Jump to content

Archived

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

mb20

Mormon prejudice against blacks

Recommended Posts

I was living in Provo at the time and, like Dr. Peterson, it was one of the happiest days of my life.

That is good to hear.

Now you know the feelings that members of all other christian churches got to experience from their inception.

Share this post


Link to post

I remember 1978 too. It was a great occassion.

However, the church was under implied threat of losing it's tax exempt status and they had actually hired a lawyer to begin to build their defence case.

Universities all over the US were refusing to compete with BYU on the sports field and BYU was threatened with oher sanctions.

The Scout Movement threatened legal action against the church for its discrimination against blacks because Scout troops were organisd along Aaronic Priesthood lines which meant they used the priesthood structure. As no blacks held the priesthood no black could be scout leader.

A mass demonstration was being mobilized to hit Salt Lake City at the October 1978 conference. This would have given the church's policy massive national and intenational coverage.

And finally, a declaration by the First Presidency does not carry the weight of direct revelation to the church. The two things are distinct. The very fact that this was presented as a declaration would suggest that no revelation, beyond what Hinckley has famously described as an "inspired hunch", was received. If it had been, you can bet your life we would have it.

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Guest yowzaa

Funny how Scott is always pushing the blacklds.com website...

I wonder who started that poorly designed and neglected website?

This page started as an idea shared by Scott Gordon, :P Renee Olson and Juliann Reynolds.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest yowzaa
I remember 1978 too. It was a great occassion.

However, the church was under implied threat of losing it's tax exempt status and they had actually hired a lawyer to begin to build their defence case.

Universities all over the US were refusing to compete with BYU on the sports field and BYU was threatened with oher sanctions.

The Scout Movement threatened legal action against the church for its discrimination against blacks because Scout troops were organisd along Aaronic Priesthood lines which meant they used the priesthood structure. As no blacks held the priesthood no black could be scout leader.

A mass demonstration was being mobilized to hit Salt Lake City at the October 1978 conference. This would have given the church's policy massive national and intenational coverage.

And finally, a declaration by the First Presidency does not carry the weight of direct revelation to the church. The two things are distinct. The very fact that this was presented as a declaration would suggest that no revelation, beyond what Hinckley has famously described as an "inspired hunch", was received. If it had been, you can bet your life we would have it.

Alan

Good points.

The SLC mormon church never commits to change doctrines like this and polygamy until society forces their hand.

Guess what all of you gay loathing mormons?

The past shall repeat its self in forcing you to accept not only gay marriage, but (shock of horrors) gay members! Quick! Split the church now before you are forced to do that!!!!

Don't say it won't happen, many mormons thought the same about the priesthood ban.

Soon after this "revelation" some apologist will whip up a website called gaylds.org to placate those who question the motives of the change...

Share this post


Link to post

Would an intelligent post from yowzaa be too much to ask, just once in a while? :P It's cluttering up the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Would an intelligent post from yowzaa be too much to ask, just once in a while? :P   It's cluttering up the board.

Indeed. Obsession is not strong enough to describe him. I was up all night tonight with a flu ready to throw up at any second. So I decided to be sick sitting up, rather than lying down trying unsucessfully to sleep. Yowzaa was also up all night trolling away. What's Yowzaa's excuse?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest yowzaa

(sound of chair sliding out)

(sound throat clearing)

My. ummmmm, my name is Yaa, yowzaa and I am a board-o-HOLIC.

(clapping from Daniel C. Peterson, chairperson of RfDB)

:P<_<

Share this post


Link to post
My. ummmmm, my name is Yaa,  yowzaa and I am a board-o-HOLIC.

Indeed you are Mr. Yaa, Yowzaa! :P

Share this post


Link to post

Galatians 3:28 (New International Version)

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

This is why the LDS "church" was not talking to God when they decided blacks were a "cursed" race. I just love it when any group blames God for their hatred.

Share this post


Link to post

Joey said:

That is good to hear.

Now you know the feelings that members of all other christian churches got to experience from their inception.

Which churches might those be? In my readings of history I don't see that Christians were terribly inclusive (well, it did help to have Paul and others put political pressure on Peter to allow the Gentiles in -- oh, wait, Peter claimed to have some revelation, didn't he?).

Who was it that was transporting slaves all around Europe? Which groups in the southern US were the most adamantly defending slavery? And what about the abolitionist churchmen of the antebellum US who abhorred slavery, and demanded its abolition, and that the blacks be transported elsewhere to live in peace -- far away from those same white men who demanded their freedom (slavery was bad, but it certainly wouldn't do to live close to those freed slaves). One of the issues the LDS experienced in the Missouri persecution was their attitude toward slavery -- they opposed it.

Just a quick question -- How many of you that are upset about this policy are black?

Share this post


Link to post

Why would the church need to apologize to the African Americans for not allowing them the Priesthood. First we must discuss is the Priesthood a right or a privelge. I would say that it is a privlege. It allows man an oppurtunity to grow through its ordinaces. I know I have been blessed by the priesthood. If we were to apologize to blacks we would also have to apologize to the other 11 tribes of Israel that couldn't have the Levitical Priesthood. Also, was the world really ready for a growing religous movement that had attention to allow blacks in their priesthood clergy. Considering these reasons I don't really think the church would need to apologize.

