DiscussMormonism.com

Before I get into the race/cultural issues within the church, and how it has affected me, let me quote a passage from a book that I bought back in the last weeks of my journey as a Latter-day Saint. A book I had hoped would help me grow as a Mormon. A book I got from an LDS source. A book that only added to my disillusion and pain. A book that I would burn, if it weren’t for the damning evidence that I can and do use against those who like to tell me that what I’ve been through is just in my imagination.

“BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD

Question 1

The LDS Church has often been persecuted because the African Americans in the church did not originally have the opportunity to hold the priesthood but later this rule was changed.

Did the change that allowed African Americans to receive the priesthood come because of persecution and not because of revelation?

Answer 1

The change in policy that occurred in the 1970s came for one reason – it was the Lord’s desire. During the Law of Moses, only the Levites could hold the Aaronic priesthood. Was that prejudice? The Lord said “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen and ordained you and ordained you” (John 15:16). It is very apparent that the Lord chooses who and when the people can hold the priesthood.

It should be noted this instance of the Lord changing a policy is not the only time the Lord has done this. For example, it was also ruled that the Savior and his apostles would not go among the gentiles (Matt. 10:5-6, 15:24), the gentiles were even compared to as dogs by the Savior himself (Matt. 15:26). Yet later this ruling was changed and the apostles did go among the gentiles.

Other examples just to name a few include:

1. God commanded circumcision forever and latter revoked it (Gen 17:10-11).

2. A one time women could not speak in the churches (1 Cor. 14:34-35). Yet during other times they worked with Paul (Rom. 16:1-4), some women were even prophetesses (Luke 2:36).

3. The Law of Moses was in full force during Old Testament times and withdrawn during New Testament times (Matt. 5:17)

4. At one time, divorce was not allowed then later under certain circumstances it was permitted.

The fact is the LDS church has been without prejudice from the beginning. When the Church was first organized, many other religions would not allow African Americans to join their churches, but forced them to meet at different times or in different meeting places. African Americans have always been welcome in the LDS church. Baptism for African Americans has been allowed since the Church’s beginning. There were Mormon African Americans with the Saints when the crossed the plains. Did the Lord change the policy because of persecution? It is not known, but the Church survived much greater persecution because of the Book of Mormon than it ever did from the priesthood policy. It was time for the African Americans to receive the priesthood, the revelation was given, and they have had the opportunity ever since. The Saints knew the African Americans would receive the priesthood much sooner than the persecution started. As early as 1852, Brigham Young said that the “time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more”.

There was no revelation given on when it would happen. Many opinions of Church leaders and members were expressed concerning the date but again no revelation. When the word came, elation and happiness spread through the Church that a revelation had come from God above that our black brothers could hold the priesthood. The Book of Mormon says this:

He inviteth them all to come until him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female. (2 Nephi 26)

Yes, changes are made in policy, just as in the times of Christ, but on the other hand, the gospel itself is unchangeable. That is why, just as at the time of Christ, the Church still has apostles and prophets unlike most other religions on the earth today.

Question 2

Why did the Lord choose not to originally give the priesthood to African Americans?

Answer 2

In the book of Isaiah, the Lord said this:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. (Isaiah 55:8)

The Lord has chosen when the African Americans could and could not hold the priesthood. The reasons African Americans could not originally old the priesthood is revealed in the scriptures. It goes back to the time of Adam and his son Cain. The Bible tells us that because of Cain’s sin of killing his brother Abel, Cain was cursed with a “mark” (Gen 4:15). This mark was black skin, and all the lineage of Cain inherited the same mark (Moses 7:22). With the flood of Noah, everyone on earth was killed that didn’t get on that ark. Obviously for there to be black people on the earth today, there would have had to be a black person on Noah’s Ark in order to carry forth the mark and lineage. This is exactly what happened. Ham, Noah’s son, married a descendant of Cain, whose name was Egyptus. The curse continued through Ham’s posterity. The word Ham means “swarthy” or “black” and the word Egyptus means “that which is forbidden. Although Ham was forbidden to marry Egyptus, he did it anyway. Because of the curse given to Cain, he and all his posterity – through Ham were “despised” among all people” (Moses 7:8). They were also forbidden to hold the priesthood. It may not seem fair that all of Cain’s posterity received the curse when they were innocent of the sin, but it was not the Church’s decision it was the Lord’s decision, and his ways are not our ways. During ancient Bible times Enoch would not even teach the Gospel to Cain’s posterity (Moses 7:12). The great prophet Abraham commanded his son Isaac not to marry anyone from Cain’s posterity (Canaanites) because of this mark (Gen 24:3). Was this prejudice? Those who question why the LDS church did not originally give the priesthood to the African Americans are also questioning why God did not want Isaac to marry anyone with the mark of dark skin. Are you willing to question God on this doctrine?”

