A New Mormon [Double] Standard?

[mormonnewb]

And has more recently announced his decision to leave behind.

 

Then that certainly proves the falsity of my claim.  Or to be more accurately, your remembrance of an event that occurred four DECADES ago must be 100% accurate because it is doubted by a soon-to-be apostate.  FACTS are only determined by those with valid temple recommends.

 

And by the way, it just occurred to me that I'm doing nothing more than asking for CFR.  If I were to assert that I remember a GA proclaiming in 1978 General Conference that only green jello is acceptable to the Lord, you'd be all over me for the exact quote and a link to a reliable source for that quote.  You wouldn't say, "Well, you remember it that way, so it must be true."

 

So why is it different if I ask for supporting evidence?  According to your assertion, this wasn't a sacred experience that only you were privy to.  This was a collective celebration.  And we're not talking about a celebration of a minor event (at least, in your remembrance).  This was like "an earthquake."  Certainly, someone at a NEWSPAPER should have written about a twice in a century seismological event.

 

CFR!!!

Edited January 29, 2015 by mormonnewb

[teddyaware]

I'm not saying that Mormons didn't party like it was 1978, but it seems strange that NO ONE took a selfie at the party.  EVERY year, the local Utah press reports on Pioneers Day celebrations.  How is it possible that the press completely missed this celebration?

 

And it's not just a matter of it being "old news."  The Google machine can point me to THOUSANDS of stories about celebrations at the end of World War II.  In fact, one of the most iconic photos of the 20th century is of the returning GI kissing the nurse.  That was not only before the Internet and smart phones, but before the Polaroid camera.  So if someone could have found the time to do whatever arcane process was necessary to document that celebration, certainly ONE person could have shaken a Polaroid picture for two minutes to mark Priesthoodpalooza.

 

Do you really think that it's more likely that NO ONE recorded the celebration or that Mormons (like EVERY other group of Americans) is remembering the past differently than it actually happened.

 

As an LDS Church member who was around in those days, I can testify I never encountered a single Latter-day Saints in the NYC area (the majority of whom were Utah transplants) who wasn't thrilled and delighted with the 1978 revelation on the priesthood -- I and my family being among the saints who rejoiced when we heard the wonderful news. Why should you doubt it? 

Edited January 29, 2015 by teddyaware

[mormonnewb]

So, the law of the jungle fully applies, and justly so.  No ethical or moral considerations are necessary.  Politics is just another cage-fighting event.  We meet in the Octagon, show no mercy,   Spectators reign supreme.  To Hell with Gentleman Jim Corbett.

 

The more blood, the better.  Only vengeance and total humiliation can satisfy the mob?  Is this really what we want in America?

 

I hear you.  But it is very difficult for the aggressor in a fight to make the claim for peace and mutual understanding.  If I walk up to a guy on the street and start pummeling him, only to learn that he is a much better fighter than I am, it's going to be very difficult for me to pull a Rodney King ("Can't we all just get along?").  He MIGHT be magnanimous and let me off with a warning.  But it is more likely that I'm going to be eating from a straw for a few weeks.

 

And interestingly, I'm not even sure that our current stance even fits this model.  We don't seem to be saying, "Sorry!  We're not going to hit you anymore, so stop hitting us."  Instead, we seem to be saying, "Stop hitting us back.  Just stand still while we continue to wallop you whenever we feel like it."  After all, the Church will almost certainly file briefs in the upcoming Supreme Court cases in opposition to gay marriage.  So how can we possibly sue for peace when we continue to wage the war?

[Calm]

Thanks for the response, Cal.  My hunch is that the reaction of your grandparents to OD2 was typical of most Church members.  And since SOMEONE will misread what I just wrote, I'm not suggesting that most Church members shared Cal's grandparents views about minorities.  I'm simply guessing that most members were fairly ambivalent about the lifting of the priesthood ban.  They probably thought, "I didn't see that coming, but hey, I trust the Brethren so black people, come on down!"

 

If my grandparents weren't typical in their views about minorities, why would their reaction to the OD2 be any more typical?

