Joanna Brooks Railing Against The Church. Again.

[why me]

At no point in the process were we as a church out in front of society in how we treated blacks (unless you go way back to Joseph Smith's day).

I don't think that this was true at all. The general treatment of blacks as individuals by church members far outweigh the priesthood ban. A church policy was one thing. But individual treatment was quite another. If they needed help, they got it just like anyone else. They were treated as brothers and sisters in the gospel by most members.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I don't think that this was true at all.

This was in response to my comment "at no point were we as a church out in front of society in how we treated blacks." Is it really your position that we were ahead of society in how we treated blacks? CFR please.

The general treatment of blacks as individuals by church members far outweigh the priesthood ban.

You are saying that the treatment blacks got from members far outweighs the doctrinal implications of the ban? The fact that they were less valiant in the pre-existence and hence destined to a life of servitude in this life?

A church policy was one thing. But individual treatment was quite another. If they needed help, they got it just like anyone else. They were treated as brothers and sisters in the gospel by most members.

Again CFR. I think the preponderance of evidence shows otherwise. In 1972 Lester Bush studied the issue here: http://www.dialoguej...e_V07N01_59.pdf

From Bush's conclusion:

Suffice it to say here that it does not now appear that the results of my analysis, when fully completed, will overturn or seriously contradict the main conclusions of my earlier (less systematic) surveys: i.e., that when compared to others, the Latter-day Saints do not have especially high levels of anti-Black feeling, even if they subscribe to the traditional Church policy on Blacks and the priesthood; that the extent to which Mormon attitudes toward Blacks are influenced by the Church policy is heavily contingent upon the region of the country in which they live, upon their educational level, upon their age, upon their exposure to heterogeneous urban living, and upon a host of other factors which have nothing whatever to do with religious indoctrination. When Mormons are compared with non-Mormons according to age-level, education-level, urban background, and the other factors, my data still indicate that the Mormon/non-Mormon differences in attitudes toward Blacks will simply disappear.

IOW No difference. Also interesting in the article was the fact that in Salt Lake only 23% agreed with the statement "I wish that Negroes could be given the Priesthood in the LDS Church" with a disagreement rate of 39%.

In addition to the above article the following has already been shared in this thread:

• First presidency letter telling the black sisters to go sit in the back
  
• Letter from Elder Stapley to George Romney telling him to get out of the Civil Rights business or risk death
  
• Documentation that blacks couldn't hold callings, or say prayers church, get baptized for the dead at the temple (pre 1970's)
  

Additionally see herefor examples of racist jokes prevelant in the church post ban. See here for the story of a young man who was told in his patriarchal blessing in the 1990's he was of the lineage of cain.

Now since you have shared anecdotal evidence, allow me to share mine:

A neighbor (same age as me) in my ward married a hispanic young man. He was dark enough, her father thought he must have "negro" blood in him and he practically disowned her. My grandmother in her autobiography written in 1990's wrote about how black people were much more likely to stray than whites. My mother just a few years ago related how a member of the ward adopted a black baby because "that was all she could get." When I called her out on that, her defense was that I should here what all the other ladies in the ward were saying.

These are not bad people making these mistakes. They are products of their time. It is not my opinion that the church or its members were bad or horrible. They were just racist like the rest of society. You seem to be claiming that as church members we were on the vanguard of the civil rights movement.

How old were you in the seventies?

Let's just say my mother was still changing my diaper when the priesthood ban was lifted.

Edited May 9, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Nevo]

I don't think that this was true at all. The general treatment of blacks as individuals by church members far outweigh the priesthood ban. A church policy was one thing. But individual treatment was quite another. If they needed help, they got it just like anyone else. They were treated as brothers and sisters in the gospel by most members.

How is it that you're an authority on the experience of black members of the Church prior to 1978? You stated that there was an interracial marriage in your ward in the 1970s and everybody was down with it and some may have even loved them more for it. Well, that may be the case. But I am old enough to remember that it was commonplace in the 1980s for church leaders and teachers to counsel against interracial marriage. You may recall that "the June 17 [1978] issue of the Church News that ran the [priesthood] revelation announcement also ran, reportedly at the instance of Elder Petersen, the article 'Interracial Marriage Discouraged'" (see Edward L. Kimball, "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood," BYU Studies 47, no. 2 [2008]: 62n185). I know of a man of African heritage in my YSA branch in the mid-1990s who was counseled by the branch president not to date white girls (which ruled out 99.99 percent of the dating pool). I don't think it can be denied that the Church hasn't always been the most friendly, welcoming place for black people.

