Need Help With Uninformed Black African Member

[Stargazer]

We had this conversation in the Joanna Brooks thread. At times Black members could not:

- Hold a leadership calling (auxiliary presidencies)

- Attend the temple in any form (including baptisms)

- Pray in sacrament meeting

I've said it before and will say it again. The ban was not inspired. There was no revelation to instigate it. The church was in error for over 100 years.

As to the pray in sacrament meeting prohibition, that was simply a side-effect of not holding the priesthood. At one time, only priesthood holders prayed in SM. No women, either.

[Stargazer]

Exactly. My friend, a former Bishop, bemoans the fact that even adults now see him as the oracle and come to him with doctrinal questions that could be answered within a few minutes of opening scripture or searching LDS.org

People on this board forget that just because they are immersed and engaged in the history and doctrine of the church to an extreme level, a lot of members are not.

I suddenly just had this really awesome idea for a book, thanks to you. It's probably been done, and I will find this out after I've done all the work but just before I publish it. On second thought, maybe I will save myself the labor and just play World of Tanks instead.

Hmmm.

[Stargazer]

Actually, a non aggression pact does not mean that they fought on the same side. It meant that they would not declare war against the other. And of course, Hitler broke the pact with his invasion of the soviet union. However, now we can see the problem with history. Every one has an interpretation and this will also be the case with church history. So, should we be debating church history in priesthood or in sunday school? Would the critics be happy with lds interpretations? History can be very sectarian and confrontational when discussed.

Oh, in this case the non-aggression pact could certainly mean they were on the same side. When Hitler invaded Poland from the west, Stalin, by prior arrangement, invaded it from the East. The Soviets smokescreened their invasion by saying they were coming to the aid of Poland, but that was an out-and-out lie. Great Britain, which had a mutual defense treaty with Poland, declared war on Germany because of the invasion but not on the Soviet Union. Technically, they should have done so, because the Polish government did not consent to the Soviet invasion. So Germany and the Soviet Union were definitely on the same side, and fought together against a common foe: Poland.

[thesometimesaint]

CFR please from the scriptures only.

Book of Abraham 1.

[rockpond]

I have to disagree. Since I was around back then and saw how africans were treated in the ward, I can honestly say that they were respected. As I said before I have no memory of such a doctrine being taught in priesthood or sunday school. There was no lesson about the priesthood ban to my memory. But we all had lessons about being morally clean and being perfect as god is perfect. We also had lessons about loving our neighbor. I do remember ward members discussing the priesthood ban in informal settings and I do remember that people had their ideas. But I never saw it taught in lessons. Such is my memory.

I agree that in the last decade or two of the ban, the previous teachings started to fall by the wayside and members of African descent were treated with more respect. But that wasn't always the case. This was a 130+ year period... teachings fluctuated, things were said that reflected racism, and African-American members were not always treated with well. The Lester Bush article documents this.

I think that mormons should be given credit for their treatment of african members.

I don't think we deserve any "credit" for our treatment of those of African descent. Regardless of how pleasant or polite church members were, we prevented them from full fellowship for racist reasons. Do I expect perfection? No, never. But do I think we deserve "credit" or some type of pat on the back? Definitely not.

[Thinking]

I have to disagree. Since I was around back then and saw how africans were treated in the ward, I can honestly say that they were respected. As I said before I have no memory of such a doctrine being taught in priesthood or sunday school. There was no lesson about the priesthood ban to my memory. But we all had lessons about being morally clean and being perfect as god is perfect. We also had lessons about loving our neighbor. I do remember ward members discussing the priesthood ban in informal settings and I do remember that people had their ideas. But I never saw it taught in lessons. Such is my memory.

I was taught that blacks were less valient in the pre-existence. I'm quite sure I wasn't the only one who was taught this.

Those who were less valiant in the pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin. (Bruce R. McConkie, 1958 Mormon Doctrine)

[rockpond]

I don't hold prophets to higher standards at all. This was a problem for many early members of the lds church when it came to Joseph Smith. How often did he tell the members that he was not perfect nor righteous? Prophets are just human beings with a high calling. I believe that the apostles of christ were not exactly full of love for non-jews. And why did Jesus only go among the jews? I think that prophets were products of their age and christ needed to deal with their imperfections. And I am sure that Paul was also prejudice about pagans and their lifestyle.

