Racism in LDS theology - come on, guys

[juliann]

In fact, I believe both are clearly talking about the appearance done to these people due to the physical challenges they were facing ie. famine and heat. I don't see anything due to God cursing someone with a dark skin to make them less attractive. Thank you

And this is what we come to expect...as I said in an earlier post: "Nothing is accepted...ever. I have put up countless quotes that they claim don't exist. If they have to acknowledge them..well, it wasn't said in the right way...or it wasn't good enough for them."

You were given a verse that related to sin and said no more and no less than anything in the BOM. You ignored that one so you could come to the conclusion you started with.

[juliann]

I'm not sure where "withholding information" became excusing, or where anyone is withholding information - besides the focus on the historical views.

Did I miss something? Have any of the naysayers provided a recent quote from a church leader? If not...they are withholding information. I don't think it gets more complicated that than. They have no shortage of old quotes that everyone acknowledges as ugly...but they won't put up the positive. Why is that and if it is not withholding...what is it?

Does any of this make sense?

I don't doubt the reactions you listed at all. What I take issue with is the hypocrisy in holding one church's feet to the fire and giving the rest a pass. If women, blacks or anyone else who has been oppressed want to excuse themselves from something because of past attitudes...more power to them. But do be consistent or you are guilty of prejudice. I have never understood why those who scream "racism" cannot see the inherent racism in their ugly accusations.

The first form which the transformation of democratic values takes in relating these values to the Negro is that of the substitution of the mass for the individual.

[1dc]

Hi 1DC...

www.lds.org and

a. go to D&C, OD2

. . .

You seem to suggest that you believe the ban (DotPBoL) was not of God... am I correct in this assumption?

I tend to go with the thought in this talk.

http://www.blacklds.org/Perkins.html

A simple summary is: We do not know.

Do you know of a statement by the brethren that would suggest this?

I tend to rely on this:

"We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children . . " From OD2

One interpretation of *has now made known" is that is wasn't completely known previously . . . and of course there are others . . .

IMO, most if not all of the prior quotes you were given were attempts to explain what was accepted rather than known. Unless we have a vision telling us exactly what God said and what was in a prophet's heart, I don't know how we will *know* what is not known today.

There is much material at www.blacklds.org for one who desires to strengthen their personal testimony on this topic. In the first paragraph Bro. Perkins quotes the Prophet. Believe him or don't.

Edit to add: the GBH quote is the first paragraph under "The Restored Gospel" which is where he starts the meat of his message.

[Moksha]

I think the only LDS now who are still closet racists are the fundamentalists. Those who understand the evolution of Mankind, probably recognize the deviation of pale skin from that of God. Don't worry though, God is not a racist.

Is the failure of the LDS Church to admit that they flubbed up on their racial policy an institutional failing, or just something that arises out of the fear of Church leaders that it would not be faith promoting to tell the truth?

If so, is this apologetics at its worse or just apologetics?

[juliann]

Is the failure of the LDS Church to admit that they flubbed up on their racial policy an institutional failing, or just something that arises out of the fear of Church leaders that it would not be faith promoting to tell the truth? 

As 1dc said,

There is much material at www.blacklds.org for one who desires to strengthen their personal testimony on this topic. In the first paragraph Bro. Perkins quotes the Prophet. Believe him or don't.

(Even though we are supposed to all be a homogenized mass, I like this http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2003MauA.html )

[Tchild2]

http://www.blacklds.org/Mckay.html

Thanks for the link Juliann, I did find a very moderate tone in the in the exchange and selection of quotes. I did have a few questions based on the link:

"I think the Mormon people deserve to know what he said on the subject," Dr. McMurrin said. "It was a position which, in my opinion, did justice to his very real greatness as a leader and shows his wisdom in insisting this would be interpreted as a practical issue and not as a doctrinal issue."

What is the "practical" issue? As a side not and something to ruminate on, if something of this magnitude can be based on practicalities, why wouldn't every decision affecting the church and its well being be any different?

