned that the racial divide is still very alive. One of the things that made leaving the church easier was what I feel is a profoundly racist past. I felt that racism in the mission field as our mission president had us lie to the blacks in Brazil as to the very reason why we were in their neighborhood. You see, we weren’t supposed to teach them. I yearn to be transported back in time to tell the mission president what I didn’t as a stupid 19 year old.
Controversial! What do you think?
6
The “time in which it occurred” was from the founding to 1978. Moreover racial animus can be de jury or de facto. In LDS discourse it was often both, but certainly it was de jury, since the priesthood ban, whatever it’s source, resulted in Black men being denied a signifier of membership solely because of their race. Not all racists are Bull Connor: some might even be nice and polite to those they deny full personhood. Nevertheless, if it walks like a racist, and talks like a racist, and, most importantly, acts like a racist, it’s a racist.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
6
It is “de jure” not “de jury”. The rest of the analysis reads very much like a pro se litigant’s foray into civil rights litigation. Since that is part of my day job, I am stepping out of this part of the discussion.
Like this comment?
1
When you say since the founding, do you mean since Adam, or do you mean since the time when under Brigham Young Blacks ceased to be ordained?
BTW, why does no one credit Cohen and his writing on how if there was a ban it should apply to Egyptians or Arabs and not Blacks, given the justifications given for it? That was a rather cogent attack on the logic used by many and may have also had an effect that went deeper than it seemed in raising awareness that it was custom and not doctrine.
Like this comment?
3
Brian–
It really is tough to have to relive 40 year old memories of things we coulda/shoulda said. You left the Church; I just wandered off. Even the people for whom one has a high regard displayed such obtuseness. Not that white folk have any real insights until having a visceral sledge hammer experience. You gained insights thru your young athletes–I learned through the eyes of my African-American daughter-in-law. I suppose an apology for error would lead many members to conclude that the GAs are mostly well-intentioned gentlemen trying to steer a large organization in an increasingly complex world — and it has only an incidental impact on personal salvation and redemption.
Like this comment?
1
[...] the topic of Mormonism and race, for example. To some it inspired rage, to some a defense of the faith, to others an examination of their sheltered environment, and, to President Paternoster, the [...]
Like this comment?
0
Vajra, it isn’t quite as simple as you make it out to be. There were at least 7 black men that held the priesthood prior to about 1847, and Joseph Ball was actually Branch President in Boston! I have previously discussed it in my post on Early Black Mormons. Really, most scholars believe the ban started with Brigham Young, though Ron Esplin argues for Joseph Smith.
I have a different take on racism than Jeff does. After my last post on Mary Magdalene (coming up Monday), I plan to address racism from a different perspective, though with Easter and General Conference coming up, I may delay it a bit.
Like this comment?
3
MH well said. I am at Tourette’s camp picking up my daughter — I will have to say more later after I home.
Like this comment?
1
#71: MH,
*Bans* started in the OT. Mormons are still open to using *Bans*. They just decided to not use this *Ban* against Blacks anymore.. But they are still happy to *Ban* women from holding the Priesthood. They are still happy to *Ban* anyone under twelve from holding it.
Like this comment?
1
bob, your comments frequently perplex me. are you advocating priesthood for a 2 year old? because that’s what it sounds like.
Like this comment?
1
#74: MH,
The post is about Banning. Why not 11 year olds? Baptism at 8__ why not the pristhood at 8? Why not Baptism for 7 year olds?
The point is Mormonism – is full of Bans. Why kept talking just about the Black ban?
Like this comment?
2
no bob, the post is about racism and the priesthood ban, and how it relates to mitt’s campaign. it’s not about when to baptize, or sexism. i’d say that’s a topic for another day.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
4
#76: MH,
I am saying the elephant in the room is Banning__not racism. Mormons love Banning__racism is only one of the tools that’s have used. Mormons use the WoW to ban, they use tithing to ban. I don’t know why but beards are banned at BYU. Sun dresses are banned, lady’s pants are banned. Walking in the hall during SS is banned.
Like this comment?
2
The government bans 12 year-olds from drinking, driving, and drugs. Lead paint is banned. Texting and driving is banned in many states. The elephant in the room is that we should allow 12 year olds to drive?