[why me]

How is it that you're an authority on the experience of black members of the Church prior to 1978? You stated that there was an interracial marriage in your ward in the 1970s and everybody was down with it and some may have even loved them more for it. Well, that may be the case. But I am old enough to remember that it was commonplace in the 1980s for church leaders and teachers to counsel against interracial marriage. You may recall that "the June 17 [1978] issue of the Church News that ran the [priesthood] revelation announcement also ran, reportedly at the instance of Elder Petersen, the article 'Interracial Marriage Discouraged'" (see Edward L. Kimball, "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood," BYU Studies 47, no. 2 [2008]: 62n185). I know of a man of African heritage in my YSA branch in the mid-1990s who was counseled by the branch president not to date white girls (which ruled out 99.99 percent of the dating pool). I don't think it can be denied that the Church hasn't always been the most friendly, welcoming place for black people.

Okay, let me try this again. I have never seen racism in the lds church and I have seen black members in wards. Now about inter-racial marriage. As I have said, american society was and is rife with racism. The consel about inter-racial marriage was a good one when one considers the problems that the couple would have had in american society, not to mention the children. However, it was not forbidden. If a couple chose to inter-racially marry, they were permitted to do so. I said in a previous post that american society has been racist after the ban and attitudes were not exactly liberal in this regard throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's. And we can also turn this around: not many black families encourged interracial marriage either. The discouragement of interracial marriage was due to the heartache that would occur from the racism in american society for the couple and for the marriage.

Everyone get back on this thread's topic. Race posts will be removed and posters will be next.

[why me]

political post removed

[Robert F. Smith]

And this is what is important, the here and now. But, the africans who were church members before the ban was lifted also had strong testimonies and they were not prevented from giving their testimonies. And there were also tears of joy. However, critics never want to look into the testimonies of african members before the ban. Critics get caught up in the semantics and in point scoring.

You appear to be somewhat caught up in that same fever swamp. There are indeed many who know nothing of the actual history of African-American members of the Church, but there were a few Mormons on the front lines in the fight for racial equality many decades ago. Some marched with Dr. King's SCLC, some were freedom-riders in the deep South, some lived for years in Africa doing what they could for the poor. They weren't busy scoring points or attacking the Church. Instead they were putting the Gospel of Jesus Christ into action, just as they do today.

One of those rare individuals, my best friend, has written a dozen encyclopedia articles discussing these historical issues -- just for the record. Last year at the FAIR Conference in Sandy, I saw an elderly African-American Mormon brother actually crying after he was made aware of what some Caucasian Mormons had been doing for racial equality all those years ago. I suppose it is reminiscent of the huge efforts exerted a century and a half ago by good people in states like Ohio in moving fleeing slaves into Canada, where slavery was illegal (the Underground Railroad), or the strong Abolitionist movement. We should be proud that Joseph ran for President on a platform which included a plank asserting that the slaves should be freed and offering a practical and peaceful way of doing just that.

The patient faith of many African-American members for all those years is very moving in itself. You're right about that . . .

[Robert F. Smith]

A half a century ago, those africans who were members also had a testimony of the gospel and they were not concerned to show their joy. They did show their joy and love for the gospel.

You got it backward, Whyme. I wasn't speaking of the love by African-Americans, but rather love for them by people who really didn't understand the Gospel very well, but who have come around rather nicely -- as you would do too, if only you would let the Holy Spirit in.

[why me]

You got it backward, Whyme. I wasn't speaking of the love by African-Americans, but rather love for them by people who really didn't understand the Gospel very well, but who have come around rather nicely -- as you would do too, if only you would let the Holy Spirit in.

I think that you are misunderstanding. I have stated that members that I knew overwhelming welcomed african americans into the ward. I saw no problems. Now did 100 percent of members have no prejudice? No. I am sure that there was one here and there. And I am sure churchwide there were prejudice people. However, as a church body, I believe that the average member was very welcoming. And this was demonstrated by the warm welcome that was demonstrated when the ban was lifted. So, what context should I let the holy spirit in? Also, back in the sixties and seventies, racist and prejudice had different meanings. The racist would usually be in the south waving the the confederate flag. But prejudice had a different meaning. Many americans were prejudice back then, but there were very few racists. And if this were the case, can the church be described as racist back then? For example, many of my relatives were prejudice but they were not racists. But it was hard to find a non-prejudice white person in the northeast back in the sixties and seventies. It was Archie Bunker land for sure.

