Other Countries With Black Populations Pre-1978

[NEDRA]

I'm really curious about something.

Brazil has the largest black population outside of the African continent because of the African slave trade. However, many other Latin American countries had Africans living among and intermarrying with them too--especially Columbia, Venrzuela, Peru and Mexico.

Why weren't those other countries instrumental in ending the ban? Why wasn't there a "priesthood problem" there, too?

[thesometimesaint]

I'm really curious about something.

Brazil has the largest black population outside of the African continent because of the African slave trade. However, many other Latin American countries had Africans living among and intermarrying with them too--especially Columbia, Venrzuela, Peru and Mexico.

Why weren't those other countries instrumental in ending the ban? Why wasn't there a "priesthood problem" there, too?

 

The country of South Africa had/has a large black population(over 80% black). We had/have a Temple for many years before the ban was lifted. The laws of South Africa prohibited blacks even from white churches.

[NEDRA]

Yes. I'm talking about countries outside the African continent, though. In South Africa, Apartheid was in effect, so it would have been simple to keep the races apart for priesthood purposes as well.

What I'm getting at is there were likely hundreds, if not thousands, of Afro-Mexicans, Afro-Peruvians, Afro-Columbians, Afro-Bolivians, etc., who were ordained to the priesthood and who had their temple ordinances pre-1978. What was so special about Brazil that this suddenly became a problem?

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm really curious about something.

Brazil has the largest black population outside of the African continent because of the African slave trade. However, many other Latin American countries had Africans living among and intermarrying with them too--especially Columbia, Venrzuela, Peru and Mexico.

Why weren't those other countries instrumental in ending the ban? Why wasn't there a "priesthood problem" there, too?

Probably had something to do with visibility and perception, Brazil being the most obvious place in which to raise the question (Apostle LeGrand Richards and others were very clear on that point).  However, even before 1978, very dark skinned LDS members were going to temples.  Others, including ostensibly white folk in the southern United States were able to get temple recommends, despite some Black ancestry.  This was also very true in many Latin American countries, but the issue was not generally considered a problem.

[NEDRA]

Did the problem have anything to do with Afro-European race mixing vs Afro-Amerindian mixing? Was that the issue?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Did the problem have anything to do with Afro-European race mixing vs Afro-Amerindian mixing? Was that the issue?

Yes. Linage was impossible for most in Brazil to determine due to extensive inter-racial marriage.

Edited December 14, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[NEDRA]

My question, though, was: is it the European (Caucasian) mix that was the problem? Miscegenation with Native Amerindians and blacks was very common, too, but Mexicans and Ecuadorians with Black/Indian ancestry weren't being asked to show their lineage before joining the church or being ordained--just people who looked white and might have African blood.

[NEDRA]

In other words, would it not have been more, not less, difficult in most cases to discern lineage in countries with Black/Amerindian mixes? Why was the priesthood still given to them?

[BlueDreams]

My question, though, was: is it the European (Caucasian) mix that was the problem? Miscegenation with Native Amerindians and blacks was very common, too, but Mexicans and Ecuadorians with Black/Indian ancestry weren't being asked to show their lineage before joining the church or being ordained--just people who looked white and might have African blood.

No it wasn't, IMO. The work in most of Latin America at the time was still rudimentary and many missionary work focused on populations that would have happened in the wealthier districts. The afro-latino populations in a number of these countries are still small....a number of them smaller than in the U.S. They had more admixture than in the US, yes....but where the missionary work in a number of these areas were small. The problem would have been there, but it wouldn't have been as drastic, especially where in most of these areas didn't have high enough LDS populations to contemplate a building of a temple in the area. In short, there would have been enough leadership to still run the church without it having a major effect on the church. Brazil's admixture is all encompassing of the population where even white populations are likely to have A significant african ancestry and ancestry that would have been more easily found through geneology than other areas.  

 

In other words, would it not have been more, not less, difficult in most cases to discern lineage in countries with Black/Amerindian mixes? Why was the priesthood still given to them?

 

Lack of knowledge of heritage by populations and a lack of understanding of the populace in beginning missionary work would have been enough, IMHO, to figure out why it was allowed. The heritage of the people would be filtered by the knowledge of the population (which many, would not embrace afrian ancestry due to their own sets of prejudices) that would then be filtered by the American perspective on race. Basically the extent would have been minimized because it was far less visible in local dialogue and history than it was in brazil.

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

Mexicans and Ecuadorians with Black/Indian ancestry weren't being asked to show their lineage before joining the church or being ordained--just people who looked white and might have African blood.

And you know this how?

[NEDRA]

I'm not sure I understand your question, Calmoriah. Are you asking whether, before 1978, the church asked for proof from darker-skinned people of Latin American ethnicity to prove they did not have black African heritage before being baptized?

