Joanna Brooks Railing Against The Church. Again.

[Scott Lloyd]

I read her book. I liked her book. But Joanna seems to make a side living in stressing what she believes are topical negatives about the church. She should mention that the africans who were members hardly ever experienced racism in the church. That the priesthood ban did not prevent africans from being welcomed as members.They were equals. And we need to remember that african women had the same blessings as white female members and other female members of color. The priesthood ban affected the males but not females.

Though I mostly agree with you, I need to point out before someone else does who is less kindly disposed to your viewpoint that while the restriction was in effect, females of African descent could not enjoy the blessings of the temple. If I recall correctly, this was a source of heartache for Jane Elizabeth Manning James.

[why me]

Though I mostly agree with you, I need to point out before someone else does who is less kindly disposed to your viewpoint that while the restriction was in effect, females of African descent could not enjoy the blessings of the temple. If I recall correctly, this was a source of heartache for Jane Elizabeth Manning James.

I didn't mention the temple. But what about the questions that I asked?

[why me]

I want to also bring out that the ban was not about color. Many people of color received the priesthood during the ban. When I read about the ban from Joanna or other people who are critical this is rarely mentioned if at all. It was not an all white thing at all. And yet, this is what it sounds like when I read Joanna and other people who are critical.

Edited May 6, 2013 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't mention the temple. But what about the questions that I asked?

They were definitely welcomed into Relief Society. My memory is not the clearest on your other question (I was still in college in 1978) but I would be very surprised to learn that they were not allowed to go visiting teaching.

My recollection is that black men could serve as Sunday School presidents even prior to 1978.

[cinepro]

I want to also bring out that the ban was not about color. Many people of color received the priesthood during the ban. When I read about the ban from Joanna or other people who are critical this is rarely mentioned if at all. It was not an all white thing at all. And yet, this is what it sounds like when I read Joanna and other people who are critical.

I was worried Sister Brooks wasn't going to have anything to write about for her next article, but I can see now that if she stumbles across this thread, that won't be a problem.

[Scott Lloyd]

I was worried Sister Brooks wasn't going to have anything to write about for her next article, but I can see now that if she stumbles across this thread, that won't be a problem.

Well, if we become the target of her vitriol, at least we'll be in good company.

[cinepro]

I read her book. I liked her book. But Joanna seems to make a side living in stressing what she believes are topical negatives about the church. She should mention that the africans who were members hardly ever experienced racism in the church. That the priesthood ban did not prevent africans from being welcomed as members and warmly welcomed at that. And we need to remember that african women had the same blessings as white female members and other female members of color. The priesthood ban affected the males but not females. Were not the african women welcomed into the relief society? Did they give lessons in relief society? Did they go visiting teaching with other women? If we answer yes to these questions, it should be stressed by every member when the subject of racism comes up. If no, we may have a problem.

As Scott already pointed out, they were denied entry to the Temple. Depending on how you view the Temple, that might be a big thing.

To frame the problem another way, in addition to asking about Relief Society and visiting teaching, it might also be asked if a woman of presumed African descent could marry a man who wasn't of presumed African descent (i.e. a white guy) in the Temple?

If not, why not?

[Tacenda]

I want to also bring out that the ban was not about color. Many people of color received the priesthood during the ban. When I read about the ban from Joanna or other people who are critical this is rarely mentioned if at all. It was not an all white thing at all. And yet, this is what it sounds like when I read Joanna and other people who are critical.

This also brings up a thought to me. What's up with choosing Africa to haul over their people for slaves? Why didn't they choose anywhere else, say Australia in the Outback or say some Indian Villages? They are of color also. I love history now, but when we might have been taught about slavery in school I probably wasn't listening very well. Anyone know why the white people picked Africans?

[Scott Lloyd]

If not, why not?

Are we not pretty much agreed that there has already been more than sufficient potentially harmful conjecture on this subject?

[Scott Lloyd]

This also brings up a thought to me. What's up with choosing Africa to haul over their people for slaves? Why didn't they choose anywhere else, say Australia in the Outback or say some Indian Villages? They are of color also. I love history now, but when we might have been taught about slavery in school I probably wasn't listening very well. Anyone know why the white people picked Africans?

