Has the church made progress with race since the revelation on the priesthood?

[gopher]

I'm curious to hear your experiences with the progress the church has made since the priesthood ban was lifted.  I'm not black so I won't pretend to speak on behalf of any black members, but I have seen some positive changes in the wards and stakes around me.  It may be premature to declare that black members moved on from the Priesthood ban, but I've seen great progress with members serving as Bishops, HPG Leaders, EQ presidents, High Councilors, and in Bishoprics and in Stake Presidencies.  There are nearly 200 black members of our stake with several currently serving full time missions.  Two black sisters have been baptized in my ward in the past few years, with one recently going through the temple.  One sister joined despite strong opposition from her Baptist father who brought up the Priesthood ban in an attempt to dissuade her from baptism.  He has since softened his opposition and fully supports her.  A few years ago, I asked my hometeacher his thoughts, he just shrugged and said the ban wasn't an issue for him.  He did complain that as a missionary the white missionaries would insist on feeling his hair.

I did see this article on Tribune website a few days ago -  "All is not well in Zion on the race front" http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4006506-155/all-is-not-well-in-zion so it's clear there is still progress to be made.  She also includes a complaint from a woman that she'd like to attend church once without someone touching her hair.  Seriously, we can stop touching the hair of our black members?  It seems to be a real problem.

Bonus points for not bringing homosexuality into this thread, but sticking to the topic of race only.

Edited June 17, 2016 by gopher

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

I'm curious to hear your experiences with the progress the church has made since the priesthood ban was lifted.  I'm not black so I won't pretend to speak on behalf of any black members, but I have seen some positive changes in the wards and stakes around me.  It may be premature to declare that black members moved on from the Priesthood ban, but I've seen great progress with members serving as Bishops, HPG Leaders, EQ presidents, High Councilors, and in Bishoprics and in Stake Presidencies.  There are nearly 200 black members of our stake with several currently serving full time missions.  Two black sisters have been baptized in my ward in the past few years, with one recently going through the temple.  One sister joined despite strong opposition from her Baptist father who brought up the Priesthood ban in an attempt to dissuade her from baptism.  He has since softened his opposition and fully supports her.  A few years ago, I asked my hometeacher his thoughts, he just shrugged and said the ban wasn't an issue for him.  He did complain that as a missionary the white missionaries would insist on feeling his hair.

I did see this article on Tribune website a few days ago -  "All is not well in Zion on the race front" http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4006506-155/all-is-not-well-in-zion so it's clear there is still progress to be made.  She also includes a complaint from a woman that she'd like to attend church once without someone touching her hair.  Seriously, we can stop touching the hair of our black members?  It seems to be a real problem.

Bonus points for not bringing homosexuality into this thread, but sticking to the topic of race only.

I am speaking as one who was quite baffled by the essay on blacks and the priesthood..but I am also honest..  Though I  have not been inside of sacrament meetings or in church since 2008, I see a difference in the people I know who are black and in the church.  They are very understanding of the past and very forgiving with the hope of exaltation and families forever.  There must be some great wards, members who have been so loving and inclusive that this is working.  My only regret is that this just didn't happen sooner..a better way to make better people..so I am going to say yes..that there has been positive changes in the church.  In Utah, this is a big deal..because this means there are positives in the work force and on the playgrounds.

[Duncan]

In my stake there are some older men who are racist but we do have black members here. 

[Garden Girl]

When I was an ordinance worker in the Portland temple, there was a lovely black sister that served on our shift... I always felt thankful to serve with her...

GG

[Tacenda]

There isn't any black adults in my ward, just a few adopted black children.  

[VideoGameJunkie]

I hope for a black apostle one day.

[cinepro]

6 hours ago, gopher said:

I'm curious to hear your experiences with the progress the church has made since the priesthood ban was lifted.  I'm not black so I won't pretend to speak on behalf of any black members, but I have seen some positive changes in the wards and stakes around me.  It may be premature to declare that black members moved on from the Priesthood ban, but I've seen great progress with members serving as Bishops, HPG Leaders, EQ presidents, High Councilors, and in Bishoprics and in Stake Presidencies.  There are nearly 200 black members of our stake with several currently serving full time missions.  Two black sisters have been baptized in my ward in the past few years, with one recently going through the temple.  One sister joined despite strong opposition from her Baptist father who brought up the Priesthood ban in an attempt to dissuade her from baptism.  He has since softened his opposition and fully supports her.  A few years ago, I asked my hometeacher his thoughts, he just shrugged and said the ban wasn't an issue for him.  He did complain that as a missionary the white missionaries would insist on feeling his hair.