I Have An Answer by Dr. David Pressley Bowman. Copyright 2003. Published by Cedar Fort Publishing can be found on amazon.com…along with my review

Now, now that the above debacle is over, let me touch on a few things. First of all, the church was not “persecuted” because of Blacks not having the priesthood; it was rightfully questioned, given the change with regards to race matters in the nation. If your nation as a whole is seeking to dispose of racism, follow suit. Also, with regards to the Aaronic priesthood, please show me in the Bible where the words “Aaronic priesthood are”…and also tell me how one should apply those words. Because in my reading (and college studies) of the Old Testament, I came to find out, that the Levites were not priests. Sorry Mormons, but your doctrine is wrong. Only the descendants directly from Aaron were allowed to be priests and officiate in the temple. The descendants of Levi were set aside so that there would always be someone on hand to give administrative help to the descendants of Aaron in the temple. Due to the large volume of Old Testament sacrifice, the small number of priests could not take care of those duties all alone. Also, the Levites were charged by God to assemble and disassemble the tabernacle during the journey in the wilderness. They were exempt from military duty because of this as well. For reference, you can see Numbers 1:47-54.

This is all I could find on that issue that doesn’t have an LDS distortion.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?se ... spanend=73

With regards to John 15:16, being chosen by God means you are his ambassador. Not some ticket holder to a heavenly country club. Once again, wrong doctrine. With regards to the Lord’s choice of who would hold the priesthood, that was made in Old Testament times, and the “limitation” was banished with the birth, ministry, and death of Christ. In Him, all divisions were supposed to have ceased. But we know people can be myopic at times.

With regards to Christ not going among the gentiles, the message was to go to the lost house of Israel first. They were the ones who were supposed to be God’s ambassadors, does it not make sense to fix them first, his representatives, before going to everyone else? That’s like trying to discipline someone else’s child when you have some bad ass kids. C’mon, man! And as far as the Canaanite woman, Christ was testing her faith in Matthew 15:26. He often did that. When Christ was resurrected, he told his disciples to go and preach the Gospel all over the earth. Not only that, but there are many instances in the Bible were Christ was healing and dealing with people who were not Jewish. The Samaritan woman at the well, the Samaritan man with leprosy, this Canaanite woman. If Jesus was as prejudiced as this Mormon fool is making him out to be, would he have done this?

With regards to circumcision, the passage in Genesis 17, the word forever does not come up. With regards to the covenant God makes with Abram however, that covenant was a “forever covenant”. Once again, word twisting. Yeah folks, as long as it’s correctly translated. Revoked? Um, what do fundie LDS not understand about the law being abolished by Christ’s sacrifice?

Women speaking in church. Any Bible scholar who is not fundamentalist in his leanings would carefully scrutinize Paul. First of all, his writings were influenced by the society he lived in, as well as his opinion. As were all the writings in the Bible. Legalism and the Bible don’t mix. I attend Pat Robertson’s university, and even they tell us not to be legalists with regards to the Bible. But then again, that’s the magic of accreditation.

The Law of Moses was abolished by Christ, true, but Isaiah and the Psalms speak of a Messiah that is coming to set his people free. The law was in place to be a guide that would get the people of Israel in place. It had to be strict, because early Israelites were polytheists, steeped in the cultures surrounding them in the Near East. They came out of Egypt with Egypt’s influence. There are over 40 borrowed Egyptian words in the Old Testament. The name Moses can be translated into both Hebrew and Ancient Egyptian. In fact, the name “Hatmose” means “brother of Moses”. Most Israelites up until the final exile of both Israel and Judah were worshipping Idols. They didn’t understand the commandment “ye shall have no other Gods before me”. That meant “after me”, too. The Israelites of that time were engaged in a very tentative monotheism. Prior to Sinai, there was no commandment to worship only Yahweh, and even after that command, it took hundreds of years to get used to. It wasn’t until the exile, the final judgment and wrath of God over Old Testament Israel for its idolatry, that Israel got the picture. The Old Testament law was strict for a reason. But upon the return from exile, this law turned into legalism, and was popularly known as the “Tradition of the Elders”. That’s where the Pharisees and Sadducees came from.