Aborigines were used as slaves in Australia. I understand the slang word "Abos" is regarded as an offensive epithet because it harkens back to those days.

[canard78]

I'm sure you're well aware of the fact that the Lord and his apostles were commanded of the Father to not offer the gospel to the gentiles for a period of years, as can be verified by the following scriptural references:

"5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not." (Matthew 10)

"24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 15)

Years later, a dramatic special revelation given directly to Peter, the President of the Church, was required to revoke the "gospel for the Jews only" Church policy. Even though this revelation, in the form of a vision from the Lord, was given to Peter three consecutive times, he still didn't understand the meaning and import of the intended message, and this, likely, because of his own deeply entrenched thinking . For verification I speak the truth, read the following:

"9 ...Peter went up upon the ^ahousetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate." (Acts 10)

You are surely aware of the fact that the gentiles of that day were considered by the Jews to be "unclean," and were even commonly referred to as "dogs". And for some unknown reason, the Lord seemed to allow this perception of gentile uncleanness and unworthiness to be perpetuated by a "gospel ban against the gentiles" that was only rescinded by means of this most powerful and graphic revelation. And as I asserted, after three repetitions of the vision Peter still didn't understand the revelation was given to lift the ban against preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. He finally understands the meaning of the vision when he puts 2 and 2 together after meeting with the gentile Cornelius and his gentile entourage. As so we read:

"7 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate,

18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.

19 ¶While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

21 Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?

22 And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.

23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.

24 And the morrow after they entered into Cæsarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.

25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.

28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (Acts 10)

And so we see, there was a church-wide ban against extending the blessings of the gospel to the gentiles, because it was "an unlawful thing" to do so. Also understand that with that ban was, by natural extension, a ban against the gentiles holding the priesthood as well. So in light of the above incontrovertible facts, one wonders if after the ban was lifted there may have been members who decried the Church leaders and said, "the whole episode makes (our) stomach(s) turn. It's a blot on our history with no justification and shocking that it was left in place (for so long)."

In the practice of law there is an important principle called precedent (i.e. an earlier event or action regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances) and the above clearly shows that the precedent of a gospel dispensation being extended to different lineages at different times is nothing new.

As for yours truly, he is satisfied that after all is said and done, when the day comes that the mysteries of the economy of God are fully revealed, the priesthood ban of our day will be viewed in much the same light we now tolerantly view the gentile ban policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Meridian-day Saints -- part and parcel of the Lord's will. I, for one, have always given the Lord's duly authorized servants of the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times the benefit of the doubt, and it has made all the difference. It must be a hard thing for any member of the Church to harbor ill-will towards its leaders past or present. Before I myself jump to conclusions on any controversial issue, I always remind myself of the fact that "for now we look through a glass darkly, but then face to face."

They're a gulf apart. There is clear scriptural basis for Gentiles being held back, statements of revelation and Christ's gospel was taken to the Gentiles within the same generation as it arrived (Peter).

Can you show me Brigham's revelation to undo Joseph's willingness to ordain blacks? There was reasonable need, no revelation or even claimed revelation to introduce the ban. And 150 years of Mormon leaders perpetuates this non-revealed prejudiced policy.

[Scott Lloyd]

... this non-revealed prejudiced policy.

With this phrase, you are declaring doctrine, which you have no right to do.

[canard78]

I think that the critic interpretation has made your stomach turn. However, since I was around during the ban, my stomach wasn't turning at all. We all wanted to the ban to be lifted and we saw how african members were treated by the general membership, They were treated as equals by the overwhelming majority of members. Unfortunately, this goes unnoticed by critics who love to bring up this issue in sound bites.

Could black people attend the temple? You said earlier that there was no segregation. Isn't that segregation? You can come to our chapels but not to our temples.

I'm glad the 70s generation wanted the ban lifted. Perhaps that willingness to receive the change was what lead to the leaders confidence to do so. It's sad to think a contrary membership attitude may have been what held the change back for so long.