[mormonnewb]

As an LDS Church member who was around in those days, I can testify I never encountered a single Latter-day Saints in the NYC area (the majority of whom were Utah transplants) who wasn't thrilled and delighted with the 1978 revelation on the priesthood -- I and my family being among the saints who rejoiced when we heard the wonderful news. Why should you doubt it? 

 

Because there are THOUSANDS of Alabamans who would testify just as firmly that they NEVER support Governor Wallace's segregation policies despite the fact that he was elected FOUR times as Governor.  So its either the case that voting for Wallace reduced life expectancies and only members of the opposing party have survived or these people are misremembering their past positions.

 

And, by the way, I'm not suggesting that Mormons didn't "follow the Prophet."  I'd guess that most members would have said, "The Prophet has spoken!  Let's go ordain, Tommy!"  I GUESS that because this is what most members do in response to just about every announcement from the Brethren.  When the missionary age for men was reduced to 18, I don't remember anyone who opposed it or decided to form LDS19 to prevent this "apostasy."  People in my ward simply said, "Cool!  Let's get Tommy out in the mission field."

 

But that's not the claim that is often made in regards to OD2.  In the parlance of my people, "Mormons lost their damn minds."  Many Mormons claim that they were so overcome with emotion that they were unable to operate their cars and had to pull over to the side of the road (I guess it's a good thing that commercial airline pilots weren't told until they touched down).  I can tell you that my parents didn't even react that way to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, something for which they faced down angry mobs, police dogs and water hoses.  So how is it that the saints were so much more deliriously happy for something that they had not even labored for (and the day before, would have argued that it was not ordained of God)?

[Scott Lloyd]

Nice try, but no dice.  Even an old school guy like you knows full well that the Internet isn't just limited to information compiled post-1990.  In fact, this very thread contains contemporaneous quotes from statements made by Church leaders in the 1949, 1969, 1978, etc.  In fact, people often directly quote BY and JS.  Do you think that they are typing these comments verbatim from their handwritten notes in high school seminary class?  Or do you think they are copying and pasting them from the Internet?

 

After all, I can find read articles written in the Nauvoo Expositor from almost 200 years ago.  So how is it that this "scandalous rag" is available to us in electronic form, yet no one bothered to record the most earth-shattering event in the last 100 years of Mormonism?

 

I understand if you can't find news stories that reflected the excitement about lifting the ban, because I couldn't find it either.  However, please don't claim that the Internet only goes back to Al Gore.

The fact that there is some pre-'90s content on the Internet does not mean that all of it is.

 

This is transparently fallacious reasoning.

[Calm]

I was discussing with a co-worker about how I believe the fight over supposed bigotry will be what eventually leads the Church to relocate to Jackson County. Large amounts of members won't be able to find work or place in society for following the Holy Spirit and belief in principals revealed to us by God's holy prophets. Out of necessity and to lighten the membership's load, the Lord will reveal that it is time to cut ourselves off from the evil that abounds in the world and move to Jackson County.

Why would Jackson County be more isolated than other places and LDS out of reach so to speak from state and federal government enforcement?  

[Calm]

Thanks for the response, Cal.  My hunch is that the reaction of your grandparents to OD2 was typical of most Church members. 

 

I find it interesting that you are wiling to accept my own account as more or less accurate, but ones that are more positive are discounted as wishful thinking.

[mormonnewb]

I find it interesting that you are wiling to accept my own account as more or less accurate, but ones that are more positive are discounted as wishful thinking.

 

Because your account fits within my experience in this Church when other changes were made (e.g., women praying in conference, lowering of missionary ages, etc).  Conversely, the other accounts fly in the face of everything I know about human nature (which is not much).  Most groups don't deliriously celebrate the progress of other groups, particularly when they had not been actively involved in said progress.

 

Black people didn't celebrate en mass when the court overturned DOMA.  In truth, the majority of blacks probably opposed marriage equality.  And at best, we were largely ambivalent to the matter.  So if someone told me that inner city streets were literally clogged with weeping black people, I'd probably ask them to text me over a picture because our current celebration wouldn't match our previous indifference/antipathy.