While I admit my knowledge of this is unpublished first-hand and anecdotal, the only cases I'm aware of the priesthood blessings being denied or in question are those who had clear African features and those who were discovered through questioning, genealogy, and photographs to have had a black ancestor. This has often only been stated to have occurred in Brazil, and is even called the "Brazil problem" All written accounts I have seen, including accounts that predate the internet, are of people with Caucasian heritage who are discovered to have black ancestry. Mission presidents in various Brazilian missions taught their missionaries to check for certain markers than, according to them, might indicate some African ancestry, and told the missionaries to stop teaching them when such lineage was discovered. I have not heard that happening with any other mission.

I have relatives who served in Brazil in the 1960s and '70s. This story is consistent with their recollections as well:

http://truthseeker.tripod.com/LDSQUESTION45.html

[thesometimesaint]

Biologically we are all of African descent. 

Edited December 15, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[BlueDreams]

 This has often only been stated to have occurred in Brazil, and is even called the "Brazil problem" All written accounts I have seen, including accounts that predate the internet, are of people with Caucasian heritage who are discovered to have black ancestry. Mission presidents in various Brazilian missions taught their missionaries to check for certain markers than, according to them, might indicate some African ancestry, and told the missionaries to stop teaching them when such lineage was discovered. I have not heard that happening with any other mission.

I have relatives who served in Brazil in the 1960s and '70s. This story is consistent with their recollections as well:

http://truthseeker.tripod.com/LDSQUESTION45.html

 

Yes, but even in the article you mentioned, there indication that the "brazil problem" wasn't limited to brazil, rather the expanse of the issue did. The inference was that there was a protocol they followed in any country where there would have been a large black population. In any country in the Americas, including the US, it is likely that there were a number of people who were considered another race, other than black, and were given the priesthood. It's inevitable, considering how many people do not know their own family history several generations out. The issue with brazil was the extent and absolute prevalence of mixing that wasn't found in most of these regions. Yes other latin countries boast about it, but often certain mixing with black, was more regional than as wide-spread as you find in Brazil.  

 

The reasoning you've mentioned with other countries just doesn't work. It not more difficult to figure it out just because the admixture would have been different. "Black/brown genes" are not dominate, despite commonly held beliefs. Within 2-3 generations all of those "discernible features" can be pretty well gone .....and it doesn't matter whether the race mixing happens with white or indigenous populations. It's ridiculous to assume it somehow hides the race mixing better. If they weren't going to stop work in Brazil, why would they stop work in other areas?

 

Lastly, you would have heard only the ones in brazil because of the prevalence and expanse of the issue for that area. In history it's the areas that are hit hard we remember, not the random few in other areas. For example, ask the younger generation (under 18) about the events of 9-11 and see how many tell you about the plane that crashed in PA.

 

with luv,

BD

 

With luv,

BD

Edited December 15, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Robert F. Smith]

My question, though, was: is it the European (Caucasian) mix that was the problem? Miscegenation with Native Amerindians and blacks was very common, too, but Mexicans and Ecuadorians with Black/Indian ancestry weren't being asked to show their lineage before joining the church or being ordained--just people who looked white and might have African blood.

These matters, as you seem to understand, were ignored nearly everywhere except Africa and Brazil.  With a temple nearing completion then in Brazil, something needed to be done.  If you look closely at LDS revelation, nearly all revelations have come in answer to a particular problem or question.

[williamsmith]

I'm really curious about something.

Brazil has the largest black population outside of the African continent because of the African slave trade. However, many other Latin American countries had Africans living among and intermarrying with them too--especially Columbia, Venrzuela, Peru and Mexico.

Why weren't those other countries instrumental in ending the ban? Why wasn't there a "priesthood problem" there, too?

 

 

 

 

The reason blacks of other country's such as the Islands, other parts of Central/South America, India, etc. didn't have a "priesthood problem" was because the ban was "Geneological" based, not race or skin color based as many wish to change LDS history to try an claim, trying to make us racists.

 

The Church had specific policy's for which if your geneology was far enough removed from the seed the Priesthood restriction was believed to apply to (those of African lineage), then you were considered not to be of that lineage.

Another factor that is forgotten is the determination was not simply based on geneology but by revelation, exactly the same as our Patriarchal Blessings both literally and/or spiritually as well indicates our lineage.

 

The reason Brazil became a partial factor in the revelation coming for the lifting of the ban is because it was becoming difficult to tell ones dominate lineage due to racial mixing, wereas many other areas were well mixed already and for some time, thus the restricted lineage was no longer the dominate lineage.  Ultimately it came time, racism on a mass scale ended, thus the seed was no longer under oppression and man was becoming more mixed, races were becoming less separate and distinct.  God has always worked according to mans timeline.

