Darker skin from iniquity?

[juliann]

There was a host of behaviors, sometimes individual, sometimes social or organizational, that were driven by theology.

Then LDS would have scored much worse than any of the other religions in the studies on racism. They didn't. They scored on the high end. How do you explain that? Why aren't you aware of that?

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.

Unbelievable. You really, really think that this was a Mormon thing? The Protestants were making up the theories about "blood" and "lineage" in the 1800s...hello?

The lineage bent in many ways made for a very isolating force for our community.

As opposed to every other religion who can't integrate their churches now, today? Are you paying attention at all? Remember that link a few posts up that talks about Catholicism not being able to attract blacks today? Why is Coretta King still saying that 11:00 Sunday morning is still the most segrated hour in America?

According to the 1998 National Congregations Study, about 90 percent of American congregations are made up at least 90 percent of people of the same race.  Emerson and Smith, Divided by Faith, 136.

Didn't they...apologize? Do you even care that it had no practical effect?

[juliann]

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.

Then both of you should be able to produce evidence that apologies produce results beyond allowing everyone to feel warm and fuzzy as they drive by their respective black/white churches to get to their own segregated one. Otherwise, as has been documented by the evangelical researchers I quoted...it is cheap and empty. Yet that is what you are clammoring for. Why?

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.

What "notions" have you heard from the pulpit that give any doubt about the "nature and soul of black folks"? If you aren't listening to what has been said...of what use is one more statement? Do you know how the racebaiters distinguish themselves? They do not produce one such statement. Never. They only want to stir the pot with the golden oldies. They stay as far away from the present as they can get. What I do think would be helpful is a more direct repudiation of specific hairbrained rationales for the ban....but only because there seem to be an awful lot of people not paying attention.

[ave maria]

Remember that link a few posts up that talks about Catholicism not being able to attract blacks today?

Globally, the black Catholic Diaspora includes more than 200 million members. There are 130 million African Catholics. About 60 million black Catholics live in Latin and South America and 15 million more on the island of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. In the United States, roughly two million of the 54 million total Catholics are African American. The fastest-growing group of black Catholics in this country are immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, Central and South America.

http://archive.blackvoices.com/articles/da...0031118pope.asp

For a breakdown of black Catholic membership worldwide, see:

http://www.nbccongress.org/black-catholics...atholics-01.asp

[Dill Pickles]

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.

What revelation are you referring to when you say the priesthood ban was the will of God?

[Pace Nielsen]

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.

What revelation are you referring to when you say the priesthood ban was the will of God?

A few clarifications.

One, I wasn't referring to any such revelation in my comment. Only that apostles and prophets in the past have claimed the ban originated with God. To authoritatively refute them would require a revelation.

Second, I do believe there was a revelation starting the ban, given to Brigham Young. He spoke of it to the legistlature in Utah.

Best,

Pace

[koakaipo]

1)Then LDS would have scored much worse than any of the other religions in the studies on racism. They didn't. They scored on the high end. How do you explain that? Why aren't you aware of that?

2)Unbelievable. You really, really think that this was a Mormon thing? The Protestants were making up the theories about "blood" and "lineage" in the 1800s...hello?

3)As opposed to every other religion who can't integrate their churches now, today? Are you paying attention at all? Remember that link a few posts up that talks about Catholicism not being able to attract blacks today? Why is Coretta King still saying that 11:00 Sunday morning is still the most segrated hour in America?

Didn't they...apologize? Do you even care that it had no practical effect?

Point #1: What studies are you looking at exactly? Are you talking historically(and then cut it down to different eras because Mormons had different takes at different times at that) or present? How are these being scored exactly as well in terms of attitudes and actions? The research that I have done on this subject makes me conclude 2 things: post 1978, attitudes and actions in terms of integration and inclusion is very strong within Mormonism, with some differences in terms of location in how this plays out. But pre 1978? We either were on que with other churches or even lagging behind in some ways, with some notable exceptions where we could be seen as being ahead. The basis for alot of the information I received was actually within two courses at church college-a Mormon Studies class that dealt with race and gender for a big part and an organizational development class with Mormonism as it's subject.

