The Priesthood Ban Is Still Official Doctrine Of The Lds Church

[orion88]

Alas, our online archives only go back to 1988, but for what it's worth, here is a retrospective I wrote back in 1999:

http://www.ldschurch...who-waited.html

There are archived newspaper articles that you can purchase that have some reports of events if you do a search on "every worthy male" or "official declaration 2", you can then use part of the listings to do additional searches to see if you can find the article without paying for it:

http://nl.newsbank.c...rch/we/Archives

http://www.ldschurch...out-Africa.html

http://www.ldschurch...ng-manager.html

Thanks guys.

[why me]

Sorry. I should have clarified things. I was looking for a divinely revealed gospel principle

barring those of Negro-descent from the priesthood before 1978.

I think that it was a policy to not allow the mobs another reason to attempt to exterminate the mormons. It came on the scene slowly and surely. Now was god behind it? If god wanted to save his church, this was one way to do it. If the Black Pete episode leaked out, the mobs would have went nuts and much blood would flow.

[Arkholt]

Comfort levels are usually dependent on the information and knowledge and context held by everyone involved. Not by race.

True. Many times, people who are more ignorant of a situation feel more comfortable with it than those who are more knowledgable, have first hand experience, and are or were directly affected by it. While perhaps not dependent on race, it is dependent on the culture you grew up in or were raised in. Contrary to what white people sometimes like to believe, there is a distinct black culture in the United States.

You would be surprised at the many different cultural perspectives that intersect, converge and diverge among all communities regardless of race. Something to consider when we want to insert race into a question or when someone else inserts race into the question.

I might be surprised. I just said I wondered, because it's difficult for me to view the world from the perspective of a culture I did not grow up in. Perhaps I'm incorrect in assuming that the majority of people in this discussion are non-black and the discussion thus far has most probably involved mostly white people. I'd be happy for someone to prove me wrong. However, it just seems useful to have the perspective of that other culture in order to see if it does intersect.

[juliann]

I wonder how different this discussion would be in a group entirely consisting of black people. I wonder how they feel about it. I wonder how comfortable they feel when a white person tells them that the priesthood ban wasn't racist.

I wonder if my (and others') perspective from being a white person is clouding their judgement a little.

I really recommend Darius Gray's Nobody Knows documentary for that perspective.

[Calm]

Speaking of:

he Documentary Channel will show Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons on February 21st, 2012, as part of "the Best of Black Documentary Cinema" celebration. The Documentary Channel is available through Dish or Satellite. Check local listings for time. To find out more about the selection of Nobody Knows, take a look at the full press release.

Brigham Young University will show the documentary in the Harold B. Lee Library auditorium on February 23, 2012 as part of Black History month.

http://blackmormonfilm.com/news.html

[juliann]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/mindful-of-history-mormon-church-reaches-out-to-minorities/2012/02/13/gIQAZKJrKR_story.html?tid=ts_carousel

Good article about minorities.

The number of blacks embracing the faith is climbing. Ryan Cragun, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Tampa, said there were almost 3.2 million Mormons in the United States in 2008. About 94,700, or 3 percent, were black.

This was an interesting perspective:

“Many times we hear of diversity in the church, but oftentimes we don’t see it,” said Bryan Powell, an insurance executive and the Anacostia Ward’s first counselor, or assistant pastor. “Here at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we don’t just talk about it. We see it; we live it. We are all together one family, and that is the way the Lord would have it.”

[Hamba Tuhan]

I wonder how different this discussion would be in a group entirely consisting of black people. I wonder how they feel about it. I wonder how comfortable they feel when a white person tells them that the priesthood ban wasn't racist.

Until a little more than a year ago, amongst my housemates was a black man (and former Muslim) who joined the Church in Africa when he was 17. His take on the priesthood restriction when I asked him about it: God clearly has a timetable for spreading the gospel around the world. Who am I to complain about the order when I'm just grateful for the blessings that have come into my life?

FWIW.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[CA Steve]

I really recommend Darius Gray's Nobody Knows documentary for that perspective.

