1st Pres. and NAACP

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think the ban kept people who otherwise wouldn't be racist more willing to accept racism.

Maybe so. That right there is enough to apologise for. 

[cinepro]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

If the priesthood ban was wrong in 1978, why wasn’t it wrong in 1949?  

As I've pointed out before, that's another aspect of the ban that doesn't make sense (at least from a "God did it" perspective).  Why would the black people on Earth in 1977 not be worthy of the Temple and Priesthood blessings, but those same people in 1979 were?  Were there some people who died in early 1978 that God was waiting for to rescind the ban, and instead of just telling President Kimball who those specific people were, He left the ban in place until they died?  What other explanation could there be?

Ultimately, it's great that we're moving beyond the theories involving ancient curses and valiance in the pre-existence, but the reason those theories gained traction is because they gave some idea of rationality as the basis for the ban (according to LDS Doctrines).  If you get rid of the rational explanations but don't replace them with anything else, then the only explanation you have left is that it was Brigham's mistake.

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

I think the ban kept people who otherwise wouldn't be racist more willing to accept racism.

Once you realize that "racism" isn't some inherent condition, but is taught, then the logical question would be "Why were LDS racist?"  I don't know for sure, but I suspect being taught that black people were cursed and not worthy of entering the Temples or holding the Priesthood would do it.

Edited May 20, 2018 by cinepro

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, cinepro said:

As I've pointed out before, that's another aspect of the ban that doesn't make sense (at least from a "God did it" perspective).  Why would the black people on Earth in 1977 not be worthy of the Temple and Priesthood blessings, but those same people in 1979 were?  Were there some people who died in early 1978 that God was waiting for to rescind the ban, and instead of just telling President Kimball who those specific people were, He left the ban in place until they died?  What other explanation could there be?

Ultimately, it's great that we're moving beyond the theories involving ancient curses and valiance in the pre-existence, but the reason those theories gained traction is because they gave some idea of rationality as the basis for the ban (according to LDS Doctrines).  If you get rid of the rational explanations but don't replace them with anything else, then the only explanation you have left is that it was Brigham's mistake.

I agree.  It doesn't prove that the ban could not have been from God, but it does argue against the previous reason for the ban.  A blanket reversal where suddenly every male is potentially worthy to receive the priesthood doesn't work if the ban existed because every individual black people was less valiant in the pre-existence.  

[Jeanne]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe so. That right here is enough to apologise for. 

I agree.  From perspectives of my grandparents..God seem to say they were less than..and so it was okay for them to be rather racist...in which it affected my parents...and on ..and on..this was so wrong on many levels. 

Edited to add::  I don't share this with a lot of people..but I will share with all of you.  In kindergarten  I got sent to the corner..a black student was hitting my head for a little attention..I turned around and called him a nigger...I had no idea what I had done wrong.😒  As I grew up...i wish so much that I could take that horrible memory away.  But I knew nothing else...and it fit right in with what I was taught around the house/church conversations.  So ashamed.  I am so sorry who ever you are ...

Edited May 20, 2018 by Jeanne

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I agree.  From perspectives of my grandparents..God seem to say they were less than..and so it was okay for them to be rather racist...in which it affected my parents...and on ..and on..this was so wrong on many levels. 

Edited to add::  I don't share this with a lot of people..but I will share with all of you.  In kindergarten  I got sent to the corner..a black student was hitting my head for a little attention..I turned around and called him a nigger...I had no idea what I had done wrong.😒  As I grew up...i wish so much that I could take that horrible memory away.  But I knew nothing else...and it fit right in with what I was taught around the house/church conversations.  So ashamed.  I am so sorry who ever you are ...

Don't know how old you are but my own grandmother (who was from the south by the way) called them the N word and she was not a church member at the time. I remember telling her that they don't like to be called that and she said well that's what we always called them as if it were a matter of fact. It's not the church that started racism, it's the slave traders and owners that treated them as if they were cattle to be bought and sold.
That stigma took a long time to be overcome by most people. And Bible believing Christians back then used the convenient scriptures about Cain in the Bible to justify how they treated them. 
Just wanted to emphasize that the LDS church was not as bad as some other religions. In the early days of the church there were no segregated congregations as there were among other Christian religions.

 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I agree.  From perspectives of my grandparents..God seem to say they were less than..and so it was okay for them to be rather racist...in which it affected my parents...and on ..and on..this was so wrong on many levels. 

