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

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

for him!!!!! 

 

Duncan,  

I was with you, but started to see a different side to him, haha!!  He's not so bad after all!

[Five Solas]

23 hours ago, Duncan said:

In my stake there are some older men who are racist...

I certainly wouldn't doubt that.  And I'm sure you're not the only one who has figured this out.  So the question here in 2016 is this:  What are your local leaders doing to address the sin of racism (what the Bible calls "partiality") that these "older men" are persisting in?  Seems like they have 3 choices--

1) They can take the matter seriously, call these men to repentance and place them under discipline if they will not

2) They can put their heads in the sand, prioritize other things and imagine the passing of time will solve the matter

3) I guess there's not really a third option after all, is there?

So which one are they choosing, Duncan? 

--Erik

 

[Tacenda]

17 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.

And how would you know this, do you think people would admit why they left the church all the time?  Especially if they didn't want anyone knowing they were racist, heck they may even be in denial over it.  

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

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.

Quote of the day...or year...or the decades!!  Thanks Storm, these things have been on my mind for quite some time.  If I have room, this quote will be on my sig line, with your permission of course!

[rodheadlee]

On 6/17/2016 at 6:18 AM, 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.

It's a question that is too wide. The answer asks for sweeping generalizations. The answers are going to be as varied as the wards, stakes and the countries or states they reside in. We have a black bishop in our ward, so what? We have black, white, Asian and Latino members in our ward. The more interesting thing is his story is much like that of Samuel in the OT. He was supposed to die an infant and his Mom dedicated him to the Lord, the were Catholic, now they are LDS. When the Lord called, "Here I am" was the response.

[Tacenda]

https://www.facebook.com/alexboye.music/

I blame this on Duncan..1 hour ago I was no where near a fan of Alex Boye, in fact he bugged the crap out of me.  No longer....we all bleed the same!

ETA:  You have to scroll down in order to see his FB post on May 27 at 5:35pm · 

"Working on new song...(We All Bleed The Same)"

Edited June 18, 2016 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

IBCUZBCUZ:

It is called naming rights. Canada was still part of the British Empire when America was born.

Edited June 18, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I certainly wouldn't doubt that.  And I'm sure you're not the only one who has figured this out.  So the question here in 2016 is this:  What are your local leaders doing to address the sin of racism (what the Bible calls "partiality") that these "older men" are persisting in?  Seems like they have 3 choices--

1) They can take the matter seriously, call these men to repentance and place them under discipline if they will not

2) They can put their heads in the sand, prioritize other things and imagine the passing of time will solve the matter

3) I guess there's not really a third option after all, is there?

So which one are they choosing, Duncan? 

--Erik

 

We have condemned racism and it has been declared a sin.

So now our only options are to either declare a McCarthy style inquisition to root them out or be deliberately dense? Because you say so,

I found a third option: Decide that you are an idiot.

Edited June 19, 2016 by The Nehor

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

And how would you know this, do you think people would admit why they left the church all the time?  Especially if they didn't want anyone knowing they were racist, heck they may even be in denial over it.  

I didn't claim any special insight or knowledge, did I? What the hell is your problem?

[gopher]

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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

Thanks, I was hoping you would post your thoughts.  I'm not aware of any other black members on this board.

I'm hoping the assumptions about white families being more spiritual and black members treated as converts will fade with time as we see more multi-generational families in the church.  It's harder to hold on to those assumptions when realize you both grew up going to Primary, serving missions, serving in callings, etc. 

There will always be the unintentional slights.  Not really related, but years ago I had an EQ instructor teach a lesson on obedience.  He knew I was single and a menace to society, and after making a particular point in the lesson said, "You wouldn't understand because you aren't married".  His comment had nothing to do with marriage, but apparently I wasn't capable of understanding it.  I laughed it off because I don't think he realized how condescending it sounded.

Do you find that white members are uncomfortable or defensive when you discuss issues of race in the church?

[gopher]

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

It's a question that is too wide. The answer asks for sweeping generalizations. The answers are going to be as varied as the wards, stakes and the countries or states they reside in. We have a black bishop in our ward, so what? We have black, white, Asian and Latino members in our ward. The more interesting thing is his story is much like that of Samuel in the OT. He was supposed to die an infant and his Mom dedicated him to the Lord, the were Catholic, now they are LDS. When the Lord called, "Here I am" was the response.

