Darker skin from iniquity?

[juliann]

That line would have been quite compatible with a good chunk of 19th century racism, and much of the culture that Joseph Smith grew up around.

jux, even the abolitionists would be considered racist today. You say:

They had begun denouncing slavery as an immoral practice, and suggested that all races were equal under God, thus the enslavement of one human by another was wrong.

[juliann]

How does that answer the question about how you tell when a prophet is representing himself, or G-d? You cannot. Who is to say that the statements in '78 aren't the same? Who is to say that the Church didn't want to pay property tax? Non-profits in Wisconsin were falling prey because of racist practices, who is to say that the Church wasn't next?

If you want to discuss prophetic infallibility you need to make a new thread. And I can't make heads or tails out of the rest of your comments....

[Moksha]

Here is a another quote:

Mar 3,1953 - First Presidency secretary answers Mormon's inquiry about receiving blood transfusions from African Americans:"The LDS Hospital here in Salt Lake City has a blood bank which does not contain any colored blood." This represents five year effort to keep LDS Hospital's blood bank separate from American Red Cross system in order "to protect the purity of the blood streams of the people of this Church"(Counselor J. Reuben Clark's phrase.)

Many people were prejudice. We need to own up to it, offer an apology to those offended and move on.

[Moksha]

Here is a another quote:

Mar 3,1953 - First Presidency secretary answers Mormon's inquiry about receiving blood transfusions from African Americans:"The LDS Hospital here in Salt Lake City has a blood bank which does not contain any colored blood." This represents five year effort to keep LDS Hospital's blood bank separate from American Red Cross system in order "to protect the purity of the blood streams of the people of this Church"(Counselor J. Reuben Clark's phrase.)

Many people were prejudiced. We need to own up to it, offer an apology to those offended and move on.

edit for spelling

[juliann]

Here is a another quote:

Mar 3,1953 - First Presidency secretary answers Mormon's inquiry about receiving blood transfusions from African Americans:"The LDS Hospital here in Salt Lake City has a blood bank which does not contain any colored blood." This represents five year effort to keep LDS Hospital's blood bank separate from American Red Cross system in order "to protect the purity of the blood streams of the people of this Church"(Counselor J. Reuben Clark's phrase.)

Many people were prejudice. We need to own up to it, offer an apology to those offended and move on.

Are you talking to yourself? Who hasn't "owned up to it"? Have you read nothing here? And if you can type this much you can type the reference.

[Moksha]

Juliann: From the research of church historian Michael C. Quinn in The Mormon Hierarchy : Extensions of Power.

[ave maria]

Juliann: From the research of church historian Michael C. Quinn in The Mormon Hierarchy : Extensions of Power.

[Moksha]

J. Reuben Clark: ..."to preserve the purity of the race that is entitled to hold the Priesthood."111

Wow, that says a lot. I don't know how much more ol' Dixie there is to drive down in Salt Lake City. Except for that raucous uproar we heard when it as suggested there be an Apostle of color, it seems ol' Dixie has nearly passed away.

[juliann]

I'm asking you again, Moshka...who hasn't owned up to it? What is the point of the quotes (and yes....you do need to provide references when you quote someone, including page numbers).

Ave Maria, what is your point? Has anyone disputed any of this? The Hotel Utah incident is probably the best known of any. If you want to paste up every stomach churning incident you can scour up, I suggest that you read Darius Gray's books. We have him speak at our conference with Margaret Young.

I have to wonder why you spend so much time rummaging around in other religion's old dirty laundry when your own religion is having considerable current problems: http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,382974,00.html

Roman Catholicism in Britain is perceived as the most white of the major denominations - the majority of British immigrants have not come from Catholic countries - though the association estimates that 12% of its communicants are from ethnic minority backgrounds.

At a service at Westminster Cathedral, celebrating the 150th anniversary of the restoration of Catholic bishops to Britain, earlier this year, none of the 300 priests in attendance was black nor any of the altar servers or choir boys.

Mr Corriette, born in Britain of Caribbean parents, said: "It is ironic that the Catholic church calls itself universal when it is driving black people away by its attitudes."

Mr Corriette has compiled a dossier of racist incidents. A priest told a young unmarried black couple that he would not baptise their child "because you people believe in babies outside marriage and then expect me to christen them". Another refused a family a requiem mass because they wanted to sing a Caribbean song during the service.

Another told the association that he would refuse to have refugees in his presbytery "because everything of value would be gone in five minutes".

Mr Corriette said: "Priests have told me, 'We don't have a problem with racism here because we don't have any black people'. They always talk of us as a problem.

"I heard a seminarian say that he did not need racism awareness training because he did not intend to work in a parish where there would be black people. These attitudes do not exist just among the elderly - there is a culture that is almost colonialist."

I'm going to ask the both of you. What is your point? To hurt or to heal? To build bridges or tear them down? Do either of you have any intention of discussing the here and now? Or would that make the church look good?

[juliann]

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives...400/112400r.htm

But racism, broad and narrow, is still a feature within the Catholic church. It is one of the present day shames of the Catholic family.