Edited May 10, 2013 by why me

[why me]

You appear to be somewhat caught up in that same fever swamp. There are indeed many who know nothing of the actual history of African-American members of the Church, but there were a few Mormons on the front lines in the fight for racial equality many decades ago. Some marched with Dr. King's SCLC, some were freedom-riders in the deep South, some lived for years in Africa doing what they could for the poor. They weren't busy scoring points or attacking the Church. Instead they were putting the Gospel of Jesus Christ into action, just as they do today.

One of those rare individuals, my best friend, has written a dozen encyclopedia articles discussing these historical issues -- just for the record. Last year at the FAIR Conference in Sandy, I saw an elderly African-American Mormon brother actually crying after he was made aware of what some Caucasian Mormons had been doing for racial equality all those years ago. I suppose it is reminiscent of the huge efforts exerted a century and a half ago by good people in states like Ohio in moving fleeing slaves into Canada, where slavery was illegal (the Underground Railroad), or the strong Abolitionist movement. We should be proud that Joseph ran for President on a platform which included a plank asserting that the slaves should be freed and offering a practical and peaceful way of doing just that.

The patient faith of many African-American members for all those years is very moving in itself. You're right about that . . .

So, we are in agreement except for the fever swamp part. Where are we disagreeing?

Edited May 10, 2013 by why me

[Robert F. Smith]

I think that you are misunderstanding. I have stated that members that I knew overwhelming welcomed african americans into the ward. I saw no problems. Now did 100 percent of members have no prejudice? No. I am sure that there was one here and there. And I am sure churchwide there were prejudice people. However, as a church body, I believe that the average member was very welcoming. And this was demonstrated by the warm welcome that was demonstrated when the ban was lifted. So, what context should I let the holy spirit in? Also, back in the sixties and seventies, racist and prejudice had different meanings. The racist would usually be in the south waving the the confederate flag. But prejudice had a different meaning. Many americans were prejudice back then, but there were very few racists. And if this were the case, can the church be described as racist back then? For example, many of my relatives were prejudice but they were not racists. But it was hard to find a non-prejudice white person in the northeast back in the sixties and seventies. It was Archie Bunker land for sure.

You may be too young to have lived through that long period of racial unrest, and you are correct to observe the nature of the northern problem. The issues have always been regionally distinct in severity. Lynchings continued with regularity in the South on into the 1960s, but have now tapered off. The huge Black migration out of the South which happened in the 1930s and 40s has now reversed, and many are returning to purchase large estates and live their retirement years back "home" in style.

All that being said, some theorize that the attitude of Church members has changed during that time in the same way it has for non-members. Some have frankly stated that LDS members simply were not ready for a change until 1978, and that God withheld His word on the matter until then. It was almost as though a generation had to pass on before the Church was ready.

[Calm]

It was almost as though a generation had to pass on before the Church was ready.

Hints of 40 years in the desert.

[why me]

You may be too young to have lived through that long period of racial unrest, and you are correct to observe the nature of the northern problem.

All that being said, some theorize that the attitude of Church members has changed during that time in the same way it has for non-members. Some have frankly stated that LDS members simply were not ready for a change until 1978, and that God withheld His word on the matter until then. It was almost as though a generation had to pass on before the Church was ready.

I lived through the race riots of the late sixties. My town was on the frontline being all white bordering with a city that was mostly black. I heard the gunshots across the river. I think that the members were far ahead of the curve. True there was the policy about the priesthood ban but I do believe that (where I was) the attitude of white church members was not very prejudiced. The links that I posted that were deleted because of political content showed just how galvanized the race issue was. Between Huey Newton, H. Rap Brown and Eldridge Cleaver calling for revolution againt white hegemony I can say that the church members with a stress on love reacted quite well. However, the whites in my town bought shot guns to protect their families. And of course, we need to remember that it was just a decade later that the church lifted the ban. And in 1978 race relations were still in the pits between whites and blacks. Edited May 10, 2013 by why me

[cinepro]

Hints of 40 years in the desert.

If that's the case, I do appreciate that God let the non-black Church members continue to hold the priesthood and receive the blessing of the Temple during our "40 years in the desert".

Frankly, I find the theory that LDS of the 19th century somehow "weren't ready for it" preposterous. There were most certainly "cultural racists" in the Church who picked up racist attitudes from their communities, but Church-wide, the main source of racist ideas was most likely the Church leaders themselves.

If Brigham Young and his followers had publicly, loudly and consistently taught that "all are alike unto God", "skin color is just a reflection of the amount of pigment a person has and nothing else", and "Church members should treat everyone the same regardless of how much pigment they have", I suspect 99.9% of LDS would have believed them.