I did see this article on Tribune website a few days ago -  "All is not well in Zion on the race front" http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4006506-155/all-is-not-well-in-zion so it's clear there is still progress to be made.  She also includes a complaint from a woman that she'd like to attend church once without someone touching her hair.  Seriously, we can stop touching the hair of our black members?  It seems to be a real problem.

Bonus points for not bringing homosexuality into this thread, but sticking to the topic of race only.

I think we may have taken a step backwards in many ways in 1978.

For example, in May of 1978, there were millions of Mormons who believed that black members of the Church shouldn't have the priesthood or go to the Temple, and they weren't racist, they were just faithful LDS.

Then by July 1978 (and later?), there were far, far fewer LDS who believed that black members of the Church shouldn't have the priesthood or go to the Temple, but all that did were totally racist.  So racism in the Church may have increased in real terms.

Edited June 17, 2016 by cinepro

[Guest]

6 hours ago, gopher said:

I'm curious to hear your experiences with the progress the church has made since the priesthood ban was lifted.  I'm not black so I won't pretend to speak on behalf of any black members, but I have seen some positive changes in the wards and stakes around me.  It may be premature to declare that black members moved on from the Priesthood ban, but I've seen great progress with members serving as Bishops, HPG Leaders, EQ presidents, High Councilors, and in Bishoprics and in Stake Presidencies.  There are nearly 200 black members of our stake with several currently serving full time missions.  Two black sisters have been baptized in my ward in the past few years, with one recently going through the temple.  One sister joined despite strong opposition from her Baptist father who brought up the Priesthood ban in an attempt to dissuade her from baptism.  He has since softened his opposition and fully supports her.  A few years ago, I asked my hometeacher his thoughts, he just shrugged and said the ban wasn't an issue for him.  He did complain that as a missionary the white missionaries would insist on feeling his hair.

I did see this article on Tribune website a few days ago -  "All is not well in Zion on the race front" http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/4006506-155/all-is-not-well-in-zion so it's clear there is still progress to be made.  She also includes a complaint from a woman that she'd like to attend church once without someone touching her hair.  Seriously, we can stop touching the hair of our black members?  It seems to be a real problem.

Bonus points for not bringing homosexuality into this thread, but sticking to the topic of race only.

We have, but sadly thought Christianity (of which we are a part) Martin Luther King, Jr is still right. "11:00 on Sunday is the most segregated hour of the week". In this respect he was observant and a Prophet. 

[gopher]

28 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think we may have taken a step backwards in many ways in 1978.

For example, in May of 1978, there were millions of Mormons who believed that black members of the Church shouldn't have the priesthood or go to the Temple, and they weren't racist, they were just faithful LDS.

Then by July 1978 (and later?), there were far, far fewer LDS who believed that black members of the Church shouldn't have the priesthood or go to the Temple, but all that did were totally racist.  So racism in the Church may have increased in real terms.

Clever.  I've heard stories of people leaving the church because the ban was lifted, but I've never met anyone personally.  I wonder how well members would have reacted with a black Bishop called in 1978.  It doesn't seem to be a big problem now, at least here on the east coast.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

Clever.  I've heard stories of people leaving the church because the ban was lifted, but I've never met anyone personally.  I wonder how well members would have reacted with a black Bishop called in 1978.  It doesn't seem to be a big problem now, at least here on the east coast.

It's been claimed over the pulpit and in subsequent secondary literature that there was almost no dissent/lost membership which ensued from the 1978 Revelation.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

It's been claimed over the pulpit and in subsequent secondary literature that there was almost no dissent/lost membership which ensued from the 1978 Revelation.