Yours in Christ,

Ashylikeamug

Share this post


Link to post

To All,

I have stated in another post (I would direct you but my computer stupidity is shining through) Sun. morning is the most segragated time in the USA. This is NOW. Not 25 years ago. BD Wheaton's post aside, one does not see white pastors of black congregations or black pastors of white congregations in any major in the metros I have lived in (Phoenix, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Kansas City, Mo. ) except with the very bigoted and narrow CoJCoLDS. I remember 10 years ago the Church stated there would be no more separate congregations due to language, race or any other reason. We saw a bunch of spanish speaking branches go away. This means one still worships where one lives just like it is suppose to be. 1st Baptist of Raytown, Mo. has 15,000 members in a town of 12,000. The membership is 90% caucasion. The active membership is 97% caucasion (attends once a month, tithes, and belongs to a ministry). I know this because I had business dealings with the three associate pastors and the music minister (he recieved the highest salary but that's another post). In most major metro areas, one worships with one's ethnicity. The Missionary Baptist Temple in KC, Mo is just the reverse 97% black attendees. The point (besides the one on top of my head) is the chance of a white pastor filling the podium at "The Temple" is two, slim and none. Those of African descent from raytown drove 12 miles to "The Temple" and those of white descent from inner city KC drove up to 25 miles to attend 1st Baptist. Does this make sense? We as a specie worship with our ethnicity. We worship with whom we are comfortable with. To state the LDS faith was guilty of corporate bigotry is up to the individual but until Raytown 1st Baptist's congregation represents the ethnicty of Raytown, Mo (55% white 35% black 10% other, whatever the means) I see no need to answer any questions. Until Missionary Baptist Temple of KC, Mo has a white pastor, talk to the hand face don't care ( that's my mature response). These are amazing social questions which need to addressed in our culture today. We may be corporate bigots but at least we are more honest about it than the rest of you.

Yours In Christ

Dr Fatguy

Share this post


Link to post

Racism: "The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others."

Someone mentioned that the church was not racist. I agree that they were not as racist as many religions or groups, but they were still racist.

I compared the racism in the church to slavery and the Holocaust because the principles are the same. In both cases, one race believed they were better or "superior" to another race and they justified that belief by saying God was on their side.

Here are some quotes by Hitler himself. Sound familiar?

----------------------

I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work. [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. [Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 46]

----------------------

Some of the worst atrocities in this world were done in the name of God. Racism is one of those atrocities.

Share this post


Link to post
To All,

I have stated in another post (I would direct you but my computer stupidity is shining through) Sun. morning is the most segragated time in the USA. This is NOW. Not 25 years ago. BD Wheaton's post aside, one does not see white pastors of black congregations or black pastors of white congregations in any major in the metros I have lived in (Phoenix, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Kansas City, Mo. ) except with the very bigoted and narrow CoJCoLDS. I remember 10 years ago the Church stated there would be no more separate congregations due to language, race or any other reason. We saw a bunch of spanish speaking branches go away. This means one still worships where one lives just like it is suppose to be. 1st Baptist of Raytown, Mo. has 15,000 members in a town of 12,000. The membership is 90% caucasion. The active membership is 97% caucasion (attends once a month, tithes, and belongs to a ministry). I know this because I had business dealings with the three associate pastors and the music minister (he recieved the highest salary but that's another post). In most major metro areas, one worships with one's ethnicity. The Missionary Baptist Temple in KC, Mo is just the reverse 97% black attendees. The point (besides the one on top of my head) is the chance of a white pastor filling the podium at "The Temple" is two, slim and none. Those of African descent from raytown drove 12 miles to "The Temple" and those of white descent from inner city KC drove up to 25 miles to attend 1st Baptist. Does this make sense? We as a specie worship with our ethnicity. We worship with whom we are comfortable with. To state the LDS faith was guilty of corporate bigotry is up to the individual but until Raytown 1st Baptist's congregation represents the ethnicty of Raytown, Mo (55% white 35% black 10% other, whatever the means) I see no need to answer any questions. Until Missionary Baptist Temple of KC, Mo has a white pastor, talk to the hand face don't care ( that's my mature response). These are amazing social questions which need to addressed in our culture today. We may be corporate bigots but at least we are more honest about it than the rest of you.

Yours In Christ

Dr Fatguy

Dr Fatguy,

I agree that racism is still rampant in the US and the Mormons are certainly not the worst offenders. However, just because another group or religion is racist does not make the racism of the LDS church ok.

People are allowed to make mistakes, that is human nature, but they need to apologize when they make those mistakes. That especially goes for an organization that teaches the importance of repentence and asking forgiveness. If the church is truly the restored true church, it should be held to higher standards.

mb20

Share this post


Link to post
People are allowed to make mistakes, that is human nature, but they need to apologize when they make those mistakes. That especially goes for an organization that teaches the importance of repentence and asking forgiveness. If the church is truly the restored true church, it should be held to higher standards.

