Kanye West Was Right. Ces Doesn't Care About Black People.

[mormonnewb]

"Now there is nothing wrong with civil rights -- it is what's being done in the name of civil rights that is alarming. There is no doubt that the so-called Civil Rights Movement as it exists today is used as a communist program for revolution in America, just as agrarian reform was used by the communists to take over China and Cuba."

...

 

Benson made it abundantly clear that he had nothing against black people. He just believed that they were being made the stalking horse of communist agitators. He wanted everyone to be aware of the stakes in the game, and especially wanted black people to be made aware of how they were being used. In one of the concluding paragraphs he wrote:

"Each of us must be willing to discuss the problem openly with our friends -- especially those of the Negro race. The success or failure of Americans of all races to meet this challenge may well determine the fate of our country." If we fail, we will all lose our civil rights, black man and white man together, for we will live under perfect communist equality -- the equality of slaves."

Do you not think that his heart was at least in the right place, even if you don't think that communism was any danger?

 

I understand the fear of communism, but his basic argument to blacks was: "You need to stay second-class citizens so that we can retain our civil rights."  Easy for you to say, Kemosabe.

 

Seriously, I understand the argument that the Civil Rights Act was not the best way to accomplish racial equality.  However, did he propose an alternative path?  Or were blacks just supposed to stay in inferior schools, the back of the bus, etc., so that we could keep our "freedom"?

 

Perhaps, the book you reference has answers to those questions and I'm open to hearing them.  It is always better to learn firsthand of someone's true motives rather than to attribute motives to him from afar.  However, in my limited experience, people often use the argument that they disagree with another's METHODS because it is more socially acceptable than saying that they agree with one's aims.  And since I've yet to see any evidence that he supported integration, it's hard for me to believe that his objections to the civil rights movement were solely based on concerns of idealogical purity.

 

In other words, it's hard to believe that he really, really, really wanted blacks and whites to attend public school together but he was willing to give up that "fervent desire" to stick it to Castro.  It's more likely that he was indifferent (or even opposed) to the idea of integration, but claiming an anti-communist rationale was more socially palatable.  But I am open to the possibility that I am dead wrong.

[mormonnewb]

To me your post begs the question: can someone have a major fault and still be a person of good value worth learning from because he could still be used as the Lord needed? For all of our sakes I hope the answer is yes. It also begs the question of how many black people sit and ponder the odd political history of a 1950's secretary of agriculture who saw communists wherever he turned (including in the foundation of the civil rights movement) while reading about his work as a prophet 20-30 years after that. Can't speak for them, but it just isn't my first thought. Or my 4th.

I agree that many lifelong black saints probably wouldn't think of it at all. After all, they may have grown up listening to his conference talks. He may have even been the prophet of their youth. They have many other associations regarding the man.

And it certainly isn't something that young people are particularly sensitive to. For example, I will likely have to pull a gun on my 20 yo son to get him to see the movie Selma. And I'm barely kidding. I can hear him now. "You just want me to see the movie so that I will hate white people." I will then try to patiently explain to him that getting him to hate white people is only 80% of the reason that I'm making him see the movie.

Seriously, for us "old folks" raised outside of this tradition, Benson's opposition to civil rights DOES matter. Think of it this way. How long do you think my 67 yo black mother would sit in a seminar extolling the virtues of Bull Connor? Now, I confess that he couldn't have been all bad. In a entire lifetime, he certainly did more than turn loose dogs and firehoses on black children. He probably served as a deacon in his church. He might have even been on the Usher's Board. Yet, I truly suspect that my very classy and elegant mother would spit in the face of the person who handed her a manual entitled "Teachings of the Bull Connor."

Now, I do understand that there is a HUGE difference between Benson and Connor. I just used Connor as an extreme example, so you can see that being an open and prominent opponent of the civil rights movement isn't a TINY character flaw in the minds of many black people. Those of us who have been able to partake of the American Dream in the last half century have done so DESPITE the efforts of the Birchers. It's not so easy for us to say, "Yes, I know you tried to prevent me from attending decent schools, living in the neighborhood of my choice and having access to public accommodations, but hey, no hard feelings, right?" It's even harder to be asked to venerate such a person as a model of piety and righteousness.

Of course, blacks are a very tiny percentage of LDS in America and it's understandable that the Church wouldn't give careful consideration to the message it sends to black America. Yet, if this is ever to change (and I'm not holding my breath), then the Church is going to need to give some consideration to how welcoming it is to black Americans. At present, it says, "Come on in and enjoy some of this Restored Gospel. However, before you do, I need you to give up your cultural traditions (e.g., hand-clapping, call and response, good music, etc.) and sit down here for some good teachings from a man opposed to you living in this ward. Enjoy!"

And since I think that the majority of saints aren't willing to give up hymns and quiet reverence, then perhaps, we could skip Bensonpalooza as a sign of good faith.

Edited January 9, 2015 by mormonnewb

[The Nehor]

"Militant"? 

 

So you think that the communists were joking all along?  That when Khrushchev said "We will bury you" he was merely offering a burial plot insurance plan?

 

Or that this:

 

The Black Book of Communism

 

consisted of statistics made up from tossing random numbers around?