[BlueDreams]

This also brings up a thought to me. What's up with choosing Africa to haul over their people for slaves? Why didn't they choose anywhere else, say Australia in the Outback or say some Indian Villages? They are of color also. I love history now, but when we might have been taught about slavery in school I probably wasn't listening very well. Anyone know why the white people picked Africans?

Scott already pointed out australian slavery. But on first shoot the reason was probably ease of access. It was far easier to send slaves from africa's western coastal areas to americas' eastern ones. Not as easy to ship others. And some native populations were used as slaves in certain colonies....until the hard labor/disease killed off most of them (look up haitian history....first example that comes to mind). Africans were considered more hardy. Though if you ask me it had more to do with a natural culling process that shipping them overseas in unbearable conditions to kill off weaker people and having disease tolerances that didn't exist in indigenous populations helped in survival of living slaves in the new world.

If you mean India, indian....then it goes back to ease and the terms of colonization that differed drastically from regions of Africa.

Either way/group, very little is a pretty history to say the least.

With luv,

BD

Edited May 7, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm glad the 70s generation wanted the ban lifted. Perhaps that willingness to receive the change was what lead to the leaders confidence to do so. It's sad to think a contrary membership attitude may have been what held the change back for so long.

You're thinking is all wrong on this. It wasn't just the " '70s generation" who wanted it lifted. I was in my 20s then, and I can't think of a single Church member within my acquaintance from the older generations alive during my youth who would not have welcomed a lifting of the restriction.

It did not come about due to social pressure, either within or outside of the Church. It came about because a prophet of God was in tune with the Him enough to try long and hard to seek His approbation for what the prophet earnestly wanted to have happen.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Nevo]

With this phrase, you are declaring doctrine, which you have no right to do.

So canard78 has "no right" to express the view that the priesthood ban was non-revealed—that's somehow "declaring doctrine"—but teddyaware can express the view that the ban was God's will and that's just fine by you. What a crock.

[teddyaware]

They're a gulf apart. There is clear scriptural basis for Gentiles being held back, statements of revelation and Christ's gospel was taken to the Gentiles within the same generation as it arrived (Peter).

Can you show me Brigham's revelation to undo Joseph's willingness to ordain blacks? There was reasonable need, no revelation or even claimed revelation to introduce the ban. And 150 years of Mormon leaders perpetuates this non-revealed prejudiced policy.

You say there was no reasonable need, but I trust the First and Second Counselors to President Kimball and the Twelve when they proclaimed they unitedly received confirmation from the Spirit that President Kimball received a revelation from the Lord that the priesthood ban was revoked. There must have been a ban in the first place if a revelation from God was needed to revoke it. Apostle Bruce R McConkie solemnly testified that on the occasion when the First Presidency presented the revelation to the Quorum of the Twelve, there was an outpouring of the Spirit so powerful that it was likened to the Day of Pentacost. As for the use of human reason alone in trying to fathom the mysteries of God, he said his ways are not our ways and that his ways are higher than our ways.

To save you the trouble of looking up Official Declaration 2, I've posted it below. In order for you to be right, the leaders of the Church in 1978 were outright liars. Perhaps you are comfortable second quessing the Lord's anointed; I am not. To each his own...

"Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Sincerely yours,

Spencer W. Kimball

N. Eldon Tanner

Marion G. Romney

The First Presidency" Official Declaration 2

Edited May 7, 2013 by teddyaware

[BlueDreams]

My two cents:

I don't find her piece an outright attack...or even railing against the church. From her tone, I assume she sees it more along the lines of measuring two conflicting camps within the lds community over how to interpret history and its significance. I think there is differing beliefs about whether the ban was or was not supposed to be...why it happened...etc. But I think the evidence to her points are extremely strained. I'm very aware of any discussion about race or racism/minority groups in general, I think the policy was placed largely due to an overwhelming racist societal context, and I didn't even blink from the talk her main premise is based on. I do not see what she sees based on that quote at all.