One of the more interesting parts of that documentary is the black girl who says, (I am quoting from memory here so I may be a bit off)

"I don't mind defending my mebership in the Church to non members, I do mind defending my blackness to members"

And then later on the same girl talks about being in the temple and having an elderly lady comming up to her and wondering how she (the elderly lady) would recognize the black girl in the ressurection when she is white.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 18 February 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

Comfort levels are usually dependent on the information and knowledge and context held by everyone involved. Not by race.

True. Many times, people who are more ignorant of a situation feel more comfortable with it than those who are more knowledgable, have first hand experience, and are or were directly affected by it. While perhaps not dependent on race, it is dependent on the culture you grew up in or were raised in. Contrary to what white people sometimes like to believe, there is a distinct black culture in the United States.

Culture and race are distinct. Errors usually made are two fold... a conflation of race and culture, and a monolithic presumption of both.

Quote

You would be surprised at the many different cultural perspectives that intersect, converge and diverge among all communities regardless of race. Something to consider when we want to insert race into a question or when someone else inserts race into the question.

I might be surprised. I just said I wondered, because it's difficult for me to view the world from the perspective of a culture I did not grow up in. Perhaps I'm incorrect in assuming that the majority of people in this discussion are non-black and the discussion thus far has most probably involved mostly white people. I'd be happy for someone to prove me wrong. However, it just seems useful to have the perspective of that other culture in order to see if it does intersect.

Having dated outside my culture and race, I can tell you there are indeed many differences. For instance I dated an African American woman whose family were from the outer banks. Their race was definately African American but they did not adhere to the African American "standard" that so many use when describing African Americans. A discussion regarding how some might be excluded based on lineage for them would not be so remarkable since they do have a lineage and even a language distinct from that of the US. Also Cajuns do not follow the stereotype for French Americans or American Native Americans, Cubans in Florida are another example, African American communities here in CA also are distinct and do not follow the pied piper of generalized conflation of both race and culture, as well as politics.

Just saying one should be careful in presuming some sort of distinct view, whether we would be uncomfortable or not. If one wishes to make something about race (regardless of which side of the discussion), then it is about race, but I would wage more times than not, it is an artificial imposition not one that occurs organically.

[Pahoran]

Would you share some newspaper articles and/or references in the Ensign magazines that show all this rejoicing you talk about? From what I have heard (and this is entirely based on hearsay) the announcement came off as if someone important had died - with sadness and disbelief.

That's false. But I do know where your impression comes from.

Like most Latter-day Saints who were alive in June 1978, I remember where I was and what I was doing when I heard the news. Certain mean-spirited individuals, including Jerald and Sandra Tanner, compared that to how people sometimes talk about the Kennedy assassination, and parlayed that into the baseless assumption that it was "sadness and disbelief." They could have chosen to compare it to how people remember, say the Apollo 11 Moon landing; I also remember where I was and what I was doing when I heard Armstrong say "One small step for man," but that wouldn't convey the impression they wanted to give, would it?

I can understand your experience but I'm wondering if there was anything in the news to capture this supposed moment of joy?

I've no idea. Feel free to do your own homework. I lived through it; I know how it went down. If you'd rather cherish your fond notions about "Mormon racism," that's your problem.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

That's false. But I do know where your impression comes from.

Like most Latter-day Saints who were alive in June 1978, I remember where I was and what I was doing when I heard the news. Certain mean-spirited individuals, including Jerald and Sandra Tanner, compared that to how people sometimes talk about the Kennedy assassination, and parlayed that into the baseless assumption that it was "sadness and disbelief." They could have chosen to compare it to how people remember, say the Apollo 11 Moon landing; I also remember where I was and what I was doing when I heard Armstrong say "One small step for man," but that wouldn't convey the impression they wanted to give, would it?

I wonder if Orion can identify for us the source of this rumor, which any honest person who experienced this historic event will recognize as an absolute falsehood. Orion, did it come from the Tanners, as Pahoran has suggested? They are (or were, in Jerald's case)old enough and aware enough to know better.

I myself have used the Kennedy assassination as well as the moon landing comparison. My point, of course, was that the event is of such seminal import that it fixed in one's mind exactly where one was and what was doing at the time of occurrence. To intimate that this implies it was an occasion of shock and grief is either utter ignorance or rank dishonesty.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeff K.]

orion88, on 16 February 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Would you share some newspaper articles and/or references in the Ensign magazines that show all this rejoicing you talk about? From what I have heard (and this is entirely based on hearsay) the announcement came off as if someone important had died - with sadness and disbelief.

