What Is It About White Men?

[mormonnewb]

This is a sincere question. What is it about SOME white men that makes them so comfortable with the idea of being privileged by God to exercise authority over others? Even 35+ years after the end of the priesthood ban, according to a poll taken on this board, the majority of posters believe that HF instituted the priesthood ban, thus, intentionally placing all black saints under the priesthood authority of their white brothers.

Fortunately, our Church has moved beyond a race-based hegemony (at least, officially), but our patriarchy is alive and well. For most men in the church, it is not even curious that HF rests more ecclesiastical authority in a typical 12 yo BOY than in the most devout woman in the church.
 

[in light of further reflection and comments from posters, I want to modify my position SLIGHTLY as follows:

 

Now, I know that some of you will see this question as being racist and sexist, and I admit that it is.  It assumes that this phenomenon is unique to white men, when it probably would affect ANY group that had established economic/political/social dominance for centuries.  It's entirely likely that a group of left-handed, lesbian, albino Eskimos would began to feel that they were the "chosen people" had if they established dominance over a sustained period of time.   However, since white male hegemony is the current paradigm, I'll continue the rest of this post using the term "white men" as shorthand to denote the current dominant group.]
 
So while this mindset isn't likely one that you share, why is it that so many white men are so comfortable with a concept of God that ALWAYS privileges them?   And why are some of them offended by the idea that others might not accept that God likes them best?  Why do they assume that others should be comfortable with a subjugation that they NEVER experience for themselves?

Don't they at least find it coincidental that "God's will" is ALWAYS for some other group to be content under their righteous dominion? Is it at least POSSIBLE that God finds women and blacks as delightful as He finds white men? If so, then why don't they find it strange that HF is so reluctant to extend the power of the priesthood to anyone but white men, and only after years of agitation and turmoil (inside and outside of the Church)?

[Note to mods: This board is filled with generalized comments about how "gays" are attempting to "push their agenda" and how "women" are trying to "demand the priesthood from the Brethren." Is not acceptable to question why "white men" (who just currently happen to be the dominant group) seem to share a common mindset? If not, then perhaps I have the answer I seek.]

Edited March 25, 2014 by mormonnewb

[MiserereNobis]

Pope St. Victor I was our first Pontiff from Africa.  He reigned from 186-197 and is most famous for deciding authoritatively on the controversy over when to celebrate Easter.

 

So, let's pause for a moment this year on April 20th and remember that we are celebrating Easter on that particular day because of an African Pope from the second century

Edited March 25, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[mormonnewb]

Pope St. Victor I was our first Pontiff from Africa. He reigned from 186-197 and is most famous for deciding authoritatively on the controversy over when to celebrate Easter.

So, let's pause for a moment this year on April 20th and remember that we are celebrating Easter on that particular day because of an African Pope from the second century

Thanks for the reminder that the mindset I'm questioning is not universal amongst all (or not even most of my white brothers. It just seems to be a mindset that seems to be readily embraced by SOME saints.

Edited March 25, 2014 by mormonnewb

[strappinglad]

Ask yourself what people are reflected in the Bible.  If and when the records of God's dealings with the African peoples are found or revealed , there may well be a shift in attitude. The same holds for the Chinese and the people of India. when Christ spoke of " other sheep" I assume He was referring to others in different parts of the earth.

 

   I remember the scripture about the first being last and the last being first. If the white man was first to receive the gospel in this dispensation, I wonder where he will end up .The trend in demographics within the current membership can give us a hint.

[Anijen]

 I find this part offensive. Lumping all white men into a racial superiority is in itself biased.

"What is it about white men that makes them so comfortable with the idea of being privileged by God to exercise authority over others?" and this; ""God's will" is ALWAYS for some other group to be content under your righteous dominion?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is it about white men that makes them so comfortable with the idea of being privileged by God to exercise authority over others?according to a poll taken on this board, the majority of posters believe that HF instituted the priesthood ban

I have not seen this poll nor do I agree with it. I do not believe that God instituted the priesthood ban. I know Joseph ordained 2 black men to the Melchizedek Priesthood, to me in all likelihood it was Brigham Young who instituted the ban based upon his own opinions at the time.

