Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mb20

Mormon prejudice against blacks

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know if the church ever apologized for its unfair treatment of blacks before the 1970's?

Share this post


Link to post
Does anyone know if the church ever apologized for its unfair treatment of blacks before the 1970's?

They blame God for the priesthood ban.

Officially, Mormons were never racist...they just obeyed God :P

So there is no need for an apology

Share this post


Link to post

As soon as Christ apologizes for only teaching the gospel to Jews at first?

When Moses apologizes for only letting the tribe of Levi to hold the priesthood?

Share this post


Link to post
As soon as Christ apologizes for only teaching the gospel to Jews at first?

While he is at it, he should apologize for killing all those innocent children in that Flood, just because their parents were sinners.

And for commanding Moses to enslave or kill innocent women and children that he captured in his wars.

Share this post


Link to post

I can tell I am going to like this board already.

I guess Ezra Taft Benson was too busy to apologize because he needed to concentrate on writings about the dangers of pride.

Share this post


Link to post
I can tell I am going to like this board already.

I guess Ezra Taft Benson was too busy to apologize because he needed to concentrate on writings about the dangers of pride.

Hey, I was just wonder...in the story of the three billy goats gruff, what was that hideous, ugly, rather dumb creature that lived under the bridge? Was it an ogre or a TROLL

I doubt you'll like it here. Your type don't do well when Dunamis comes to town.

C.I.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think there were any african americans affected by the ban, or at least, the 32 or so black LDS members of record in 1978 have forgotten and forgiven already. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, I believe the LDS church should apologise for their priesthood ban on Black Africans.

This is because they did ordain Negroes originally. Joseph Smith personally ordained Elijah Abel. Then the policy was reversed. This seems a very odd thing to do and I suspect Brigham Young had something to do with it.

Joseph's caution when ordaining Blacks was limited to issues of whether they were free men or slaves. He felt ordaining slaves was problematic for the saints as this could anger the slave owners and cause problems for the church.

One of the main reasons the church was persected in Missouri is because of its opposition to slavery. Missouri was unofficially pro-slavery. and later had dep Confederate sympathies.

In one of his first revelations from the Lord to the church, Joseph Smith III confirmed that the priesthood was for all, including men of African descent.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post

Ah yes, a board would just not be as fun with out at least one self-righteous hypocrite that hides discrimination and prejudice behind "moral values".

I asked an honest question. Did the church ever officially apologize for their racism? I really want to know.

Share this post


Link to post
I asked an honest question. Did the church ever officially apologize for their racism? I really want to know.

No.

Share this post


Link to post
I asked an honest question. Did the church ever officially apologize for their racism? I really want to know.

No. Should they? If so. Why?

I think Alan contradicted his position by reaffirming that LDS were persecuted in Missouri because of their stance against slavery.

Share this post


Link to post

According to research done by sociologist Armand Mauss in the 1960s, American Latter-day Saints of that period were no more and (unfortunately) no less racist than other Americans of comparable educational level, socio-cultural status, and geographic location (e.g., urban, suburban, or rural). Nowadays, I suspect, American Latter-day Saints may well be less inclined toward racism than their non-LDS peers.

There was a Church policy prior to June of 1978 barring the ordination of blacks. It is believed by most faithful Latter-day Saints to have been divinely sanctioned or, at least, divinely permitted, and to have been changed by divine decree. There is unlikely to be an apology for what most members of the Church believe to have been in line with the (inscrutable) will of God.

I was always uncomfortable with the policy, but sustained it as reflecting in some way God's design. I still regard it in that way. I am not, however, in any sense that I can detect, a racist. I still distinctly recall the day that I heard of the revelation in 1978 as one of the happiest days of my life.

Share this post


Link to post

If the church has not already done so (and it sounds like they have not), they need to apologize. The treatment of blacks was horrific for so long in the US and to have the church add to that discrimination is a real disgrace. I think many churches have apologized, why not the Mormon church?

Share this post


Link to post
If the church has not already done so (and it sounds like they have not), they need to apologize. The treatment of blacks was horrific for so long in the US and to have the church add to that discrimination is a real disgrace. I think many churches have apologized, why not the Mormon church?

Because they believe it was God who discriminated against them...not the Mormons. The Mormons just obeyed God.

To admit otherwise would be to admit a problem with our Prophets ability to recieve revelation.

Share this post


Link to post
According to research done by sociologist Armand Mauss in the 1960s, American Latter-day Saints of that period were no more and (unfortunately) no less racist than other Americans of comparable educational level, socio-cultural status, and geographic location (e.g., urban, suburban, or rural).  Nowadays, I suspect, American Latter-day Saints may well be less inclined toward racism than their non-LDS peers.

There was a Church policy prior to June of 1978 barring the ordination of blacks.  It is believed by most faithful Latter-day Saints to have been divinely sanctioned or, at least, divinely permitted, and to have been changed by divine decree.  There is unlikely to be an apology for what most members of the Church believe to have been in line with the (inscrutable) will of God.

I was always uncomfortable with the policy, but sustained it as reflecting in some way God's design.  I still regard it in that way.  I am not, however, in any sense that I can detect, a racist.  I still distinctly recall the day that I heard of the revelation in 1978 as one of the happiest days of my life.

Daniel,

"There was a Church policy prior to June of 1978 barring the ordination of blacks. It is believed by most faithful Latter-day Saints to have been divinely sanctioned or, at least, divinely permitted, and to have been changed by divine decree. There is unlikely to be an apology for what most members of the Church believe to have been in line with the (inscrutable) will of God."

