A Mormon Says Sorry

why me · December 20, 2013

The priesthood ban was referred to by church leaders and members as a "curse." The original justification for the ban was the "curse of cain." Regardless of whether a curse is justified or not, it cannot be seriously debated that a curse causes harm. That is part of its very nature. Whatever good you believe came into the lives of black members post-78, it must be conceeded that that good was denied them pre-78.

And yet we have this account and the members here can testify that this manifestation of the spirit was shown throughout the church at that time. Why do we wish to deny the manifestations of the spirit?

The reaction of different Church members varied, as one might expect. Some called the bishop and expressed concern. Others asked questions. Generally, however, they wanted to accept the will of the Lord and do what was right. A member of the high council summed up the attitudes of many when he said, “I have lived in the South all of my life. I’ve held prejudices. Now the Prophet and the Lord have asked me to change my views and practices. I’ll certainly go along with it, support it, and sustain it.” He spent his family home evening talking with his family about how they could follow the intent of the Lord’s manifestation.

Two weeks later things began to happen—The meetinghouse for the Albany, Georgia, First and Second Wards was dedicated. Among the many nonmembers attending the dedicatory services was Alice Moultrie, a friend from work who had responded to our invitation to attend.

“It was a wonderful meeting,” Alice reflected the next day at work. “The people were so friendly. Even though I was just about the only black person there, I felt right at home. I feel something drawing me there.”

That something, of course, was the Holy Ghost. In the ensuing weeks as Alice was taught by the missionaries and the members, she received many powerful manifestations from the Holy Spirit regarding the truthfulness of the gospel.

She accepted the baptismal challenge and the day finally came when she was led by the hand into the waters of baptism. As she took her place in the baptismal font, her eyes grew wide and she exclaimed softly, “So this is the baptismal font!” The meaning of her comment was not understood by others until after the meeting had concluded.

“I had seen that font before in a type of vision,” she shared with us later. “I saw myself in the water and every other detail of the font’s interior exactly as it is. When I stood in the water and looked up, I realized the Lord had shown me my baptism before it happened.”

Soon after her baptism Alice was called to be the secretary of the ward Sunday School organization. More recently, because of her warm spirit and her burning testimony, she has been called to be a stake missionary.

Although she was the first black convert in our ward, she did not have the distinction very long of being the only black member. In the twelve months following Alice’s baptism in late August of 1978, some forty black brothers and sisters were baptized in the Albany area—and their numbers have continued to grow. A heavy outpouring of the Spirit has accompanied each conversion. Here are some examples:

1. Herbert and Mildred Samuels were baptized just a few weeks after Alice Moultrie. The first black elder to be ordained in the Albany First Ward, he became a dynamic stake missionary with an intense love for others. Sister Samuels is a counselor in the Primary and adds much to the ward with her gifted soprano voice. Their temple marriage took on added significance when Brother Samuels died in a tragic car accident in the summer of 1980.

2. Mark and Ada Clark’s conversion to the Church was especially significant to us since he, like Alice Moultrie, was a colleague at work. He had impressed us for some time as being an “unbaptized Mormon,” but procrastination had prevented us from asking him the golden questions. Success often creates boldness, however; and in the light of the missionary success our ward was having, the approach to Mark was rather blunt. “Mark, you need to learn more about the Mormon church!” Because of the friendship we shared he was not offended, and he agreed to meet with one of us in our home to receive the missionary discussions.

Within two weeks, it was apparent Mark and Ada would be baptized. They were doing all the right things. Their questions in the discussion were thoughtful and spirited. They prayed often about the message of the gospel. They studied the Book of Mormon and the pamphlets they received and struggled until they understood what they had read.

After meeting with them and the missionaries for the third discussion, we received a strong impression that 11 January 1979 (the date they had been preparing for since the first meeting) was indeed to be the night of their baptism. When Satan began placing obstacles in the Clarks’ path that final week, it would have been easy to have given in to their request to “hold off on the baptism for a little while.” But the Spirit prompted us to hold firm, and so we did.