There was very little from what I hear but there was some. An older friend of mine was on his mission when the announcement was made and told me his southern companion went home almost in tears and spent a while on his bed kicking the wall to relieve frustration and repeatedly saying "I can't believe they gave the n*****s the Priesthood!" He was transferred and has no idea what happened to that guy.

Most racism in the church in the US comes from the elderly. I remember an awkward meeting in the MTC where an elderly member of the Church told us how blessed my district was for living at this time and being from America and being white. We kind of glanced around the room wondering what was going on and one guy pointed that four of us were actually Canadian. He tried to backpedal and say Canadians were Americans too (technically true but I doubt he meant it originally).

[gopher]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

It's been claimed over the pulpit and in subsequent secondary literature that there was almost no dissent/lost membership which ensued from the 1978 Revelation.

I've never seen any evidence that there were many that left the church.  A friend that served a mission in Mississippi in 1978 told me one of the ward members quit after the announcement.  It seems the vast majority of members gladly accepted the change.

[gopher]

6 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I hope for a black apostle one day.

I'll vote for Alex Boye.  Or Jabari Parker.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I hope for a black apostle one day.

I hope that they are Spiritually Mature, race should not be the issue. I am fine with whomever or whatever race that God calls. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

I think we may have taken a step backwards in many ways in 1978.

For example, in May of 1978, there were millions of Mormons who believed that black members of the Church shouldn't have the priesthood or go to the Temple, and they weren't racist, they were just faithful LDS.

Then by July 1978 (and later?), there were far, far fewer LDS who believed that black members of the Church shouldn't have the priesthood or go to the Temple, but all that did were totally racist.  So racism in the Church may have increased in real terms.

I guess that means that Pres David O. McKay was not a faithful Mormon, since he believed that banning them from the priesthood was a mistake and not doctrinal.  Oh, wait, Mormons had been ordaining lots of black skinned members to the priesthood for many years before 1978, but only because they were not of African ancestry.  Oh, wait, even if the ban had been implemented by a racist, and even if faithful members mistakenly thought that it was doctrinal and obeyed the ban, does that make them racist -- or simply obedient?  After all, even those who disagreed with the priesthood ban policy did not disobey it.  They wrote about it and lobbied for a change, but they were not racist simply because they obeyed the ban policy.

Your reasoning is skewed, cinepro, and so are your conclusions.

[sdc999]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess that means that Pres David O. McKay was not a faithful Mormon, since he believed that banning them from the priesthood was a mistake and not doctrinal.  Oh, wait, Mormons had been ordaining lots of black skinned members to the priesthood for many years before 1978, but only because they were not of African ancestry.  Oh, wait, even if the ban had been implemented by a racist, and even if faithful members mistakenly thought that it was doctrinal and obeyed the ban, does that make them racist -- or simply obedient?  After all, even those who disagreed with the priesthood ban policy did not disobey it.  They wrote about it and lobbied for a change, but they were not racist simply because they obeyed the ban policy.

Your reasoning is skewed, cinepro, and so are your conclusions.

I will agree with your statement that they were not racist simply because the obeyed the ban policy.  They were just ignorant.   That's the problem when people allow someone else to do their thinking for them.  They just get to stand back and say, "I was just doing what I was told".  That is the excuse of a weak, manipulated coward who cannot stand on their own.  You cannot have it both ways.  Either you believe and obey or you stand up and say that you think it is wrong.    I sit on several boards and I will never be opposed to something without having it noted in the records --- even if it does pass.  

Those that lobbied for change - I like them but there were many then and today who just nod their head and say  "yes".

Edited June 18, 2016 by sdc999

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

I'll vote for Alex Boye.  Or Jabari Parker.

I'd quit the Church if Alex Boye became an GA!!!!. I'd vote for the guy who played TV's Webster before Boye

[Storm Rider]

The term "lobby" has a distinctly sour taste given its affiliation with all things corrupt in politics and with those members that strive to lobby the Church leaders through the media.  However, I do appreciate the honest, sincere questions of faithful members that strive to understand and seek further enlightenment from the prophet and the apostles.  