That is a very scary and dangerous statement. It is that kind of thinking that allowed for slavery. It is that kind of thinking that allowed the Holocaust to happen. Articles of Faith 2 says: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam

Share this post


Link to post
If the church has not already done so (and it sounds like they have not), they need to apologize. The treatment of blacks was horrific for so long in the US and to have the church add to that discrimination is a real disgrace. I think many churches have apologized, why not the Mormon church?

Facts to remember:

1. There were no "blacks only" congregations in the LDS Church.

2. There were no "blacks only" buildings in the LDS Church.

3. There were no "blacks only" drinking fountains, rest rooms, or any other amenities or facilities in the LDS Church.

4. Black folks were kept from priesthood participation, including Temple marriages, etc.

5. Many LDS leaders and hoi poloi did speculate, both privately and publicly, orally and in writing, on reasons for the priesthood ban, but there never was any discernible scriptural basis therefor. Some will disagree.

6. The LDS Church, prior to 1978, did little, indeed next to no, proseletyzing of black folks. In Brazil, however, they couldn't help it, since everybody's pretty much multiracial down there. A temple was announced for, and indeed was about to be opened in, Brazil in 1978. That was a much bigger deal to the Church than whether Colorado State threatened to leave its conference partnership with the parochial stench.

7. A few LDS members left the Church after the 1978 revelation lifting the priesthood ban.

Just what would you have the Church apologize for?

Share this post


Link to post

BCSpace,

Er, I did not contradict myself. The church was ordaining blacks in Missouri, just not slaves. Where is the contradiction?

However, to ordain blacks with God's approval ("called of God by prophecy and by the laying on of hands") and then say that God says we shouldn't, is a contradiction.

It seems a shame God couldn't make up his mind on this issue.

This is where the LDS church should admit it's guilt. It could say something like,

- 'mistakes were made in the early days of the church because of incorrect scriptural interpretations and misunderstandings. However, through revelation God has corrected those mistakes. It is unfortunate that this happened and we apologize to those affected'.

What I find more interesting, however, is the absence of a revelation on this matter. Presient Kimball said one was received, but where is it? This is highly irregular and does not comply with the revelatory pattern of the restored church.

I personally suspect there was no revelation at all, unless it was revealed how much money the church was going to lose as it lost it's tax exempt status and suffered law suits galore.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
I personally suspect there was no revelation at all, unless it was revealed how much money the church was going to lose as it lost it's tax exempt status and suffered law suits galore.

Perhaps I'm missing something. Was the Church threatened with loss of tax-exempt status in 1978? And I've never read of impending lawsuits, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Er, I did not contradict myself. The church was ordaining blacks in Missouri, just not slaves. Where is the contradiction?

The contradiction is in the fact that you think the Church ought to apologize even though at the same time you gave evidence that the Church is not racist. Perhaps if you could point to some official doctrine of the Church that is racist then we might have cause to apologize.....but you won't be able to.

Share this post


Link to post

> Does anyone know if the church ever apologized for its unfair treatment of blacks before the 1970's?

==Good question. Also, does anyone know if the Hebrews have every apologized for restricting the priesthood to adult male Levites?

==Also, why doesn't the Aryan Nations group up in Idaho every ask about this?

-Smac

Share this post


Link to post
That is a very scary and dangerous statement.  It is that kind of thinking that allowed for slavery.  It is that kind of thinking that allowed the Holocaust to happen.

Just crying out "slavery!" and "Holocaust!" doesn't impress me, and doesn't prove that believing in doing things because God ordains them, or in refraining from things because God disallows them, is "very scary and dangerous." Don't try to blame us for slavery or for the Holocaust, or to link us with slave plantations and the Nazi Party. It doesn't wash, and it doesn't constitute serious analysis.

Can religious belief become pathological? Obviously, yes. So can many things. But I'm aware of no evidence indicating that religious belief was a primary factor behind black slavery, let alone behind the Nazi Holocaust.

Orthodox Jews believe very very strongly in doing things and not doing things simply because of what they believe God has ordained, even if they don't understand the reasons. (Even Moses Maimonides, the greatest of all medieval rabbis, drawing on a thousand years of rabbinic reflections, was still merely speculating when he proposed reasons for the mitzvot in the twelfth century.) Could that become dangerous? Perhaps. But not many Orthodox Jews were slave holders, and even fewer were guards at Auschwitz, Dachau, or Mauthausen.

P.S. No, the Church was not threatened with loss of its tax-exempt status in 1978. That's mythology.

Share this post


Link to post
P.S.  No, the Church was not threatened with loss of its tax-exempt status in 1978.  That's mythology.

Thanks for clearing that up, Dr.P.

Share this post


Link to post

Alan's accusation that no revelation was received strikes me as specious.

I was living in Provo at the time and, like Dr. Peterson, it was one of the happiest days of my life. To imply that nothing actually happened is... strange.

There was a declaration, signed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

What more do you want?

Beowulf

Share this post


Link to post

I spoke with our Bishop and his first counselor this evening (both of whom are African American and both were members prior to 1978) and asked them if they felt that an apology was in order. They both thought it was a funny question. This was the only church in town that had blacks and whites meeting together at the time, and they thought that was great. They said that didn't feel discriminated against. Perhaps I can ask some other black members here how they feel. Would that help?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×