And old testament prophets? Products of their age? Most definitely.

I believe what you are saying is true but it does create some dissonance for me. If prophets are simply products of their age and we can't readily expect them to overcome prejudices inherent to their generation and/or environment, then I as a member need to rely more on personal revelation to decide which of their counsel is inspired.

Now, most are going to read that and say "of course... it's the Spirit that teaches us the truth of all things".

But then, when I tell people that the Spirit has confirmed to me that God affirms homosexual marriages, I am most often told that I am wrong. I'm told that the prophets have spoken on this and that I need to fall in line.

So which is it? Are the prophets just products of their age who can't help but be opposed to homosexual unions due to generational prejudices or is it actual revelation from God dictating that policy?

*By bringing this I up I do not wish to let this thread devolve into a debate on gay marriage. It just seems to be the most relevant comparison to what we are discussing.

[rockpond]

I was taught that blacks were less valient in the pre-existence. I'm quite sure I wasn't the only one who was taught this.

You weren't... there are plenty of others including some who still believe it is the case despite the current position of the church.

Edited June 19, 2013 by rockpond

[thesometimesaint]

The article cited is very interesting, thanks for sharing it.

It makes it very clear why and how people of the 19th & 20th C justified racism. It does very little to justify how prophets would initiate and perpetuate a practice based on prejudice and ignorance.

Some key highlights:

The priesthood ban was never the right thing to do in the first place. Slavery and racism was never, is never acceptable. It was based on scripture distorted to meet people's bias or bigotry... Unfortunately even among people who we are taught will never lead us astray. That's the sad reality. Ordained prophets and apostles were lead astray by the teachings of men and lead an entire church astray in the process for over 120 years.

As the article states:

Like Noah's treatment of Ham/Canaan (who can't even be established as the father or the Negro race), modern day prophets have made countless statements that we should not assume were "divinely sanctioned."

If multiple generations of church leaders were able to perpetuate this error, why should I trust them to be leaders on other issues.

"Follow the prophet, don't go astray" - except for when they are demonstrably wrong.

Some may point to prophets praying for decades to get an answer. Unfortunately there were members of the quorum, right up into the 1950s and 60s who retained racist attitudes and who were not asking for a solution and were instead happy to sit and wait for an answer to be sent. They wanted to be spoon-fed a solution to a problem of the church's own making.

Some may also say, the church couldn't swim against the tide or, as the article says, that "The church was in its infancy: weak, disliked, and ridiculed. It was in no position to affect American thought."

I have no interest in a church that can or can't influence American thought. I'm interested in leaders who do what is right and let the consequences follow.

I don't want church leaders to follow social trends. I want them to break or set them.

If the church tomorrow endorses same-sex marriage, accepts moderate use of pornography, alcohol, coffee and pot (for medicinal purposes), relaxes attitudes to sex before marriage, R-rated films etc etc, they would all be a within the bounds of some people's social norms and acceptability (to varying degrees). But to do so may or may not be God's will. So why do sit and justify racism just because the prophets were raised in an environment of racism? The point is, they are called to reveal God's will, not support the philosophies of men.

Where have the Saints claimed to be infallible? Exactly where have we claimed not to be subject to the same sins and transgressions that are common to man?

Christ went only to the Jews. Was he somehow racist? He never in his mortal ministry said a word about slavery. Glad to see you are so much better than Christ.

Because they do receive revelation from God for the whole Church.

The many faithful black members of the Church weren't lead astray. Nor were the faithful members of the Church of any race. I joined in 1971 nearly exactly 7 years before the ban was lifted. I never accepted any of the speculations was to the why of the ban. To this day I don't know the reason(s) God had for the ban. For all we know it was a trial for how white members of the Church treated their black brothers and sisters. I don't know, but my speculation is just as good as that of anyone else.

It is you that is claiming it was the Church's own making. Not the church. He that is without sin may cast the first stone.