That's false. But I do know where your impression comes from.

Like most Latter-day Saints who were alive in June 1978, I remember where I was and what I was doing when I heard the news. Certain mean-spirited individuals, including Jerald and Sandra Tanner, compared that to how people sometimes talk about the Kennedy assassination, and parlayed that into the baseless assumption that it was "sadness and disbelief." They could have chosen to compare it to how people remember, say the Apollo 11 Moon landing; I also remember where I was and what I was doing when I heard Armstrong say "One small step for man," but that wouldn't convey the impression they wanted to give, would it?

I've no idea. Feel free to do your own homework. I lived through it; I know how it went down. If you'd rather cherish your fond notions about "Mormon racism," that's your problem.

Regards,

Pahoran

I was in southwest VA at the time. A small branch with some died in the wool southerners. The reaction conveyed to me from that branch was best illustrated by our branch president who said "Now we can share our responsibility with all men" it was done with joy and in a way relief. Imagine a priesthood holding Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. What a joy such a person would bring to the Lord. There will be other opportunities such as his for all peoples, the priesthood will help.

[BCSpace]

Sorry. I should have clarified things. I was looking for a divinely revealed gospel principle

barring those of Negro-descent from the priesthood before 1978.

It's curious how today's LDS doctrine, to which I refer in the OP, recognizes it as a divinely revealed gospel principle.

I wonder how different this discussion would be in a group entirely consisting of black people. I wonder how they feel about it. I wonder how comfortable they feel when a white person tells them that the priesthood ban wasn't racist.

I wonder if my (and others') perspective from being a white person is clouding their judgement a little.

Maybe. But I detect not a little "white guilt" in this and other threads with some making it a special and absolute surety we know they and others rejoiced when the ban was ended. I think the spectre of modern racism would also cloud the feelings of many blacks making it just as difficult for them to see the truth that the ban is not racist.

Edited February 20, 2012 by BCSpace

[Scott Lloyd]

I wonder if Orion can identify for us the source of this rumor, which any honest person who experienced this historic event will recognize as an absolute falsehood. Orion, did it come from the Tanners, as Pahoran has suggested? They are (or were, in Jerald's case)old enough and aware enough to know better.

I myself have used the Kennedy assassination as well as the moon landing comparison. My point, of course, was that the event is of such seminal import that it fixed in one's mind exactly where one was and what was doing at the time of occurrence. To intimate that this implies it was an occasion of shock and grief is either utter ignorance or rank dishonesty.

I'm topping this post in hopes Orion will see it. I would really like to know who had the gaul to concoct such a transparent whopper when there are so many millions of people still living with clear memories of the event in 1978 when the revelation on the priesthood was announced.

[Pahoran]

I'm topping this post in hopes Orion will see it. I would really like to know who had the gaul to concoct such a transparent whopper when there are so many millions of people still living with clear memories of the event in 1978 when the revelation on the priesthood was announced.

The thing to keep in mind is that if this transparent whopper is not consistently and firmly corrected, it will, by default, go into the historical record and future Orion88's will be wagging their heads in sanctimonious judgement of those unenlightened, racist Mormons.

Which is, of course, why the Tanners concocted it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Kenngo1969]

I don't know that anyone was ever "blood-atoned" ...

I can think of one or two people that ought to be!

[cinepro]

Imagine a priesthood holding Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. What a joy such a person would bring to the Lord. There will be other opportunities such as his for all peoples, the priesthood will help.

With all due respect, if we're keeping "worthiness" as part of the priesthood equation, I can't imagine it. Those FBI files had some crazy stuff!

Edited February 21, 2012 by cinepro

[Jeff K.]

Perhaps King would have been more thoughtful of his private life as a Latter-Day Saint with a deeper understanding of the priesthood, perhaps not, but I am an optimist.

[mrcuff]

If the doctrine wasn't "racist", then what was it?

In other words, please describe it to me without using race as the sole determining factor.

I believe that "officlal" Mormon doctrine comes from God. God can be recist if he wants to. After all, He is God.