Muslims and Jews are banned from pork. Muslims are banned from shaving. We all banned from murder. What exactly is your point? I just don’t get what you’re trying to do here, and it seems wildly off topic.
Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well?
4
Stephen M,
1.I’m aware it’s de jure but I sometimes forget that my automatic spell check is stubborn. I don’t know why that raises issues of “pro se” in your mind. It’s true it’s been sometime since I wrote a brief on a civil right; this was a short post on blog.
2. Adam? I’m assume you are being facetious. Founding referred, as I’m sure you were aware, to the founding of the LDS org.
3. It was “de jure” because the words of “prophets” reaffirmed it. It was “de facto” because whatever it’s origin, the Mormon org actively denied the priesthood to Black men until 1978.
4. Priesthood in the Mormon religion is signifier of worthiness open to adolescent boys. Blacks were denied that signifier no matter how worthy, mature, or devout.
5. When feeling smug about the pleas filed by ordinary citizens, please reread Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
Like this comment?
1
#78: MH,
“I just don’t get what you’re trying to do here, and it seems wildly off topic”.
What have I said that has not been about racism or banning? You may say I am wrong or not agree, but I am not off topic.
My message has been simple and limited: The the ban (IMO), was in place for over a hundred years__ not so much because Church leaders disliked Blacks, it’s more that they like to/the ban.
Like this comment?
0
#12 Mike S:
So, do not apolgize if the downside is potentially greater than the upside? Is this a step of the ‘Repentance’ principle we should be teaching our children in Primary?
When we teach our children to ‘Follow The Prophet’, should we use this as an example?
Like this comment?
1
#34 Jeff:
How many members of African American descent have you spoken to that has pre and post ‘Ban’ experience as members of the Church? Did they say that the actions of the Church were due to prejudice or racism?
In line with the above 2 questions, can you elaborate on what you mean by ‘the ultimate insult to those Black members’?
‘If it turns out it was solely due to prejudice,…’
It seems you are trying to change the Church’s actions from racism to prejudice. Is that your objective?
Like this comment?
0
#38 Howard:
‘…the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject.’
As June 1978 was ‘a new day and a new arrangement’, what was the new light shed ‘into the world on this subject’? It seems to me that we are as in the dark now as we were then. Isn’t that part of the problem?
Like this comment?
0
Undercover Brother,
My only point that no matter what the reason for the ban, rightly or wrongly, the actions of the Church did not rise to the level of racism as I believe the term to mean. An action-oriented, hated-based campaign against another person just because of his/her race. Simple prejudice is less action-oriented, in my opinion.
What the Mormons did was a gentle exclusion from a certain, albeit, large portion of their religion compared to lynchings, church burnings, murder, beatings, hate-promoting, name calling, and other very incendiary things that many other groups and people did to Blacks in our nation’s history.
I hear a Pastor say on the Nobody Knows trailer, that when he thought of racist organizations, the Mormons were not on the list.
When I said it was an insult to the Black members who did join before 1978, I meant they had enough faith the join in spite of the ban, and not be bitter. And yet, they might have reason to be, if there is no real explanation for the ban.
White liberal members, by comparison, have no real reason to be so bitter if these members are not..
Like this comment?
2
Jeff. Your experience is very different than mine. Now the prejudice I saw displayed in priesthood quorums, scout troops and other church activities didn’t rise to lynchings, but the racial animus demonstrated in terms of “white flight” from schools neighborhoods, the use of racial epithets in quorum meetings, SS classes and from the local pulpit were ugly, hateful and racist. I loathe the very memory of it.
Like this comment?
0
“the founding of the LDS org” — since Church doctrine is that the Church started with Adam, and since a reading of the Bible the same way you are reading into the LDS makes the entire institution racist, it isn’t a factitious question at all, but a rather pertinent one.
Though being dismissive of it does send a message.
Which segues into the pro se issue, as does your use of scare quotes.
I am rarely smug about “pleas filed by ordinary citizens” when engaged in public sector law. Smug briefs irritate judges, who then won’t grant summary judgments.