Of course we influence public opinion. However we are not the only group that can and does influence public opinion. In the US we're about 2% of the population. So we do have influence, but not much.

Of course we do influence social trends. Every single day we open two new Wards somewhere in the world. We do go forth and teach the world about our doctrines. We save the world one person at a time. OTOH We do have whole social trends that work against us.

I don't foresee a time when we will do any of those things at least until the Millennium when it will be OK to drink wine again.

[ERayR]

I believe what you are saying is true but it does create some dissonance for me. If prophets are simply products of their age and we can't readily expect them to overcome prejudices inherent to their generation and/or environment, then I as a member need to rely more on personal revelation to decide which of their counsel is inspired.

It brings comfort to me because I know I still have a chance.

[cinepro]

As to the pray in sacrament meeting prohibition, that was simply a side-effect of not holding the priesthood. At one time, only priesthood holders prayed in SM. No women, either.

So the mistake wasn't denying blacks the priesthood, it was the policy of only having priesthood holders pray.

Yeah, that's much better.

[cinepro]

I take great comfort in the fallibility of prophets, both modern and ancient. It gives me hope for myself as I am being judged by the same standard.

Those who demand perfection from prophets should take the words of the Savior about being judged by the standards you use to judge others more literally.

How about if I hold Prophets to the standard I would expect others to hold me to if I claimed to be a Prophet?

[ERayR]

So the mistake wasn't denying blacks the priesthood, it was the policy of only having priesthood holders pray.

Yeah, that's much better.

That's not the way I read it.

[rockpond]

It brings comfort to me because I know I still have a chance.

You're right. I agree with that sentiment as well.

[canard78]

I believe what you are saying is true but it does create some dissonance for me. If prophets are simply products of their age and we can't readily expect them to overcome prejudices inherent to their generation and/or environment, then I as a member need to rely more on personal revelation to decide which of their counsel is inspired.

Now, most are going to read that and say "of course... it's the Spirit that teaches us the truth of all things".

But then, when I tell people that the Spirit has confirmed to me that God affirms homosexual marriages, I am most often told that I am wrong. I'm told that the prophets have spoken on this and that I need to fall in line.

So which is it? Are the prophets just products of their age who can't help but be opposed to homosexual unions due to generational prejudices or is it actual revelation from God dictating that policy?

*By bringing this I up I do not wish to let this thread devolve into a debate on gay marriage. It just seems to be the most relevant comparison to what we are discussing.

Exactly. We are expected to excuse their errors as naturally human when they clearly misguided. But until demonstrated to be so they are held up as the standard we should all march to.

[cinepro]

FWIW, here's why I find both the "lineage" and "pre-mortal existence" explanations lacking.

First, the ancient ancestor theory doesn't work based on population genetics. Namely, the intermingling of peoples would cause such a curse to quickly spread throughout the entire world (with the exception of totally isolated tribes). Thousands of years later, the "blood" of the cursed race would run through the veins of just about everyone alive.

The "pre-mortal curse" seems unlikely based on the way the ban was implemented and removed. The most logical way to "ban" someone from the priesthood is to send them to Earth in a location and era where there is no priesthood to begin with. If race is a spiritual characteristic, then it seems odd that the specific spirits who were effected by the ban (i.e. joined the Church after 1850 and died before 1978) were also those same spirits meant to be banned from the priesthood. If race isn't a spiritual characteristic, then it is interesting that God chose the black African race to be signifiers of the ban at precisely the same time those people would be facing tremendous persecution. This is obviously a very bad idea on many different levels.

So the reason I don't believe the Priesthood Ban was "inspired" isn't because I think it was "wrong" or "unfair", but because there is nothing about it that isn't explained by what we know about Brigham Young and other earthly factors, nor is there anything about it that is "miraculous" in a way that requires us to invoke a supernatural explanation.

[thesometimesaint]

Go back far enough and we are all of African descent.

[The Nehor]

I believe what you are saying is true but it does create some dissonance for me. If prophets are simply products of their age and we can't readily expect them to overcome prejudices inherent to their generation and/or environment, then I as a member need to rely more on personal revelation to decide which of their counsel is inspired.

Now, most are going to read that and say "of course... it's the Spirit that teaches us the truth of all things".