Divorce not being allowed? Um, see Deuteronomy 24:1-4. This doesn’t speak of a prohibition of Divorce, rather a prohibition of marrying someone you already divorced, because she has slept with another man. Again, Mosaic law was so strict as to work the polytheism out of Israel. In fertility cults, you slept with whoever whenever the god you worshipped needed some prodding. Makes you want to go “blech”. Some people, you just don’t know where they’ve been.

The church without prejudice? Puh-lease! Allowing the poor black folk to sit in church with you is not the same as “separate but equal”, which many churches were prior to societal integration in this country. There were black priests and bishops long before Joseph Smith got that idea in his head at 14. Not to mention the Quakers and Shakers (not to be confused) treated blacks as equal from the beginning. True equals. Sorry Mormons, you lose out again.

And as far as apostles and prophets, many Christian churches have that today…but those men are seen merely as great teachers, not given the power the LDS church gives its leaders. And for good reason. Look at how LDS leaders spouting off “scripture” with their “thus saith the Lords” have influenced this sick man.

Ok, with regards to the whole "God's choice" in having blacks hold the priesthood; again, the LDS church has it all wrong. Cain was not cursed with black skin. Cain was given a "mark", the scriptures do not say what that mark was, and it was so anyone who found him would not kill him (strange, because there wasn't supposed to be anyone else around! Ah, legalism...explain that one *grin*). It took an addendum to the Bible in the form of the LDS canon to explain that one. Hence, the dude quotes Moses. And I stick an extra special finger up at him.

As far as the meanings of the names, see the hyperlinks for the truth. And the wives of the sons of Noah were never named in the Bible. And who Enoch preached to wasn't mentioned either. Only that he "walked with God" (Genesis 5:24). Again the church had to look to an addendum to justify this ridiculous claim.

With regards to Isaac not marrying a Canaanite woman because of "the mark", WTF? No, Abraham simply wanted "one of his own people" for Isaac. Probably because the culture and traditions were familiar, not because of black skin! That was as common back then as it is today, marrying people who share your background and values. But given the wealth of information we have today, more people are crossing those boundary lines, praise God. If they hadn’t I wouldn’t be here. What are these fundie TBMs seeing when they read the Bible? Probably nothing, because I've seen many a TBM carry only a triple in my sojourn in the church, and any reading of the Bible by the LDS church seems to need to go with a whole bunch of bogus GA commentary...to keep the members from questioning too much.

I’ll post my theory on what I feel the issue is in a bit. Read and chew on this if you like. Sorry it’s so long, but this guy’s nonsense was definitely worth quoting.

I had no idea that LDS people are still justifying the priesthood ban due to the mark of cain theory. I guess it's been too long since I've been around a real chapel Mormon instead of these internet Mormons who are way too PC for that.

It is insane to pretend that the priesthood ban and the justifications given for it did not result in racism in the LDS church. And until either the LDS church officially repudiates the past ban, or every LDS person who was alive during the ban and remembers the Mark of Cain justifications dies out and the church wipes out the evidences of the past, racism will continue in the LDS church.

That is not to say all LDS are racist. Of course they aren't. But it is common sense to realize that racism is going to be more common in a group that recently had institutionalized, "God Approved" racism and has never officially repudiated it than an another group that did not.

I've known three African American Mormons in my years as an LDS member in the south. Just three. And all of them either went completely inactive or switched to another church because they couldn't stand the isolation and, at times, out right patronization or racism in enough Mormons to make them unable to tolerate the LDS faith any longer.

I haven't voted yet because I'm torn between 2 and 3. Is it possible to add one more category?

Yes, the Church had prejudiced views, but some of it has evolved for the better over time. Although the Church will never admit to making a mistake, at least the priesthood ban has been reversed, and President Hinckley gave a talk not too long ago about everyone being equal in the sight of God.