 

Doesn't anyone else find it strange that the saints would be so overjoyed about the change of a policy that most defended just the day before (even against popular criticism)?  After all, IF the Church changed its stance on SSM, I wouldn't expect CO2, Wade England, et al. to join hands and start singing Negro spirituals.  I also question whether CO2 would storm the bastille.  But I'm CERTAIN that he would be capable of operating a motor vehicle.

[Okrahomer]

I really don't want to be "that guy." I believe you when you relate your MEMORY of the events that day, but I'm just not so sure they match reality (many of my memories don't). That is not to say that you are wrong, but I'm just hoping that SOMEONE can point me to some news coverage of this cataclysmic event. I'd find it impossible to believe that the Mormon corridor was all abuzz and NO media outlet (not even those that are Church-run) made mention of all of the euphoria.

 

What is it that your searching for actually?  There is this from Bruce R. McConkie's August 1978 speech at BYU, "All Are Alike Unto God":

 

"Since the Lord gave this revelation on the priesthood, our understanding of many passages [of scripture] has expanded...On this occasion, because of the importuning and the faith, and because the hour and the time had arrived, the Lord in his providences poured out the Holy Ghost upon the First Presidency and the Twelve in a miraculous and marvelous manner, beyond anything that any then present had ever experienced. The revelation came to the president of the Church; it also came to each individual present. There were ten members of the Council of the Twelve and three of the First Presidency there assembled. The result was that President Kimball knew, and each one of us knew, independent of any other person, by direct and personal revelation to us, that the time had now come to extend the gospel and all its blessings and all its obligations, including the priesthood and the blessings of the house of the Lord, to those of every nation, culture, and race, including the black race. There was no question whatsoever as to what happened or as to the word and message that came...This is a revelation of tremendous significance...There is no way to describe in language what is involved. This cannot be done. You are familiar with Book of Mormon references where the account says that no tongue could tell and no pen could write what was involved in the experience and that it had to be felt by the power of the Spirit. This was one of those occasions...I cannot describe in words what happened; I can only say that it happened and that it can be known and understood only by the feeling that can come into the heart of man. You cannot describe a testimony to someone. No one can really know what a testimony is—the feeling and the joy and the rejoicing and the happiness that comes into the heart of man when he gets one—except another person who has received a testimony. Some things can be known only by revelation, “The things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2:11)...Well, this is a glorious day. This is a wondrous thing; the veil is thin...There has been a tremendous feeling of gratitude and thanksgiving in the hearts of members of the Church everywhere, with isolated exceptions."

[Calm]

Russell informs me his book has the contemporary accounts that you want, specifically "the Cause of Righteousness spends a fair amount of space discussing global responses to OD2, all the way from Park City to Sao Paulo to Ghana.   It also has most of the text of the fundamentalist backlash as was found in the Tribune".
 
http://bookstore.fairlds.org/product.php?id_product=1606

 

 

But as any historian will say, primary sources matter. Thus, For the Cause of Righteousness offers up not only a narrative history of the global black Mormon community but also an anthology of primary source transcripts: letters, newspaper articles, and speech transcripts, all in hopes that readers might take one more step toward understanding a story that simultaneously inspires, troubles, and urges Latter-day Saints into understanding a provincial religion that has reached global proportions.
 

 

If you are truly concerned about the history the Church in regards to blacks, it seems like required reading, imo.

Edited January 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I have a friend who can put you in touch with Darius Gray, who in my experience is very easy to talk to…even out of the blue.  I assume you know who he is, so won't go into the reasons as why he would be helpful in letting you know how LDS members at least in the States were reacting at the time.

 

Let me know if you want to speak to Darius.

[mormonnewb]

Russell informs me his book has the contemporary accounts that you want, specifically "the Cause of Righteousness spends a fair amount of space discussing global responses to OD2, all the way from Park City to Sao Paulo to Ghana. It also has most of the text of the fundamentalist backlash as was found in the Tribune".

http://bookstore.fairlds.org/product.php?id_product=1606

If you are truly concerned about the history the Church in regards to blacks, it seems like required reading, imo.