Point #2: A Mormon thing to want to segregate to the point of dividing up blood? Of course not. But that would be mainly due to racist notions for most folks though. But Protestants and lineage in the 1800's and Mormons worrying about blood supplies in the 50's are two different things, Juliann. Mormons worrying about blood supplies being contaminated by those who are barred from the priesthood? Uh, very Mormon thing. There's no way around that one.

Point #3: Juliann, I like a sassy Mormon sister, so I won't get offended by how you talk to me with hello and you aren't paying attention.(especially since I'm giggling half the time when it's directed in someone else's direction!). But the DIFFERENCE is that I really don't give a flying wahoo what the other churches were doing-keeping score helps to an extent, but ONLY to an extent Juliann. The fact that lineage was such an important deal to the point of containing the gospel and isolating our community is something to look at. Not to necessarily get all bummed out about or judge harshly or out of context. But it's something to look at because it can instruct us in the future, as we quickly become an international church through and through.

That doesn't mean I'm bashing Mormonism for not being "ahead" of the game in terms of understanding and processing race they way we do today mind you. I'm trying to emphasize how one theology, even a theology that's somewhat elusive in terms of scriptural grounding, can have SUCH a domino effect, and how it could even interplay with the larger culture in many ways.

[juliann]

In the United States, roughly two million of the 54 million total Catholics are African American. The fastest-growing group of black Catholics in this country are immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean, Central and South America. 

http://archive.blackvoices.com/articles/da...0031118pope.asp

Uh huh...what I said. Only you appear to be losing your American black members if your link is correct. As of 2000, it was reported:

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.

[juliann]

koakaipo, I'll pull the stats up for you tonight. Gotta watch Mystery right now! And I appreciate your kindness and long suffering.

[koakaipo]

Oh, Mystery! Yeah, put the stats on later, you can't miss that show(I'm obssessed currently with Foyle's War myself........) And I probably won't make it back here for a couple days, but I'll be sure to check in to see your posts-thanks.

[ave maria]

Uh huh...what I said.  Only you appear to be losing your American black members if your link is correct.  As of 2000,  it was reported:

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.

[juliann]

Like the articles said, US Catholics are having trouble attracting blacks. Now back to your regularly scheduled smoke and mirrors performance....

[juliann]

Statistical studies done while the Priesthood ban was still in effect:

It would seem, from a study of the data here presented, that the null hypothesis must be allowed to stand for the religious variables; that is, no systematic differences in secular race attitudes were to be seen either between Mormons and others, or between orthodox and unorthodox Mormons. In most of their responses, Mormons resembled the rather "moderate" denominations (such as Presbyterian, Congregational, Episcopalian), rather than the "fundamentalists" or the sects. To be sure, Mormons did differ among themselves in the tendency to hold negative secular attitudes toward Negroes, but these differences were not so much between the orthodox and unorthodox, or the active and inactive, as they were between the educated and uneducated, the manual and the professional, the old and the young, or the rural and the urban (as in any denomination).

[Moksha]

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.

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.

Juliann, I have listened hard and long to other Mormons and the opponents of Mormons talk about the racial record of the LDS Church. They have pointed to a distinct injustice done to folks of an African heritage.

After careful consideration and much discussion, I came up with this suggestion:

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. That the LDS Church apologizes for its denial of the Priesthood to these people. That the LDS Church apologizes for any statements that were ever made by LDS Church leaders in support of slavery and that we do not support slavery.

It is obvious that you are in a mood to attack and not to listen, so I shall shift the focus to those who could consider this with an open mind. This is the best way to put this racial issue behind us and do the right thing at the same time. It is a win-win situation. Simply burying our heads in the sand or taking a closet racist position will not help the LDS Church reach those people who would still feel standoffish to the Church because of their past behavior. Looking them square in the eye and telling them the Church has apologized for this and asks their forgiveness as well, would put things in a new light.

Like I said, what more could be done?

BTW, my quote from Michael Quinn wasn't that old.

[juliann]

This is the best way to put this racial issue behind us and do the right thing at the same time. It is a win-win situation.

Based on what. You have ignored every bit of information given. It is time for you to produce something. Give us evidence that cheap apologies produce anything. Until you do, you are doing nothing more than barking. If you truly care...produce the evidence any of this makes a difference or that it is any more effective than any other method. There are enough religions out there and enough information. So put your money where your mouth is.