I agree it is a broad question.  I was partly motivated by how often the priesthood ban is mentioned by critics on this site.  It's been nearly 40 years after the ban was lifted, so I thought it was worth taking a look to see how we are doing as a church today with black members.

At one point I was going to use as the title "Why is it harder for white people to get over the priesthood ban?", but I thought it was unnecessarily provocative.

Edited June 18, 2016 by gopher

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I certainly wouldn't doubt that.  And I'm sure you're not the only one who has figured this out.  So the question here in 2016 is this:  What are your local leaders doing to address the sin of racism (what the Bible calls "partiality") that these "older men" are persisting in?  Seems like they have 3 choices--

1) They can take the matter seriously, call these men to repentance and place them under discipline if they will not

2) They can put their heads in the sand, prioritize other things and imagine the passing of time will solve the matter

3) I guess there's not really a third option after all, is there?

So which one are they choosing, Duncan? 

--Erik

 

Honestly I think some are scared to say anything and I know at least two guys tell people in private so it isn't public so the leaders may not know. As it is one guy ( in my ward) I and others have complained about and he's being released from being WML and now he's getting called to be HPGL which is to me just passing the buck around. I'd say 3 at least are what you'd say are adult bullies and you can't have a rational conversations with them.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Duncan

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

I agree it is a broad question.  I was partly motivated by how often the priesthood ban is mentioned by critics on this site.  It's been nearly 40 years after the ban was lifted, so I thought it was worth taking a look to see how we are doing as a church today with black members.

At one point I was going to use as the title "Why is it harder for white people to get over the priesthood ban?", but I thought it was unnecessarily provocative.

We had mormonnewb come through here raking us over the coals, other than that it's just a broom to whack us over the head with for the antis and the left wingers inside the Church. Many like to compare the ban to our LGBT stance, if the prophets were wrong about the ban then they could be wrong about SSM. Oops, sorry I went there. The fact is the essay doesn't say the ban was wrong, it says the reasons listed are wrong.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, sdc999 said:

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".

The practical reality in an LDS Church setting is that one may not simply invent his own approach to ordination, regardless of the best of intentions.  On such basic matters, the Prophet holds the keys and calls the shots.  Orson Pratt strongly disagreed with Brigham Young's ban, and was punished for that by having his seniority in the Twelve taken away.  We honor him for his courage, regardless of consequences.  After all, Orson knew full well that Joseph Smith and his colleagues did not hesitate to ordain Black people.  The ban was wrong and he knew it.  As Pres Uchtdorf has said:

Quote

.. . . to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes.  There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.
        I suppose the Church would only be perfect, if it were run by perfect beings.  God is perfect and his doctrine is pure.  But he works through us, his imperfect children.  And imperfect people make mistakes.

We are a community -- the Saints of the Last Days -- who have a special task to perform, and we cannot perform it if we are constantly engaged in backbiting and infighting.  The Brethren recognize the importance of unity.

[BCSpace]

On 6/17/2016 at 7:18 AM, 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.

Speaking about improvement fronts, other than numbers of black members in the Church, I don't believe there has ever been any need whatsoever by the Church to make progress because the Church has always been where it needs to be.  The progress that needs to be made is for people to understand the doctrine,which is easy to do if one really wants to, and the overcoming of cultural problems by both whites and blacks.  This is well-illustrated the article you referenced.  Consider:

Quote

She works with "white women who are married to black men to help them understand certain things about being married to a black man,"

I hear this type of thing a lot, that having a relationship with a black person requires the white person to 'understand certain things'.  There are more than just cultural differences.  There are actual real cultural problems that beset many blacks who live in America; often blamed on whites or history, but stem solely from the internal culture.  That is certainly a front where improvement has to be made.  But there are certain politically charged people, white and black, on the Left who use and inflame these problems for political gain and the effect is a huge stumbling block placed by them in front of blacks which makes it more difficult to escape these cultural problems.  And that of course still affects how blacks view the Church.

 

[Five Solas]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

Honestly I think some are scared to say anything and I know at least two guys tell people in private so it isn't public so the leaders may not know. As it is one guy ( in my ward) I and others have complained about and he's being released from being WML and now he's getting called to be HPGL which is to me just passing the buck around. I'd say 3 at least are what you'd say are adult bullies and you can't have a rational conversations with them.