Agreed. Thanks!

[carbon dioxide]

I know of no one who claims that Mormons merely cast their votes for Prop 8 in California, so that is a red herring.  Everyone knows and admits that many Mormons in California worked hard to pass that Prop, and you admit that they had that political right.  Once the political process was over and the  courts had ruled on it, that should have been the end of the matter.

 

However, it is not true that Mormons were the major financial and manpower behind Prop 8.  There are only a half-million Mormons in California and only a minority of those became politically active in favor of Prop 8.  Moreover, Mormons were not allowed by the Brethren to conduct those political activities inside Church properties.  They worked out of private homes and donated their own private funds to that process, and demonstrated on the streets.  I was there and saw it firsthand.

 

Mormons are at about 2% of the California population.  Jews at 3%.  Protestants at 36% (Black Protestants at 4% of that), Roman Catholics at 31%, no religion at about 21%, and so on.  Unlike the Mormons, the evangelicals, the Black Church, and Roman Catholics preached in favor of Prop 8 from the pulpit -- which is perfectly legal.  They were out on the streets demonstrating.  I saw them.  To suggest that Mormons swung the whole state is nonsense, and is propaganda in search of a scapegoat.

 

I see the scapegoating of Mormons on that basis as no different than the scapegoating of Jews by the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s.  There is no basis for such cowardly and selective bullying.

I like to put it this way.  Based on the number of Mormon eligible voters in California and the margin of victory that Prop 8 passed, even if every Mormon stayed home that day, Prop 8 would have passed.  That should not shock anyone as gay marriage did not win in any ballot in any state at that time and for a few years afterwards.  I believe it was 31 wins against gay marriage before gay marriage actually passed on a ballot in a state.

[Robert F. Smith]

You're right, but that is price of being just about the last church to recognize racial equality.  It builds into an existing narrative.  "Oh, those Mormons are at it again!"

 

It's not accurate.  Certainly Mormons are no more homophobic than my beloved black Baptist brothers.  In fact, I'd guess that the language coming from black churches is far more incendiary.  However, black Baptists get an (undeserved) pass because they are associated with Dr. King, Diane Nash, Congressman Lewis, and even ... gasp ... Jesse Jackson.  Black Baptists have been on the front lines for labor groups, migrant workers, low-wage earners, etc.  In other words, they've built up a lot of "Liberal Cred."  So even if gays were rightly disappointed that the Black church didn't side with them on Prop 8, they had to acknowledge that the black church built the activism platforms that made their struggle possible in the first.  The same is true of the Catholics and a few others.

 

However, since the Mormon Church has no history in progressive struggles, the opposition to SSM only builds into an existing narrative.  As I've expressed in other threads, I'm often disappointed that the Church doesn't seem very concerned that it has such a negative image in certain quarters.  We seem to be perfectly content so long as the far right embraces us (for now).  I think we could learn something from Pastor Rick Warren, who is known to say, "I'm not interested in left-wing or right-wing.  I want the WHOLE bird."  

A good deal of what you say here, Newby, is true, and I have personal knowledge of it, having spent many years and considerable funds (since the early 1960s) supporting civil liberties across a broad range of groups, while basically ignoring my own future.  However, there have in fact been a lot of Mormon activists "anxiously engaged in good causes."  You simply don't know about them, and that lack of awareness invidiously colors your thinking.

 

I suppose that, if you only go back a few decades, it might be true that the Mormon Church (the official body) was not at all active in progressive struggles.  Perhaps they were too busy building from a basically Utah Church of about a million members when I was baptized in 1950, to a now international Church -- mostly outside the USA.  Their focus was on missionary work and building chapels.