 

 

 

Please don't include me in your bias. 

[sunstoned]

This is a sincere question. What is it about white men that makes them so comfortable with the idea of being privileged by God to exercise authority over others? Even 35+ years after the end of the priesthood ban, according to a poll taken on this board, the majority of posters believe that HF instituted the priesthood ban, thus, intentionally placing all black saints under the priesthood authority of their white brothers.

Fortunately, our Church has moved beyond a race-based hegemony (at least, officially), but our patriarchy is alive and well. For most men in the church, it is not even curious that HF rests more ecclasiastical authority in a typical 12 yo BOY than in the most devout woman in the church.

Now, I know that some of you will see this question as being racist and sexist, but it isn't meant to be so. I'm simply trying to understand how many of you are so comfortable with a concept of God that ALWAYS privileges white men. And why some of you are offended by the idea that others might not accept that God likes you best. Why do you assume that others should be comfortable with a subjugation that you NEVER experience for yourselves?

Don't you at least find it coincidental that "God's will" is ALWAYS for some other group to be content under your righteous dominion? Is it at least POSSIBLE that God finds women and blacks as delightful as He finds you? If so, then why don't you find it strange that He is so reluctant to extend the power of the priesthood to anyone but you?

[Note to mods: This board is filled with generalized comments about how "gays" are attempting to "push their agenda" and how "women" are trying to "demand the priesthood from the Brethren." Is not acceptable to question why "white men" seem to share a common mindset? If not, then perhaps I have the answer I seek.]

You are asking some good questions.  The church has a sad legacy of coming down on the wrong side of most social issues.

[mormonnewb]

DUPLICATE.

Edited March 25, 2014 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

 I find this part offensive. Lumping all white men into a racial superiority is in itself biased.

 

I have not seen this poll nor do I agree with it. I do not believe that God instituted the priesthood ban. I know Joseph ordained 2 black men to the Melchizedek Priesthood, to me in all likelihood it was Brigham Young who instituted the ban based upon his own opinions at the time.

 

Please don't include me in your bias. 

 

Agreed and please accept my apologies.  To attribute a single mindset to one group of people is by definition racist.  I've tried to reword my original post to make that clear, but I still think the issue needs to be addressed because the "God likes us best" mindset seems to be something unique to SOME white men (obviously, not YOU).

[thesometimesaint]

God for whatever his reason(s) has instituted numerous Priesthood bans over time. Unfortunately he has not told us his reason(s), and more unfortunately some have speculated as to why the ban. Further all such speculations have been dismissed by the Church.. I've never agreed with the ban for our African black members, and was delighted when it was lifted. Along with every Church member that I know of.

Edited March 25, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[mormonnewb]

God for whatever his reason(s) has instituted numerous Priesthood bans over time. Unfortunately he has not told us his reason(s), and more unfortunately some have speculated as to why the ban. Further all such speculations have been dismissed by the Church.

 

But don't you find it curious that for the last two thousand years, NONE of these bans affected white men?  Of course, I guess it could be argued that ALL mankind experienced the ban during the time between the Great Apostacy and the Restoration.  But can you think of a time when white men didn't hold the priesthood and others did?  I can't.  So what is it about white men that makes them indispensable to carrying forward of the Gospel, while others are purely optional in God's plans?

[mfbukowski]

If someone GIVES you "authority", or "freedom"- who is still in charge- the giver or the receiver?

One must TAKE authority to have it. You cannot beg for authority. The whole idea is a non-sequitur.

When one has authority, everyone knows it, there is no need to complain about NOT having authority, because one has it.

This is a take-charge world, like it or not.

What is it about SOME white men that makes them so comfortable with the idea of being privileged by God to exercise authority over others?

What is it about some people that makes them so comfortable with the idea of complaining about not having authority?