Edited to add::  I don't share this with a lot of people..but I will share with all of you.  In kindergarten  I got sent to the corner..a black student was hitting my head for a little attention..I turned around and called him a nigger...I had no idea what I had done wrong.😒  As I grew up...i wish so much that I could take that horrible memory away.  But I knew nothing else...and it fit right in with what I was taught around the house/church conversations.  So ashamed.  I am so sorry who ever you are ...

I did a terrible thing once, I learned a saying in my youth that to ride in the back was riding "nigger". And my siblings would sometimes fight not to sit in the back and they would say this. I almost said it when going to lunch with some fellow employees  when I was a young adult and everyone was picking their spots in the car, one of them was black. I think I caught myself midsentence. But I still think of that time with sadness. Also, my brother would have a saying and say either 'eat like a white man' or to do something like a white man. And my little brother had a black friend over one day and we were all eating pizza or something and this was what was said to my little brother, but hopefully his friend didn't hear it. 

 

[Jeanne]

50 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Don't know how old you are but my own grandmother (who was from the south by the way) called them the N word and she was not a church member at the time. I remember telling her that they don't like to be called that and she said well that's what we always called them as if it were a matter of fact. It's not the church that started racism, it's the slave traders and owners that treated them as if they were cattle to be bought and sold.
That stigma took a long time to be overcome by most people. And Bible believing Christians back then used the convenient scriptures about Cain in the Bible to justify how they treated them. 
Just wanted to emphasize that the LDS church was not as bad as some other religions. In the early days of the church there were no segregated congregations as there were among other Christian religions.

 

I very much agree..The church is not responsible for the name calling or identity that has I hope evolved...which is why with the Church named after the Savior should have been one of the first to set a shining light on what was referenced back then.The church is responsible for good examples of what the Savior taught.  It wasn't just this church though.  It is a shame all the way around..the point is some think the church should apologize..(I do) and some don't.  But if I could have a moment for all the things I have said and done to speak to each one of these people...I would apologize my heart out.

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

As I've pointed out before, that's another aspect of the ban that doesn't make sense (at least from a "God did it" perspective).  Why would the black people on Earth in 1977 not be worthy of the Temple and Priesthood blessings, but those same people in 1979 were?  Were there some people who died in early 1978 that God was waiting for to rescind the ban, and instead of just telling President Kimball who those specific people were, He left the ban in place until they died?  What other explanation could there be?

Ultimately, it's great that we're moving beyond the theories involving ancient curses and valiance in the pre-existence, but the reason those theories gained traction is because they gave some idea of rationality as the basis for the ban (according to LDS Doctrines).  If you get rid of the rational explanations but don't replace them with anything else, then the only explanation you have left is that it was Brigham's mistake.

This is poor logic. It is the same as saying why were the children of Israel the only covenant people prior to the Jesus Christ and then afterward everyone else could be.  There mere fact that there are differences at different times does not indicate an inconsistency.  All you have identified is that it was different. 

The bottom line is if you want to find a problem it does not matter the reason - you will find it and hang your hat on it.

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

This is poor logic. It is the same as saying why were the children of Israel the only covenant people prior to the Jesus Christ and then afterward everyone else could be.  There mere fact that there are differences at different times does not indicate an inconsistency.  All you have identified is that it was different. 

The bottom line is if you want to find a problem it does not matter the reason - you will find it and hang your hat on it.

I think it is you that has the flawed logic.  There is a difference between a group of people who feel their tribe is somehow special and all others are excluded from it.  For example, the indians won't anyone become an indian that is not born into an indian tribe.  

The priesthood ban was completely different.  It is excluding a group simply because of their race when every other race in the world could hold the priesthood.  

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

I very much agree..The church is not responsible for the name calling or identity that has I hope evolved...which is why with the Church named after the Savior should have been one of the first to set a shining light on what was referenced back then.The church is responsible for good examples of what the Savior taught.  It wasn't just this church though.  It is a shame all the way around..the point is some think the church should apologize..(I do) and some don't.  But if I could have a moment for all the things I have said and done to speak to each one of these people...I would apologize my heart out.

Interesting to note that President Hinckley actually did offer an apology to an individual pastor back in 2012:

"Just before Pastor Murray came to BYU, he met with Gordon B. Hinckley. In that meeting, President Hinckley offered him an apology for the LDS Church's participation in slavery and in racism—using the same spirit Pastor Murray had urged me to use when I approached my angry son. In truth, Dr. Murray himself had some cause for anger; he had personally been confronted by the past Mormon teaching that Blacks were cursed."

This is the tribute Pastor Murray paid to his fellow pastor, President Gordon B. Hinckley:
"President Hinckley is a true messenger of our Lord. Two years ago, I was invited to Salt Lake City by the LDS Church, and President Hinckley took his personal time to sit with our small group that was touring the many ministries and apologized to me in front of the group. That was amazing! Now the [LDS] Church pushes Blacks to learn their lineage via the Church. That will open eyes and doors that will open new avenues of life."