However, large logic gaps, misunderstanding source material (e.g. ignoring that Joseph Smith ordained Black men, etc.), dismissive responses to others, all are typical of pro se litigants, as well as the misuse or misapplication of legal terminology, tendentiously repeated.
Since you asked.
Normally I would not be quite so blunt, but I expect that at this point people have quit reading this thread, and felt you deserved an answer.
Like this comment?
2
# 84 Jeff:
So you’re saying that it’s racism if overt and prejudice if covert? Racism is racism, isn’t it? Or do you mean if covert it’s racial prejudice? Is that what you mean or am I missing something?
Also – I’ll ask the question again: which black members have you spoken to that agree with your definition that the Church’s actions were ‘prejudice’?
Like this comment?
0
#84:
My only point that no matter what the reason for the ban, rightly or wrongly, the actions of the Church did not rise to the level of racism as I believe the term to mean.
That’s rather self-serving, though. I’m sure there were people who supported segregated lunch counters and drinking fountains who felt that, right or wrong, their actions did not “rise to the level of racism as [they] believe[d] the term to mean.”
What the Mormons did was a gentle exclusion from a certain, albeit, large portion of their religion compared to lynchings, church burnings, murder, beatings, hate-promoting, name calling, and other very incendiary things that many other groups and people did to Blacks in our nation’s history.
From a Mormon point of view, it would seem that denial of priesthood and allegedly-saving ordinances (including the eternal binding of families) is far more cruel, and has far more eternal consequences, than any of the earthly atrocities you wish to compare it to. The existence of martyrdom should tell you that believers will value the promise of eternal blessings more than their physical/emotional safety in this life, Jeff.
Like this comment?
4
#87:
Also – I’ll ask the question again: which black members have you spoken to that agree with your definition that the Church’s actions were ‘prejudice’?
UCB, I have a feeling the LDS of African descent who’ve told Jeff this all live in the same house as the “gay friends” of Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum who allegedly agree with their anti-gay political positions.
Like this comment?
3
Jeff,
Racism vs. prejudice has been selectively argued by apologists. When it is pointed out that banning blacks, women and gays are all prejudice apologists argue; no the ban on Blacks was related specifically to race or racism thereby attempting to differentiate it and justify the continuing ban on women and gays. Here you are arguing the opposite, so isn’t banning women and gays also prejudice? How does we avoid a replay of the Black ban with those groups as time goes on?
UnderCover Brother,
If the new light wasn’t: We were wrong, Blacks can hold the priesthood, or something similar, then I don’t know what it was.
Like this comment?
1
Howard, in context, BRM’s “new light” was that men of African descent could hold the LDS priesthood in June 1978, as opposed to in or after the Millenium.
Like this comment?
0
Stephen M, since you practice in Texas, I assume you have that regard for Constitutional law for which TX is known.
Tendentious? In one short post? My POV is that the Mormon organization was racist, whether by rule or practice.
Questions:
1. You believe “Adam” founded a church?
2. How many African-American men were ordained in the years from Smith’s “restoration” and the end of the ban?
3. How many “N…and Mexicans” drank from “whites only” fountains in TX?
4. What is Mormon doctrine?
Like this comment?
0
Vajra — feel free to read my other posts on this blog where I go over a number of doctrines and definitions.
Adam was a prophet, and was baptized.
There is a great fondness for the constitution in Texas, appreciate the kind complement.
As for water fountains, I was only in Texas for two years during the sixties and I’m afraid I wasn’t very observant. Of course my father was working in an integrated Air Force Base, and we socialized with his Black friend’s family at an integrated swimming pool, so a lot of that was missed by me then.
Like this comment?
1
Stephen M, yes President Truman ordered the desegregation of the military in 1949 though many in the Military fought it. It was not fully implemented until 1963, fifteen years before the priesthood ban was ended. You must have been unusually unobservant, because those signs were everywhere prior to the passage of the Civil Rights act. I have to admit that signage varied; sometimes the message was a simple denial of any and all services to Black and Mexicans. Moreover, Whites could drink at any fountain; the exclusion was aimed at the minority population. Sortalike the priesthood ban…
Congratulations on the fact that your father had a Black friend.