What can or should be done about it?

Despite episcopal statements, racism isn

[ave maria]

Ave Maria, what is your point?

You asked for a reference.

I have to wonder why you spend so much time rummaging around in other religion's old dirty laundry when your own religion is having considerable current problems:

Not relevant to the conversation, as has been pointed out to me here in the past. If one is discussing sexual abuse in the clergy in the Catholic Church, for example, it's not appropriate to discuss LDS incidents of the same.

I for one have never denied anything regarding difficulties or abuses in the Catholic Church, past or present, and am well aware of them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,382974,00.html

Roman Catholicism in Britain is perceived as the most white of the major denominations - the majority of British immigrants have not come from Catholic countries - though the association estimates that 12% of its communicants are from ethnic minority backgrounds.

At a service at Westminster Cathedral, celebrating the 150th anniversary of the restoration of Catholic bishops to Britain, earlier this year, none of the 300 priests in attendance was black nor any of the altar servers or choir boys.

Mr Corriette, born in Britain of Caribbean parents, said: "It is ironic that the Catholic church calls itself universal when it is driving black people away by its attitudes."

Mr Corriette has compiled a dossier of racist incidents. A priest told a young unmarried black couple that he would not baptise their child "because you people believe in babies outside marriage and then expect me to christen them". Another refused a family a requiem mass because they wanted to sing a Caribbean song during the service.

Another told the association that he would refuse to have refugees in his presbytery "because everything of value would be gone in five minutes".

Mr Corriette said: "Priests have told me, 'We don't have a problem with racism here because we don't have any black people'. They always talk of us as a problem.

"I heard a seminarian say that he did not need racism awareness training because he did not intend to work in a parish where there would be black people.  These attitudes do not exist just among the elderly - there is a culture that is almost colonialist."

I would point out, as a clarification, that secular music of any sort, Caribbean or otherwise, is not allowed in masses, requiem or otherwise, and it would have nothing to do with the family being Caribbean. "Danny Boy" is not allowed in requiem masses, either.

I'm going to ask the both of you.  What is your point? To hurt or to heal?  To build bridges or tear them down?

I spend most of my time trying to clarify understanding between the two faiths, and that works both directions.

Do either of you have any intention of discussing the here and now?  Or would that make the church look good?

I do it with great regularity. What do you want to discuss? The number of Catholic cardinals who are black proportionate to the number of LDS General Authorities who are? How long African members of either faith has held the priesthood?

I provided a reference for the quotation in question, nothing more, and placed it in context.

[juliann]

I provided a reference for the quotation in question, nothing more, and placed it in context.

Well, I am putting your need to display the failings of Mormonism in earlier decades in the context of the religious lanscape as well then.

Don't get me wrong...I can cut & paste til the cows come home, too. Again, what is your point?

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/...01/feature1.asp

While as many as three million African-Americans are Catholic, they make up only about three percent of all U.S. Catholics, according to the CARA Catholic Poll 2000. And while there are more than 1,000 parishes that are predominantly African-American, most of the other 18,000 U.S. Catholic parishes are predominantly white.

[ave maria]

I provided a reference for the quotation in question, nothing more, and placed it in context.

Well, I am putting your need to display the failings of Mormonism in earlier decades in the context of the religious lanscape as well then.

Don't get me wrong...I can cut & paste til the cows come home, too. Again, what is your point?

I made my point.

Cut-and-paste to your heart's content. It bothers me not at all.

[ave maria]

Don't get me wrong...I can cut & paste til the cows come home, too. Again, what is your point?

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/...01/feature1.asp

By the way, I'd recommend everyone here read the article you've linked above; it's far more flattering to the Catholic Church than it is critical.

[Dill Pickles]

The number of Catholic cardinals who are black proportionate to the number of LDS General Authorities who are? How long African members of either faith has held the priesthood?

Please answer your own questions, for the benefit of those of us in the pickle jar at the back of the top shelf of the fridge.

[juliann]

By the way, I'd recommend everyone here read the article you've linked above; it's far more flattering to the Catholic Church than it is critical.

And that is exactly how you see the world...which is why you refuse to say or disclose anything ever that might be flattering to the LDS church. The Catholics certainly don't have the worst record in race relations if that makes you feel any better. But LDS don't come anywhere near the rest of Christianity in the ability to harm as many as other sects have...let alone the time and energy to keep it going like you guys love to.

[ave maria]

By the way, I'd recommend everyone here read the article you've linked above; it's far more flattering to the Catholic Church than it is critical.

And that is exactly how you see the world...which is why you refuse to say or disclose anything ever that might be flattering to the LDS church.

That's absolutely ridiculous and indicative of the fact that you only selectively read my posts.

Here's one example:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?act=ST...ndpost&p=223694

[vivian]

I think we should just admit there was and always has been rascism in the world and move on.

"I would not want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. 'Darkies' are wonderful people, and they have their place in our church."

--President Joseph Fielding Smith, 1963.

[juliann]

Move on? What a good idea.

