Missionary work during the priesthood ban

[10THAmendment]

At stake conference a couple weeks ago, a speaker mentioned that on his mission to Brazil in the 1970s it was policy to “avoid” contacting and teaching anyone who at all looked to be of African decent. This was because the church really needed “worthy priesthood holders” at that period of time. He didn’t specify whether that was mission specific or if that was general counsel from the very top for all missions. 

Anyone have any insight? I have to say that deeply troubled and disturbed me. Not only because my wife is black (and my baby having African blood now too) but because I simply cannot imagine the Savior avoiding teaching people during His ministry based on their race. 

Edited February 6, 2019 by 10THAmendment

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

At stake conference a couple weeks ago, a speaker mentioned that on his mission to Brazil in the 1970s it was policy to “avoid” contacting and teaching anyone who at all looked to be of African decent. This was because the church really needed “worthy priesthood holders” at that period of time. He didn’t specify whether that was mission specific or if that was general counsel from the very top for all missions. 

Anyone have any insight? I have to say that deeply troubled and disturbed me. Not only because my wife is black (and my baby having African blood now too) but because I simply cannot imagine the Savior avoiding teaching people during His ministry based on their race. 

And yet there is scriptural record of Christ telling a Samaritan woman, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel.” 

His gospel would eventually be offered to everyone, but through the instrumentality of Israelites, to whom He was sent first. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, 10THAmendment said:

At stake conference a couple weeks ago, a speaker mentioned that on his mission to Brazil in the 1970s it was policy to “avoid” contacting and teaching anyone who at all looked to be of African decent. This was because the church really needed “worthy priesthood holders” at that period of time. He didn’t specify whether that was mission specific or if that was general counsel from the very top for all missions. 

Anyone have any insight? I have to say that deeply troubled and disturbed me. Not only because my wife is black (and my baby having African blood now too) but because I simply cannot imagine the Savior avoiding teaching people during His ministry based on their race. 

We had a similar situation in Central America in the 60s, but I never heard the phrase “we need worthy priesthood leaders” with reference to race. As far as your family is concerned, there is no reason to worry. Your child can some day be a great teacher, minister, and leader in the Church.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Gray]

9 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

At stake conference a couple weeks ago, a speaker mentioned that on his mission to Brazil in the 1970s it was policy to “avoid” contacting and teaching anyone who at all looked to be of African decent. This was because the church really needed “worthy priesthood holders” at that period of time. He didn’t specify whether that was mission specific or if that was general counsel from the very top for all missions. 

Anyone have any insight? I have to say that deeply troubled and disturbed me. Not only because my wife is black (and my baby having African blood now too) but because I simply cannot imagine the Savior avoiding teaching people during His ministry based on their race. 

I've heard about that as well.

We were told to seek out men over women to teach, for similar reasons. The church needed more priesthood leaders. The hierarchy of desirable baptisms was entire families first, single men second, women third, minors fourth. This was in the early 2000s.

One of the sad side effects of the current priesthood ban on women.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Gray

[CV75]

8 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

At stake conference a couple weeks ago, a speaker mentioned that on his mission to Brazil in the 1970s it was policy to “avoid” contacting and teaching anyone who at all looked to be of African decent. This was because the church really needed “worthy priesthood holders” at that period of time. He didn’t specify whether that was mission specific or if that was general counsel from the very top for all missions. 

Anyone have any insight? I have to say that deeply troubled and disturbed me. Not only because my wife is black (and my baby having African blood now too) but because I simply cannot imagine the Savior avoiding teaching people during His ministry based on their race. 

I think it best to assume it was policy from the top, which obviously changed in 1978 (with some incremental changes in application of the policy, seemingly sparked by the reception of the Restored Gospel in Brazil, prior to that).

The Savior was sent to the Jews first, not as a matter of race or any connection of worthiness to that, but of covenant and how the Gospel was to be promulgated each dispensation. His promises to the remnant of Israel and to the Gentiles as recorded in the Book of Mormon are very informative on that topic.

My advice is, if you feel a need to forgive, pray for the power to do that. If it troubles and disturbs you more than the healing Christ that offers, pray for His healing.

Edited February 6, 2019 by CV75

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And yet there is scriptural record of Christ telling a Samaritan woman, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel.” 

His gospel would eventually be offered to everyone, but through the instrumentality of Israelites, to whom He was sent first. 

All that suggests, Scott, is that the Church was completely wrong concerning the ban.  

[Gray]

Just now, stemelbow said:

All that suggests, Scott, is that the Church was completely wrong concerning the ban.  

True. And Jesus never made any distinctions based on skin color to begin with.

[stemelbow]

I'm reminded of the Lowry Nelson saga

The Church wanted to find out if there were enough white people in Cuba to do missionary work.  if they were too black then, apparently, it wouldn't have been worth it.

Edited February 6, 2019 by stemelbow

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

True. And Jesus never made any distinctions based on skin color to begin with.

His were all based on racial distinctions.

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

His were all based on racial distinctions. 

Nope. Religious distinctions.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Gray

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Nope. Religious distinctions.

In the case of Judaism both are true.