We both went to visit with Mark just two hours before his scheduled baptism to bear our witness and to answer his questions. The Spirit was very strong as we all knelt to pray. Following prayer, Mark rose to his feet and asked simply, “What do we need to bring for tonight?” Later that evening he and his wife were baptized. Subsequently they, too, have been sealed in the temple. Mark is presently elders quorum president in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

3. Jim and Lawanda Coston joined the Church after being friendshipped and after receiving the discussions in the home of a recent convert in the ward. After baptism, Jim commented that he had lost the desire to engage in his usual social activities. His family had taken on added significance and he desired to spend the majority of his time with them.

In time, Jim was called to be a counselor in the elders quorum presidency, and Lawanda was called to serve with the Young Women. Then, early this year, Jim was presented to be one of the counselors in the bishopric.

Such outpourings of the Spirit have brought new excitement to the Church in the Albany area, and our love for one another has increased. One member, who had admitted earlier that he was finding it difficult to accept the impact of the revelation, remarked how the Spirit had influenced him while helping the missionaries teach a black family. “I felt the Spirit very strongly,” he said. “My eyes were opened. I know now how badly the Lord wants all of his children to be a part of his Church.” His words had a familiar ring of the Apostle Peter after teaching Cornelius’s household:

“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

“And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

“For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” (Acts 10:44–47.)

As time progressed and black brothers and sisters have entered the Church, we have learned that an increased capacity to love does not come about by sermons from the pulpit or through directives in a priesthood quorum. It comes as a result of serving together, in such activities as pulling corn on the welfare farm, jointly teaching with the missionaries, sacrificing together to make a Church activity just a bit better, or just being friends.

The Saints in Albany have experienced something akin to what Peter and Cornelius experienced, and we feel strongly that our latter-day prophet is repeating the message found in the tenth chapter of Acts [Acts 10], namely:

1. There are many righteous persons on the face of the earth who have not had the gospel preached to them.

2. Many such individuals have been spiritually prepared, or are being spiritually prepared, for the messengers who will bring the glad tidings of the restoration of the gospel.

3. A revelation from God has come to the Lord’s anointed spokesman declaring that the fulness of the gospel should now be taken to people who previously (according to the Lord’s timetable) had not been included in full proselyting activities.

4. Members of the Church must overcome any prejudices and cultural patterns we might have in order to extend a true hand of friendship and fellowship to all individuals of all races, cultures, and tongues.

5. Rapid growth, far greater than that seen in past years, will accompany the Church as we follow the will of the Lord.

Because of our experiences in Georgia, we have felt the Spirit of the Lord in abundance. The formula is sweet but well known: in inviting our brothers and sisters to join us in the gospel fold, we’ve found ourselves entering anew.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ce28aeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

How to rationalize such manifestations of the spirit that occurred after the ban was lifted? I don't think that revisionism works in this case.

why me · December 20, 2013

Just to wrap this up, is it your position that the word "damage" only applies to things that are eternal in duration? In other words, if something is eventually fixed, it was never damaged? Under this theory I take it you would agree that none of the following actions are damaging:
Contrary to church policy and teachings, a bishop takes away a member's temple recommend because they voted for a socialist. The member thereby missed their child's temple wedding.
Contrary to church policy and teachings, a RS President tellss her sisters not take meals to a member family whose daughter had died because the death was self-inflicted.
Contrary to church policy and teachings, a deacon is not allowed to pass the sacrament because his family cannot afford a white shirt.
If this is correct, it would be helpful to know what action(s), if anything, you would consider to be damaging.

It seems by what I linked that after the ban was lifted and the spirit began to manifest itself among the membership both white and black benefited from the spirit. Your post would have us old timers deny the spirit that we felt at that time. And I am afraid that most of us cannot do such a thing. We cannot deny the holy ghost.

DBMormon · December 20, 2013

It seems by what I linked that after the ban was lifted and the spirit began to manifest itself among the membership both white and black benefited from the spirit. Your post would have us old timers deny the spirit that we felt at that time. And I am afraid that most of us cannot do such a thing. We cannot deny the holy ghost.

It appears you have a reluctance to follow Buckeyes line of questions. This gives me the impression you are aware where his line of questioning will take your line of thinking. I would surmise that you would agree the examples he gave were indeed damaging and that they are unfortunate and also have longer term effects?

why me · December 20, 2013

It appears you have a reluctance to follow Buckeyes line of questions. This gives me the impression you are aware where his line of questioning will take your line of thinking. I would surmise that you would agree the examples he gave were indeed damaging and that they are unfortunate and also have longer term effects?