Is there a church that does not teach these things while claiming they are the real deal? :P Why the double standard?

Just out of curiousity, what have all of these elaborate "apologies" accomplished? Not much.

"Some of the white elite evangelicals attempted reconciliation, but incompletely.  The problem with whites' conception of reconciliation, many claimed, was than they did not seek true justice--that is, justice both individually and collectively.  Without this component, reconciliation was cheap, artificial, and mere words.  It was rather like a big brother shoving his little brother to the ground, apologizing, and then shoving him to the ground again."

Richard O. Emerson and Christian Smith, Divided by Faith:  Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America.  (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000),  p. 58.

As it stands, all other religions can simply drive to the congregation that suits them...black or white. That is why you get most people thinking "getting to know people of another race" will do the trick rather than integration.

Solution-to-Racism Agernatives:  Percent Responding "Very Important," White Strong Evangelicals

Alternatives            Very Important

Get to know people

of another race    89%

Work Against Discrimination

in jobs or Courts                  83%

Racially Integrate

congregations    58%

Racially Integrate

Neighborhoods    38%

Richard O. Emerson and Christian Smith, Divided by Faith:  Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America.  (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000),  p. 178.

Share this post


Link to post
Some of the worst atrocities in this world were done in the name of God. Racism is one of those atrocities.

Like they say...when you have to start quoting Hitler you have lost the debate. :P

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

I have to admit, I thought that the ordination of Elijah Abel and others were more of a symbolic nature, and that they actually didn't hold the power of the priesthood - meaning that they wouldn't be able to exercise those keys. I know Elijah served three missions, but I assumed that it was to teach/preach the Gospel only and not to baptize or confirm anyone. They were 'ordained' to these positions to show how faithful they were in the Gospel, and not to actually HOLD the priesthood.

I could definately be wrong on this.

Also, Elijah Abel - and others - where not allowed to receive their endowments in the Temple.

On the other hand, however, is that this was the Lord's law (not to allow blacks to hold the priesthood), and he can make exceptions if he chooses. Remember that the Lord commanded Moses that no Ammonite or Moabite was to enter the congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation. Yet, Ruth of the OT, who was a Moabite, was allowed to enter into the congregation of the Lord.

Finally, as has been stated already, there wasn't 'unfair' treatment towards blacks by the church organization. You seem to suggest that they were degraded, outcast, and dispised by the 'Church'. This was not the case, and I'm sure many members were bothered by the Law of the Lord in this regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Some of the worst atrocities in this world were done in the name of God.  Racism is one of those atrocities.

Like they say...when you have to start quoting Hitler you have lost the debate. :P

juliann, if we cannot learn from past mistakes, then why study history?

Share this post


Link to post
However, the church was under implied threat of losing it's tax exempt status and they had actually hired a lawyer to begin to build their defence case.

Universities all over the US were refusing to compete with BYU on the sports field and BYU was threatened with oher sanctions.

The Scout Movement threatened legal action against the church for its discrimination against blacks because Scout troops were organisd along Aaronic Priesthood lines which meant they used the priesthood structure. As no blacks held the priesthood no black could be scout leader.

A mass demonstration was being mobilized to hit Salt Lake City at the October 1978 conference. This would have given the church's policy massive national and intenational coverage.

Documentation?

Share this post


Link to post

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.

It sounds impressive! I am just wondering how many churches the government was planning on shutting down when they shut down those dastardly Mormons (who were a fraction of the religions who engaged in much worse than the Mormons ever thought up). Did the government step in here?

In 1977, the American Baptist Churches in the USA had a larger number of blacks than any other non-black denomination… An interesting irony of the racial overtones still prevalent is that the American Baptist Churches of the South are now predominately a black sub-convention of the American Baptist Churches in the USA. There has been little white involvement since the influx of black Baptists.

Gregory E. Thomas, "Black and Baptist in the Bay State," American Baptist Quarterly (March, 2002), 68-69.

Did the government step in here?

So often Negroes in Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia and other places have been taken to that tree that bears strange fruit. And do you know that the folk lynching them are often big deacons in the Baptist churches and stewards in the Methodist churches feeling that by killing and murdering and lynching another human being they are doing the will of Almighty God? The most vicious oppressors of the Negro today are probably in church.

Marty Bell, "Fire in My Bones: The Prophetic Preaching of Martin Luther King, Jr.," Baptist History and Heritage (Winter 1999), 13.

We are going to have to get out our hip boots to get through the double standards that are piling up in here.

Share this post


Link to post

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 110.

"This will always be so." Was Brigham Young wrong, or are our modern day leaders wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
..."This will always be so."  Was Brigham Young wrong, or are our modern day leaders wrong?

"I would like to say something about the new revelation relative to our taking the priesthood to those of all nations and races.... There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, 'You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such? And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

"We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more.

"It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

(Bruce R. McConkie, "All are Alike unto God", 1-2)

I'm voting 'Brigham Young was wrong' on this matter.

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.

×