Other words and descriptions are inflammatory or at the very least oddly worded in a way that you wouldn't normally be found in a discussion about the priesthood ban.

I don't think it reads as a railing....I think she would need to have been far stronger in her language and her points for that. I do think it's a poorly construct and fallacious argument though.

With luv,

BD

Edited May 7, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

She should mention that the africans who were members hardly ever experienced racism in the church.

That would depend on how you define "hardly" and "racism" (meaning extreme behaviour or just looking on others condescendingly, etc). Edited May 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[noel00]

Aborigines in Australia were not treated as slaves like the Americans, maybe ignored, abused. Many males worked as stockmen on the cattle stations. A few years ago there was a national sorry day where both sides of politics said they were sorry for the treatment of blacks in the past.

[Calm]

This also brings up a thought to me. What's up with choosing Africa to haul over their people for slaves? Why didn't they choose anywhere else, say Australia in the Outback or say some Indian Villages? They are of color also. I love history now, but when we might have been taught about slavery in school I probably wasn't listening very well. Anyone know why the white people picked Africans?

Whites were originally used as slaves by other whites...pretty much any conquered people became slaves for awhile, slavery was not just the 'other guy' also because those who went into debt were often sold as slaves or children were sold due to the poverty of their parents. Native americans were used as slaves by each other as well as whites. As to why the slave trade focused on blacks...don't know, but there was a lot of slave trade going on in Africa at the time already among the peoples that lived there. Many of the white slave traders picked up their 'cargo' in the ports from black or Arab slave traders IIRC (it's been awhile since I studied this). Edited May 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

With this phrase, you are declaring doctrine, which you have no right to do.

Maybe so. But I find nothing convincing to the contrary.

The church today seems reluctant to call it a revealed doctrine:

"Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. (Doctrine and Covenants, Official Declaration, OD 2)"

Whether I'm declaring doctrine or not (and I would say not given I am expressing my carefully thought opinion), it's the conclusion I reach from the sources I've read.

Having said that, BY seemed to claim some divine inspiration to instigate it:

"On January 16, 1852 Young made a pronouncement to the Utah Territorial Legislature stating that "any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it."[14]"

and

"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.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism

How did he know it to be true? The voice of The Lord or his own perspectives that he considered to be true and imposed on the membership. He offers no words that I can fins of 'God has told me...'

BY said several other things the church has had to later repudiate. BY was a good pioneer prophet, a 'Moses out of the Egypt' leader. But he would have done well to leave the revelation of doctrine to his predecessor.

I hope that eventually, and it might take a few more generations, the church will apologise for the "possible error."

The things of God cannot be understood by the spirit of men. It is impossible to always measure and weigh all spiritual things by man’s yardstick of scales. Admittedly, our direct and positive information is limited. I have wished the Lord had given us a little more clarity in the matter. But for me, it is enough. The prophets for 133 years of the church have maintained the position of the prophet of the Restoration that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood nor have the temple ordinances which are preparatory for exaltation. I believe in the living prophets as much or almost more than the dead ones. They are here to clarify and reaffirm. I have served with and under three of them. The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error, which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that he will do, I am sure. These smart members who would force the issue, and there are many of them, cheapen the issue and certainly bring into contempt the sacred principle of revelation and divine authority.

(Spencer w. Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, June 1963., p. 448.)

http://emp.byui.edu/huffr/rel%20372/may%20the%20source%20be%20with%20you.htm

[canard78]

With this phrase, you are declaring doctrine, which you have no right to do.

So, like Nevo said, will your doctrinal policing extend to every expression of opinion on this thread or just the ones you disagree with?

[smac97]

My two cents:

I don't find her piece an outright attack...

No, you are right. It's not an "outright" attack in the same sense as Ed Decker or James White are "outright" in their attacks. It's more like a Grant Palmer-style attack.

or even railing against the church.

I guess we'll have to disagree there. Accusing Elder Dikcson of racism was beyond the pale. Fabricating "cross purposes" in the Church was wrong. Vilifying the body of the Church as broadly harboring racism, while simultaneously preening herself as a self-appointed "anti-racist advocate" was appalling. Declaring doctrine was wrong.