Actually, I don't agree with him at all. When the ban was lifted we members saw no damage among the black members nor among the new converts. We did see the manifestations of the spirit that was taking place at the time. And that was my point with the link. For those of us who were around at that time, we can testify of it. As Oliver Cowdery would claim for his own reasons: those were days never to be forgotten.

Of course decades later younger members can take a holier than thou attitude. But they were not around at that time. They don't have such experiences as the old timers had. And that was my point.

Calm · December 20, 2013

That great blessings followed does not make previous hurts nonexistent. If by some chance my genetic disorder is cured in my lifetime, I still will live the rest of my life with the physical damage it has inflicted on my body and just because my grandchildren and their children will never feel the pain caused by it doesn't somehow negate or remove the years of pain that my father and his father and likely many parents back many generations suffered.

The Atonement heals all "damage" done in mortality, but it does not make the experience of mortality disappear as that would render it useless. That God can turn all hardships to our good does not change them from being hardships either.

mfbukowski · December 21, 2013

Of course I receive at least some personal benefit from Temple attendance but my personal enlightenment, peace, or whatever isn't the same personal enlightenment, peace, what have you, to you. I highly value my Priesthood. But would my earthly life suffer because I didn't hold the Priesthood? No not really. I still would be a loving and devoted husband and father of my children. I would still pray for them, and do everything within my power to see that they lead happy, productive lives, and yes they would still go to Church.

There is no damage done. NO ONE will be deny any blessing from God because of any ban on Priesthood.

Highly disagree.

I would feel severely "damaged" if my Priesthood were withdrawn. I would not be able to give my family blessings, I would not be able to be an ordinance worker, I would not be able to serve people in the same way without my priesthood.

My life would be radically different.

And I really don't see why you are arguing this point anyway. You are basically denying the importance of the priesthood- not a great argument.

thesometimesaint · December 21, 2013

Highly disagree.
I would feel severely "damaged" if my Priesthood were withdrawn. I would not be able to give my family blessings, I would not be able to be an ordinance worker, I would not be able to serve people in the same way without my priesthood.

My life would be radically different.

And I really don't see why you are arguing this point anyway. You are basically denying the importance of the priesthood- not a great argument.

I'm fine with disagreements.

If my Priesthood was removed, and I was still a member of the Church. I could still give my family blessings. I just couldn't invoke the Priesthood to do it. Wives, mothers, women don't have the Priesthood, and they can not hold the Priesthood at this time. Their authority is in being members of the Church not in holding the Priesthood. In the Eternities? I have no idea, but I assume Mrs. God has all the authority she needs.

My life also would be considerably different in some respects. But no I wouldn't be damaged by it. Fortunately NO ONE will be denied any blessing from God based solely on holding the Priesthood in mortality.

I am NOT denying the importance of Priesthood, but it is not the only thing in receiving blessings from God.

mfbukowski · December 21, 2013

I'm fine with disagreements.

If my Priesthood was removed, and I was still a member of the Church. I could still give my family blessings. I just couldn't invoke the Priesthood to do it. Wives, mothers, women don't have the Priesthood, and they can not hold the Priesthood at this time. Their authority is in being members of the Church not in holding the Priesthood. In the Eternities? I have no idea, but I assume Mrs. God has all the authority she needs.

My life also would be considerably different in some respects. But no I wouldn't be damaged by it. Fortunately NO ONE will be denied any blessing from God based solely on holding the Priesthood in mortality.

I am NOT denying the importance of Priesthood, but it is not the only thing in receiving blessings from God.

The claim was not about eternal blessings but about how the priesthood affects one's life in the here and now.

Yes, God will bless us if we live in a tent or in a house, but I will take the house any day. We are talking about quality of life experience, not eternal blessings.

mormonnewb · December 21, 2013

I don't think that you were around at the time of the ban. If so, you could not write such things. I was around at that time and I knew black members in the church. One was married to a white member. I don't think that he felt discriminated against at all. He was a member in good standing as was his wife. Did he have the priesthood? No. But when he was allowed the priesthood he cried for joy. The church members always welcomed him as a full member of the church with or without the priesthood.
Your emotional outbust makes it seem that the church was behaving like racists. Far from it. All races were treated as equals in the NYC ward of the early 70's. And the spirit was present.

Why would this dear brother cry for joy if he was so perfectly happy WITHOUT the priesthood? It obviously added something to his life, which means that prior getting it, he had LESS.