As to the practice of barring Negroes from the priesthood in the church, Dr. McMurrin quotes President McKay as saying:

"We believe that we have scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the Negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine and the practice will some day be changed. And that's all there is to it." Again, what is the scriptural precedent (Which scripture(s) is it?).

and then this at the end of the page:

In remarks Wednesday, Dr. McMurrin said he was "not optimistic" that Negroes would be admitted to the priesthood in the near future.

Why not, as the expediency of denying blacks the priesthood to "placate anti-negro forces" had ended by almost a century? (see final statement)

But, he said, "It is much less difficult to make a change on a ground that is not regarded as doctrinal, but is regarded as essentially a matter of practice that has arisen out of a variety of practical circumstances."

What circumstances, and if they are related to issues surrounding the divisions and politics during the civil war, why the century long delay to rectify these "practicalities".

In Missouri during the 1830s, Dr. McMurrin said, the Mormons extended full fellowship in the church to Negroes--including the priesthood. The church started out very forward thinking in the early days.

But in an attempt to placate anti-Negro forces, he continued, they later compromised their pro-Negro position and extended only partial fellowship to Negroes, barring them from the priesthood.To me this is a very telling statement about the church. Seems that men are running the show, not God.

It is Dr. McMurrin's position that the Mormons then turned to scriptural precedent to justify barring Negroes from the priesthood.

So we have a religious body that purports to be a direct conduit to God and the effectuating of his ordinances for the salvation of mankind, "winging it"? We have a religious body justifying its non doctrinal decision to deny blacks the priesthood by abusing the very scriptures it has delegated itself power to interpret for mankind's spiritual welfare? How did the church justify on the grounds of "practical" means, the priesthood to potentially millions of human beings without a revelation by God directing them (the church) to do so?

Juliann - Let me ask you. Where is God and his will directing his church in any of that exchange?

[juliann]

Tc....I can't answer to the article on McKay. I just think that it is important to realize that there was not and probably never has been a unified opinon or approach to this. I have studied this issue more than most...I have collected a small library on race. And all I can say is exactly what our leaders now say..."I don't know". I can guess....and my guess is that it was a "perfect storm" situation for Mormons when this all came together in the early years when it was a risk on top of too many risks to continue to accept blacks...not to mention that they had no way of pulling out of the worldview of the day. People get these pie in the sky ideas that there were these other worldly people running around who thought blacks were equal. Even abolitionists would be called racists today. Once it was all said and done...I just think that no one questioned it. Why would they in a society that thought blacks were not fully human that slowly evolved into a society where blacks were kept in separate schools? Add that to the process of policy change...everyone at the table has to agree. It only takes one guy to stonewall and there were evidently a couple.

This all comes down to the usual...what is a prophet? Mormon theology allows for this kind of thing...in fact, it expects it. As Nighthawke says...we do not believe in a God who micromanages. We never have yet everyone crashes against our windows demanding that we do. Believe me...from the inside it looks pretty bizarre to have such anamosity directed to what we are while we are being told to be "better" at what we are hated for.

There is not one complaint against Mormonism that does not end with "false prophet!" That is really the only issue....everything else is just a means to get there. And once we are there....it always ends in the same demand...God has to be nothing more than a puppeteer and we are lip synching puppets. The problem is...we don't believe that is what God does.

[juliann]

Also....I think I am safe in saying that we would all agree that Mormons have a penchant for trying to explain everything and that most of this creepy stuff came about from trying to make sense of the nonsensical. So now we are left with the stupid reasons "why" when the issue no longer exists. I don't think it matters what anybody says or does...folklore has a lifespan of its own and it will take a generation before it meets well deserved oblivion. The best way to combat it is up close and personal...it only takes one person in each ward to shut it down. And that is more effective than ten conference talks.

[Corky Wallace]

Hi Juliann,

A couple of responses:

- Do you expect a comprehensive analysis & inventory of racism in other religions before racism among LDS can be discussed? I'm not sure a paper on Hindu treatment of the "untouchables" is appropo for this board, and given space & time contraints, is every post expected to be balanced?

(How ironic would it be if some Hindu apologetics website cites the statute in Bountiful, UT against Negroes spending the night within the city limits as evidence the Hindu caste system isn't really that bad.... "See, we're not the only ones!")