[Scott Gordon]

I think we should just admit there was and always has been rascism in the world and move on.

"I would not want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. 'Darkies' are wonderful people, and they have their place in our church."

--President Joseph Fielding Smith, 1963.

I agree with this comment.

I only wish that the Joseph Fielding Smith comment wasn't taken out of context. I think people like the shock value of the word "darkies." While we are shocked by it today, we have to remember that we are dealing with a man born in the 1800s who may have been taught that was the appropriate term. We are also uncomfortable with "have their place" because it sounds so much like "know their place." But, it isn't the same. I have my place in the LDS church as well.

The other unfortunate thing is that context of the quote gets left off. Just before this "shocking" quote, the article says:

"I stand by every word in the article," President Smith said, after reading it aloud in Mr. Arthur's presence. "The Mormon Church does not believe, nor does it teach, that the Negro is an inferior being. Mentally, and physically, the Negro is capable of great achievement, as great and in some cases greater than the potentiality of the white race. He can become a lawyer, a doctor, a scientist, and he can achieve great heights. The word

[Moksha]

I'm going to ask the both of you.

[Pace Nielsen]

I would have a suitable representative for the Church (preferably the President) state that there was no deficiency, failure or lack in those of African Heritage that were denied the Priesthood.

Already done multiple times.

That the LDS Church apologizes for its denial of the Priesthood to these people.

That would require the Church having a revelation that the priesthood ban was not the will of God in the first place. No such (public) revelation has been received.

That the LDS Church apologizes for any statements that were ever made in support of slavery and that we do not support slavery.

I hope you are limiting this apology to statements made by the Church about slavery!

That God sends some people into slavery in life is a given. That God has allowed His people certain forms of servitude is also a given (if you believe in the Bible). That God is pleased with this is not a given, and latter-day scripture affirms that one man should not be made a slave to another. The LDS Church supports laws that conform to God's will, and hence does not support slavery.

Best,

Pace

[koakaipo]

Let explain why I see Mok's point. I think what's important to understand as a member is that the ban wasn't in a vacuum in terms of how we as a community historically interpreted race and lineage in relation to theology. There was a host of behaviors, sometimes individual, sometimes social or organizational, that were driven by theology.

The blood bank deal is a very important example. I think outsiders might see it as straight racism; but if you understand the notion of lineages in Mormonism, you realize there's a religious/theolgoical bent as well. The intense rejection of intermarriage is another example of this. This rejection of intermarriage then led to people thinking that even socializing with certain races or lineages wasn't a good idea(because once you start socializing, it's only a matter of time before folks start intermarrying). Non=proselyting to certain groups is another example. In effect, it's a sort of self imposed segregation.The lineage bent in many ways made for a very isolating force for our community.

I think if we Mormons as a whole(I realize alot of people on these boards may have a good historical handle on this already) realize this legacy, it can be very instructive to us as the universal and inclusive church that I know we are for the most part today. I don't think it has to be used as a downer for people, but just a good way to put things in context and to perhaps be more sensitive to how some members deal with some of the consequences of this legacy to this day.

I actually find such inspiration in alot of the history. When I read about Elijah Abel or about the self-baptized members in Africa who got the ball rolling in their continent or the members building up the temple in Brazil believing that they would never get to step into the building, it just humbles me. It's such a beautiful lesson on how the gospel can't be contained, it just can't.

[juliann]

This simple acknowledgment and apology could put this issue to rest. After all, nothing more could be done than this.

When pigs fly. Nothing has satisfied you yet...nothing will. That is why you have to keep pulling up quotes that are so old anyone associated with them is long dead. If you had any interest in race relations you would know that "apologies" have done nothing. They are as cheap as your shots against a religion so small it didn't even hit the radar screen for numbers in the era you scour for quotes.

"Some of the white elite evangelicals attempted reconciliation, but incompletely.  The problem with whites' conception of reconciliation, many claimed, was than they did not seek true justice--that is, justice both individually and collectively.  Without this component, reconciliation was cheap, artificial, and mere words.  It was rather like a big brother shoving his little brother to the ground, apologizing, and then shoving him to the ground again."

Richard O. Emerson and Christian Smith, Divided by Faith:  Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America.  (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000),  p. 58.

Yet this will satisfy you. It is all you require. You are not the least bit interested in the considerable efforts being made to build relationships and bring races together in real life. Cheap, artificial and mere words are good enough for those folk. Rather telling.

[koakaipo]

I so gotta go, but first let me say I agree with alot of what you assert in regards to the history of the church in comparison to other churches historically Juiann. But what I think Mok is asking for isn't an empty apology but more of a clarification in terms of how we should view our black brothers and sisters. With the official assertion that we just don't know why the ban was lifted, it still leaves so much room for various notions to continue in regards to the very nature and soul of black folks. I personally pray and hope a clarification will be issued that we leave no room for further speculation. I just get so fustrated to this day when I do hear how people process the ban, people very close to me who are brilliant and very studious members still take a less-than approach to understand why black folks would be banned from something so fundamental and crucial within our church at one point.