And as for him being happy, let me explain. Just because we're smiling, it does not mean that we are happy. This dear brother grew up in a time where giving a white person a dirty look could get you killed. Look up the name "Emmett Till" if you don't believe me.

I saw my grandfather do this so many times that it turns my stomach now to think about it. Whenever he was approached by a white man, the broadest grin would come across his face. He would almost imperceptibly bow and address that man as "Sir," even if the white man was 30 years his junior. And when the man went away, he would scawl after him.

I'm always amazed that some white people tend to think that blacks enjoyed second class citizenship. I . You wouldn't have enjoyed it, so why do you think we would? Because we share your view about our inferiority?

P.S. I'm smiling while typing this.

Calm · December 21, 2013

P.S. I'm smiling while typing this.

You are a brilliant writer IMO and we are blest to have your POV added to others here, it is much needed. Howeve the Internet is not the best tool with which to communicate....you have no control over who is your audience for one thing...it is best IMO to use a little gentleness in our helping of others to see things a new way...at least until they've demonstrated they need a sledgehammer for anything to penetrate their thick skulls (a place I fear we all occupy over something in our lives) and then given the very public nature of our comments, the sledgehammer should be clearly marked as to its purpose and its intended recipients so that someone doesn't inadvertently place their own tender skull beneath it.

It may make for a less witty presentation, but if it is more effective, isn't it worth the cost?

My opinion of course and even more so your choice to value it how you would like, I just don't want anyone to turn away from the valuable things you are saying because a message isn't clearly phrased.

Tacenda · December 21, 2013

I love mormonnewb's posts too Cal. But disagree with you on his approach, I think it's needed to get through to some people, they are so engrained with the culture of racism, something is needed to break through, the example of his grandfather is humbling, and the comment that he is smiling.

mormonnewb · December 21, 2013

You are a brilliant writer IMO and we are blest to have your POV added to others here, it is much needed. Howeve the Internet is not the best tool with which to communicate....you have no control over who is your audience for one thing...it is best IMO to use a little gentleness in our helping of others to see things a new way...at least until they've demonstrated they need a sledgehammer for anything to penetrate their thick skulls (a place I fear we all occupy over something in our lives) and then given the very public nature of our comments, the sledgehammer should be clearly marked as to its purpose and its intended recipients so that someone doesn't inadvertently place their own tender skull beneath it.
It may make for a less witty presentation, but if it is more effective, isn't it worth the cost?
My opinion of course and even more so your choice to value it how you would like, I just don't want anyone to turn away from the valuable things you are saying because a message isn't clearly phrased.

I love mormonnewb's posts too Cal. But disagree with you on his approach, I think it's needed to get through to some people, they are so engrained with the culture of racism, something is needed to break through, the example of his grandfather is humbling, and the comment that he is smiling.

Thanks for the comments. Believe it or not, this is the same conversation that goes on in my head. Specifically, the part about my brilliant writing.

Seriously, I often struggle with this medium. In person, I can somewhat soften the brunt of a stinging truth with a smile or smirk and I'm finding that emoticons aren't as effective for these purposes.

That's probably the case in reading posts as well. Some of the posts seem so callous to my reading. Perhaps, I'm not catching the nuances contained therein.

Who knows? I guess I'll have to take it post by post, thread upon thread.

why me · December 21, 2013

Why would this dear brother cry for joy if he was so perfectly happy WITHOUT the priesthood? It obviously added something to his life, which means that prior getting it, he had LESS.
And as for him being happy, let me explain. Just because we're smiling, it does not mean that we are happy. This dear brother grew up in a time where giving a white person a dirty look could get you killed. Look up the name "Emmett Till" if you don't believe me.
I saw my grandfather do this so many times that it turns my stomach now to think about it. Whenever he was approached by a white man, the broadest grin would come across his face. He would almost imperceptibly bow and address that man as "Sir," even if the white man was 30 years his junior. And when the man went away, he would scawl after him.
I'm always amazed that some white people tend to think that blacks enjoyed second class citizenship. I . You wouldn't have enjoyed it, so why do you think we would? Because we share your view about our inferiority?
P.S. I'm smiling while typing this.