- Speaking of balance & fairness, is the table of LDS black history (you provided a link for) expected to be accepted as balanced, comprehensive & fair? While there is mention of Brigham Young denying Green Flake his request to go to the SL temple, it seems there is a lot of the less flattering history that has been omitted.

The baptisms of early black Mormons are noted, and this is certainly positive, but there isn't a similar listing of other churches' positive treatment of blacks (which would be consistent with your demands of LDS critics to provide a fair & balanced view of others in the same period).

I'm just trying to adhere to your standards outlined for discussing these issues.

[juliann]

- Do you expect a comprehensive analysis & inventory of racism in other religions before racism among LDS can be discussed? 

Does what I said earlier need more explanation? "What I take issue with is the hypocrisy in holding one church's feet to the fire and giving the rest a pass. If women, blacks or anyone else who has been oppressed want to excuse themselves from something because of past attitudes...more power to them. But do be consistent or you are guilty of prejudice."

Accusations are not discussion .....no one starts out a discussion by slinging the most inflammatory label possible.

- Speaking of balance & fairness, is the table of LDS black history (you provided a link for) expected to be accepted as balanced, comprehensive & fair?

[Blink]

"What I take issue with is the hypocrisy in holding one church's feet to the fire and giving the rest a pass.

One would think that the guys running God's own church by the power of God himself and with discernment appropriate for God's own church would actually get God's own doctrines the way God wants them.

We really need to do something about that static in the line of communication between the prophet and God. Maybe it wasn't that men were to have multiple wives, but that women were to have multiple husbands!

[Corky Wallace]

Juliann,

On a more sincere & constructive note, and taking you up on your question of how I might add items to your timeline, you might want to consider adding a few more timelines on other religions' objections to slavery. (If you don't manage that web page, I could lookup the webmaster, I suppose.)

Specifically a note about Anabaptist / Mennonite opposition to slavery in the Americas as early as 1683.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav3.htm

I understand it is a page about LDS black history, but there is a smattering of entries about other religions views on race & slavery, so this entry might be appropriate.

Sincerely (no more animus for today),

CW

[GravyBoat]

I must question why some people will reference how much their bishop was a jerk and use that as evidence that the Church doesn't follow God. Who was it that mentioned about the members bringing papers to them about he/she marrying a black person? The Church mustn't be true because of some dopey members; when this comes up, I recommend, "Well, if it is the member's fault, wouldn't it be the GA's responsibility to tell them otherwise?" That might produce more results.

Besides, if the "office holders being jerks" dilemma worked, then I would've left long ago--my grandfather was a stake president, and he had an affair with his secretary over where he worked.

[Corky Wallace]

Hey Gravy,

I think that impression people get is based on what they were taught growing up.

When I was young I was taught that living righteously would result in being closer to the spirit, etc, and that God selects the leaders in his church based on their adherence to his commandments, etc.

When some scandal erupts and a bishop / SP is caught porking his secretary around the same time he has been performing sacred ordinances, performing patriarchal blessings, giving tearful testimonies about his knowledge that the Church is true, then I think it is reasonable for some folks to think "wait a minute - does this mean all the rhetoric coming out of his mouth was hocus-pocus and the ordinances he performed were bogus?"

It seems a lot of people get caught up believing that the Lord / HG intervenes and sends pretty detailed communications to people, and the nice feeling they get is proof of righteouness occurring in their midst, when this isn't necessarily the case.

When I was a kid I remember many, many sermons about how LDS were God's chosen people in these last days, and how blessed we were to be living among the Saints, where righteouness prevails, etc, and when a member of the bishopric was convicted of fraud, where some of the members of the ward lost their homes in an investment ponzi scheme, it is understandable that some folks are going to question what they were taught in church, even question the nice warm feeling they got in previously thinking that the ward was composed almost exclusively of righteous people who were going to the Celestial Kingdom together, especially the leaders of the ward.