Like I said, what more could be done?

Like I said, evaluate and analyze what has been done and what is being done and produce some evidence that your way is better. Talk is cheap. If you care then produce something and make your case.

BTW, my quote from Michael Quinn wasn't that old.   

Are you serious? Are you even aware of what was being quoted and when it happened?

[koakaipo]

Statistical studies done while the Priesthood ban was still in effect: 

POINT #1)

It would seem, from a study of the data here presented, that the null hypothesis must be allowed to stand for the religious variables; that is, no systematic differences in secular race attitudes were to be seen either between Mormons and others, or between orthodox and unorthodox Mormons. In most of their responses, Mormons resembled the rather "moderate" denominations (such as Presbyterian, Congregational, Episcopalian), rather than the "fundamentalists" or the sects. To be sure, Mormons did differ among themselves in the tendency to hold negative secular attitudes toward Negroes, but these differences were not so much between the orthodox and unorthodox, or the active and inactive, as they were between the educated and uneducated, the manual and the professional, the old and the young, or the rural and the urban (as in any denomination).

[ave maria]

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]

Like the articles said, US Catholics are having trouble attracting blacks. Now back to your regularly scheduled smoke and mirrors performance....

Could you cite the reference for us please, that conclusively demonstrates that "U.S. Catholics are having trouble attracting blacks?"

You've cited a British newspaper discussing Catholicism and minorities in England.

I'm not finding your supportive evidence for your claim above.

[juliann]

The conclusion, especially the tone of his remarks, sound actually much less tempered than the tone of his later works such as "All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Concepts of Race and Lineage."Now although he doesn't tie racism or racist behavior squarely on theology and religious affiliation, he doesn't go so far as to say it doesn't contribute to the problem. He specifically says in his conclusion that "you can't be sure it has everything to do with Mormonism." That's a big qualifier there to me. He then attempts to redirect the dilemma's origins in other possible directions-the rurual and small town environment of the Mountain West, or "the sickness of individual Mormon bigots."

He does the same in his first book, noting that racism is more dependent on universal variables such as education, etc. It would take a page to get everything up because they go on and on. I have had many discussions with Armand. I think he is as consistent as anyone can be through the passage time. I think that you are looking for more than a researcher is going to give you.

I'm using specific examples(blood bank being segregated and specifically justified in regard to the concern of lineage and allegedly contaminating peoples' blood with cursed blood--that one drop rule coming into play; intense rejection of intermarriage; trying to limit contact with people considered to be cursed because it could lead to miscegenation; not proselyting to those who are considered cursed) that have some religious implications though.

This was par for the course in the South...to the point of separate drinking fountains (something we found bizarre in Utah). I don't understand why you separate out some racist practices as being influenced by religion and some not. We have centuries of these kinds of behaviors and attitudes. How would you ever separate them out as to what was "theological" and what wasn't. When this began religion was not kept apart from life as it is today. It was considered science. They were studying head shape, lice, facial features and yes..blood.

But I think the timing of this study(1975?) and the place of study(college) are key things to notice in terms of seeing attitudes. I think these youths, being brought up in a post-civil rights era, probably had a very different orientation to race than folks just a decade back.

I was in my teens during the Civil Rights struggle. My orientation was no different...the only thing we lacked was information. The publicity gave that. We had a ward member from the South when I was in high school. He would pepper his lessons with slams against blacks. We were too sheepish to say anything but we were disgusted. Aside from the in-your-face bigot, what I would usually hear was the blacks "needed to earn" their rights. After I'd heard that awhile, it dawned on me that they had lived their lives here just like anybody else. What did they have to earn that the rest of us didn't? What we did not have was exposure to blacks...but that was typical of most people who were not in the South. But no information or orientation can substitute for day to day interaction. And this was not a Mormon issue...it was and remains a geographical issue. The area I live in in CA is integrated. My immediate neighbors are black. If I was to move a few communities away...it would not be. In short, to dispell any kind of prejudice you have to have information or you cannot identify it. If you can't identify it you can't stamp it out. But you can't stamp it out until you can practice in the lab of real life. You are going to find people caught in various stages of this process...particularly the last one where they simply do not have the opportunity to practice being friend or family to different races.