 

We needed to fear communism.  We still do.  Or was David O. McKay a false prophet?

We need to avoid it. We do not need to fear it. Yes, communist governments did detestable things all over the world. Khrushchev was engaged in tough guy talk. We did the same thing back. We won. Communism still serves as a great phantom enemy because it serves to distract from real problems. I understand the Communist fear of the 50s and 60s the same way I understand the fear of the Mormons at Meadow Mountain. If we let fear lead us to do horrible things like the United States did do in its quest to fight Communism then we need to stop.

[Stargazer]

I understand the fear of communism, but his basic argument to blacks was: "You need to stay second-class citizens so that we can retain our civil rights."  Easy for you to say, Kemosabe.

No, but it's easy for you to say. Kemosabe. You put words in Elder Benson's mouth, "You need to stay second-class citizens", which he never said, and never implied. You certainly know how to knock over straw men. The words I quoted contained a statement particularly endorsing civil rights, but expressing fear that the movement in question was being carefully led by white men in the shadows whose intent was anything but civil rights. And instead of arguing the merits of the case, you ignore them and pretend to read his mind instead, coming up with what you prefer to believe he meant.

Have you ever read Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky? I have. Alinsky makes it clear that Benson's concerns were well-founded.

 

Seriously, I understand the argument that the Civil Rights Act was not the best way to accomplish racial equality.  However, did he propose an alternative path?  Or were blacks just supposed to stay in inferior schools, the back of the bus, etc., so that we could keep our "freedom"?

You didn't actually read a thing I wrote, did you? Let me therefore point out that I didn't say a thing about the Civil Rights Act, or quote what ETB thought about it. I don't know what he thought about it, actually. I do know that there were some people who thought that the Civil Rights Act was anti-Constitutional -- that it gave the Federal Government power that the Founding Fathers never intended it to have, that should have been left to the states. Perhaps ETB agreed with this -- and perhaps he didn't.

And again with the implications -- based on nothing -- that ETB wanted you to stay in the back of the bus and use separate drinking fountains.

 

Perhaps, the book you reference has answers to those questions and I'm open to hearing them.  It is always better to learn firsthand of someone's true motives rather than to attribute motives to him from afar.  However, in my limited experience, people often use the argument that they disagree with another's METHODS because it is more socially acceptable than saying that they agree with one's aims.  And since I've yet to see any evidence that he supported integration, it's hard for me to believe that his objections to the civil rights movement were solely based on concerns of idealogical purity.

 

In other words, it's hard to believe that he really, really, really wanted blacks and whites to attend public school together but he was willing to give up that "fervent desire" to stick it to Castro.  It's more likely that he was indifferent (or even opposed) to the idea of integration, but claiming an anti-communist rationale was more socially palatable.  But I am open to the possibility that I am dead wrong.

It wasn't necessary to keep blacks and whites out of the same schools in order to stick it to Castro. We could both stick it to Castro and integrate the schools. Mutually exclusive. And again with the mind-reading.

No, it's clear to me that you're not at all open to it. I say this because absent anything that supports your position that he was effectively a closet KKK sympathizer, you continue to respond by putting words in his mouth that he didn't say, and thoughts that you have no way of knowing that he thought. I don't believe there is the slightest chance that you would accept anything that he wrote or said that contradicts your current assessment. You will always want more. You demand to know what he really, really, really thought. When you say that "...it's hard to believe that he really, really, really wanted blacks and whites to attend public school together...", it makes it entirely clear that no matter what ETB quote I might come up with in support of integration, you will still be hedging on what he REALLY thought. And taking everything in as negative a light as you can.

So, you SAY that you're open to the possibility that you are wrong, but it appears to me that you will fight to keep your opinion intact by every means at your disposal. I've read nearly everything you've written on this board from the beginning, and I have to say that I find you to be impervious to argument, quick to mischaracterize, and alive to every perceived offense, whether real or imaginary. Chip on the shoulder, daring everyone and anyone to knock it off.

Are you aware that in the eternities you are not black and I am not white? We are of the same race, the race of Elohim. You have likely had your fill of being treated badly because of your genetics, and I will not insult you by trying to minimize this, but if you don't stop treating every white leader of the Church of the past as if he wanted "to put ya'll back in chains", you're going to do yourself a serious disservice.

 

I doubt there is much utility in my further commenting upon this.  I apologize that I couldn't make a difference to you, and am sorry if I have offended you.  Just trying to be straight up about it.

 

Feel free to think I am a racist if it makes you feel better.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Stargazer

[mormonnewb]

No, but it's easy for you to say. Kemosabe. You put words in Elder Benson's mouth, "You need to stay second-class citizens", which he never said, and never implied. You certainly know how to knock over straw men. The words I quoted contained a statement particularly endorsing civil rights, but expressing fear that the movement in question was being carefully led by white men in the shadows whose intent was anything but civil rights. And instead of arguing the merits of the case, you ignore them and pretend to read his mind instead, coming up with what you prefer to believe he meant.

Have you ever read Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky? I have. Alinsky makes it clear that Benson's concerns were well-founded.