[10THAmendment]

What would have Christ’s reasoning been if He really did instruct the prophets of His one true church to “feed my sheep....except the black ones”? Why would God do that?

[The Nehor]

42 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

What would have Christ’s reasoning been if He really did instruct the prophets of His one true church to “feed my sheep....except the black ones”? Why would God do that?

Let us know if you figure it out.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

In the case of Judaism both are true.

Even Jews have trouble with that:  One the one hand, one is Jewish by descent from a Jewish mother.  No religious test.  One the other hand, one can convert to Judaism via circumcision and baptism (mikveh).  One must convince a board of rabbis that it is a sincere conversion to the religion.  So is Judaism tribal, or religious?

Edited February 7, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[Jeanne]

My cousin, in a California mission in the 60's...was a sister missionary at a time when they would have to make cold calls from telephone books...imagine trying to ask what their heritage was??  Often she found herself in a closet just crying.  This is also a time when numbers were everything.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

In the case of Judaism both are true.

Israel's neighbors were the same ethnicity. Jesus was of course Jewish and his message was for Jewish people to prepare them for the coming eschaton, when God would rid the world of the unjustice of the Romans and their collaborators. He wasn't seeking to convert anyone to another religion, just trying to prepare Jewish people for their eschaton. In that context, there really isn't any similarity at all between that and the priesthood ban, which came out of a mixture of bad theology and bad sociology.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

At stake conference a couple weeks ago, a speaker mentioned that on his mission to Brazil in the 1970s it was policy to “avoid” contacting and teaching anyone who at all looked to be of African decent. This was because the church really needed “worthy priesthood holders” at that period of time. ..................

At that very time (the 1970s), the LDS Church was preparing to build a temple in Brazil, and the Brethren were painfully aware that race-mixing in Brazil was endemic -- an insoluble problem.  Who could qualify for a temple recommend?  Would one have to do his genealogy in order to qualify?  Shades of Hitler's rules on what percentage of Jewish blood made one a Jew.  Apostle LeGrand Richards frankly discussed this problem with a Protestant minister as a partial explanation as to why Pres Kimball sought counsel on the issue from God.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

.......................... the priesthood ban, which came out of a mixture of bad theology and bad sociology.

So Brigham's motivation was theological and sociological?  Even though he knew that it went against everything he had learned from Joseph Smith?  No possibility that he was simply motivated by racism?

[Gray]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So Brigham's motivation was theological and sociological?  Even though he knew that it went against everything he had learned from Joseph Smith?  No possibility that he was simply motivated by racism?

That racism was what was driving the bad theology, as well as the popular notion that black people were descended from Cain or Ham.

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

Israel's neighbors were the same ethnicity. Jesus was of course Jewish and his message was for Jewish people to prepare them for the coming eschaton, when God would rid the world of the unjustice of the Romans and their collaborators. He wasn't seeking to convert anyone to another religion, just trying to prepare Jewish people for their eschaton. In that context, there really isn't any similarity at all between that and the priesthood ban, which came out of a mixture of bad theology and bad sociology.

I disagree with your characterization of the Savior’s ministry.

Also, the Jews and the Samaritans had long since divided into separate groups.

Edited February 6, 2019 by The Nehor

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, 10THAmendment said:

What would have Christ’s reasoning been if He really did instruct the prophets of His one true church to “feed my sheep....except the black ones”? Why would God do that?

The church was wrong.  NO God involved at all.  That's much easier than trying to pin it on God and wonder why or how.  

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Even Jews have trouble with that:  One the one hand, one is Jewish by descent from a Jewish mother.  No religious test.  One the other hand, one can convert to Judaism via circumcision and baptism (mikveh).  One must convince a board or rabbis that it is a sincere conversion to the religion.  So is Judaism tribal, or religious?

True, but proselytes were rare.

 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

The church was wrong.  NO God involved at all.  That's much easier than trying to pin it on God and wonder why or how.  

And if something is easy it must be correct?

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And if something is easy it must be correct?

No but sometimes that which is correct is also easier.  The mental gymnastic tricks for those who think God was behind the ban is just sad and pathetic to me.  

[10THAmendment]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

No but sometimes that which is correct is also easier.  The mental gymnastic tricks for those who think God was behind the ban is just sad and pathetic to me.  

These are my thoughts exactly. I find it equally as disturbing that so many members believe God instituted the racist policies. Should we also believe that God was the voice behind the early prophets' frequent teachings that black people were cursed by God with dark skin and "round noses" for being wicked in the preexistence? 

 

The church essay on the priesthood ban came pretty close to flat out admitting and apologizing for the personal racism of past leaders of the church and the injustice and pain it caused so many people. They used the word "disavow" at least. I think an admission and apology would put to rest what I believe to be the harmful belief that these teachings and practices were somehow God's will. 

That was my wife's suggestion after the meeting. The speaker turned the priesthood ban into a positive and said how the priesthood ban strengthened his testimony of living prophets. There is no positive about it, it should not be spun into something opposite of what it was. It was very offensive to her and always has been.

Edited February 6, 2019 by 10THAmendment