[cinepro]

I believe that "officlal" Mormon doctrine comes from God. God can be recist if he wants to. After all, He is God.

I'm going with Nephi in judging whether or not God is racist or not:

2 Nephi 26:33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Nephi doesn't say whether all were alike unto Brigham Young, so we'll just have to figure that one out for ourselves.

Edited February 22, 2012 by cinepro

[BlueDreams]

I wonder how different this discussion would be in a group entirely consisting of black people. I wonder how they feel about it. I wonder how comfortable they feel when a white person tells them that the priesthood ban wasn't racist.

I wonder if my (and others') perspective from being a white person is clouding their judgement a little.

I'm half black. As mentioned cultural perspective will change from person to person. I grew up with my mother's family (who's white) and my step-dad (who's hispanic). My bio-dad and step mom are both Nigerian. I've been extremely interested in cultural and racial ID because it has been a very interesting part of my life. Racial/cultural ID, to me, is very fluid and maleable dependent on place, time, and circumstance. What is "obvious" to one person, won't be to another concerning race because of their own set of cultural expectations...not necesarily race.

Personally the idea of splitting lineage and racism doesn't hold much weight. The development of this idea paralleled American thoughts of race at the time. Where once race had more fluidity, the idea of white or black was developing into the one-drop rule as a means to continue some form of seperation once slavery ended. Miscegenation was a major phobia at the time and scare tactic within the discourse about slavery. Someone keeps mentioning black pete. Though I'm sure that would have been problematic for the saints, I think it had more an effect in the community than it did out. It's something I see a lot when dealing with extremely small numbers of minorities. One person can become representative of the entire group. For example as a female missionary I often found that elders would develop an idea of what sisters were like from a single sister....usually the worst example of a sister. This example would become prevelant in their minds and it would be difficult to root it back out and "restore faith" in sister missionaries. It carries over very well for race as well. Negative impressions are more powerfully rooted than positive as well. So despite the elijah able's being in the community as well, because there was already a negative social impression of black people and a growing fear of black men gettting a little freedom and running stealing precious white women, pete would have become a big confirmation for said bias. Leading to an over reaction or growing confirmation to other biases as well.

The cursed lineage was an idea that was already existant in the American scene as a means to justify slavery. So, to me, it wasn't revelatory but an assumption that simply wasn't questioned at large. It was a racist assumption that was maintained in the church. Over time, other LDS specific theories also grew into their own as a means to justify the practice. All of them assumed a lesser status of people with black ancestry. The lineage not race idea is bunk to me because no matter how you swing it, being mixed with african ancestry, in this case, becomes a prevelant taint. It assumes a) you can't escape your blackness and b) that you'd want to escape it. Besides, as mentioned, it co-alligns with the one-drop rule that assume that one drop of black make you black. It was an idea that fit well into the growing dimorphic view that americans had (and still do have to some extent) about race. You're either this or that and there's no others...race is rigid and absolute. This became problematic when running into areas where race didn't fit this view at all, seen most predominanty in Brazil.

I came to this conclusion gradually. It wasn't an overnight thing. At first I didn't know much about it. When I did become aware of it, it was shocking and the curse of cain bit was introduced by family. It rang wrong in ideology from the get go. I never believed it had substance because of the implications and what always sounded racist. But I wanted to understand why it came about and why it was so popular an idea. Plus I wanted to understand why there was a ban in the first place. I came with the initial assumption that it (the ban) was right/revelation. As I researched over the years (it became one of those pet topics, especially as I was also having to reassert my own racial identity as mixed/biracial) it slowly morphed to this conclusion it wasn't.

None of the conclusions/justifications that I've seen mentioned work. They have gaping holes in my mind or rely heavily on faulty logic based on historically racist ideology IMO. Not to say the people who think them are necessarily racist..but the idea is.

So there you have it.

With luv,

BD

[Pahoran]

I'm half black.

Left side or right side? (It's important, you know.)

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Left side or right side? (It's important, you know.)

Regards,

Pahoran

Lol. Funny.

[Deborah]

Lol. Funny.

And it can cause eternal wars.

[Pahoran]

And it can cause eternal wars.

It was a Star Trek reference. People who are white on the right side are inferior.

Regards,

Pahoran