Edited May 10, 2013 by cinepro

[Calm]

Frankly, I find the theory that LDS of the 19th century somehow "weren't ready for it" preposterous. There were most certainly "cultural racists" in the Church who picked up racist attitudes from their communities, but Church-wide, the main source of racist ideas was most likely the Church leaders themselves.

If Brigham Young and his followers had publicly, loudly and consistently taught that "all are alike unto God", "skin color is just a reflection of the amount of pigment a person has and nothing else", and "Church members should treat everyone the same regardless of how much pigment they have", I suspect 99.9% of LDS would have believed them.

Considering that it existed during Joseph's time---was that any less racist of a culture than later times?---it would seem that it was possible for the majority of church members to 'endure' whatever hardship or conflict or whatever was involved in having blacks as priesthood holders.

[Buckeye]

If that's the case, I do appreciate that God let the non-black Church members continue to hold the priesthood and receive the blessing of the Temple during our "40 years in the desert".

Frankly, I find the theory that LDS of the 19th century somehow "weren't ready for it" preposterous. There were most certainly "cultural racists" in the Church who picked up racist attitudes from their communities, but Church-wide, the main source of racist ideas was most likely the Church leaders themselves.

If Brigham Young and his followers had publicly, loudly and consistently taught that "all are alike unto God", "skin color is just a reflection of the amount of pigment a person has and nothing else", and "Church members should treat everyone the same regardless of how much pigment they have", I suspect 99.9% of LDS would have believed them.

I agree. And I find support for this notion from the different ways 19th century LDS viewed native americans compared to non-LDS. Generally speaking, LDS viewed native americans in a much higher light than non-LDS. This was due to LDS beliefs, stemming from the BOM, that native americans were part of the remnant of Lehi.

[canard78]

You are mistaken. It is not only the personal form, but also "Biblical language".

Many languages use the personal form in the Bible.

(I said) It's correct to say 'thee' for first person familiar conversation with God about 200 years ago. Given we now use 'you' in our most personal relationships, we should do the same in prayer.

(You said) We are taught to address God with deference using Biblical language rather than the venacular for the same reason we go to church with our best Sunday clothes. The Sacrament Prayer is the model for our prayers.

Just curious, do you wear blue jeans and flip flops to church?

With a straggly beard and bright yellow shirt too

Like I said, the teaching that we should pray with the 'biblical language of deference' is a strange instruction that only applies to English speaking language. It uses 'thee' in the KJV of the bible to address God because in the 17th they were still using 'thee' for second person singular pronouns. 'You' was used as a plural pronoun. In languages that haven't dropped the singular pronouns (like French) single person is 'tu' (both in the language of the bible and personal conversation). In French there is a lovely transition in relationships where people feel close enough to go from using vous (singular but formal) to tu (singular but personal). We have a personal, not formal, relationship with God. And this is reflected in most other languages.

[canard78]

Were you around back then? I think that you may not have been born yet. If you were a member during that time, lets say in the 70's before the ban was lifted,you would have seen what I saw. I saw black members treated like equals and a general concern for their welfare. In my former ward, there was also a mixed marriage. No problem at all. Most of the members had understanding of their situation and perhaps even loved them more for their faith and resilence. What I see as a problem today is the younger generation lacking the knowledge of what it was like then for the white and african members.

Like I already said, I'm glad that at a local, personal level the black members you knew were extended the kindness we should show all people. But they were still treated differently in more ways than just holding the priesthood by the church. There was a policy of different opportunities and blessings for black members.

[Robert F. Smith]

................................

And in 1978 race relations were still in the pits between whites and blacks.

You lack perspective on what that decade actually meant. Huge changes took place, not only in America in general, but even in the deep South. You can go back and consult with the polling organizations which probed for racial opinions during that entire half century. Attitudes really changed substantially. I am a personal witness to that fact.

Moreover, the regional differences in America also affected the Mormons, i.e., Utah Mormons shared the same views as Utah non-Mormons, while Utah Mormons and California Mormons differed substantially on issues across the board. Such divergence in cultural matters may have escaped you, and I assume that you were still very young in the 60s when major changes had already taken place or were in the midst of taking place. Had you been a newspaper-reading member of society in the 50s, you'd realize just how stark the differences were. Some otherwise very nice people I knew in the Mormon community, were also staunch believers that racial intermarriage should be forbidden, that Black folk were lazy and ignorant, etc., in addition to all that false Mormon folklore on race which has been denounced by the Brethren. A whole new generation of Mormons had to come into its own before the Lord would grant the 1978 revelation, not because there had been anything at all wrong with Black people, but rather because the Mormon people in general had a bad attitude on the matter. The shortcomings of His own people frustrated the Lord's wishes, as it has so many times in the past. The Bible and Book of Mormon tell that story over and over.