From her tone, I assume she sees it more along the lines of measuring to conflicting camps within the lds community over how to interpret history and its significance. I think there is differing beliefs about whether the ban was or was not supposed to be...why it happened...etc.

Agreed. But A) the LDS Church has specifically said that we don't know the origins of the bad, but B) Joanna Brooks presumed to declare its origins anyway and C) accuse the Church of continuing racism despite the fact that D) the LDS Church has expressly condemned racism.

But I think the evidence to her points are extremely strained.

Yep. She wanted to position herself as morally superior to the rest of the Church, including the leaders of the Church (hence her self-referential and self-reverential comment about "anti-racist advocates" juxtaposed with her defamatory accusations against Elder Dikcson). The problem is that, well, Elder Dikcson isn't racist.

I am sure some members of the Church harbor some racist sentiments (I should note, moreover, that racism isn't just something white people struggle with). However, I've been going to Church in the states pretty much nonstop since 1995 (mostly in Utah), and I cannot recall a single disparaging race-based remark uttered in Church. This is not just random chance. In my experience, Church members either A) do not harbor racist sentiments, or B) recognize that such sentiments are incompatible with the society of the Saints, and so keep their bigotries to themselves. I think the vast majority of Church members fall into the former category.

I don't think it reads as a railing....I think she could have been far stronger in her language and her points. I do think it's a poorly construct and fallacious argument though.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Grant Palmer was similarly sinuous in his efforts. Plausible deniability, I suppose.

The article is so obtuse, so abusive of its sources, so tendentious in its reasoning, so cynical in its interpretation of the LDS position, and so obnoxiously self-righteous (positioning herself as an "anti-racist advocate" by juxtaposting herself against and defaming a general authority), I have to call it for the spade that it is: a "railing."

Thanks,

-Smac

[canard78]

You're thinking is all wrong on this. It wasn't just the " '70s generation" who wanted it lifted. I was in my 20s then, and I can't think of a single Church member within my acquaintance from the older generations alive during my youth who would not have welcomed a lifting of the restriction.

It did not come about due to social pressure, either within or outside of the Church. It came about because a prophet of God was in tune with the Him enough to try long and hard to seek His approbation for what the prophet earnestly wanted to have happen.

I didn't say it came about due to social pressure. I celebrate President Kimball's persistence (15 years of supplication by some accounts). It's a shame his predecessors weren't more persistent. If the pre-60s & 70s generation would have also welcomed the ban then too ba it wasn't done.

You say it happened because a man (President Kimball) was "in tune with the Him enough to try long and hard to seek His approbation for what the prophet earnestly wanted to have happen."

Unfortunately it appears at least one of the 1960s apostles had a different view to you.

A friend of mine in Arizona — not a Church member — a great champion of the colored race -— came to me after my call into the Twelve, and acknowledged President McKay to be a Prophet of God. He wanted me to ask President McKay to inquire of the Lord to see if the Lord would not lift the curse from the colored race and give them the privileges of the Priesthood. I explained to him that the Lord had placed the curse upon the Negro, which denied him the Priesthood; therefore, it was the Lord’s responsibility — not man’s — to change His decision.

...

I fully agree the Negro is entitled to considerations, also stated above, but not full social benefits nor inter-marriage privileges with the Whites, nor should the Whites be forced to accept them into restricted White areas

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/24/delbert_stapley.pdf

I recognise that he specifies that he's not speaking in his official capacity, but it highlights the views of his and "several others."

I'm also glad that he eventually seems to have changed perspectives and sustained the change on his deathbed.

I reference this letter as evidence of the attitudes of at least one of the 12 apostles as recently as 1964. Key issues are:

- the perspective that they shouldn't go asking God for the change. That He would "tell" and they shouldn't "ask."

- the view that Negroes were inferior to Whites, that partial segregation should be maintained and a suggestion that several people (3 presidents and a friend) had all had an untimely demise due to their pro-black campaigning.