As for the fondness of Texans for the Constitution, that fondness apparently does not extend to the Constitution as amended, nor to its black or brown citizens, nor the poor, nor women, nor criminal defendants. Is that the same document that your governor is so determined to violate? Yup, Texas where a lawyer is considered effective if he simply shows up…
I was not asking what you consider doctrine, but what is Mormon doctrine? How does one know that something is doctrinal? How does one know, for example, when an church authority is just speaking as a man or not?
Like this comment?
0
Varja, appreciate you don’t like our governor who only got 35% of the vote last election. Few in Texas like much about him other than his hair.
And don’t mock the effectiveness of sleeping attorneys. Or the Dallas D.A.’s office where the district attorney leads the nation in exonerations because they saved all the DNA necessary to run the tests twenty years later. Ok, mock the sleeping attorneys.
I was at a small AFB in Texas as a kid in 3rd and 4th grade. The only places I pretty much went were the trailer park where I lived and the AFB. The AFB was fully integrated. The trailer park was obviously not exactly the most exclusive place.
Before that I was in Newfoundland where the AFB there was also fully integrated, which drew a protest to the U.S. Congress from the natives there. Before that, as a pre-schooler in Wisconsin I don’t recall much in the way of signs, but then I did not read that well as a pre-school child.
Guess you expect a lot from kids in grade school. And it was “a” … but feel free to denigrate my father as well. My grandfather left his first church when his minister joined the KKK. I presume you have done similar things.
Otherwise, /Sigh.
Pitch at straw men in another thread.
Like this comment?
1
Err, not just “a” ….
Like this comment?
1
Dear Stephen, yes, I do expect a lot from kids in grade school. The different treatment of people in TX was a turning point for many youngsters. One women I know never particularly noticed the “Whites Only” sign until the “Whites” fountain broke, and a temporary sign was affixed to the “Coloreds” changing it to “Whites Only”. She pointed this out to her elders and was politely hushed and told not to mind it. She did mind it: she spent her life working on behalf of poor people and people of color. She was about 5 or 6 years old when that incident occurred.
“friend’s” = singular possessive.
Well…you got me there: I have not shunned my (I’m not exactly sure how to categorize ) John Birch joining-Ezra Taft Benson admiring- Cleon Skousen reading-original intent TBM family.
Like this comment?
0
Vajra, you missed the point, of course. With an integrated AFB, there were no “whites only” water fountains, bathrooms, swimming pools, etc.
So there was very little for me to notice.
Appreciate you feel I should have noticed it even if it was not there. I’m certain you are capable of noticing many things that are not there and of holding people to that standard. Got the point.
BTW, I remember one of the original Black Panthers coming to talk at BYU’s law school right after he spent a plane ride with Skousen.
To each their own I guess.
Like this comment?
0
“friend’s” = singular possessive.
– when you live in a trailer park you don’t often have that many other families over at one time …
You are still thinking in terms of relative wealth. Shrink down to the world where you live in a mobile home in the 1960s and only interact with one set of friends at a time …
And quit looking at things with the focus you have of using the chance to distort context in order to pick at people. You might suspect it is annoying and it makes you look rather self-righteous.
Just realize that not everyone can see things that are not there and relax a little.
Like this comment?
0
IMO, real racism requires familiarity, experience and action.
Prejudice is borne of the unknown, the unfamiliar and lack of knowledge.
Up until the 1960s, most white people outside of the south had very little contact with Black folks. So they may have been prejudiced out of the lack of experience.
In the south, where the real hatred existed, that was racist to me.
Like this comment?
2
UCB,
“Also – I’ll ask the question again: which black members have you spoken to that agree with your definition that the Church’s actions were ‘prejudice’?”
I’ve known three, including a husband a wife who joined in the early 1960s and a brother who join in the mid 70s.
Like this comment?
2
Noooo, I didn’t miss the point; I agreed that the military was ordered to desegregate by President Truman. I failed to underscore that the segregation was outside the military, in TX and elsewhere. I had no idea you never ventured out of the military compound. Sorry.
Like this comment?
1
#100: Jeff,
“Up until the 1960s, most white people outside of the south had very little contact with Black folks”.
I don’t think this true. After the Civil War, Blacks(Negroes), moved North. Just look at Jazz music, Amos and Andy, the whole White House service staff was Black.