[juliann]

I'm not finding your supportive evidence for your claim above.

You have no problem littering the board with anything from anybody if it shows LDS in a negative light...but when the same game is played on you...oh, my. It can't be from a newspaper article if it is about you. Or an editorial. Or a Protestant scholar. And certainly not a Mormon. Outrageous double standards aren't much fun when they are pointed out, are they. I actually thought that Catholicism had a much better record on race relations than Protestants and LDS. Apparently not. Since we have never had Catholics before you who lived to point out the failings of Mormon race relations...I've never really investigated.

http://www.ed.psu.edu/news/privatesegregation.asp

Black-white segregation is greatest among Catholic schools, according to the data. Blacks who are enrolled in Catholic schools attend schools that are, on average, 31% white; blacks in non-Catholic religious schools attend schools that average 35% white; and blacks in secular private schools attend schools that average 41% white.

http://salt.claretianpubs.org/issues/racism/unsworth.html

 

The response, cited in Father Steven Avella's history of the Chicago church from 1940 until 1965, was actually mild by the standards of the time. Elsewhere in Chicago, pastors still stood at the doors of their churches denying admission to blacks. In other cities, blacks risked physical harm if they attempted to enter a church.

If admitted, seating was segregated and blacks approached Communion

[Moksha]

We had a ward member from the South when I was in high school. He would pepper his lessons with slams against blacks. We were too sheepish to say anything but we were disgusted.

We had quite a few people like this in my ward. I walked out of my teachers quorum meeting one Sunday because of something hateful toward black people that was being said. I understand the desire to sit sheepishly, I just couldn't do it.

What I am wondering about is your sublimating that disgust into an apologist stance now, proffering questionable Bogardus scales and demands proof where it is not really needed. How do you propose ever freeing the Church from questions regarding its racist past? How will we every put that behind us short of an actual apology?

[juliann]

How do you propose ever freeing the Church from questions regarding its racist past? How will we every put that behind us short of an actual apology?

I'm going to ask you one more time and I hope you respond. Apologies have been given by a number of religions. What has it accomplished? I have produced documentation that says it has produced nothing...in fact, it can be seen as condescending along with being ineffective. "Big brother pushing little brother down...." remember? Maybe holding seances would help, too...but shouldn't you produce some evidence that they would?

If there was an apology and nothing else changed...that satisfy you? Can you really not see the position that places you in? I have already said what I would like to see from the pulpit. You ignored that, too.

[koakaipo]

Juliann-I'm so bad, I knew I shouldn't have logged on a day like I'm having! Oh well.

1)Yes, I love Armand Mauss alot and appreciate his efforts to try to clarification on the ban. His ability to talk straight and yet empathetically in relation to our church's history is very inspiring to me. Alot of the things I bring up here is simply me parroting him! Now, I think I was clear where I see consistency(where Mormons have been and are in relation to others) and what I found less tempered. I said I found his "tone" and his line of thinking in the conclusion less tempered in this paper, and for good reason-it's written in the late 60's at a time where there was alot of outside pressure on the church. "Get off our backs" makes sense within the timeframe, and yet with time and distance, his tone regarding the outside pressures is much more tempered(ie-in "All Abraham's Children" and even "Fading of the Pharaoh's Curse" that is found in the same book but written in the following decade).

2)You said:"This was par for the course in the South...to the point of separate drinking fountains (something we found bizarre in Utah). I don't understand why you separate out some racist practices as being influenced by religion and some not. We have centuries of these kinds of behaviors and attitudes. How would you ever separate them out as to what was "theological" and what wasn't. When this began religion was not kept apart from life as it is today. It was considered science. They were studying head shape, lice, facial features and yes..blood. "

me: I don't think it's very hard to see how similar actions can have different motivations or a combination of motivations when you see leadership in the church specifically stating that they segregate blood so that priesthood lines aren't contaminated! In Neither Black Nor White(my book isn't on me to reference specifically right now but I'll reference it later) it clearly gives quotes about how blood atonement, of not just the two participants but any offspring as well, was the only solution for miscegenation so as not to allow Cain's lineage to gain a holding on the priesthood(EDIT-back in BY's time, thought I should give some reference point in terms of era). Some folks within the church community specifically state the theological reasoning behind certain practices, and that's how you are able to attribute certain interpretations or theology as a motivation.