You didn't actually read a thing I wrote, did you? Let me therefore point out that I didn't say a thing about the Civil Rights Act, or quote what ETB thought about it. I don't know what he thought about it, actually. I do know that there were some people who thought that the Civil Rights Act was anti-Constitutional -- that it gave the Federal Government power that the Founding Fathers never intended it to have, that should have been left to the states. Perhaps ETB agreed with this -- and perhaps he didn't.

And again with the implications -- based on nothing -- that ETB wanted you to stay in the back of the bus and use separate drinking fountains.

It wasn't necessary to keep blacks and whites out of the same schools in order to stick it to Castro. We could both stick it to Castro and integrate the schools. Mutually exclusive. And again with the mind-reading.

No, it's clear to me that you're not at all open to it. I say this because absent anything that supports your position that he was effectively a closet KKK sympathizer, you continue to respond by putting words in his mouth that he didn't say, and thoughts that you have no way of knowing that he thought. I don't believe there is the slightest chance that you would accept anything that he wrote or said that contradicts your current assessment. You will always want more. You demand to know what he really, really, really thought. When you say that "...it's hard to believe that he really, really, really wanted blacks and whites to attend public school together...", it makes it entirely clear that no matter what ETB quote I might come up with in support of integration, you will still be hedging on what he REALLY thought. And taking everything in as negative a light as you can.

So, you SAY that you're open to the possibility that you are wrong, but it appears to me that you will fight to keep your opinion intact by every means at your disposal. I've read nearly everything you've written on this board from the beginning, and I have to say that I find you to be impervious to argument, quick to mischaracterize, and alive to every perceived offense, whether real or imaginary. Chip on the shoulder, daring everyone and anyone to knock it off.

Are you aware that in the eternities you are not black and I am not white? We are of the same race, the race of Elohim. You have likely had your fill of being treated badly because of your genetics, and I will not insult you by trying to minimize this, but if you don't stop treating every white leader of the Church of the past as if he wanted "to put ya'll back in chains", you're going to do yourself a serious disservice.

I doubt there is much utility in my further commenting upon this. I apologize that I couldn't make a difference to you, and am sorry if I have offended you. Just trying to be straight up about it.

Feel free to think I am a racist if it makes you feel better.

I don't think you are a racist, but you still haven't given me ONE statement by ETB in which he spoke in FAVOR of integration. So why do YOU believe that he was in support of it?

He rejected those working towards integration because he thought their movement was co-opted by the communists. I get it. Did he support any capitalist civil rights movements? Or even SUGGEST that one be created? If not, then he was willing to allow blacks to continue as second-class citizens until some future undetermined date. That's not supposition on my part, but rather the logical conclusion drawn from the situation.

1. Blacks were second-class citizens.

2. Benson opposed all those trying to change that fact.

3. He had no alternative plan for equality.

Ergo, he was willing to accept #1.

What have I gotten wrong?

Edited January 9, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Guest]

I'm open to being corrected. I've read several quotes detailing his opposition/skepticism of various civil rights initiatives and leaders. But that might be just one side of the coin. I'm sure he must have said SOMETHING positive about blacks, integration, our inclusion in the Church, etc. So please just point me to some so that I can have a more balanced view of the man.

Me,Mormons,my desire that many more blacks and every other races. I desire that all people receive the gospel. You said you are leaving the church...I,pray you do not. As I believe all would want you stay. Also who became Prophet after president kimball died who,ended the ban for blacks. But he hated, no one. If you are going to stay and do not want to teach...then don't teach. He grew up in a different time and lived what he was taught, just like KKK members and white Churches in the South. But praise God most have matured and repented of their grievous sin. You came here asking for exit narratives, but why leave for an issue that has be rectified.

[Bobbieaware]

Even I am not old enough to fully grasp how crazy it was in the '50s worrying about communists but I remember enough.  I don't know that anyone who was not there can appreciate it.

 

Even as a kid, I was worried that "they would take over" and we would all be herded into prison camps.  Remember WWII was only a few years earlier, and everyone saw Communists as the same kind of totalitarians that the Nazis had been.  I was actually afraid, because the culture was afraid.

 

It is hard to imagine that now, almost laughable, but that was the way it was.  ETB was doing what he thought was best to save the world.  If we are going to judge him, we should judge him based on him doing what he thought was the best he could do, because that is what he was doing.

 

But I agree that studying him right now might not have been the most politically correct option.

 

And as a student radical in the 60's and a student of Angela Davis when she was at UCLA, there was no doubt that the civil rights movement contained a lot of communists.  Of course I had no problem with that then, nor do I now.  Those were the "good guys" and that is how I saw them then and now.  I was a pretty dogmatic Trot and still sympathize with that view at least philosophically, though my politics has changed.  But the world view in general is right on the money - I just disagree with the political tactics.

 

But you just cannot know the paranoia of the 50's unless you were there.