Were you there? Maybe I know you! Of course I know that you weren't there so you could not understand the context or the brother in question. The brother was not crying but he was happy. But i don't believe that he was happy because he got something that he didn't have but because he did get something that was unexpected. But in a way you may be right. My point was simple: he was not damaged during the ban. In fact, he was a very educated doctor who was doing quite fine in his life and in the church as was his wife. We were home teaching partners and so I do think that I may know just what I am talking about.

Did I ever say that blacks enjoyed second class citizenship? I don't remember writing such a sentence. By the way, I haven't exercised my priesthood in years. I am not very active in the church nor very worthy. I really don't miss not exercising my priesthood. What is important is that members still treat me as an equal. And they do.

why me · December 21, 2013

That's probably the case in reading posts as well. Some of the posts seem so callous to my reading. Perhaps, I'm not catching the nuances contained therein.

This may be the case. But since I have been on the boards for years, I can take the jabs. When one posts on exmormon forums for a few years and is called all sorts of names and implied names, the skin becomes leathery. But maybe you should be careful in what you are implying when you read someone's posts. Especially in implying a person may be a racist etc.

canard78 · December 21, 2013

I'm fine with disagreements.
If my Priesthood was removed, and I was still a member of the Church. I could still give my family blessings. I just couldn't invoke the Priesthood to do it. Wives, mothers, women don't have the Priesthood, and they can not hold the Priesthood at this time. Their authority is in being members of the Church not in holding the Priesthood. In the Eternities? I have no idea, but I assume Mrs. God has all the authority she needs.
My life also would be considerably different in some respects. But no I wouldn't be damaged by it. Fortunately NO ONE will be denied any blessing from God based solely on holding the Priesthood in mortality.
I am NOT denying the importance of Priesthood, but it is not the only thing in receiving blessings from God.

Would you also be fine having your temple recommend revoked? Having your sealing annulled? Not being able to serve in auxiliary callings and not being able to pray in sacrament meeting?

One of the pillars of my testimony is the endowment parable and what it teaches me about life and godliness. Would you be fine without that blessing?

canard78 · December 21, 2013

I don't think that you were around at the time of the ban. If so, you could not write such things. I was around at that time and I knew black members in the church. One was married to a white member. I don't think that he felt discriminated against at all. He was a member in good standing as was his wife. Did he have the priesthood? No. But when he was allowed the priesthood he cried for joy. The church members always welcomed him as a full member of the church with or without the priesthood.
Your emotional outbust makes it seem that the church was behaving like racists. Far from it. All races were treated as equals in the NYC ward of the early 70's. And the spirit was present.

What a patronising post. How can you know what he would have written at the time?

The church policy was racist (an exclusion based on race). The explanation for the policy was racist.

why me · December 21, 2013

I love mormonnewb's posts too Cal. But disagree with you on his approach, I think it's needed to get through to some people, they are so engrained with the culture of racism, something is needed to break through,

Racism is an interesting term. For my generation the term prejudice was used and not racism. Racist or racism terms were reserved for a particular group of people who wore a particular costume or believed in the superiority of their own race. But times have changed and so have the terms. One hardly ever hears the word prejudice anymore. Also, I think that we need to be careful in applying such terms to posters or to what they post.

canard78 · December 21, 2013

Racism is an interesting term. For my generation the term prejudice was used and not racism. Racist or racism terms were reserved for a particular group of people who wore a particular costume or believed in the superiority of their own race. But times have changed and so have the terms. One hardly ever hears the word prejudice anymore. Also, I think that we need to be careful in applying such terms to posters or to what they post.

We're talking in 2013. The meaning of the word racist is quite simple. No costume needed.

why me · December 21, 2013

We're talking in 2013. The meaning of the word racist is quite simple. No costume needed.

True, words change meanings. But I am talking about the 1970's and this is where the term is being applied to members and to the church by some members on this thread. Can we apply 21st word meanings for the 19th century and 20th century? Was Archie Bunker racist or prejudice? I believe that the term used for Archie was prejudiced or bigoted. But not racist. So, I take issue with the church being called racist for its 19th and 20th century policies. .

why me · December 21, 2013

The church policy was racist (an exclusion based on race). The explanation for the policy was racist.

Of course that is one opinion. But I do have a problem with the term being applied to the priesthood ban. Why is this the case? Well, it is quite simple and I have posted the link on this thread but never got a reply for it. So, I will do it again. Here it is: