Race Issues and the Church....my POV

[_Sam Harris]

I love Moksha. If I lived in Utah, I'd sit on his front doorstep until he agreed to let me have his babies.

I was happy to hear of Pres. Hinckley's speech. But he came at it from a POV of astonishment. He was there when it was all going down in its thickest point. If he doesn't know how people can discriminate, then that man must have slept through many a general conference in his youth. Still, I'm glad he said it. And probably, that's as close to repealing the priesthood ban as being doctrine as the church is going to get.

[_Pokatator]

The only reason that the church lifted the ban is with the ban in place BYU would not be able to play football on national TV or stay in the college athletic conference. The pressure was on and they responded.

[_Ray A]

It is statements like this that need repudiation:

. In 1949 the Church’s First Presidency issued the following statement:
“The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: ‘Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.’
“President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: ‘The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.’
“The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.”

Positive statements from present prophets will not do. It's like kicking someone in the gut, and never apologising, but treating them better afterwards. It's my opinion that there needs to be a correction, not just feelgood statements about the "equality of all". It needs to be publicly known by all that the church has thoroughly repudiated this past doctrine. It might be called a "policy" now, but it was a doctrine, as you can see from the above statement in the portion I have bolded.

[_Sam Harris]

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.

Hey Ray,

Is he the blinking guy? Wow, and folks think I don't look black. And yes, he's gung ho....oh my...

Well, to each his own.

The receptionist at my old job was always reading a Book of Mormon. At first I was shocked, but then I realized, who am I to tamper with her life? If she's happy...so be it. She was always kind to me.

[_Ray A]

Hey Ray,

Is he the blinking guy? Wow, and folks think I don't look black. And yes, he's gung ho....oh my...

Well, to each his own.

The receptionist at my old job was always reading a Book of Mormon. At first I was shocked, but then I realized, who am I to tamper with her life? If she's happy...so be it. She was always kind to me.

Yep, that's JB. I did actually post on his board years ago, but I was too heretical for him and he asked me to "straigten up" or leave, so I left. I knew his dad through mail correspondence quite well, and he was also a friend of my father, but his dad was much less TBM, and was inactive in his last years before he died.

[_Yoda]

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?

Hi GIMR!

I voted option 2 based on the choices given. However, if I was adding another option, it would probably be something like the following:

Yes, the Church was prejudiced. It has made some progress in turning things around, but needs to do more.

[_moksha]

Positive statements from present prophets will not do. It's like kicking someone in the gut, and never apologising, but treating them better afterwards. It's my opinion that there needs to be a correction, not just feel good statements about the "equality of all". It needs to be publicly known by all that the church has thoroughly repudiated this past doctrine. It might be called a "policy" now, but it was a doctrine, as you can see from the above statement in the portion I have bolded.

Ray, one of the more helpful tenets of Christianity is that we should forgive those who have done wrong. Holding on to past insult only uses energy and causes us suffering. Our desire for retribution is the culprit. It is much better to forgive and end our suffering. I think President Hinckley's no nonsence rebuke of racism is a good starting place for that forgiveness.

[_Runtu]

I'm glad the church has discarded its racist past. The biggest issue I see is that there is a tendency to try to erase the past. With an issue like this, you can't just pretend it never happened, but that seems to be what the church has done. In my opinion, that's why the issue remains.

[_Ray A]

Positive statements from present prophets will not do. It's like kicking someone in the gut, and never apologising, but treating them better afterwards. It's my opinion that there needs to be a correction, not just feel good statements about the "equality of all". It needs to be publicly known by all that the church has thoroughly repudiated this past doctrine. It might be called a "policy" now, but it was a doctrine, as you can see from the above statement in the portion I have bolded.

Ray, one of the more helpful tenets of Christianity is that we should forgive those who have done wrong. Holding on to past insult only uses energy and causes us suffering. Our desire for retribution is the culprit. It is much better to forgive and end our suffering. I think President Hinckley's no nonsence rebuke of racism is a good starting place for that forgiveness.

Moksha, I don't disagree with your sentiment, but remember the steps of forgiveness, as outlined by the church itself:
1) Recognising the wrong, 2) Confession, and where necessary, 3) Restitution. Has any church leader since 1978 said, unequivocally, that this idea that black people were "less vailant", "fencesitters", or "inferior" ever been admitted to be wrong? Here is what Mark E. Petersen said:

I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a café where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace"....

Has any church leader come out and publicly said that this was wrong? Sure, it was said in a different era, and in a different social climate. Galileo's pardon from the Catholic church didn't come until some 400 years after he was dead.