 

[mfbukowski]

But don't you find it curious that for the last two thousand years, NONE of these bans affected white men?  Of course, I guess it could be argued that ALL mankind experienced the ban during the time between the Great Apostacy and the Restoration.  But can you think of a time when white men didn't hold the priesthood and others did?  I can't.  So what is it about white men that makes them indispensable to carrying forward of the Gospel, while others are purely optional in God's plans?

What is it about Black Muslims who think they should be in charge over whites?

 

What about Rastafarians?

 

If Africans had invented the Bible, and took the Vikings as slaves it might have been the other way around.

 

Africans were brought here and taught the white man's religion- so surprise surprise, white men were seen as "superior".

 

It could have been the other way around.  This is not rocket science.

 

Racist thinking is racist thinking.  We have to stop it on both sides.

Edited March 25, 2014 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

But don't you find it curious that for the last two thousand years, NONE of these bans affected white men?  Of course, I guess it could be argued that ALL mankind experienced the ban during the time between the Great Apostacy and the Restoration.  But can you think of a time when white men didn't hold the priesthood and others did?  I can't.  So what is it about white men that makes them indispensable to carrying forward of the Gospel, while others are purely optional in God's plans?

 

Jesus during his mortal ministry went only to the Jews and whatever their skin color it was no different than their neighbors.

 

Again for whatever God's reason(s) various priesthood bans have been in effect. We don't know the reason(s) and any speculation on my part would be just that. My personal speculation is that it was a trial. Not for the black members of the Church. But for the white ones. To prove to themselves how they treat their fellow man.

[volgadon]

Now, I know that some of you will see this question as being racist and sexist, but it isn't meant to be so.

 

 

Oh, please. Your post is an example of racism alive and well in the United States.

[mormonnewb]

What is it about Black Muslims who think they should be in charge over whites?

 

I've never heard such a thing preached by the Nation of Islam or any other American group of black Muslims.  The Nation of Islam preaches separatism from whites, not dominance of them.

 

What about Rastafarians?

 

There are white Rastafarians (although not many).  The religion is certainly Afro-centric and preaches that all blacks should attempt to return to Africa (Zion).  But it doesn't prohibit whites from "joining" (if you can call it that because it is much more of a belief system than an organized religion).

 

If Africans had invented the Bible, and took the Vikings as slaves it might have been the other way around.

 

Agreed.  Hopefully, in that case, 400 years later, whites would feel free to point out ways that our political/economic/social dominance might have crept into our theology.

 

Africans were brought here and taught the white man's religion- so surprise surprise, white men were seen as "superior".

 

Agreed again.  See above.

 

It could have been the other way around.  This is not rocket science.

 

Racist thinking is racist thinking.  We have to stop it on both sides.

 

But what do we do when it is God who has set up the racist/sexist structures (as many Mormons believe)?  And if some believe that HF is perfectly comfortable with white men holding all of the important positions in the Church, why wouldn't HF also be comfortable with white men holding all of the important offices outside of the Church as well?

[mormonnewb]

If someone GIVES you "authority", or "freedom"- who is still in charge- the giver or the receiver?

One must TAKE authority to have it. You cannot beg for authority. The whole idea is a non-sequitur.

When one has authority, everyone knows it, there is no need to complain about NOT having authority, because one has it.

This is a take-charge world, like it or not.

What is it about some people that makes them so comfortable with the idea of complaining about not having authority?

 

 

So the women in our Church should TAKE the authority of the priesthood?  And how do you suggest that they do this?

 

As for this being a "take-charge world," I'm simply not a believer that "might makes right."  If someone has the strength (and malice) subjugate you, that does not mean that you do not "deserve" your freedom.

Edited March 25, 2014 by mormonnewb

[thesometimesaint]

So the women in our Church should TAKE the authority of the priesthood?  And how do you suggest that they do this?

 

As for this being a "take-charge world," I'm simply not a believer that "might makes right."  If someone has the strength (and malice) subjugate you, that does not mean that you do not "deserve" your freedom.

 

Any man whom doesn't know the Sisters have real authority over their stewardship doesn't know the Sisters very well.