Appreciate the candor. 

It's hard to imagine how the LDS Church can "make progress" if there isn't grass roots participation in confronting/addressing racism.  I get it, your local leaders may be out of touch (as you seem to suggest) and/or have other priorities.  They may even be "scared."  But does that excuse them?  And are you excused if you fail to inform them?    

Is there any reason you wouldn't say to your stake president or regional leadership the words you've shared with this board?  And if you did--what do you suppose they'd do?

--Erik

 

[cinepro]

23 hours 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'm not sure where the confusion is.  I said that those who supported the priesthood ban before 1978 weren't racist. 

Next time I'll type slower.

[Duncan]

35 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Appreciate the candor. 

It's hard to imagine how the LDS Church can "make progress" if there isn't grass roots participation in confronting/addressing racism.  I get it, your local leaders may be out of touch (as you seem to suggest) and/or have other priorities.  They may even be "scared."  But does that excuse them?  And are you excused if you fail to inform them?    

Is there any reason you wouldn't say to your stake president or regional leadership the words you've shared with this board?  And if you did--what do you suppose they'd do?

--Erik

 

Well, funny you mention one guy just got called to the High Council and some people opposed and whatever happened and he got recalled and so I figure that guy the bigger he is the harder he falls. Plus our stake pres.moved here about 8 years ago? so he doesn't know a ton people and is palying catch up (mind you he didn't ask to be Stake Pres. and he's a cool guy) and there is a slew of new bishops and 4 of them have never been in a bishopric before. I tell my Stake clerk brother, WHY???? what is happening here! they are creating their own problems. I feel for these guys though. I agree with you about holding these guys accountable. One guy on our high council attends the Catholic Church with his wife.He's SLICK, he is really slick. People know but it's "the mote and beam problem, you look out for your own problems and they'll look out for theirs. I honestly don't look to any of these guys for any kind of guidance or insight. I'll listen to them but make up my own mind. I think at least here people are so afraid of offending people 

So what I do is anytime i've given a talk in church or make comments in class I hear what people say and offer something else if it's screwy mclouie, as in i can't control who gets called to whatever but I can change the effect they may have

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

 

Quote

 

On 6/17/2016 at 2:16 PM, 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'm not sure where the confusion is.  I said that those who supported the priesthood ban before 1978 weren't racist. 

Next time I'll type slower.

Silly me, cinepro.  I thought that you were being sarcastic.  Sorry.

[BlueDreams]

11 hours ago, gopher said:

Thanks, I was hoping you would post your thoughts.  I'm not aware of any other black members on this board.

There used to be mormonnewb as someone mentioned.....we didn't see eye-to-eye on a number of things. As it is, I feel like I'm in some ways a poor voice for black issues. I'm half-black, but have no immediate family ties to the african-american community (dad's nigerian). And I was raised in a white-mexican household. Which is why I say it's more from a minority stance period. I'm a minority, yes...but my experience diverges in pertinent ways from a black-american one. Experiences vary. I know I'm mentioning that a lot, but I really really want to emphasize that its not a monolithic experience....just as a mormon experience will vary greatly from an 6th gen mormon in rural idaho compared to a 1st gen in india. 

Quote

 

I'm hoping the assumptions about white families being more spiritual and black members treated as converts will fade with time as we see more multi-generational families in the church.  It's harder to hold on to those assumptions when realize you both grew up going to Primary, serving missions, serving in callings, etc. 

There will always be the unintentional slights.  Not really related, but years ago I had an EQ instructor teach a lesson on obedience.  He knew I was single and a menace to society, and after making a particular point in the lesson said, "You wouldn't understand because you aren't married".  His comment had nothing to do with marriage, but apparently I wasn't capable of understanding it.  I laughed it off because I don't think he realized how condescending it sounded.

 

 

I think they will. To clarify, usually when someone is asking how I joined the church, it's in the same light of what we do period when we find someone joined the church a few years ago. An excitement for a new and different story. But it also goes into the novelty category. The problem with this is that we also have a tendency of privileging traditional mormonism and the cultural assumptions tied to it. Because of this the learning process is a bit one way. Though we love a good conversion story, when the minority individual suggests a change that mingles righteous traditions and experience from their past or culture there can be some push back. Not from all, obviously, but some. It's assumed they need to learn the proper expectations of LDS life.