Pastor to Pastor: President Hinckley's Apology for Racism in the Church

Edited May 21, 2018 by JAHS

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 5/20/2018 at 10:23 AM, Exiled said:

So, how should we comment on this thread if not giving our own opinions on how we view this issue?

By all means, we should be giving our own opinions. Where we get into trouble is when we presume that an entire group of people would validate our opinions. Share away!

Quote

If there are any african-american brothers and sisters viewing this thread, please comment.  I know I would like to hear about their views on this subject.

Absolutely! We need to hear from them, in all their diversity, and from other Black African Saints who aren't 'African-Americans', including many from other parts of the Americas,* many from Africa, and many from other parts of the world.

-----

*I sometimes think that Americans forget that the slave trade to the US was a tiny fraction of the entire African slave trade. Brazil and the Caribbean islands were the main destinations.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

20 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I apologize.

No worries. I just wanted to reiterate the diversity of views in the Church, even amongst 'faithful members'. We all sometimes make totalising statements.

Quote

However,  this doctrinal ban was offensive to many people who are not black, even though it only affected black people.

Yes, absolutely. And we need to hear from them too. In fact, I'd be willing to say that the priesthood ban affected more than black people. It certainly impacted me, though in a relatively very minor way.

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Can you quantify the term “many” in your claim that “many of whom share none of the above.”

Nope. Hence the use of a vague term.

Quote

Just how “many” black members do you presume to speak on behalf of?

I'm not speaking on behalf of any black Saints. I just know that those whom I know best harbour no resentment and therefore desire no apology. (Which, I should stress, is not necessarily a superior response.) They deserve to be remembered in this conversation too. Please note that the first chance I got, I approached my housemate for his personal comment. I wrote it out as he spoke it. He deserves to be heard as much as anyone else.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 hours ago, Gray said:

There's a long ugly history of white people (or non black people) using "my black friend" to deflect criticism from supporting something racist.

Are you so desperate to impose a monvocality upon the diversity of black Saints that you're willing to accuse me of falsifying my housemate and/or his words?

Edited May 21, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I think it is you that has the flawed logic.  There is a difference between a group of people who feel their tribe is somehow special and all others are excluded from it.  For example, the indians won't anyone become an indian that is not born into an indian tribe.  

The priesthood ban was completely different.  It is excluding a group simply because of their race when every other race in the world could hold the priesthood.  

So Cal, Israelites condemned everyone else simply because of their race - if you want to call them racist that works for me.  Indians, as you provide an example is slightly different - if I am born into a specific tribe of people then I am a specific tribe of people - I suppose that is racist if one chooses to be extreme but given today's society penchant for identifying all things as racist....until it comes to one of their sacred cows and then everything is hunky-dory.  

Are you trying to say the Israelites were genetically different than everyone that surrounded them? If so, CFR.  If not, and they were similar to at least one other group living near to them, then why is it different?  

[Duncan]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I did a terrible thing once, I learned a saying in my youth that to ride in the back was riding "nigger". And my siblings would sometimes fight not to sit in the back and they would say this. I almost said it when going to lunch with some fellow employees  when I was a young adult and everyone was picking their spots in the car, one of them was black. I think I caught myself midsentence. But I still think of that time with sadness. Also, my brother would have a saying and say either 'eat like a white man' or to do something like a white man. And my little brother had a black friend over one day and we were all eating pizza or something and this was what was said to my little brother, but hopefully his friend didn't hear it. 

 

when my mum was little they had a black dog named "nigger" and what is more they had a cow named "darkie", today obviously they wouldn't call them those things!

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

So Cal, Israelites condemned everyone else simply because of their race - if you want to call them racist that works for me.  Indians, as you provide an example is slightly different - if I am born into a specific tribe of people then I am a specific tribe of people - I suppose that is racist if one chooses to be extreme but given today's society penchant for identifying all things as racist....until it comes to one of their sacred cows and then everything is hunky-dory.  

Are you trying to say the Israelites were genetically different than everyone that surrounded them? If so, CFR.  If not, and they were similar to at least one other group living near to them, then why is it different?  

Boy, did you completely misread my post.  Never called iseralites racists. Never said Israelites condemned everyone else simply because of their race.  Never said that being born into a tribe makes you a racists. . Your CFR is bogus. Of course Israelites were different than others around them. That’s why they were called Israelites. It doesn’t mean they were a different ethnic group.