Then McConkie, even after 1978 wrote:

All this is not to say that any race, creed, or caste should be denied any inalienable rights. But it is to say that Deity in his infinite wisdom, to carry out his inscrutable purposes, has a caste system of his own, a system of segregation of races and peoples. The justice of such a system is evident when life is considered in its true eternal perspective. It is only by a knowledge of pre-existence that it can be known why some persons are born in one race or caste and some in another. "However, in a broad general sense, caste systems have their origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the lord.

The Deity "approved" of this? Either this was a divine doctrine, or it was from men. So if there is no repudiation, God actually approved of Petersen's and McConkie's remarks when they were made. Both were apostles. Is that why there's no repudiation? So African slavery was sanctioned of God, there will be no apology. After all, they are "descendants of Cain", so they merited slavery. Are they still descendants of Cain today? Logically they have to be, because you can't change biological ancestry, and this is what John Taylor and others said, "the devil had to have a representation on earth". Either all these ideas, beliefs, statements are from God, or they must be repudiated as a terrible mistake. Until this is done, many Mormons will hold to the idea that this doctrine was valid and true, and many will continue to see blacks as inferior, even though they now have all privileges. This doctrine will remain as defacto truth in the minds of many. Is it?

[_Ray A]

Some more insights. There is still confusion whether this was a policy or a doctrine. Let me say, it was definitely a doctrine (see below), though Jeff Lindsay says it was a policy. This is just to ease the painful truth. There's a lot of meandering around this because of the implications; if it was a mistake then it means the prophets were wrong. They received false revelation. So the soultion today is to whitewash and make strong statements against racism, ie., bury the past and let bygones be bygones. I don't believe the modern leaders are racist, and maybe most Mormons are not racist, but I also believe there needs to be a formal repudiation, a statement that whenever these past issues are brought up by inquiring minds, they can point to it and say, "read the repudiation", which might start with something like:

"Some revelations are of God, some are of man, and some are of the devil....." (Grin)

From Jeff Lindsay:

To understand more about the history of the past racial limitations on the priesthood and the anguish that it caused for black members and investigators, I urge you to read the outstanding new book, Black and Mormon, edited by Newell G. Bringhurst and Darron T. Smith (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 2004, 172 pages). Black and Mormon is a remarkable resource from a variety of intelligent minds and skillful writers. This opened my eyes to several serious issues, and changed some of my thinking on this topic. It will cause some pain and rethinking old assumptions for some members of the Church, but is likely to help all of us better understand one another and better understand some of the pains that blacks have felt and continue to feel in a Church dominated by whites, and a Church with a past racial policy that continues to cause pain in spite of having been revoked for a quarter century. I look forward to further progress in the Church and through our society to overcome racial misunderstanding and racism of any kind.

We still don't know why that past policy was in place.

"Intolerance by Church members is despicable. A special problem exists with respect to blacks because they may not now [1972] receive the priesthood. Some members of the Church would justify their own un-Christian discrimination against blacks because of that rule with respect to the priesthood, but while this restriction has been imposed by the Lord, it is not for us to add burdens upon the shoulders of our black brethren. They who have received Christ in faith through authoritative baptism are heirs to the celestial kingdom along with men of all other races. And those who remain faithful to the end may expect that God may finally grant them all blessings they have merited through their righteousness. Such matters are in the Lord's hands. It is for us to extend our love to all." (From a 1972 address reprinted in The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, Deseret Book, 1982.)

From The Black Mormon Homepage:

Q. I've heard that the Curse of Cain doctrine was never doctrine but merely folklore. Is this true?

A. NO! The Curse of Cain doctrine (that people of black Hamitic lineage are the descendants of Cain and inherit his curse...a denial of the Priesthood...until 1978) was an official doctrine of the Church from 1852 until today. It has never been repudiated by The First Presidency; although the Priesthood-ban policy was recinded in 1978. It was taught by all Church Presidents from Brigham Young until Spencer W. Kimball; in letters, in General Conference talks, and in Stake Conference talks. Anyone who said it wasn't a doctrine of the Church was told they were "going against the Prophet" and counselled to remain silent on the issue.

Many Mormons, both black and white, are embarrassed about the Curse of Cain/Priesthood-ban legacy, and want to see it "fade away" and be forgotten. A few want the First Presidency to make a public apology. But there are other Members, both black and white, who believe that the Prophets did not make a "mistake" and that the Curse of Cain legacy was of the LORD.

Members are allowed to have their own personal opinions regarding the Curse of Cain legacy, and to share these opinions with others.

Only The First Presidency (the President of the Church and his Counselors) may "repudiate" the Curse of Cain doctrine (that Negroes are Cainites and inherited the Curse of Cain). To date (2005) that has not happened.

Will it ever happen? We can't say. For The First Presidency to call the Curse of Cain doctrine a "mistake" would be to say that Church Presidents from Brigham Young to Spencer W. Kimball were "mistaken" about a major Church doctrine and policy they thought was from the LORD.

http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/homepage.html