Unintentional slights will happen. I know that. Some days I don't mind as much, but sometimes it's tiring and wears on you. I think it's difficult for some to fully grasp what it's like. There are short periods that people can experience it. Being an older single is one. Being a white minority in another country with a brown majority can be another. But usually the periods are shorter and the experience a little less invasive. This one is one you're born into and it follows the saying of "death by a thousand paper cuts." At best there's just a consistent knowledge that you're different. Sometimes different is good. But sometimes you would like to feel as though you fully belonged and that all of you was acceptable to others. Most days i revel in my differences as I know they've given me a unique perspective that I couldn't have had without my mixed heritage/experience. But some days....notsomuch. And then there's just the numbers differentials. It becomes exhausting to always be the one to "teach" about a topic or to correct comments. You end up picking battles and then I get frustrated that I had to decide to just keep my mouth shut.

Quote

Do you find that white members are uncomfortable or defensive when you discuss issues of race in the church?

Short answer: Yes. But it depends on the person you're having the conversation with and what you're trying to discuss. If they're catch-all common phrases everyone agrees with except for your weird great-uncle larry (we're all to be treated equally, we're all children of God, we should learn from others experience), then it's no biggie. No one is going to get itchy about that. But if it's specifics, then there can be more of a problem.  

I have an internal "vetting" process that I go through when talking to my white friends/members about race. First I don't mention much though I'm usually very forward about my racial identity. I'll usually give some pics about my crazy looking family early on in a friendship. Then, when I'm thinking about something or reading an article, I cautiously bring it up with a lot of building around it and explaining some concerns. When I can tell that they're pretty chill, get it, or are pretty willing to learn more I share more. When it's pretty obvious that's not what's going to happen, I usually take a step back on certain topics. Sometimes I push something if I feel it's really off-base or if there's a topic that really bothers me. But to be honest there are very few white people that I have similar conversations with my brown/black friends and family. With them the conversation usually happens organically and fairly often. We talk/joke about it like we talk about everything else (food, news, the weather, religion, etc) because it's something that's there and commonly effects our lives. I remember a moment recently where I had a (mostly) white person who would make comments that I generally associate minorities making with. It took me a few encounters before it came out that she was a registered native american and all the sudden it made sense. Race talk is that stark of a difference. When brown people talk like they would with other brown/black people in front of whites....it can go poorly. I made that mistake a year or 2 ago with my cohort, saying an off-hand comment in my race/gender masters class (that was all LDS, minus the TA). The mostly white class was becoming more racially aware and I got comfortable, said something that most minorities would go "yup, sounds right"...and then offended several of them by it. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Rivers]

There's an interracial couple in my ward and nobody bats an eye.  I call that progress.

[bcuzbcuz]

19 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

IBCUZBCUZ:

It is called naming rights. Canada was still part of the British Empire when America was born.

"44 - 40 or fight"? Yes?

Or when the "United States" and a thing they called manifest destiny would mean that the whole North American continent, or at least, the parts that interested them the most, was considered "More United States than anything else".

The title is nevertheless, The United States  OF  America., North America. Canadians are equally North Americans as are any United Statesians.

[gopher]

18 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

We had mormonnewb come through here raking us over the coals, other than that it's just a broom to whack us over the head with for the antis and the left wingers inside the Church. Many like to compare the ban to our LGBT stance, if the prophets were wrong about the ban then they could be wrong about SSM. Oops, sorry I went there. The fact is the essay doesn't say the ban was wrong, it says the reasons listed are wrong.

-10 points for you!  I see many more differences than similarities with SSM so I wanted to leave it out of the discussion.

I went back and read some of mormonnewb's comments.  I see what you mean.  Not sure what he was attempting to accomplish.

[CV75]

On 6/17/2016 at 9:18 AM, gopher said:

Seriously, we can stop touching the hair of our black members?  It seems to be a real problem.

While embarrassing to see where we expect ourselves to be more sophisticated, I'm not sure how widespread this particular problem is on a global basis. I did observe, on my mission, children daring each other to touch a Sister's red hair (thinking it would burn their fingers), and adults asking if an Elder could see at night because his eyes were blue. Were they racists, or is it racist to be forgiving of their lack of sophistication?

[USU78]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Silly me, cinepro.  I thought that you were being sarcastic.  Sorry.

My take as well