[GravyBoat]

When some scandal erupts and a bishop / SP is caught porking his secretary

That's my grandpa you're talking about--I don't like what he did, but that's no reason to talk down to him in front of me, if you don't mind.

Anyway, as far as my parents taught me, it was that the people around me are inspired, but there are still plenty who aren't good people. And as far as getting the "everyone is good and righteous" vibe, I must admit that while many have said that we're a good people (something that can be easily defended considering the morale in our public schools), I've never felt that anywhere wherever I've been.

Considering I lived in the poor sections of rich and snobby LDS wards for 13 years, I think I know a thing or two about superficial delusion. If they referred to the members of a ward, they did it for good reason: the counterpoint would be malicious. Ask a parent whether negative reinforcement or positive reinforcement works best on children; for another perspective, ask an employer what boosts worker morale.

But my little rant is getting tangential. Weren't we talking about Blacks and the Priesthood?

[Confidential Informant]

One would think that the guys running God's own church by the power of God himself and with discernment appropriate for God's own church would actually get God's own doctrines the way God wants them.

And why would "one" think this? What model of prophecy can you show where this was ever the case? Certainly not the Old or New Testaments. So tell me, Blink, from whence do you get the idea that prophets are supposed to be ahead of the social curve on the pressing issues of the day? It isn't a scriptural idea, which tells me that it's really just your own personal view of what a prophet should be/do/behave, etc. Since your view has no basis in recorded prophetic history, I see no reason your view should be given an weight.

We really need to do something about that static in the line of communication between the prophet and God.

This is your first error, the idea that there is some sort of high-speed, always-on Internet connection between the prophet and God. Again, nothing in scripture, ancient or modern, ever indicates that this is the case. Therefore, why you should assume it is the case is unfathomable.

Maybe it wasn't that men were to have multiple wives, but that women were to have multiple husbands!

Except that the practice you refer to has a prophetic history and biblical roots. Thus, that idea is defensible. Your ideas about the ever socially progressive, infallible prophet do not.

C.I.

[YH8]

One would think that the guys running God's own church by the power of God himself and with discernment appropriate for God's own church would actually get God's own doctrines the way God wants them.

And why would "one" think this? What model of prophecy can you show where this was ever the case? Certainly not the Old or New Testaments. So tell me, Blink, from whence do you get the idea that prophets are supposed to be ahead of the social curve on the pressing issues of the day? It isn't a scriptural idea, which tells me that it's really just your own personal view of what a prophet should be/do/behave, etc. Since your view has no basis in recorded prophetic history, I see no reason your view should be given an weight.

We really need to do something about that static in the line of communication between the prophet and God.

This is your first error, the idea that there is some sort of high-speed, always-on Internet connection between the prophet and God. Again, nothing in scripture, ancient or modern, ever indicates that this is the case. Therefore, why you should assume it is the case is unfathomable.

Maybe it wasn't that men were to have multiple wives, but that women were to have multiple husbands!

Except that the practice you refer to has a prophetic history and biblical roots. Thus, that idea is defensible. Your ideas about the ever socially progressive, infallible prophet do not.

C.I.

C.I.,

You seem to be assuming that a person that has these kinds of views of God would agree that they should care about learning how God acts and that this information could possibly be found outside of them. Unfortunately, they are more interested in holding God to their own personal standard of how God should be. It is always interesting to see people act as if God is subject to humans and how they decide there is no God because God doesn't (may not) act the way they think God should act.

I wonder if these types will give their children whatever they want.

[YH8]

When I was a kid I remember many, many sermons about how LDS were God's chosen people in these last days, and how blessed we were to be living among the Saints, where righteouness prevails, etc, and when a member of the bishopric was convicted of fraud, where some of the members of the ward lost their homes in an investment ponzi scheme, it is understandable that some folks are going to question what they were taught in church, even question the nice warm feeling they got in previously thinking that the ward was composed almost exclusively of righteous people who were going to the Celestial Kingdom together, especially the leaders of the ward.

Cynical?

Could these things happen and the Church still be true? If you are requiring perfection on the part of a believer, then you must be atheist?