I agree that the Church still takes a blind eye to many issues, and really has not faced the needs of many minority members, black members in particular.

I suppose in reasoning things out loud, my vote would probably more closely align option 2, but I still don't know that the Church is blanketly prejudiced NOW. It definitely WAS during its inception.

I agree with Mauss:

"Since the 1978 revelation granting the priesthood to all worthy males, millions of people of all races have embraced the restored gospel of Jesus Christ," the statement said. "[That] declaration continues to speak for itself."

But Armand L. Mauss, a sociologist from Pullman, Wash., who is president of the Mormon History Association, said in an interview that he has talked with dozens of black Mormons who believe that some Mormon leaders and laity still view blacks as inferior.

Mauss said that some of the teachings did not originate with Mormons but with the Protestant groups from which Mormons converted. "Every major Protestant denomination in history has taught that blacks are descendants of Cain and Ham," he said.

Yet teachings that "died a natural death" over time among Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and others, he said, have lingered in Mormonism as indicated by books published as recently as 10 years ago.

"The only way to neutralize what's out there is a public repudiation" of earlier doctrines, said Mauss, who is white.

It appears those books continue to be published. It's a dilemma which could open up a Pandora's Box, and if you read some past First Presidency statements you'll see why. I did quite a bit of research on this and wrote a 6,000 word article, which was submitted to a publisher, but so far it has not been published (nor rejected).

We had at least 15 black people in church last Sunday and that's usually how it is in a ward of about 75 attending each Sunday. There seems to be a lot of black people coming into the Church here in the Memphis area. I seriously doubt anyone talks about race, and if they do they probably tiptoe very carefully.

As time goes on I think you'll see more and more African American members wind up in the Church. Chapel Mormons aren't really concerned with historical problems.

Hey All,

Liz, I tried to go back and add another option. Would you say that you believe that for the most part racism has died out in the church, but there are still some holding onto past teachings? What do you think?

Ray A, Mauss is right. Beastie, I had no idea either.

I think that the issue for me was more cultural ignorance than racism. People didn't hate me, they feared me because they didn't know much more about me past what they saw on TV. That hurt much more than any epithet they could have hurled my way.

My brother used to tell me that I didn't know what it meant to be a black woman. And before I was LDS, that was true. I lived in a self-imposed world of no color. Why? Because I am light-skinned, and in many circles, light-skinned black people are despised. We are seen as thinking we are better than others, and sadly, some do...and did back in the day. Being closer to white was perferable, but pre-Civil Rights you were still black, the blonde hair and blue eyes meant nothing. My hair is blond, so what? My skin is also just a little darker than the average white person. A tanned white person is darker than me. When I lived in Germany, it always perplexed me at first that none of the Germans spoke English to me, as they always did to my parents. Until I realized that they thought I was a native, "Afro-Deutsch", half German, half African. Over there, they think mixed races are beautiful. It unnerved the hell out of me to see people stare at me all the time, until my mom's friend told me they found me attractive.

People used to follow me, asking themselves, what is she? I used to try to ignore them, but finally I turned around and said, "I'm human, what are you?". I stick by that. I judge you not on your skin color, the accent of your voice, the weight of your body, etc. I look at your heart, and hope you have sense enough to look at mine. Sadly, that doesn't always happen.

My journey through the LDS church taught me how to be proud of my faith. And I don't have any problem with someone being LDS, even with this in the mix, because not everyone feels the same way about it. An LDS friend just left my house, I requested a blessing from him. We go back and forth on doctrine at times, but I know that he is seeking God, and I know that any prayer offered on another person's behalf is one that God will hear. It's been a hellish week for me, I buried someone and lost a job that had been promised to me for what seems to be no reason, all in the space of five days, and after having gotten a substantial raise. Doesn't make sense. Anyways, you can be LDS. Just don't try to keep someone in the church who doesn't want to be there. ALL of my venom came from feeling trapped, because I knew that my culture kept me from having the same quality of life as a non-black LDS. I wouldn't marry. All the black LDS women I know are not married, and they're getting up there. If you want an eternal family, how painful can it be to know you may not be able to have one because of your skin color?