[omni]

If that's the case, I do appreciate that God let the non-black Church members continue to hold the priesthood and receive the blessing of the Temple during our "40 years in the desert".

Frankly, I find the theory that LDS of the 19th century somehow "weren't ready for it" preposterous. There were most certainly "cultural racists" in the Church who picked up racist attitudes from their communities, but Church-wide, the main source of racist ideas was most likely the Church leaders themselves.

If Brigham Young and his followers had publicly, loudly and consistently taught that "all are alike unto God", "skin color is just a reflection of the amount of pigment a person has and nothing else", and "Church members should treat everyone the same regardless of how much pigment they have", I suspect 99.9% of LDS would have believed them.

Some how church leaders were able to convince the general membership the necessity of polygamy, but they wouldn't be able to convince them that black people were worthy of holding the priesthood or entering the temple. I'm with you Cinepro, that explanation just doesn't pass the smell test.

[Calm]

Some how church leaders were able to convince the general membership the necessity of polygamy, but they wouldn't be able to convince them that black people were worthy of holding the priesthood or entering the temple. I'm with you Cinepro, that explanation just doesn't pass the smell test.

So are you saying there must have been a different reason besides racism for the ban because if it was racism, the Lord would have instructed the leaders to teach that racism was bad and the members would have come around...so it couldn't have been racism that kept the ban in place?

[omni]

You lack perspective on what that decade actually meant. Huge changes took place, not only in America in general, but even in the deep South. You can go back and consult with the polling organizations which probed for racial opinions during that entire half century. Attitudes really changed substantially. I am a personal witness to that fact.

Moreover, the regional differences in America also affected the Mormons, i.e., Utah Mormons shared the same views as Utah non-Mormons, while Utah Mormons and California Mormons differed substantially on issues across the board. Such divergence in cultural matters may have escaped you, and I assume that you were still very young in the 60s when major changes had already taken place or were in the midst of taking place. Had you been a newspaper-reading member of society in the 50s, you'd realize just how stark the differences were. Some otherwise very nice people I knew in the Mormon community, were also staunch believers that racial intermarriage should be forbidden, that Black folk were lazy and ignorant, etc., in addition to all that false Mormon folklore on race which has been denounced by the Brethren. A whole new generation of Mormons had to come into its own before the Lord would grant the 1978 revelation, not because there had been anything at all wrong with Black people, but rather because the Mormon people in general had a bad attitude on the matter. The shortcomings of His own people frustrated the Lord's wishes, as it has so many times in the past. The Bible and Book of Mormon tell that story over and over.

Robert do you not think that if the leaders of the church hadn't been teaching racist inferiority of blacks and had instead taught a doctrine of racial equality then the general membership would have believed likewise? As the mouthpiece of God, we should hold prophets to a higher standard; why was God not speaking through them to deliver what we now know as truth and if he was why did they not listen for generations?

From the inception of the church we have taught things that run contrary to popular culture/belief (polygamy, WoW, sexual morality) being the Lord's church couldn't we have done the same with racial equality?

[Glenn101]

Joanna Brooks, where art thou???

[thesometimesaint]

Robert do you not think that if the leaders of the church hadn't been teaching racist inferiority of blacks and had instead taught a doctrine of racial equality then the general membership would have believed likewise? As the mouthpiece of God, we should hold prophets to a higher standard; why was God not speaking through them to deliver what we now know as truth and if he was why did they not listen for generations?

From the inception of the church we have taught things that run contrary to popular culture/belief (polygamy, WoW, sexual morality) being the Lord's church couldn't we have done the same with racial equality?

That is a logical fallacy. Moreover God doesn't make sock-puppets.

[omni]

So are you saying there must have been a different reason besides racism for the ban because if it was racism, the Lord would have instructed the leaders to teach that racism was bad and the members would have come around...so it couldn't have been racism that kept the ban in place?

Oh no, I definitely believe it was because of racism. The history of the ban, the general racial attitudes at the time and those specifically of the leadership can bring me to no other conclusion. Now why the Lord didn't teach the church that racism is bad leads to the bigger question of whether or not prophets are as they claim, the mouthpiece of the Lord.

[omni]

That is a logical fallacy. Moreover God doesn't make sock-puppets.

That is a logical fallacy. Moreover God doesn't make sock-puppets.

Either the Lord didn't feel it was important to correct his servants while they were teaching racial inequality or he did and his servants didn't listen or willfully disobeyed him. Either option doesn't doesn't inspire a lot confidence in me.