I remain convinced that there should never be a policy declared except by revelation and that revelation be brought before the membership for common consent and then added to scripture.  No policy that has been implemented by the leadership that affects the salvation of the children of God has ever been successful or not caused problems.  Policies implemented, without direct revelation, in my opinion, are against the fundamental principles of church governance.  We believe in revelation.  It is central to all that we believe.  If the Brethren cannot say clearly, distinctly, "Thus saith the Lord....", then please do not introduce any policies that affect salvation.  

If I could ever change anything it would be this one thing - either the Leaders use the keys of the priesthood and function as prophets and apostles of Jesus Christ or never create any policy that affects the salvation of God's children.  Fill the scriptures with new revelations, open the windows of heaven and pour forth God's word to us today.  Cease to speak in such a way as to demand assumptions of the part of any member.

[BlueDreams]

Well I'm half black...so I guess I should say stuff  

first off, the ideas about how things are going are wide and dependent on where someone's from, expectations, etc. for a few views you can check out these conferences: 

the one about race and BYU I think shows some more of the conflict that comes up when mentioning racial problems in church contexts. 

I personally think much of my perspectives are more minority oriented than solely black. Also I wasn't alive, and wouldn't be for another decade, when the ban was lifted...so some things I obviously couldn't tell you from first hand account what's changed since I wasn't there. First the positive things I do see:

- old beliefs are dying out. From what I've read of previous statements/thoughts compared to now both in more "official" sources and personal vernacular. I've ran into them, particularly in older or more rigid groups. But many more are happy to let surrounding beliefs about the ban go. 

- general attitudes are a little better or at least a little less obvious.

- in general I feel welcome in church. There are instances of ignorance or offense but I can't remember an instance for myself that it happened over a pulpit...oh wait once but that wasn't specifically about black people and more about brown/culture/class.

- things like the women's general conference last time or working to increase home-grown leaders to areas and increasing them in the 70.

problems still exist though. Many of these are demographics and more to do with a large white body of members than having them be members period. If I go to areas with similar demos but a religious change, I'm likely to see similar issues. In a lot of ways Mormon race problems don't look different from white American race problems. These can include general ignorance, assumptions that we're all equal already, racist beliefs, ethnocentrism, shutting down/invalidating minority experiences that may differ or feel attacking, etc. 

a number are Mormon specific. The ideas that people have about race can naturally bleed into spiritual validations or expectations. It can also lead to unintended exclusion. There are still areas that we could work on. And there are certainly individual issues that are problematic.  Here are a couple of pet peeves:

- art: there are 3 ways that minorities are shown in lds art. In a few paintings with white Jesus (these are usually children). As a recent construct...if lds art was an indicator, brown people haven't spiritually existed since the 1980's and with Jane manning James (recently). Or as the bad guys, usually lamanites...or in the background being led by a white person. It's super patronizing. And I get that most lds artists are white and grew up in seriously white areas. But still. Not a fan. Minorities as angels do not exist really. Minorities as spiritual entities and power of their own accord (not guided and directed by white people) are rarely shown. 

- the temple: none of the new videos have minorities as Adam and Eve. There is one James who looks a little brown. But that's it. I've gone down several reasons as to why and none are good enough to me to how it feels to be excluded and also knowing some of the residual beliefs that linger among members that put minorities as slightly less than or of a differing group. 

- Provo's cultural celebration for the temple. Or as my friend put it a accultural celebration. It is a story I got to see vicariously. And one that still bothers me a little. The end note is that because of how the job was divied to crest me the basic program (small and insular circle with no input from the wards apart of them until it was deemed too late), the program entailed none of the actual minority cultures that make up a good proportion of the temple disctrict. The person(s) invisioned Utah culture, it was a ton of pop culture and white Utahns enjoyment with the little history note going to the pioneers, even though the Native American ward is in the district. Even small easier changes were shot down. I still remember watching the prince of Egypt song montage and thinking...this is representative of Utah??? To be fair the area authority, when he heard of the desires, thought they would have been great, but it was way too late at the time. To me it's indicative of how important it is to really connect with several representatives from the communities to make choices and the more that you add minority voices the more enriched the experience becomes. 