 

Ultimately, being black had zero to do with the Priesthood ban other than as a possible "sign" of the curse.  The ban was entirely based on ones lineage determined entirely by Geneology and Patriarchal Blessing.

Edited December 18, 2013 by williamsmith

[BlueDreams]

The reason blacks of other country's such as the Islands, other parts of Central/South America, India, etc. didn't have a "priesthood problem" was because the ban was "Geneological" based, not race or skin color based as many wish to change LDS history to try an claim, trying to make us racists.

He's talking specifically of those of African decent. Those have said either the ban was racist would simply point out that dark-skinned peoples of the islands, indigenous American descent, india, etc are generally NOT considered of the same race. Black African is considered a race. And I haven't heard anyone state that it was about skin color....that technically wouldn't be racist, it would be colorist if it was (a form of discrimination common in Brazil and in part the U.S. as well).

 

And for the umpteenth time Africa is not a lineage. Never has been, never will be. The idea is based off of a bunch of white colonialists back in the day fixated in categorizing people based on physiology and who saw all black Africans as basically the same: uncivilized tribalists that were basically all the same.

 

Lastly the rest of your explanations reads of more like a display of common theories back in the day that have now be repudiated by the last statement and non-doctrinal and false. And frankly anyone with basic understanding of the racial construct would not be convinced by such an argument. It reads as a pretty upped parallel to the one drop rule or the general official placement of anyone with 1/32 black ancestry as considered black. It was a means of distinguishing and maintaining racial boundaries between the groups, maintaining the racial hierarchy of that time.

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

Ultimately, being black had zero to do with the Priesthood ban other than as a possible "sign" of the curse.  The ban was entirely based on ones lineage determined entirely by Geneology and Patriarchal Blessing.

 

Also the focus of the ban being based on PB's for lineage is also false. That only began in Brazil because of the astounding amount of mixing there. See this timeline. Basically, it was a bandaid solution to a tricky problem to the previous dichotomous view of race with which the ban is based off of.

[busybee]

The country of South Africa had/has a large black population(over 80% black). We had/have a Temple for many years before the ban was lifted. The laws of South Africa prohibited blacks even from white churches.

duplicate post deleted

Edited December 18, 2013 by busybee

[busybee]

The country of South Africa had/has a large black population(over 80% black). We had/have a Temple for many years before the ban was lifted. The laws of South Africa prohibited  blacks even from white churches.

 

 

The information you are giving here is inaccurate.

The Johannesburg South Africa Temple was dedicated on 24 August 1985, 8 years after the ban was lifted. ( I remember because I was married the day before)

Black people were never banned from entering LDS chapels. Other religions in South Africa did indeed disallow people of colour from worshiping with them because of the government of the day.

All males who were ordained to the Priesthood pre-1978 were required to trace their genealogy out of Africa  before they were ordained. My 2 brothers, who have no ethnic African features, were required to produce Family Group sheets tracing their ancestry out of Africa.

Edited December 18, 2013 by busybee

[williamsmith]

He's talking specifically of those of African decent. Those have said either the ban was racist would simply point out that dark-skinned peoples of the islands, indigenous American descent, india, etc are generally NOT considered of the same race. Black African is considered a race. And I haven't heard anyone state that it was about skin color....that technically wouldn't be racist, it would be colorist if it was (a form of discrimination common in Brazil and in part the U.S. as well).

 

And for the umpteenth time Africa is not a lineage. Never has been, never will be. The idea is based off of a bunch of white colonialists back in the day fixated in categorizing people based on physiology and who saw all black Africans as basically the same: uncivilized tribalists that were basically all the same.

 

Lastly the rest of your explanations reads of more like a display of common theories back in the day that have now be repudiated by the last statement and non-doctrinal and false. And frankly anyone with basic understanding of the racial construct would not be convinced by such an argument. It reads as a pretty upped parallel to the one drop rule or the general official placement of anyone with 1/32 black ancestry as considered black. It was a means of distinguishing and maintaining racial boundaries between the groups, maintaining the racial hierarchy of that time.

 

With luv,

BD

 

Yes, I'm aware he's speaking of those of African decent "at some point".

Yes, I'm aware Africa is not a lineage, I'm only speaking in general referring to those of black African decent who are from Africa.

As to my other statements, I'm mearly stating church practice and policy.  You simply were not given the Priesthood if either by geneology and/or Patriarcle Blessing your lineage was black African.  It didn't matter what color you were, black or white.  Many white people were not given the Priesthood because of their lineage, because after all, it was the lineage that was banned, not ones skin color.  I hope that is clear now.  And I don't prescribe to any theory other than it's simply what God wanted until he said otherwise.  I've been an anti-mormon and called the church racist, leaving it primarily because of the ban, and I'm not going to call it racist anymore, because I now know it's not and never was.  Not perfect, but not racist as I once thought.