It wasn't at all crazy to worry about Communism in the 50's. After all, they had murdered and were in the process of murdering many millions of innocent people.. The communists had just finished brutally subjugating Eastern Europe and much of the Far East. The militant atheistic mindset of communism substituted all-powerful centralized government for God, and aggressively worked to propagate that anti-Christ philosophy around the world by hook or by crook. To say there was an irrational fear of Communism in the 1950's is tantamount to saying the Nephites had an overwrought fear of the Gadianton robbers. And as any reader of the Book of Mormon knows, it was the Gadianton robbers and political conspiracies (secret combinations) that ultimately brought the Nephites to total ruin and utter annihilation. Read Ether 8 to see if Moroni thought the Nephite fear of the Gadiantions and secret combinations was unreasonable and unjustified. When a godless cabal of militaristic conspirators has hundreds nuclear weapons trained on your country, ready to be released at a moments notice, I would hardly say that isn't something to be mighty worried about.

[Guest]

Upon expressing my concerns about the Church's stance (or lack thereof) on civil rights, I've been counseled to stay in the Church and work for change from within. After all, the Church teaches valuable truths about family and community, which would build up any group. I find this to be a very persuasive argument, but I'm concerned that any efforts by black saints to bring more black Americans into the Church will not be reciprocated by Church leadership.

This became apparent to me when I started preparing for this week's EQ lesson from the ETB Teachings of the Presidents manual. I must confess that, given his rather vociferous opposition to civil rights, I was surprised that he would have been included in this series, but I thought, "Okay. No one is perfect. Let's just focus on his teachings." Yet, that isn't what the manual does. It lionizes him for "his love for the Lord and his steadfast commitment to living the gospel."

I'm sure that most of you don't see it this way, but I find it hard to see such a commitment to "living the gospel" from a man who wouldn't have even sat at a lunch counter with my grandfather. I just don't see such love for the Lord in a man, who for most of his adult life, was vehemently opposed to blacks receiving the priesthood (or even the unfettered right to vote). I just don't get the "warm and fuzzies" for the man. And this is understandable. We're all going to have our favorite and not-so-favorite prophets.

However, what I don't understand is that the Church seems to have taken no thought to how a black person might feel sitting through an entire year of hour long-lessons extolling the virtues of a man who closely aligned himself with the John Birch Society, which has been classified as a "hate group" (albeit a non-violent one). Did anyone even THINK that some black members might find this disconcerting? And more pertinently, does anyone in leadership even care?

My guess is NOT, because this is so obvious if one is paying attention AT ALL. You don't ask black people to stand up and extol the virtue of people who supported segregation during their lifetimes. Full stop. Period. The fact that no one seems to have even give this a second thought seems to indicate just how eager the Church is to bring black Americans into the fold. Not very.

Why is this so hard for anyone but me (and Kanye) to see?

Another post...I am sure that you would consider the right to vote is a social issue, our rights are important. The Church influenced Utah that is why it was the first state to give women the right to vote. Edited January 9, 2015 by Pa Pa

[why me]

No, I don't think that ETB hated black people. He just wasn't particularly concerned about us one way or another. After all, it's not like he was supporting OTHER civil rights legislation that would have secured is the right to vote, attend public schools, stay in hotels, eat in restaurants, etc. But indifference is not hatred.

But from an optics standpoint, I'm just surprised that it didn't give the Church pause to name him "Prophet of the Year." Nor did it cause anyone to say, "Hey, this doesn't look so good. Perhaps, we should write an essay to explain this to questioning members."

Or is it just assumed that black members won't have concerns?

We always need to look at context and put our critical thinking caps on. Ezra was also a human being with human beliefs. I never agreed with his personal politics but I did not allow his personal politics to interfere with my own faith and belief system. I can separate the human from the calling.

 

I never thought that the civil rights movement would change much about the black situation in america. And it hasn't changed much. So, what would change the situation of blacks if not civil rights? A better socio-economic system that would stress that all humanity has value and that all humanity has basic human rights and place its core principle toward people before profit. In other words, the problem is with a system that creates inequality throughout its structure. And invest in education that focuses on not on human capital but on social capital, with social justice at its core.

 

I think that mormonnewb needs to joing the genesis group and have meaningful discussions with its members:

 

http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/

 

 

People are entitled to have their own opinions. However, through dialogue, much can be understood and accomplished. Many church members at that time had huge disagreements with Ezra. And it was voiced outside of church among church friends etc.

Edited January 9, 2015 by why me

[why me]

So what did the church say about civil rights or human rights and integration.

 

1. we are all children of god and should be treated as such. At least this is what I remember. America is still not integrated so what ever policy that has been put in place with or without ezra support has not worked. People are separated by class and by race. However, race intergration is better now but far from perfect but america is still a class based society and this continues to segregate people.

 

Here is a great article for open minded people:

 

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

 

In theology and practice, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the universal human family. Latter-day Saint scripture and teachings affirm that God loves all of His children and makes salvation available to all. God created the many diverse races and ethnicities and esteems them all equally. As the Book of Mormon puts it, “all are alike unto God.”¹

The structure and organization of the Church encourage racial integration. Latter-day Saints attend Church services according to the geographical boundaries of their local ward, or congregation. By definition, this means that the racial, economic, and demographic composition of Mormon congregations generally mirrors that of the wider local community.² The Church’s lay ministry also tends to facilitate integration: a black bishop may preside over a mostly white congregation; a Hispanic woman may be paired with an Asian woman to visit the homes of a racially diverse membership. Church members of different races and ethnicities regularly minister in one another’s homes and serve alongside one another as teachers, as youth leaders, and in myriad other assignments in their local congregations. Such practices make The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a thoroughly integrated faith.