I feel both of these leave it difficult for members to picture minorities as leaders or make minorities always appendages or extras in the church experience. Art/media is a window into the culture and expectations. It can also be a vehicle for change and dialogue. The church is doing better in this but still has a ways to go. There's also things that are definitely cultural customs that move up. For example noise in church. The silence of meetings is tied to reverence and sacredness, so spiritual experiences outside of that can be jarring. 

- random spiritual/racial assumptions. A couple that I've seen is an assumption that minorities are not from the tribe of Ephraim, often from the tribe of Manasseh from some far flung tribe. I also grow tired of the assumption that I converted. Because all brown people are converts. Had that just happen yesterday. Some have assumptions about differing (white) families being a little spiritually better. 

- socially...this dovetails into general social issues and not necessarily Mormon specific. There's still a belief that it's better to marry in your race and black people are at the bottom of the racial totem poll. I had a nice discussion about this with a group of largely black women and it was a recurring theme. I also have a nagging fear of being an "acceptable" minority. I'm mixed, pretty, petite, and have a good amount of white pioneer-stock family. Without knowing me, i come off as safe and a little exotic. But not too overwhelmingly black or whatever. I've also had a couple of guys that I went on dates with that it felt like I reminded them of their mission peoples or was to try out that minority experience a little. In short, I was a token. Tokenism isn't fun all the time, but particularly while dating. 

 

I actually don't mind the hair thing as much. I do mind people's assumptions about it and the ones who touch it without asking (who aren't my friends). The assumptions are usually in the line of about "black hair." They categorize my hair as more black than white because it's really curly. So the ones who feel like they "know" black hair ask me things that don't really apply or assume my hair is this way or that  (course, nappy, difficult to manage, relaxed, that I "did" something to get it this way etc). still I don't mind this...but I do  mind when I have to convince them that my hair is this way and not what they're assuming. Needless to say I have some interesting conversations about hair. I do enjoy some of it and it's my vanity, so complements and general curiosity with permission to touch is just fine.

 

i could go on, but that's enough for one night. Time for yoga! 

 

With luv, 

BD

 

 

Edited June 18, 2016 by BlueDreams

[gopher]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I'd quit the Church if Alex Boye became an GA!!!!. I'd vote for the guy who played TV's Webster before Boye

What's up with Boye?  I don't know much about him other than he's LDS and he sings.

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, gopher said:

What's up with Boye?  I don't know much about him other than he's LDS and he sings.

He's ANNOYING!!!!!! he brought a Camel down the streets of Provo for some song and I don't know if he knows but there is medication for that now!

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

He's ANNOYING!!!!!! he brought a Camel down the streets of Provo for some song and I don't know if he knows but there is medication for that now!

Medication for the camel or the song?

[bcuzbcuz]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There was very little from what I hear but there was some. An older friend of mine was on his mission when the announcement was made and told me his southern companion went home almost in tears and spent a while on his bed kicking the wall to relieve frustration and repeatedly saying "I can't believe they gave the n*****s the Priesthood!" He was transferred and has no idea what happened to that guy.

Most racism in the church in the US comes from the elderly. I remember an awkward meeting in the MTC where an elderly member of the Church told us how blessed my district was for living at this time and being from America and being white. We kind of glanced around the room wondering what was going on and one guy pointed that four of us were actually Canadian. He tried to backpedal and say Canadians were Americans too (technically true but I doubt he meant it originally).

NO, Canadians do not call themselves Americans, We are North Americans, as are Mexicans, but we Canadians call ourselves exactly that, Canadians. People in South America are also Americans, although South Americans, and each identify to the country they live in, such as Peruvian, Chilean, Argentinan, etc., etc.

That US citizens think that they are the only "Americans" is more related to poor map skills and language misuse for over a hundred years.  

[Duncan]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Medication for the camel or the song?

for him!!!!! 

[BlueDreams]

 

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

That US citizens think that they are the only "Americans" is more related to poor map skills and language misuse for over a hundred years.  

....or our name not having a shortened version that doesn't sound super formal (us citizens) or super goofy (USA-er's?). I know the map says north and South America and the Americas is referring to the continents not the country. If we had a catchier way to shorten our name we'd go for it. But that would assume we weren't super egotistical about being the best. Can't have everything . 

 

With luv, 

BD