[Confidential Informant]

C.I.,

You seem to be assuming that a person that has these kinds of views of God would agree that they should care about learning how God acts and that this information could possibly be found outside of them. Unfortunately, they are more interested in holding God to their own personal standard of how God should be. It is always interesting to see people act as if God is subject to humans and how they decide there is no God because God doesn't (may not) act the way they think God should act.

You see this all the time. It usually starts with the phrase, "Well, I could never believe in a God that allows (add your preferred catastrophe here) to happen."

God is not a cafeteria. You don't get to pick and chose what theoretical aspects of His personality that you'll believe in while rejecting the rest.

C.I.

[YH8]

C.I.,

You seem to be assuming that a person that has these kinds of views of God would agree that they should care about learning how God acts and that this information could possibly be found outside of them. Unfortunately, they are more interested in holding God to their own personal standard of how God should be. It is always interesting to see people act as if God is subject to humans and how they decide there is no God because God doesn't (may not) act the way they think God should act.

You see this all the time. It usually starts with the phrase, "Well, I could never believe in a God that allows (add your preferred catastrophe here) to happen."

God is not a cafeteria. You don't get to pick and chose what theoretical aspects of His personality that you'll believe in while rejecting the rest.

C.I.

I love a quote from Daniel Peterson that I used to use in my signature line:

. . . many twenty-first century Americans seem to have lost the sense of awe and reverence when in the presence of the divine, and have come to think of God merely as their ever-supportive non-judgmental pal . . .

- Daniel Peterson

[Corky Wallace]

Hi YH8,

I'm neither an adherent to any organized religion nor am I an atheist. Religions are very much human organizations, in my experience & observation, otherwise we would have the kind of high-speed, accurate connection to God that has been taught in some LDS wardhouses in the past (and other religions I'm sure, too).

Alas, we don't. We're muddling through the best we can, in our own styles.

I'm an "optimistic agnostic", kind of a Deist. When people begin to speak for God, bad things frequently happen. That's my view, anyway.

Confidential Informant:

When you have my view of religion, God does become a kind of cafeteria. What God would you like to worship & commune with?

Like the early Christian Gnostics, I think the God of the Old Testament was one mean, ornery, vindictive being. Certainly the message of Jesus is much more palatable. In my experience, the Native American view of the "Great Spirit" / Creator is very nice, along with some parts of eastern religions.

- No fatwahs.

- No discrimination

- No codes of conduct that read like a tax code

- just learn to love your fellow humans. Simple, yet comprehensive & encompassing.

Different strokes & folks...

[rpn]

As I read this thread, I think if the complete history of the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ was known, there would be plenty of examples of absolutely unChristlike examples of behavior. And some such behaviors obviously continue to to this day. All of which challenge people's testimony of God, prophets, and various gospel principles. Although none are actually relevant to our salvation and exaltation.

I think it is quite instructive for us to know that Utah's territorial legislature chose to make Utah a slave state after the Missouri Compromise; that people were converted to the gospel and willingly moved to SLC while continuing to hold slaves (and in some documented instances actually continuing whippings and rape) --- which to us seems quite incomprehensible; that a black man was lynched in 1884 "in the shadow of the temple" (from Deseret News account) after he shot a popular former bishop/lawman, by a huge mob, including many of the bishop's ward members --- an act that Joseph F. Smith decried at the funeral but which none of the mob were criminally convicted; that after the lynching, the church sent Elijah Able, a black man who held the priesthood, on a mission to the northeast; that some who had black ancestry (but didn't necessarily look like it) were given their endowments in the Endowment House.

It would not stretch incredulity to believe that even church leaders were influenced by their own upbringings and their unfamiliarity with real slave life. After all, it wasn't until Uncle Tom's Cabin was widely read that Northerners were disabused of the commonly touted view that slaves liked being slaves and were laboring willingly for their masters. And all Christian faiths at the time used Biblical phrases to excuse their acceptance of slavery. Even Abraham Lincoln said that if he could think of a way to preserve the Union without setting slaves free, he would do it --- and Abraham Lincoln grew up not too far from Nauvoo.