But then, when I tell people that the Spirit has confirmed to me that God affirms homosexual marriages, I am most often told that I am wrong. I'm told that the prophets have spoken on this and that I need to fall in line.

So which is it? Are the prophets just products of their age who can't help but be opposed to homosexual unions due to generational prejudices or is it actual revelation from God dictating that policy?

*By bringing this I up I do not wish to let this thread devolve into a debate on gay marriage. It just seems to be the most relevant comparison to what we are discussing.

Go with the Spirit. There is no guarantee doing so will prevent people from telling you you are wrong. If God tells you to defy your leaders do so. Just make absolutely sure God is the one you are listening to.

[Calm]

Book of Abraham 1.

Specifics please and show the logic of your interpretation.

You made some strong and specific claims and thus need to back them up with something more than a wave "over there":

The curse was the lack of Priesthood, the sign of the curse was a darkened skin. Those verses are in Scripture.

Edited June 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[The Nehor]

How about if I hold Prophets to the standard I would expect others to hold me to if I claimed to be a Prophet?

Not fair in two respects.

First: No true prophet ever chose the responsibility so why do they get a higher standard?

Second: Everyone is equal in their strving for exaltation. Prophets do not have a different standard. I do believe there are variations and we are judged by our capabilities and circumstances but I have no reason to believe that the prophets excel everyone else by in those categories either. In other words if you were called as a prophet tomorrow would you suddenly excel and exceed your current standards. If you can why not do so now without the calling? If you cannot why should another man who happens to get a call be expected to?

[Calm]

I have to disagree. Since I was around back then and saw how africans were treated in the ward, I can honestly say that they were respected.

There is more than just one ward in the Church though. How many wards in how many areas did you live during this time?

While the Church culture is very consistent worldwide relatively speaking, it also contains many of the strong inconsistencies that exist in the surrounding culture, sometimes softened, sometimes the reverse.

[Calm]

They sat side by side with them, worshipping god.

That was the ideal and I hope it was met more often than the reverse, but there are documented stories out there of blacks being refused entry into a chapel, being required to sit apart from other members, etc. Integration was not as complete as you are picturing it here....and for that those members who did so will be held responsible for their rejection of their brothers and sisters.

[Calm]

I believe what you are saying is true but it does create some dissonance for me. If prophets are simply products of their age and we can't readily expect them to overcome prejudices inherent to their generation and/or environment, then I as a member need to rely more on personal revelation to decide which of their counsel is inspired.

Which is why, imo, the Lord has set things up this way...so that we turn to him instead of to other men when we want to know the eternal, lifealtering truths.

So which is it? Are the prophets just products of their age who can't help but be opposed to homosexual unions due to generational prejudices or is it actual revelation from God dictating that policy?

Only God can tell you this, not other men (or women)

[The Nehor]

That was the ideal and I hope it was met more often than the reverse, but there are documented stories out there of blacks being refused entry into a chapel, being required to sit apart from other members, etc. Integration was not as complete as you are picturing it here....and for that those members who did so will be held responsible for their rejection of their brothers and sisters.

It varied by area. Most rejoiced at the announcement. A friend of mine was in his mission when the announcement came and his companion was from the south. His companion's response to the announcement was to lie on his bed and bang his face on the mattress and repeat this phrase for over an hour: "I can't believe they gave the n%#^%#s the Priesthood."

When I was in the MTC a counselor in our Presidency gave a lesson and pointed out how blessed we were because the whole district was white and American. The two Canadians spoke up and he brusquely pointed out that Canada is part of America. Everyone just stared at each other awkwardly for the rest of the meeting and we rolled our eyes when we left. You could always count on something interesting from that guy.

From what I know most members were kind but there were some who had a feeling of superiority or (perhaps worse) were condescendingly patronizing.

[thesometimesaint]

Abraham 1:21-27.

Various members including people we regard as prophets. seers, and revelators have given their own speculations as to its meaning. To date none of those speculations have been confirmed as the reason by God, and we claim to not know the why of the ban. Just that the ban existed, and is in the Scriptures.

Edited June 19, 2013 by thesometimesaint