Yes, alot of practices are on par with what was going on in America, but there was a certain angle that is unique within Mormon reasoning. And that was the notion, regardless of what interpretation was popular at the time, that the preisthood had to be protected from those who are not suppossed to hold it. AGain, doesn't mean good old fashioned racism wasn't interacting or influencing how to interpret different religious notions within Mormons-I think there is clearly an interaction. And of how much I'm not sure. But it doesn't mean you can't attribute certain theological understandings---believing that mixing blood with cursed lineage results in basically cursing your descendents------to the practice, because it allegedly has eternal consequences to that notion. That's alot of responsiblity to one's family and progeny, and even to God, when you buy into the notion.

Did you happen to live in Utah in the 60's by the way? One thing I've wondered but haven't really looked into is how mountain states like Utah compared to segregation laws and practices, if they were pretty similar. Just because I don't think until I started reading into Utah's history that segregation was so organized---sometimes you only think of it as a "South" deal, you know? Maybe you have some sources for me on this as I haven't looked to much into it personally but am very interested.

3) You make good points on the last quote. I personally am speaking from anecdotal experience-my eldest sister was at BYU-P in 1976 until 1980. Her experiences and character influenced my post to an extent. My mother had her very young(19 or so), and so there isn't much of an age difference. And yet, it's like they are from two different worlds in terms of topics like race and stuff. I would liken it to folks who basically grew up post-ban 1978. I don't think there's as much baggage at all with younger people regarding curses and lineages and race the way folks who aren't that older but still grew up in an age where these things were still talked about. My point was more about timing than anything. Whether I conveyed that well or not is up for debate though and I cop to that.

[ave maria]

I'm not finding your supportive evidence for your claim above.

You have no problem littering the board with anything from anybody if it shows LDS in a negative light...but when the same game is played on you...oh, my. It can't be from a newspaper article if it is about you. Or an editorial. Or a Protestant scholar. And certainly not a Mormon. Outrageous double standards aren't much fun when they are pointed out, are they.

juliann, as I indicated before, you can cut and paste to your heart's content, and it bothers me not at all.

However, it should be noted that it is incorrect to say I was "littering," when what I was doing was providing a reference, which you requested.

What you are doing is random and serves to support no particular point, which is surprising for someone who purports to be a scholar.

You're only damaging your own credibility in the process, so have at it.

If you want to formulate a thesis (i.e., the Catholic Church is unable to attract new black members, or the Catholic Church has a worse track record on racism than most other denominations), feel free to formulate it and support it.

So far I haven't seen that you've done that. You're just angry, and cutting and pasting at random to try to retaliate.

As I said, it bothers me not at all. I've never represented the Catholic Church in anything but a realistic fashion, am well aware of its history (as are most Catholics), and there's nothing really you can post that bothers me.

It does amuse me that you clamor for documentation from others and do this sort of thing, however. Most of the time, all you do is editorialize ad infinitum, and then someone finally points out to you your failure to document, and you start random cutting and pasting.

It's very amusing, and only enlightening regarding the limits of your own ability to engage in reasonable discourse.

Try doing a little scholarly, balanced research on the history of the Catholic Church, with respect to racism or anything else, for a change, instead of random blips incorrectly represented.

When you can't even distinguish the difference between someone posting a reference you've requested, and your smatterings of paragraphs here and there in retaliation, it's very sad.

While you're at it, you might go back and substantiate your claims earlier in this post that the LDS Church has a better track record than most other denominations on this score.

[Pace Nielsen]

However, it should be noted that it is incorrect to say I was "littering," when what I was doing was providing a reference, which you requested.

ave maria,

You may not realize it, but you could have just given the reference. Instead, you copied and pasted a large excerpt from a completely different article, that only contained the quotation in question.

[ave maria]

Could you cite the reference for us please, that conclusively demonstrates that "U.S. Catholics are having trouble attracting blacks?"

You've cited a British newspaper discussing Catholicism and minorities in England.

I'm not finding your supportive evidence for your claim above.

And we're still waiting for evidence on this one, which you've failed to supply.