Despite this modern reality, for much of its history—from the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.

The Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in the United States. At the time, many people of African descent lived in slavery, and racial distinctions and prejudice were not just common but customary among white Americans. Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion. Many Christian churches of that era, for instance, were segregated along racial lines. From the beginnings of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity could be baptized and received as members. Toward the end of his life, Church founder Joseph Smith openly opposed slavery. There has never been a Churchwide policy of segregated congregations.³

During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Abel, also participated in temple ceremonies in Kirtland, Ohio, and was later baptized as proxy for deceased relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. In a private Church council three years after Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young praised Q. Walker Lewis, a black man who had been ordained to the priesthood, saying, “We have one of the best Elders, an African.”⁴

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

The Church in an American Racial Culture

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was restored amidst a highly contentious racial culture in which whites were afforded great privilege. In 1790, the U.S. Congress limited citizenship to “free white person.”⁵ Over the next half century, issues of race divided the country—while slave labor was legal in the more agrarian South, it was eventually banned in the more urbanized North. Even so, racial discrimination was widespread in the North as well as the South, and many states implemented laws banning interracial marriage.⁶ In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that blacks possessed “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”⁷ A generation after the Civil War (1861–65) led to the end of slavery in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “separate but equal” facilities for blacks and whites were constitutional, a decision that legalized a host of public color barriers until the Court reversed itself in 1954.⁸ Not until 1967 did the Court strike down laws forbidding interracial marriage.

In 1850, the U.S. Congress created Utah Territory, and the U.S. president appointed Brigham Young to the position of territorial governor. Southerners who had converted to the Church and migrated to Utah with their slaves raised the question of slavery’s legal status in the territory. In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.⁹

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.¹⁰ According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.¹¹ Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.¹² Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.

Removing the Restriction

Even after 1852, at least two black Mormons continued to hold the priesthood. When one of these men, Elijah Abel, petitioned to receive his temple endowment in 1879, his request was denied. Jane Manning James, a faithful black member who crossed the plains and lived in Salt Lake City until her death in 1908, similarly asked to enter the temple; she was allowed to perform baptisms for the dead for her ancestors but was not allowed to participate in other ordinances.¹³ The curse of Cain was often put forward as justification for the priesthood and temple restrictions. Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings.¹⁴

By the late 1940s and 1950s, racial integration was becoming more common in American life. Church President David O. McKay emphasized that the restriction extended only to men of black African descent. The Church had always allowed Pacific Islanders to hold the priesthood, and President McKay clarified that black Fijians and Australian Aborigines could also be ordained to the priesthood and instituted missionary work among them. In South Africa, President McKay reversed a prior policy that required prospective priesthood holders to trace their lineage out of Africa.¹⁵

Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.¹⁶

As the Church grew worldwide, its overarching mission to “go ye therefore, and teach all nations”¹⁷ seemed increasingly incompatible with the priesthood and temple restrictions. The Book of Mormon declared that the gospel message of salvation should go forth to “every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.”¹⁸ While there were no limits on whom the Lord invited to “partake of his goodness” through baptism,¹⁹ the priesthood and temple restrictions created significant barriers, a point made increasingly evident as the Church spread in international locations with diverse and mixed racial heritages.

Brazil in particular presented many challenges. Unlike the United States and South Africa where legal and de facto racism led to deeply segregated societies, Brazil prided itself on its open, integrated, and mixed racial heritage. In 1975, the Church announced that a temple would be built in São Paulo, Brazil. As the temple construction proceeded, Church authorities encountered faithful black and mixed-ancestry Mormons who had contributed financially and in other ways to the building of the São Paulo temple, a sanctuary they realized they would not be allowed to enter once it was completed. Their sacrifices, as well as the conversions of thousands of Nigerians and Ghanaians in the 1960s and early 1970s, moved Church leaders.²⁰

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings. In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation. “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,” the First Presidency announced on June 8. The First Presidency stated that they were “aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us” that “all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood.”²¹ The revelation rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination. It also extended the blessings of the temple to all worthy Latter-day Saints, men and women. The First Presidency statement regarding the revelation was canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 2.

This “revelation on the priesthood,” as it is commonly known in the Church, was a landmark revelation and a historic event. Those who were present at the time described it in reverent terms. Gordon B. Hinckley, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, remembered it this way: “There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren. … Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing. … Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same.”²²

Reaction worldwide was overwhelmingly positive among Church members of all races. Many Latter-day Saints wept for joy at the news. Some reported feeling a collective weight lifted from their shoulders. The Church began priesthood ordinations for men of African descent immediately, and black men and women entered temples throughout the world. Soon after the revelation, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle, spoke of new “light and knowledge” that had erased previously “limited understanding.”²³

The Church Today

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.²⁴

Since that day in 1978, the Church has looked to the future, as membership among Africans, African Americans and others of African descent has continued to grow rapidly. While Church records for individual members do not indicate an individual’s race or ethnicity, the number of Church members of African descent is now in the hundreds of thousands.