 

No one has apparently broached with you the fact that Mormons were first with women's suffrage in the 19th century, that Utah had the first Jewish governor, that Utah was once a hotbed of Mormon socialism and communism, or that polygamy was a rather non-traditional marriage pattern which had all of American Christendom screaming to high heaven.   Even more astonishing, Mormons were first with freedom and equality for Blacks, until it was quashed during the Young Administration.  There are a good many obvious ironies here, but talk of Mormons never being progressives is nonsense.  Few people have been more progressive.  Perhaps too progressive.

 

I like it that the LDS Church is now getting back to its original raison d'etre.  Look out, the Mormons are waking up from a long nap!!

Edited January 30, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[carbon dioxide]

Because your account fits within my experience in this Church when other changes were made (e.g., women praying in conference, lowering of missionary ages, etc).  Conversely, the other accounts fly in the face of everything I know about human nature (which is not much).  Most groups don't deliriously celebrate the progress of other groups, particularly when they had not been actively involved in said progress.

 

Black people didn't celebrate en mass when the court overturned DOMA.  In truth, the majority of blacks probably opposed marriage equality.  And at best, we were largely ambivalent to the matter.  So if someone told me that inner city streets were literally clogged with weeping black people, I'd probably ask them to text me over a picture because our current celebration wouldn't match our previous indifference/antipathy.

 

Doesn't anyone else find it strange that the saints would be so overjoyed about the change of a policy that most defended just the day before (even against popular criticism)?  After all, IF the Church changed its stance on SSM, I wouldn't expect CO2, Wade England, et al. to join hands and start singing Negro spirituals.  I also question whether CO2 would storm the bastille.  But I'm CERTAIN that he would be capable of operating a motor vehicle.

The problem is you compare apples to oranges.  Comparing the ban against blacks to SSM is like comparing the moon to a supermassive black hole.   I would celebrate the Church changing its stance on SSM to the same degree I would celebrate the Church changing its stance on prostitution.  SSM is compatible to Celestial law as Prostitution is in my book. 

 

Yes I am capable of operating a motor vehicle.  I have been driving for 27 years and I still have caused no accidents, never had a speeding or a parking ticket.  I have a perfect driving record.  (Knock on wood)

[Robert F. Smith]

I like to put it this way.  Based on the number of Mormon eligible voters in California and the margin of victory that Prop 8 passed, even if every Mormon stayed home that day, Prop 8 would have passed.  That should not shock anyone as gay marriage did not win in any ballot in any state at that time and for a few years afterwards.  I believe it was 31 wins against gay marriage before gay marriage actually passed on a ballot in a state.

Quite right, and most of the states which have much vaunted gay rights have gotten them relatively recently and usually under Federal Court rulings.  The real victor in these cases has been the 14th Amendment's equal protection of the law.  These are mostly Constitutional victories, which I fully support.

 

Too bad that all the smug civil rights activists out there now were not around over a century ago when the Mormons were being severely persecuted for their non-traditional marriages.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

From Russell Stevenson when I asked him to summarize what was in his book as far as American LDS were concerned (this is not to suggest you not read the book, but just so it contributes to the discussion here)…he added some global stuff as well:

 

My sense of the most public reactions in America is that it varied somewhere between "Finally!" to "How wonderful!" peppered with a smattering of: "This is a sign of the times, surely!" One Brazilian group's response was solemnity; a Ghanaian man was said to have broken down in tears.  There was an undercurrent of cynicism ("eh, the Church finally caved/acted out of political expediency"), but that didn't define the mainstream response, esp. among the membership. 

Re: the civil rights movement, while it's generally lamentable that Utahans harbored real hostility to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by 1978, Church members had the tumult of the '60s/the Wyoming game/the publicity seared into their memories. People do learn lessons over time; it's not as though the Mormon community remained static from 1968 to 1978. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

From Russell Stevenson when I asked him to summarize what was in his book as far as American LDS were concerned (this is not to suggest you not read the book, but just so it contributes to the discussion here)…he added some global stuff as well:

A good quote, but I wish he had spelled Utahns correctly.

[why me]

You're right, but that is price of being just about the last church to recognize racial equality.  It builds into an existing narrative.  "Oh, those Mormons are at it again!"