One of the sad outcomes of the Civil Rights Movement was ‘Blacks’ came to believe they should’t do “Negro” jobs anymore. Jobs that many Nergoes had built lives around. Instead, Blacks got unemployment.
Like this comment?
1
#90 Howard:
Well, we don’t have the actual revelation so we don’t know what God actually said on the matter – no new light there. There was no priesthood restriction during Brother Joseph’s time – so no new light there.
Then we look at what BRM wrote in ‘Mormon Doctrine’ after the restriction was lifted (pg 343):
“HAM: Through Ham (a name meaning black) ‘the blood of the Canaanites was preserved’ through the flood, he having married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain. … Ham was cursed, apparently for marrying into the forbidden lineage, and the effects of the curse passed to his son, Canaan. … Ham’s descendants include the Negroes, who originally were barred from holding the priesthood but have been able to do so since June 1978.”
Nope – no new light there either.
I just find it interesting that BRM mentioned the shedding of new light, yet from his writings I can’t see the new light he referred to. To me, the underlying ‘prejudice’ (according to Jeff) remained. Almost reminds me of John Chapter 9.
Like this comment?
0
#101 Jeff:
Thanks for the response, Jeff.
Assuming you still know the three, when you spoke to them what were their feelings pre and post restriction? No bitterness at all? Sadness? Frustration? Resignation at it all (not from the Church)?
How do they now feel when they hear Sunday School lessons (Lesson 12 this year) quoting Jacob 3: 9:
‘Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness;… and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.’? (Still feel it’s just ‘prejudice’, Jeff?)
Or maybe there’s a sense of ‘battle weariness’ among the black members for having to, for decades, continue answering the same question on the Temple and Priesthood restriction with, ‘we don’t know’. Maybe ‘mainly white liberal members’, sensing the weariness of black members, take up the battle cry for them; ensuring the authorities of the Church and the world at large knows that the ‘we don’t know’ response is no longer enough. They are doing what they have been commanded to:
‘succor the weak, lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees’.
So maybe it’s not an ‘ultimate insult’ but an ultimate act of charity, Jeff, – doing for others that which they can no longer do for themselves.
Like this comment?
0
Varja — understood. It was really rural where I was. Fields and cows.
Like this comment?
1
UCB,
Two are idea and the other one I have not talked to in 20 years.
I never hear any bitterness or sadness about it. They were happy people, from what I remember.
The irony of you quoting Jacob is two-fold, one has to do with the fact that Jacob was not talking about Africans in that passage. And the other point that if Joseph Smith made up the BOM as many around here seem to believe then that thought orginiated with him and speaks against the ban or the feelings behind it originating just with BY. Joseph must have felt the same way.
Like this comment?
1
Bob,
Just because people in the north associated with Blacks and enjoyed their music does not mean they knew them or associated wit hthem outside of the work environment/.
Like this comment?
0
#108: Jeff,
Again, you have rewritten your own statement.
You said “Little contact”. Now you say “knew them or associated with them outside of the work environment”. You go from no contact to friendships in one leap.
Like this comment?
0
No, Bob you are not reading it right.
Most white people were not personal friends with Black people until the 1970s.
Like this comment?
0
#110: Jeff,
Most Whites are not personal friends with Blacks NOW!
Like this comment?
0
[...] Post a few weeks ago, the subject of the Priesthood Ban has become a hot topic of late. Jeff Spector at Wheat and Tares feels that racism is the wrong word to describe the Priesthood Ban. He says, “To me, there [...]
Like this comment?
0
[...] Post a few weeks ago, the subject of the Priesthood Ban has become a hot topic of late. Jeff Spector feels that racism is the wrong word to describe the Priesthood Ban. He says, “To me, there is a difference between been a racist and being prejudiced.” [...]
Like this comment?
0
Does anyone here believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon with the aid of the Angel Moroni, and two seer stones he named ‘ummin’ and ‘thummimin” ?
Do you believe that the Golden Plates were buried in upstate New York?
Do you believe there was a group people in North America 2000 years ago practicing Christianity?
Do you believe Donnie & Marie will perform at Mitt Romney’s inaugural ball, if he is elected president?
Like this comment?
1