Other Countries With Black Populations Pre-1978

[williamsmith]

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.

 

I don't disagree that it was "policy".  What I meant by that is that I entirely believe that the policy came by revelation or inspiration, and it wasn't because of the Church, it was because of the world in it's sins against the black African.  Obviously this is my personal revelation and inspiration, but I believe it is entirely consistant with the history of the Church, as well as God's plans and purposes.  More importantly, it doesn't paint the church in any way as "racist" as sadly even mormons seem to wish to do by accepting the anti-mormon narratives of our history that we were all just racists in the past.  While there were a small number of such, and a few ethnocentric remarks, there was little actual racism, especially by the Church itself.

 

The Church was not racist, and neither was most of it's people, and I simply don't like it when anyone try's to claim it was giving fodder to the those who would destroy the church validating their claim it's a religion led by men instead of God.

Yes, historical perspective is important.  But, the Church was not a "box", and examples like you mention are only parts of a vast tapestry on this issue, and simply are not the "reason" the church had the ban so long.  God lifted the ban by revelation, he didn't say it was wrong.

[daz2]

I served in 1974-1976 cities in Mexico on the coast in areas that had a fair amount of racial mixing, including those of Caribean and black African ancestry.  We were never instructed about the priesthood ban by our mission presidents, and as far as a I know, the local leaders were not instructed either.  There were roughly 36,000 members in our mission boundaries, and 6 stakes.  Among the missionaries from the U.S., we sometimes discussed the ban, but even the U.S. origin missionaries did not attempt in any way to determine a person's ancestry, regardless of their appearance.  I don't have first hand knowledge of any member of black African descent being denied priesthood in that mission area (there were no temples in Mexico at the time, and very few members were endowed).  I did hear that there was a family in one of the cities who were told the males could not hold the priesthood because of ancestry, but I never verified it.

[williamsmith]

Indeed.  Most areas of the world the ban was not in effect even with black populations because those areas were considered of a different lineage, even if partially african based.  The mixing made them of a different line.

 

Take Lehi's group.  Most say there is no "Jewish DNA" in the America's.

 

First, the BOM make clear there were others, and Lehi's group was small, so there simply had to be others either way that they mixed with.

Second, enough time has went by that according to genetic drift Lehi's DNA would be in basically every native of the America's, yet, his wouldn't be dominant.

Prophets have often said that the peoples of the America's and the Islands are of Lehi.  So, their Lineage was now different, from many groups, not simply Lehi or others, so black African or otherwise didn't matter.

 

Brazil for example was very "fresh" in race migration and hadn't yet mixed greatly until the modern age, which is why it became a special focus of mention.

But what is unfortunate about that mention is that all the other countries of the world are entirely ignored for which there wasn't this "race" problem, like the OP addresses.

People focus on Brazil, America, and Africa, and they call the church racist, all the while ignoring the rest of the planet of black and otherwise races for which the ban did not apply to.

 

A truly racist religion would have focused on skin color, segregation, etc., yet the Church did none of this.

 

The author and creator of the book and movie "The Color Purple" wouldn't have accepted an award from the Church pre-ban lifting had it been so "racist".  JFK wouldn't have had such great respect for the church had it been so racist.

The founder of the "Black Panthers" wouldn't have loved and joined the church had it been so racist.

 

People need to read history in context, not selectively for the actual truth of things.

[Bernard Gui]

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?

I was a missionary in Central America in the 60s, and we did not ordain Afro-Central Americans.

[williamsmith]

Yes and no. Depended on the place, etc.  Recent Afro-American you are correct, but if there had been some time, or were considered different racially even if black as night, then they were ordained.

Edited December 25, 2013 by williamsmith

[NEDRA]

Thanks, daz2 and Bernard GUI. That's what I was going for. There are lots of Latino and Central American people with mixed black African lineage who were considered Lamanites, and the ban did not seem to affect many of them.