 

It's not accurate.  Certainly Mormons are no more homophobic than my beloved black Baptist brothers.  In fact, I'd guess that the language coming from black churches is far more incendiary.  However, black Baptists get an (undeserved) pass because they are associated with Dr. King, Diane Nash, Congressman Lewis, and even ... gasp ... Jesse Jackson.  Black Baptists have been on the front lines for labor groups, migrant workers, low-wage earners, etc.  In other words, they've built up a lot of "Liberal Cred."  So even if gays were rightly disappointed that the Black church didn't side with them on Prop 8, they had to acknowledge that the black church built the activism platforms that made their struggle possible in the first.  The same is true of the Catholics and a few others.

 

However, since the Mormon Church has no history in progressive struggles, the opposition to SSM only builds into an existing narrative.  As I've expressed in other threads, I'm often disappointed that the Church doesn't seem very concerned that it has such a negative image in certain quarters.  We seem to be perfectly content so long as the far right embraces us (for now).  I think we could learn something from Pastor Rick Warren, who is known to say, "I'm not interested in left-wing or right-wing.  I want the WHOLE bird."  

I don't think that it was the last church to recognize racial equality. We need to remember that whites and blacks shared chapels during those times when other churches were segregated. Not many churches allowed whites and blacks to sit together as the mormons did. And then we have women's rights in utah and the idea that women should get an education has always been in play. And the persecution of mormons for daring to be different.

 

I am afraid that the black baptist churches haven't done much for black people in the USA. Nothing much has changed since the 60s. More black men and women are in prison. The poverty is rate is high among the black population, and black men are still having problems being examples to their children. What have the baptists done to make such facts go away? And yet, the lds church counsels all to get an education, be godlike and treat the body as a temple. It counsels people to be self reliant and to stay away from alcohol and drugs and all manner of substances that may harm the body. Black America would do well to heed what the lds church teaches and they should attend mormon sunday services where families learn how to be a family and where people learn to be godlike in their actions toward others. But all people would benefit from lds services. I see the forest. You see a tree. I see a beautiful forest if this forest would care for itself through the nurturing wisdom of what makes a human being a human being.  What do you see the forest or the tree? 

 

Now that is a message Rev Al and Jesse should be proclaiming from every rooftop and that should be their dream. But is it? I see them creating division through the same old tactics of the past.

 

Also, in order to cure inequality, one must address the inequalities that are inherent in the neo classical capitalist system: as system that creates a social darwinist system among the human species. In other words one must become anticapitalist (my own personal belief). Are the black baptists anticapitalist?

 

And who is embracing the far right? And what is the far right? The far right in europe are the neonazis. Are church members in america joining the nazi party? Or are they the extreme right? You need to be careful in labeling church members.  You are insulting many mormons.

Edited January 30, 2015 by why me

[Calm]

A friend who not only wrote in his journal that day but kept it around and even has access to it:

 

http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/06/14/a-missionarys-view-of-the-1978-revelation/

[Calm]

Came across this recommendation in the comments:

 

For those interested in the subject, might I recommend “In the Lord’s Due Time” by Joseph Freeman. Joseph Freeman was the first black person to receive the priesthood after the ban was lifted. The book is his autobiography. It details how he agonized over giving up a ministry in another church to join one in which he was banned from the ministry, even though he was certain that God had called him to be a minister. It is definitely an interesting read if you can find a copy (sadly, it is out of print).

As a side note, Joseph Freeman is currently a Bishop in our stake (in SLC, UT).

And a very interesting comment from Margaret Young:

 

Was it national news?? I don’t think I can express my answer strongly enough. I don’t think I’m allowed to say hell on this blog, but if I WERE allowed, I’d say HELL YES.
President Carter worked with Mormons on how he should respond. I have some of the newspapers from that remarkable day (including Carter’s response). My co-author met with someone who had flown in from another location on June 9th 1978, and the revelation was announced ON THE PLANE before landing.
And remember, I heard it in Mexico. INTERNATIONAL news.