[Storm Rider]

The concept of a chosen people is odd, difficult to embrace, and rife with potential conflicts. I have had occaision to spend time around several different royal families in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. I also have seen some people that rich beyond imagining and their wealth has gone through several generations; they seem capable and trained to both maintain and create wealth.  I also know some people that are poor beyond comprehension and have been for generations.  

 

As far as royalty goes some have it and some don't. In my opinion it is solely by right of birth in specific families and without merit. It seems like a lot of social structures in this life are based on something other than merit.  They just are.

 

A chosen people also comes with a host of requirements between them and their God. There are some that if offered would reject the responsibility of being a chosen people - it is not an enviable trade in their eyes.

 

Why do some people grow up feeling inferior? Why are some just the opposite?  Cultures produce different kinds of people.  Why have the Jewish people been so dominant in winning so many Nobel prizes? For such a small group of people they are dominant and no one likes to answer the question. Why are Germans so good at so many things?  Why is Africa, as a whole, so behind in so many areas? Why do Russians prefer a strong centralized government? Why is slavery so common in several African nations?

 

There are a wide range of answers and some of them are painful to many people. What I know is that I was born with certain gifts and limitations. My ancestors are, for the most part, dirt poor farmers. We don't have any royal ancestors and not many professional people. My wife's family is filled with professtional people, royals, and scholars.  I did not choose my ancestors, but they are mine and I am proud of them. Their feet were firmly planted in the soil and they did the best they could with what they had.

 

I realize that it is impossible for everyone to be first or last. We all have our place. It would be a strange world indeed if our bodies were just made up of single organs, or a single part of a body. It takes a whole body to function properly just as it takes all kinds of people to make up community. There will be those who work hard and those who are lazy. There will be rich and there will be poor. There will be wise and there will be stupid. It does not matter where we are or where we come from; it matters a great deal what we do with what we have.  

[Calm]

 according to a poll taken on this board, the majority of posters believe that HF instituted the priesthood ban

 

I would disregard any poll taken on the board as not demonstrating anything of substance.  Look at the numbers of those who take it compared to those who are members and even just guessing the number of active posters or lurkers.

 

I myself have a principle that I do not participate in the polls because they are self-selecting and unscientific and will yield no meaningful statistical data.  I know of a few others who have made the same sort of statement. 

Edited March 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

But don't you find it curious that for the last two thousand years, NONE of these bans affected white men?  Of course, I guess it could be argued that ALL mankind experienced the ban during the time between the Great Apostacy and the Restoration.  But can you think of a time when white men didn't hold the priesthood and others did?  I can't.  So what is it about white men that makes them indispensable to carrying forward of the Gospel, while others are purely optional in God's plans?

 

 

I don't see it all that difficult to figure out where the idea of the privilege of European males came from that some members have.  That some carried their beliefs into their new faith and then passed it on to their children and even those around them is natural human behaviour.  Very few cultures over the years have not seen themselves as the "Chosen People" or inheritors of the Chosen if the mythologies of their communities are to be believed.  That the major culture in the US is currently still dominated by European heritage males follows naturally from the reality that European heritage has dominated the US up to now and given that the LDS faith started in the US and is only recently has shifted to a larger membership outside the US and Canada…well, it will simply be a matter of time I believe before that type of thinking fades.

[mormonnewb]

I don't see it all that difficult to figure out where the idea of the privilege of European males came from that some members have.  That some carried their beliefs into their new faith and then passed it on to their children and even those around them is natural human behaviour.  Very few cultures over the years have not seen themselves as the "Chosen People" or inheritors of the Chosen if the mythologies of their communities are to be believed.  That the major culture in the US is currently still dominated by European heritage males follows naturally from the reality that European heritage has dominated the US up to now and given that the LDS faith started in the US and is only recently has shifted to a larger membership outside the US and Canada…well, it will simply be a matter of time I believe before that type of thinking fades.

 

Excellent points.  You make me think that I was too quick to assign the "chosen people" syndrome to white males.  It applies to any dominant group.  In fact, I once heard a history of the Mongols in which it was pointed out that after decades of dominating their Chinese neighbors, they began to feel that the Chinese were a lesser form of being, and certainly not worth the care and concern of a "full" human being (i.e., a Mongol).