The Church proclaims that redemption through Jesus Christ is available to the entire human family on the conditions God has prescribed. It affirms that God is “no respecter of persons”²⁵ and emphatically declares that anyone who is righteous—regardless of race—is favored of Him. The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: “[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”²⁶

Edited January 9, 2015 by why me

[Buckeye]

Upon expressing my concerns about the Church's stance (or lack thereof) on civil rights, I've been counseled to stay in the Church and work for change from within. After all, the Church teaches valuable truths about family and community, which would build up any group. I find this to be a very persuasive argument, but I'm concerned that any efforts by black saints to bring more black Americans into the Church will not be reciprocated by Church leadership.

This became apparent to me when I started preparing for this week's EQ lesson from the ETB Teachings of the Presidents manual. I must confess that, given his rather vociferous opposition to civil rights, I was surprised that he would have been included in this series, but I thought, "Okay. No one is perfect. Let's just focus on his teachings." Yet, that isn't what the manual does. It lionizes him for "his love for the Lord and his steadfast commitment to living the gospel."

I'm sure that most of you don't see it this way, but I find it hard to see such a commitment to "living the gospel" from a man who wouldn't have even sat at a lunch counter with my grandfather. I just don't see such love for the Lord in a man, who for most of his adult life, was vehemently opposed to blacks receiving the priesthood (or even the unfettered right to vote). I just don't get the "warm and fuzzies" for the man. And this is understandable. We're all going to have our favorite and not-so-favorite prophets.

However, what I don't understand is that the Church seems to have taken no thought to how a black person might feel sitting through an entire year of hour long-lessons extolling the virtues of a man who closely aligned himself with the John Birch Society, which has been classified as a "hate group" (albeit a non-violent one). Did anyone even THINK that some black members might find this disconcerting? And more pertinently, does anyone in leadership even care?

My guess is NOT, because this is so obvious if one is paying attention AT ALL. You don't ask black people to stand up and extol the virtue of people who supported segregation during their lifetimes. Full stop. Period. The fact that no one seems to have even give this a second thought seems to indicate just how eager the Church is to bring black Americans into the fold. Not very.

Why is this so hard for anyone but me (and Kanye) to see?

 

Good to see you're still posting newb. I'm a little late the discussion but here are my thoughts:

1. If you (and others like you) take your voices elsewhere, the likelihood that racism in the church will be addressed anytime soon decreases substantially. Please consider that in making your decision. Your family comes first. You know what is best for them and yourself. But it may just be that your voice has more power "crying in the wilderness" of Mormonism than singing in the choir of an AME congregation.
2. Do you really want to throw out all the good things from someone's life just because of one great wrong (racism in this case)? Under that principle, we should be tossing the manuals for BY, George Albert Smith, and probably JS .. in fact, most all of the manuals. We should also lose the epistles of Peter (who wouldn't sit at a lunch counter with gentiles). And we might as well cut Washington, Jefferson and Adams out of the US history books.
3. A better approach is to realize we have advantages over ETB inasmuch as we can stand on his and others' shoulders. In my limited understanding, ETB was no worse (and unfortunately no better) than his contemporaries. Despite his racism, my guess is that ETB passed down less racism to his posterity than he received from his parents, leaders, and society. However slow, that is progress. And we are the beneficiaries. I hope my great grandchildren are not too harsh in judging my excessive carbon footprint, meat-eating diet, and other things that will be considered appalling to them.
4. While the manual praises ETB, it does not praise (or even really address) his politics, much less his racist politics. I would love to see the book include some commentary rejecting those ideas, but that's a vain dream at the moment. For now we'll have to make due with the progress (and it is progress) that his politics are seen as unworthy (or at least unimportant) for current curriculum. If you need some schadenfreude, take a gander at this member's lament that the ETB manual excludes his politics: http://ndbf.blogspot.com/2015/01/keep-still.html

Edited January 9, 2015 by Buckeye

[Robert F. Smith]

Kanye West Was Right. Ces Doesn't Care About Black People.

............................................................................................  

Why is this so hard for anyone but me (and Kanye) to see?

I'm not sure why Kanye is included in this rant.

Kanye West is an obnoxious and very temperamental artist, throwing tantrums and swearing when he doesn’t get his way, bragging about how many grammys he has, and lying about them (claiming that he has never won against a white artist: he has against Eminem and the Beastie Boys), and yanking the microphone out of the hands of Taylor Swift at the MTV awards, claiming that Beyonce deserved the award.  In short, he is a racist, just like those southern, white good old boys who never respected any black man and did whatever they could to ruin black peoples’ lives.

 

Let's tell the truth about everybody, past or present.  But let's also bring a sense of perspective about how even good people are so frequently wrong -- especially in retrospect.  Who except Jesus could ever stand up to close scrutiny -- His top guy Peter denying him three times.  Shall we therefore dump the Gospel and anything that Peter had to say about it?  Or is it about forgiveness and compassion.  "Love suffereth long and is kind."