Not to mention trying to justify the "skins of blackness" quotes in the Book of Mormon. I remember trying to do that. Trying to find any way to explain it other than literal race. It was very difficult, if not impossible to do.

My mom used to ask me if the church let black people and white people date yet, if they liked black people yet. I had no idea what she was talking about! Whole milk before meat thing, I guess. The church was never gonna let me bite onto that steak, if they could help it. And out of five years of membership, I only met one African American LDS man. None of marriageable age for me. Never. There is one black bishop up in Kensington MD, but I never met him, only went to a fireside. His wife is white, and his kids are darlings. That family made me so wistful, and I wished I could be a part. But hey...not to be. I talked to Darron Smith once, and I have mad respect for him, despite the fact that he's stayed. He's an activist, and I've seen people on FAIR call for his excommunication...why? For wanting to face this issue. He was fired from BYU for talking about this. He was their "Diversity Counselor"...why would you need one if there was no problem? Darron rocks.

And I think that the reason why this problem has stayed around so long, is because the LDS, as a prophet following people, have not seen their leaders do what's right. So there's always the dumb-ass straggler, like the person who wrote this book. Even some Mormons gave him bad reviews. And I gave him a terrible one. Here I am trying to do my best to be a good Mormon, convinced that I must have it wrong, and I come across this. Devastating to say the least.

ajax18 wrote:We had at least 15 black people in church last Sunday and that's usually how it is in a ward of about 75 attending each Sunday. There seems to be a lot of black people coming into the Church here in the Memphis area. I seriously doubt anyone talks about race, and if they do they probably tiptoe very carefully.

As time goes on I think you'll see more and more African American members wind up in the Church. Chapel Mormons aren't really concerned with historical problems.

Chapel Mormons usually don't know the historical problems, not the deep ones. And neither do most black LDS that I know of. They know vague snippets. In this case, I would say its best they don't know, if they're there and happy.

But here in DC, SLC reincarnated....it's hard.

I was supposed to be called into the Young Women's presidency of a DC branch...an all black young women's. But I cried on the way to church every week, thinking about the disappointment I was preparing them for. Teaching them the truth about their worth before God, only to have some ignorant Mormon boy destroy that. I couldn't do it. Let the clueless girls from Utah do that one. Because they won't be able to answer the hard questions either, when it's time...if those girls stay active. And it's sad, when I spoke, they listened. But it's because they knew I understood them. But I washed my hands like Pilate, I wanted nothing to do with that spiritual massacre. Re-live it again? And with impressionable girls from backgrounds as bad or worse than mine? I shudder to think about them now. But I hope common sense kicks in, because change enough to keep them emotionally safe ain't coming in this generation.

GIMR wrote: My hair is blond, so what? My skin is also just a little darker than the average white person. A tanned white person is darker than me. When I lived in Germany, it always perplexed me at first that none of the Germans spoke English to me, as they always did to my parents. Until I realized that they thought I was a native, "Afro-Deutsch", half German, half African. Over there, they think mixed races are beautiful. It unnerved the hell out of me to see people stare at me all the time, until my mom's friend told me they found me attractive.

People used to follow me, asking themselves, what is she? I used to try to ignore them, but finally I turned around and said, "I'm human, what are you?". I stick by that. I judge you not on your skin color, the accent of your voice, the weight of your body, etc. I look at your heart, and hope you have sense enough to look at mine. Sadly, that doesn't always happen.

I have one, or possibly a couple of African ancestors in my line. I was born in Trinidad, which has about 50% African, 45% Indian, and 5% of mixed European. My ancestry is predominantly European. I didn't join the church in Trinidad, but I occasionally look at Jean Borde's website : http://www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/ind ... 20&t=6595&
(I'm giving you a link to one of his posts so you can see him.)


He is the son of the first black member in Trinidad, and is a gung-ho TBM. Trinidad has just over 2,000 members, and most would be black. He's rather arrogant so I don't post on his site, but you might be interested in having a look.

Earlier this year President Hinckley said:

Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?
Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.

President Hinckley gave what is probably the definitive answer on the Church's past policy of racial purity with these words: "How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?"

From what I can see, this policy of arrogance has ended and our task now is to rid ourselves of personal prejudices. We must fight it when we see it.
God is not a racist, he loves all of us.