 

However, that still begs the question, given the repeated pattern of human beings falling prey to the "chosen people" syndrome, why are we so quick to assume that God shares our prejudices, particularly in light of our history of getting things wrong?  For instance, setting aside the issue of whether God instituted the priesthood restriction, the Church's recent statement states that the none of the justifications for the ban are accepted as valid doctrine today.  It even goes further to state that these justifications came from widespread racism:

 

"The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah."

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood

 

Given this history, why is it so unreasonable to assume that perhaps "the justifications for the restriction [on female ordination] echoes widespread ideas about gender inferiority"?

[CV75]

This is a sincere question.

At least one objective viewpoint /explanation might be found in the book “Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies” by Jared Diamond.

“The book attempts to explain why Eurasian civilizations (including North Africa) have survived and conquered others, while arguing against the idea that Eurasian hegemony is due to any form of Eurasian intellectual, moral or inherent genetic superiority.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel

I have found that individual attitudes brought into the world from pre-mortality are subsequently re-molded in part by conditions in such a world as that described in the book, but then are again re-modified by the Holy Ghost to become generally better than they were prior to having the “baptism of fire.”

Edited March 25, 2014 by CV75

[BookofMormonLuvr]

One reason the "white men" have traditionally held higher offices in the restored church at large is because they are generally of Ephraim (western European, specifically British/Celtic descent). Ephraim, being the birthright tribe of Israel, has the "big-brother"/leadership role over the other tribes. (D&C 133)

As other tribes are converted and grow in the Gospel their leadership opportunities will increase. I, personally, believe the LDS Church has been too slow in absorbing other Tribes into leadership responsibilities- whereas, other segments of the restored church have had them in leadership positions, including the apostleship even as early as the early 1900's...

 

"The Church of Jesus Christ has advocated full racial integration throughout all aspects of the church since its organization in 1862. While America disputed over civil liberties and racial segregation, the church claimed their message was for all races.^[27] In 1905, the church suspended an elder for opposing the full integration of all races.^[12]

Historian Dale Morgan wrote in 1949: "An interesting feature of the Church's doctrine is that it discriminates in no way against ... members of other racial groups, who are fully admitted to all the privileges of the priesthood. It has taken a strong stand for human rights, and was, for example, uncompromisingly against the Ku Klux Klan during that organization's period of ascendancy after the First World War."^[28]

At a time when racial segregation or discrimination was commonplace in most institutions throughout America, two of the most prominent leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ were African American. Apostle John Penn, member of the Quorum of Twelve from 1910 to 1955, conducted missionary work with many Italian Americans, and was often referred to as "The Italian's Doctor".^[12] Matthew Miller, an evangelist ordained in 1937, traveled throughout Canada establishing missions with Native Americans.^[12]"

 

Addendum: One of their current Apostles is "African-American"..

Edited March 25, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Traela]

I have not seen this poll nor do I agree with it. I do not believe that God instituted the priesthood ban. I know Joseph ordained 2 black men to the Melchizedek Priesthood, to me in all likelihood it was Brigham Young who instituted the ban based upon his own opinions at the time.

 

And I think you vastly underestimate how unworkable a lack of a ban would have become in pre-Civil Rights Era America. The Klan would not have been happy, to say the least, with a church in which blacks at any time could be given authority over whites. Even race-based wards would not have been safe, because of stake callings. Or, the Church could have had a policy, official or otherwise, that blacks just wouldn't be given leadership callings. Which also would have been a problem.

When we get to the other side and see the grand course of human history, I suspect that we will learn that the Ban was the most efficient way of teaching whites that they were being stupid.

[LittleNipper]

But if God has a love for one race over another, would He actually place that race at the front of the line or at the end of it? The Bible teaches that the first shall be last and the last shall be first. If that is the case then might not the best place to find one's self be located at "back of the bus?"  Such people have a far better chance to witness God working  on their behalf than to conclude that they are simply the end product of selective evolution at its finest... Don't you think?