 

Anyhow, Newbie, where are you when wrongs are being done to the innocent?  How do you go about righting wrongs?  How much money do donate to those who are dedicated to righting such wrongs?  How many demonstrations have you participated in?  What signs have you carried, and what civil rights songs have you sung?  Do you know them by heart?

 

How will you address the shortcomings of Ezra Taft Benson in EQ or HP lessons?  Will you place them in proper cultural context of America at that time?  Or is it only time for vengeance?  Were he available, what would Nelson Mandela advise you about how such matters are to be dealt with?

 

 

.

[Kenngo1969]

You and Kanye? Is he your new Hero? Really, the filthy mouthed guy that grabbed the mic from  Taylor Swift and dissed her in front of the world? That Kanye West? 

"Tayluh, I'm really happy fo yuh, I'm on let you finish [right aftuh I embarrass you in front of all you fans] but Beyonce have one of da best videos of all tahm."

 

Yep.  That one.  Epitome of class, he is.

 

P.S.: Of course, we're all racist in MormonNewb's eyes for even thinking something like that, let alone daring to say (type?) it.

 

P.P.S.: Nelson Mandela ... The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ... Kanye West? Ooooh-kay!    (Mentioning Kanye West in the same breath/list as either of the former two gentlemen strikes me as roughly the equivalent of comparing these two (although thankfully, Mr. West isn't a cop-killer). https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/mumia-vs-king/

Edited January 9, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

... While the manual praises ETB, it does not praise (or even really address) his politics, much less his racist politics. I would love to see the book include some commentary rejecting those ideas, but that's a vain dream at the moment. For now we'll have to make due with the progress (and it is progress) that his politics are seen as unworthy (or at least unimportant) for current curriculum.

 

Nope.  The purpose of the manual is to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is, as you point out, why it does not (and, indeed, should not) address politics either way.

 

 If you need some schadenfreude

 

Anybody who needs schadenfreude also needs to repent.

[DBMormon]

No, I don't think that ETB hated black people. 

This is a much different sentiment than he would not sit with your grandfather at the counter.  You seem to have shifted your view and perspective without realizing it.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm a big fan of hyperbole myself, but do you think that I'm really suggesting that we vilify everyone who got it wrong on civil rights? And do you not see a distinction between excommunication and deification?

I just wonder if anybody even thought, "Hey, given Pres. Taft's quite vocal opposition to civil rights and given our recent efforts to move away from past rationalizations and justifications for the priesthood ban, perhaps we might want to spend the next year lionizing one of our prophets who was not a booster for a hate group?"

And this isn't unreasonable. The Church seems to have given considerable thought to how women think about a number of issues over the last year or so. Do blacks need to start an OB (Omit Benson) movement for anyone to even consider that some of us might not want to spend the next year telling everyone in my quorum about ETB's holiness and righteousness?

I would have been very proud if several members of the Twelve had shown up at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in March 1965 to kneel in prayer with Dr. King and hundreds of other clergy from across the country.  I'd have been even prouder if they had joined the march from Selma to Montgomery and allowed themselves to be beaten and arrested.  But, of course, I wasn't there myself, even though I had marched with the SCLC back in San Francisco, Calif.  Maybe I should have hitched a ride out there (didn't have the money), but I was frankly afraid I'd be killed -- like Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney.  I had already seen on the cover of Life magazine what those white southern crackers did to Emmett Till a decade earlier.  Just like Peter, I was afraid.

[Robert F. Smith]

True, but I can cut BY some slack because HALF of the country still thought that black people should be owned like livestock. ETB lived in an age when we were able to put a man on the moon. So I do expect that he SHOULD have be in favor of putting a black man in a Marriott.

Yeh, but what about the ready availability of porn on the TVs in the Marriott chain back in the day?

[sethpayne]

 

 

But you just cannot know the paranoia of the 50's unless you were there.

 

I completely agree and don't think we should judge or condemn ETB based on our current political and social climate.

 

Having said that, other members of the twelve weren't all that happy with ETB's political activism.  I think Quinn points out some diary entries from one of the Twelve stating this is one reason ETB was sent off on a mission.  

 

So while I'm certainly no advocate or judging or condemning ETB, I don't think he gets a free pass either.  Why?  Because other past leaders and contemporaries of ETB saw through the paranoia and flatly rejected the John Birch Society and conspiracy theories.  Let's not try and diminish what ETB was advocating when he preached in GC that members should read "None Dare Call it a Conspiracy."  That book is one step above claiming that the world is run by lizard people from outer space.  That's really the only thinking missing from this book as compared to a David Icke book today:  a group of shadowy elite run the world through manipulation of politics, business, the media, and the economy.  And of course, it doesn't help that a lot of the JB conspiracies seemed like they were inspired by ideas (certainly not the anti-semitism) in the "Protocols of Zion."  

 

There is a reason ETB is considered almost a demigod by those on the far-right or Mormon politics in the US.  Heck, even as a young man several people in my own Stake were excommunicated because they were part of small political "groups" who met to read JBS stuff as well as ETB.  