[williamsmith]

Also the focus of the ban being based on PB's for lineage is also false. That only began in Brazil because of the astounding amount of mixing there. See this timeline. Basically, it was a bandaid solution to a tricky problem to the previous dichotomous view of race with which the ban is based off of.

 

Actually it's not false, it was in fact a part of the process for determining ones lineage, along with geneology.  It certainly didn't only occur in Brazil as you claim, that is absolutely false.

I've researched blacks in the church deeply, I'm not stating anything false.  My statements come from the historical less known record from some 20 years ago when I collected everything I could find on blacks and the church in it's history, from books to church policy's, etc.  It's sad I don't have much of this information anymore, because almost none can be found online, so most people believe the anti-mormon narrative (aka "facts"), even mormons.

Edited December 19, 2013 by williamsmith

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes, I'm aware he's speaking of those of African decent "at some point".

Yes, I'm aware Africa is not a lineage, I'm only speaking in general referring to those of black African decent who are from Africa.

As to my other statements, I'm mearly stating church practice and policy.  You simply were not given the Priesthood if either by geneology and/or Patriarcle Blessing your lineage was black African.  It didn't matter what color you were, black or white.  Many white people were not given the Priesthood because of their lineage, because after all, it was the lineage that was banned, not ones skin color.  I hope that is clear now.  And I don't prescribe to any theory other than it's simply what God wanted until he said otherwise.  I've been an anti-mormon and called the church racist, leaving it primarily because of the ban, and I'm not going to call it racist anymore, because I now know it's not and never was.  Not perfect, but not racist as I once thought.

Hi William,

I would like to take exception to your declaration that the ban was "simply what God wanted until he said otherwise."  David O. McKay and others looked closely at that assumption and found no validity to it.  Since it was merely policy, McKay wanted to eliminate the ban, but could not get Joseph Fielding Smith to go along unless he received a revelation on the matter.  McKay tried but was unable to receive a revelation, and the thus the ban continued until 1978 under Spencer Kimball.  I (and some others) have thought that this may have been because the membership was not ready to accept such a new direction in racial policy.

 

I know that the late Jerald Tanner apostatized over that policy and I am very sympathetic to his strong feelings.  However, in adopting an evangelical "Christian" faith, he ignored the centuries of blatant racism and justification for slavery in normative Protestant "Christianity" in the deep South -- a religion which did not object to the constant lynching of Black men and the rape of Black women.  In the midst of that tragic history, Joseph Smith and his associates were ordaining Black men and arguing against slavery.

 

The LDS Church is not perfect, but we do need to inject a sense of historical perspective into these matters.

[Calm]

 

Black people were never banned from entering LDS chapels. Other religions in South Africa did indeed disallow people of colour from worshiping with them because of the government of the day.

 

I am assuming you mean here that blacks weren't allowed to worship with whites because of the law, not because of the religion's choice.

 

An example for it happening with LDS:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/be-meek-and-lowly-of-heart

 

 

 

One of the most beautiful modern-day examples of meekness that I am aware of is that of Brother Moses Mahlangu. His conversion began in 1964, when he received a copy of the Book of Mormon. He was fascinated as he read this book, but it was not until the early ’70s that he saw an LDS Church sign on a building in Johannesburg, South Africa, as he was walking down a street. Brother Mahlangu was intrigued and entered the building to learn more about the Church. He was kindly told that he could not attend the services or be baptized because the country’s laws did not allow it at that time.

Brother Mahlangu accepted that decision with meekness, humility, and without resentment, but he continued to have a strong desire to learn more about the Church. He asked the Church leaders if they could leave one of the meetinghouse windows open during the Sunday meetings so he could sit outside and listen to the services. For several years, Brother Mahlangu’s family and friends attended church regularly “through the window.” One day in 1980 they were told that they could attend church and also be baptized. What a glorious day it was for Brother Mahlangu.

Later the Church organized a branch in his neighborhood in Soweto. This was possible only because of the determination, courage, and faithfulness of people like Brother Mahlangu who remained faithful for so many years under difficult circumstances.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

 

I am assuming you mean here that blacks weren't allowed to worship with whites because of the law, not because of the religion's choice.

 

An example for it happening with LDS:

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2013/10/be-meek-and-lowly-of-heart

 

 

Thanks, Cal, for bringing that to our attention.  Somehow I had forgotten that address.

 

I also loved Elder Soares' very pertinent advice on how to make a marriage work.

[Calm]

Thanks, Cal, for bringing that to our attention.  Somehow I had forgotten that address.

 

I also loved Elder Soares' very pertinent advice on how to make a marriage work.

That talk is one of the most memorable ones I've ever heard.  I am glad for the opportunity.