If one looks at the Doctrine and Covenants and reads church history, one notices a very distinct pattern. Church leaders received revelation from God in response to their own inquiries about particular subjects. And in some cases they received revelation that did not become mandatory like Wof W, and duty of young men to be worthy to go on missions until much later. Others, like polygamy were revealed and then the instruction withdrawn.

Perhaps Joseph Smith felt no need to inquire before authorizing the Seventies President to ordain Elijah Able to the Priesthood, and to send missionaries authorized to baptize slaves (although in some areas only with master's permission). The degree to which subsequent leaders sought the Lord's approval and blessing to give all the blessings to all people is unknown.

While it is true that unrighteous traditions of parents can negatively influence posterity for many generations, we do not believe that man is punished for others sins (and I presume that is how the suggestions of premortal unworthiness started, as if we actually know any such thing). And in modern times we wonder how anyone could ever construed the scriptures to support slavery and oppression, and how a ward could lynch a black man in the same space that they could see the temple walls.

When I read about Jane Manning and Green Flake, and other Saints of color, who endured not only all the hardships that every pioneer faced, but others because of their race, I have to think that they were among the most faithful of all the Saints of God. One cannot read their stories without profound respect and sure knowledge that all the excuses ever given had to be just that --- excuses.

[YH8]

Hi YH8,

I'm neither an adherent to any organized religion nor am I an atheist. Religions are very much human organizations, in my experience & observation, otherwise we would have the kind of high-speed, accurate connection to God that has been taught in some LDS wardhouses in the past (and other religions I'm sure, too).

Alas, we don't. We're muddling through the best we can, in our own styles.

I'm an "optimistic agnostic", kind of a Deist. When people begin to speak for God, bad things frequently happen. That's my view, anyway.

Confidential Informant:

When you have my view of religion, God does become a kind of cafeteria. What God would you like to worship & commune with?

Like the early Christian Gnostics, I think the God of the Old Testament was one mean, ornery, vindictive being. Certainly the message of Jesus is much more palatable. In my experience, the Native American view of the "Great Spirit" / Creator is very nice, along with some parts of eastern religions.

- No fatwahs.

- No discrimination

- No codes of conduct that read like a tax code

- just learn to love your fellow humans. Simple, yet comprehensive & encompassing.

Different strokes & folks...

Is it at all possible, to you, that God could be something that you don't think God should be? Does you choosing to disbelieve in a god, mean that that god does not exist and that you are not subject to that god should that god exist?

In my opinion, what you, I, or the next person believes about God has essentially no bearing on what God is.

If you don't like the idea that God might have rules, etc. doesn't mean those rules don't apply to you (if those rules are there).

Alas, . . . wait, I'm trying to be serious, so I won't get dramatic and wax poetic.

[Confidential Informant]

Confidential Informant:

When you have my view of religion, God does become a kind of cafeteria. What God would you like to worship & commune with?

Like the early Christian Gnostics, I think the God of the Old Testament was one mean, ornery, vindictive being. Certainly the message of Jesus is much more palatable. In my experience, the Native American view of the "Great Spirit" / Creator is very nice, along with some parts of eastern religions.

- No fatwahs.

- No discrimination

- No codes of conduct that read like a tax code

- just learn to love your fellow humans. Simple, yet comprehensive & encompassing.

Different strokes & folks...

You are certainly entitled to your view, but it's not based on anything other than personal preference. I suppose my son can make up aspects of my personality that he'd like to believe in to the exclusion of others that he doesn't like. That doesn't mean that those traits he doesn't care for don't exist or that I don't act on them from time to time.

IF God exists, then He already possess a certain quantum of character traits and just because Blink or someone else chooses to ignore them or, better yet, to ascribe them to another source, doesn't mean those traits go away.

C.I.

[maxrep12]

When people begin to speak for God, bad things frequently happen. That's my view, anyway.

Corky,

I enjoyed your entire post.

Sometimes I ponder the thousands of belief sytems explaining our existance that have graced the earth since the beginning of mankind. So many choices, so much variation. Whatever brand you choose does not change the nature of God - nor does it force God to exist.

How intricate is human nature!