Margaret is of course right. It was HUGE news, the kind that resulted in programs on TV being interrupted.

 

Edited January 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[stemelbow]

I like it that the LDS Church is now getting back to its original raison d'etre.  Look out, the Mormons are waking up from a long nap!!

This is my great hope, these days. Something wake us up.

[stemelbow]

I'm still curious.

What changed from 1949-1978 (I realize there were great movements socially in terms of equal rights, but I mean in the Church) among the general membership which caused members to deny the previously typical LDS thinking--"blacks won't receive the priesthood until all other children of God receive its blessings"?

The other official pronouncement from the Church did not contradict, correct, nor deny the claims made in the '49 statement. Thus it was possible for members to cling to the notion that blacks won't receive the priesthood until all others were blessed.. they could have clung to it as doctrinal, the will of God, as direct revelation from heaven. But somehow, some here are suggesting that the majority of LDS did not accept the statements in '49. How so? Why?

edited to add:

Who was Elder McConkie thinking of when he made his correction and told people they need to forget the things said in the past on the topic and accept modern day revelation on the matter? Who was holding on to the errant statements in the past? Who needed correcting?

Edited January 30, 2015 by stemelbow

[why me]

Since the thread is now hijacked and we are again discussing blacks and the priesthood, which seems now to be a favorite topic of the board, I will just say a few words. If black families would have joined the lds church in mass, the black community would be better off today. If more black families would have joined in the past decades and obstained from alcohol, drugs, premarital sex, the community today would be much stronger. And if black families would have joined the lds en mass in the past, families would be stronger today and black men would be better fathers. And with the values of education and self reliance, the black community would be stronger today.

 

Likewise for other communities. Black leaders have done little to help the black community get out of the problems the black  community faces today. America is not a white black society. It is now a muliti racial society with the whites becoming a minority in the next few years.

 

Also, african immigrants coming to america are doing very well in the states as can be seen from the recent research:

 

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/sub-saharan-african-immigrants-united-states

 

Educational and Professional Attainment

 

Sub-Saharan immigrants tend to have much higher educational attainment compared to the overall foreign- and native-born populations. In 2013, 38 percent of Sub-Saharan immigrants (ages 25 and over) had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 28 percent of the total U.S. foreign-born population and 30 percent of the native-born population.

The sub-Saharan immigrant population was slightly younger than the overall U.S. immigrant population but older than the native-born population. In 2013, 84 percent of sub-Saharan African immigrants were of working age (18 to 64), 6 percent were ages 65 and over, and 10 percent were under age 18. In comparison, 80 percent of all foreign born in the United States were of working age, 14 percent were 65 and over, and 6 percent were under age 18. Meanwhile, 60 percent of the native-born population was of working age, 14 percent was 65 and over, and 26 percent was under 18.

Sub-Saharan immigrants participated in the labor force at a higher rate than the overall immigrant and native-born populations. In 2013, about 76 percent of sub-Saharan African immigrants (ages 16 and over) were in the civilian labor force, compared to 67 percent and 63 percent of the overall foreign-born and native-born populations, respectively. Sub-Saharan immigrants were much more likely to be employed in management, business, science, and arts occupations (36 percent) and much less likely to be employed in natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations (3 percent) compared to the overall foreign-born population. Sub-Saharan immigrants were almost as likely as the native born to be employed in management, business, science, and arts occupations. They were also more likely to be employed in service occupations (28 percent) and less likely to be employed in sales and office occupations (17 percent) compared to their native-born counterparts.

 

My point: the lds church teaches wonderful values that can certainly help the african american community. Since african immigrants seem to fair better than african americans in the USA, something is inherently wrong within the community itself. And what have the black churches done to help the situation and black leaders who still pit race against race and see victimization from the outside in instead of from the inside out? I say to mormonnewb, instead of moaning about the lds church and a policy that happened years ago, I encourage him to be a missionary in the black community and lead his brothers and sisters to the lds church. Then, one will see a transformation in the community one baptism at a time.