‘You have some very strange views on who you consider racists. Any group who excludes everyone from joining their group are not racists. Any group who excludes a particular person because of the color of their skin is a racists.  

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Boy, did you completely misread my post.  Never called iseralites racists. Never said Israelites condemned everyone else simply because of their race.  Never said that being born into a tribe makes you a racists. . Your CFR is bogus. Of course Israelites were different than others around them. That’s why they were called Israelites. It doesn’t mean they were a different ethnic group.

‘You have some very strange views on who you consider racists. Any group who excludes everyone from joining their group are not racists. Any group who excludes a particular person because of the color of their skin is a racists.  

The Left is very good at branding others as racist when it suits their agenda. The definition of racism is:  "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." You have accused the Church of being racist because of who was allowed to hold the priesthood and who was not allowed to hold the priesthood. 

Oh, forget it.  This is really not worth talking about.  The definition speaks for itself though it is often used only when it suits the accuser and has little to do with the actual definition.  

[Gray]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Are you so desperate to impose a monvocality upon the diversity of black Saints that you're willing to accuse me of falsifying my housemate and/or his words?

Nope, not at all.  Black people aren't a monolith (neither is any other group). The thought of you lying never crossed my mind.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The Left is very good at branding others as racist when it suits their agenda. The definition of racism is:  "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." You have accused the Church of being racist because of who was allowed to hold the priesthood and who was not allowed to hold the priesthood. 

Oh, forget it.  This is really not worth talking about.  The definition speaks for itself though it is often used only when it suits the accuser and has little to do with the actual definition.  

 

 

Quote

 

Definition of racism

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles

b : a political or social system founded on racism

3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

 

 

And of course the rhetoric used to support the ban included all kind of statements alleging the inferiority of black folks compared to others. Either way you slice it, the ban was racist.

[pogi]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Boy, did you completely misread my post.  Never called iseralites racists. Never said Israelites condemned everyone else simply because of their race.  Never said that being born into a tribe makes you a racists. . Your CFR is bogus. Of course Israelites were different than others around them. That’s why they were called Israelites. It doesn’t mean they were a different ethnic group.

‘You have some very strange views on who you consider racists. Any group who excludes everyone from joining their group are not racists. Any group who excludes a particular person because of the color of their skin is a racists.  

Technically, you are correct.  It is not racist to exclude other ethnicities.  The correct term for that is ethnicism.  Is one really better or worse then another?  Erhnicism was responsible for the Rwandan genocide. 

They are both discrimination based on differences, so I think storm rider makes a valid point.

One day Cornelius could not be baptized because he was a gentile, the next day he was able to be baptized because of a revelation.  That is a fair comparison.

Edited May 21, 2018 by pogi

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

Technically, you are correct.  It is not racist to exclude other ethnicities.  The correct term for that is ethnicism.  Is one really better or worse then another?  Erhnicism was responsible for the Rwandan genocide. 

They are both discrimination based on differences, so I think storm rider makes a valid point.

One day Cornelius could not be baptized because he was a gentile, the next day he was able to be baptized because of a revelation.  That is a fair comparison.

Israel didn't exclude other ethnicities. Neither did the early Christians before their revelation about the gentiles.

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

Israel didn't exclude other ethnicities. Neither did the early Christians before their revelation about the gentiles.

Then why the need for a revelation?  It was to include them was it not?

If ethnicism was as much a curse word back then as racism is today, Jesus would have been accused of being an ethnicist.  He didn’t even allow the gospel to be taught to them, comparing them to “dogs”.  They were definitely excluded and willing to at least eat from the crumbs that the Christians were feasting on. 

Then suddenly, a revelation changed everything.

Edited May 21, 2018 by pogi

[stemelbow]

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 6:50 AM, Gray said:

I think the ban kept people who otherwise wouldn't be racist more willing to accept racism.

I still recall years ago my mother-in-law telling me of her experience when the ban was lifted.  I know the painting is everyone cheered.  She was astounded that the opposite reaction was demonstrated in her circles.  Her old college friends called up, some crying as if their world was coming down.  "is this the end?" they worried.  "how could they have done this if the end is not yet?"  And that made sense since BY's revelations and all since then suggested the ban would be lifted when all the other of God's children had the priesthood and it's ordinances.  Those who cheered, were happy it was the end of the world, or were ignorant of prophetic utterances on the matter.  Now all these years later we're told every Mormon cheered at the announcement, and there was no worry or question.  

Ok.  I'm not so quick to say racism was cleaned from the church in one fell swoop.  It was ingrained.  I know because I have an adopted black child.  We've seen it since the adoption.  Particularly from the older generations.