 

So again, there's not point in judging or condemning ETB.  But it would be equally unwise, I think, to wave our hands and say "well, that was just the culture of the day."  It may have been part of the culture but rejecting the paranoia was also a part of the culture.  Barry Goldwater is a perfect example.  Hated conspiracies and communist paranoia because he felt it took away from dealing with the real issues at hand.  Turns out Goldwater was right.

[mormonnewb]

"Tayluh, I'm really happy fo yuh, I'm on let you finish [right aftuh I embarrass you in front of all you fans] but Beyonce have one of da best videos of all tahm."

 

Yep.  That one.  Epitome of class, he is.

 

P.S.: Of course, we're all racist in MormonNewb's eyes for even thinking something like that, let alone daring to say (type?) it.

 

No, you are not ALL racists in my eyes.

 

Or perhaps, I shoulda typed it like dis, so you wood know where I was cumin from, Brutha.

 

P.S.  When you quote an Asian American or Latino, do you also account for their accents by misspelling the words (assuming, of course, that you'd ever find anything of value to quote from them)?  Or what about quoting, say, Einstein?  Do you misspell the words to account for his rather distinct accent?  As Brother West would say, "Prolly not!"  So when you do it when quoting a black person, SOME people might find that to be in poor taste.  Know wut I'm sayin?

[Buckeye]

... 

 

So again, there's not point in judging or condemning ETB.  But it would be equally unwise, I think, to wave our hands and say "well, that was just the culture of the day."  It may have been part of the culture but rejecting the paranoia was also a part of the culture.  Barry Goldwater is a perfect example.  Hated conspiracies and communist paranoia because he felt it took away from dealing with the real issues at hand.  Turns out Goldwater was right.

 

Very good points about judging based on the standards of the day. Not to derail, but the same applies to Joseph's polygamy. I often hear the defense that we should not judge his marriage to a 14-year-old (sorry, a few months shy of 15-year-old) by today's standards. My reply is this: "Absolutely correct. We should use the standards of his day and by those standards it was unacceptable for a 35+ year old married man to marry a 14-year-old girl."

[Buckeye]

No, you are not ALL racists in my eyes.

 

Or perhaps, I shoulda typed it like dis, so you wood know where I was cumin from, Brutha.

 

P.S.  When you quote an Asian American or Latino, do you also account for their accents by misspelling the words (assuming, of course, that you'd ever find anything of value to quote from them)?  Or what about quoting, say, Einstein?  Do you misspell the words to account for his rather distinct accent?  As Brother West would say, "Prolly not!"  So when you do it when quoting a black person, SOME people might find that to be in poor taste.  Know wut I'm sayin?

 

[Mars]

I don't agree with mormonnewb at all with his OP, but I agree that you really should demonstrate sensitivity when quoting someone, Kenngo.  If black people who quoted me went out of their way to accentuate the nerdiness of my mannerisms, I'd be put off.

 

Just quote Kanye's words and be done with it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Kanye West Was Right. Ces Doesn't Care About Black People.

I'm not sure why Kanye is included in this rant.

Kanye West is an obnoxious and very temperamental artist, throwing tantrums and swearing when he doesn’t get his way, bragging about how many grammys he has, and lying about them (claiming that he has never won against a white artist: he has against Eminem and the Beastie Boys), and yanking the microphone out of the hands of Taylor Swift at the MTV awards, claiming that Beyonce deserved the award.  In short, he is a racist, just like those southern, white good old boys who never respected any black man and did whatever they could to ruin black peoples’ lives.

Quoted for the truth.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[CV75]

Upon expressing my concerns about the Church's stance (or lack thereof) on civil rights, I've been counseled to stay in the Church and work for change from within. After all, the Church teaches valuable truths about family and community, which would build up any group. I find this to be a very persuasive argument, but I'm concerned that any efforts by black saints to bring more black Americans into the Church will not be reciprocated by Church leadership.

Do as the Church leaders do: look to the future; this is the nature of hope. While the principles our leaders chose to highlight through the manual are timeless, we can only apply them now with an eye toward what we will become.

 

If membership among Africans, African Americans and others of African descent is important to you, recognize that it has continued to grow rapidly, how this relates to the Lord’s hand in Church records not indicating an individual’s race or ethnicity, and how you might reflect those principles in your own life and dealings with others.

 

Proclaim that redemption through Jesus Christ is available to the entire human family on the conditions God has prescribed. If you have a personal testimony of Acts 10:34 and 2 Nephi 26:33 relating to this subject (as with any other), share it as appropriate.

[Calm]

No, you are not ALL racists in my eyes.

 

Or perhaps, I shoulda typed it like dis, so you wood know where I was cumin from, Brutha.

 

P.S.  When you quote an Asian American or Latino, do you also account for their accents by misspelling the words (assuming, of course, that you'd ever find anything of value to quote from them)?  Or what about quoting, say, Einstein?  Do you misspell the words to account for his rather distinct accent?  As Brother West would say, "Prolly not!"  So when you do it when quoting a black person, SOME people might find that to be in poor taste.  Know wut I'm sayin?

Ken has done it for white Utahns among others. He does it all the time for any reason he wants to convey a certain way to say something. Not saying it is particularly wise in this case as assumptions will be made like you have.