Racially disconnected in Church?

[FunkyTown]

Besides, maybe FunkyTown is his sonny... They obviously have a relationship of some sort. Funky even quotes dorave in his signature... :)

I like dorave, it's true. When he admitted to being a socialist, I had to leave the quote for some time.

Hurrah for dorave!

But I'm not going to derail this thread, so let me say that the person in the original church has a right to feel any way they want. Even if they're wrong to feel that way, it's the job of the church to make everyone feel welcome.

[Hemidakota]

One Testimony Sunday late May, a woman in my ward got up and spoke about how although she knew the church was true, she felt racially disconnected because she was one of the only African American women to go to an almost fully Caucasian LDS ward, and told how she has even been battling going to church because she felt out of place.

Now, I do not agree with her reasoning in that for one: our ward is very poor and very humble, and, if any of the other families are similar to mine, we do not judge her by the color of her skin nor treat her differently in any form. And two: She is an exceedingly kind, intelligent, and spiritual woman, and should not let her views of her race become an obstacle to her happiness or faith.

That being said, she has not been attending church for over a month. I sincerely hope that it is not due to these feelings that she earlier revealed, but if that is indeed the case, how would you approach her to let her know that she should not feel disenfranchised from coming to church and practicing her religion because she happens to be a minority within the particular ward? The fact that she is already racially sensitive places a tricky role in this as I fear that she may become offended if anyone did approach her on the subject, but I feel that someone should give her a heads up that we love and respect her for who she is, without consideration to how light or dark her skin may be.

However, on a separate note, I feel that it was inappropriate for her to make use of testimony time to publicly present her issue, and that it would have been more beneficial to her situation if she spoke privately with the Bishop so that he could inspire her that her feelings should not gravitate to race but to her faith, and/or in the case that her feelings stem from being discriminated against by whomever in the church, they could resolve the issue expediently. By presenting her conflicts to the ward, she only made people self-conscious about her issue, and thus uncomfortable and stuck in a position in that we know that she feels different, but there is virtually nothing we can do besides to ignore the fact that she gave such a testimony and pray that she will find the strength to come to the truth that race holds no bounds in religion.

Just be her friend...

[rameumptom]

Dossice,

Here's an excellent article from my friends Darius Gray and Margaret Young about the current and past situation of African Americans in the LDS Church:

The Colorful LDS Future

They note:

Though past statements of church leaders -- freely distributed by anti-Mormons -- show our racist past, the main problem is not with the past but with cultural insensitivity in the present. There is a huge temptation to correlate not only lesson manuals, but culture.

We tend to focus on our pioneer heritage, but ignore the heritage of blacks in the Church. Today, we focus on helping other white members, but often shun the ones that are different than us.

[Dossice]

Dossice,

Here's an excellent article from my friends Darius Gray and Margaret Young about the current and past situation of African Americans in the LDS Church:

The Colorful LDS Future

They note:

We tend to focus on our pioneer heritage, but ignore the heritage of blacks in the Church. Today, we focus on helping other white members, but often shun the ones that are different than us.

Very interesting and informing article that you present, it's true that many in the church are culturally insensitive to those who are different, but the question is, how may we represent all cultures in church so that everyone feels welcomed? There are not only African Americans going to our ward, (yes, the woman exaggerated when she noted that she was the ONLY African American to go to our church), but there are other cultures and races as well. How may we better represent them, also? Incorporating familiar hymns, as suggested by your article, I would think would be a wonderful idea.

However, I would have to disagree with your last statement. The church does not go out of its way to only help white members, but we focus our attention to those in need. If they happen to be white, hispanic, asian, ect, so be it. As I say, although there is a majority of white members in our ward, that does not fully demonstrate the diversity of members we have nor how many among minorities that are currently receiving help from other members. How would you be able to tell that the minorities get less help than the majority? You can't, but shouldn't those in need should be met foremost with care, no matter what their race? I've never attended a church that shuns anyone different from them, (except one ward we attended whose afluent members shunned those who were a lower class than they were.) In fact, there is always a family that will rush to the side of someone who needs their assistance. The fact is that this woman has not been shunned, she has been welcomed with loving arms and friendship throughout the ward. She had been offered positions in Relief Society and often gave opening or closing prayers at gospel studies and in relief society meetings. Someone was always offering her a ride, taking her to get groceries, or picking her up whenever she needed (I know because she testified about her gratefulness to the ward for doing these things for her.) So it is no question that people were going out of their way to help her.

[dorave]

FunkyTown is not your sonny. I'm going to ask that you please not respond in such a condescending way.

Yeah sorry, that was a typo ...ya'know sonny / funky. My bad.

[dorave]

I like dorave, it's true. When he admitted to being a socialist, I had to leave the quote for some time.

Hurrah for dorave!

But I'm not going to derail this thread, so let me say that the person in the original church has a right to feel any way they want. Even if they're wrong to feel that way, it's the job of the church to make everyone feel welcome.

*hugs u*

[talisyn]

ldsblack.org doesn't work. are you sure it's the right address?

[pam]

Maybe he meant blacklds.org

[rameumptom]

Thanks Pam. My dyslexia is at work again.

What do you call a dyslexic agnostic insomniac? Someone who stays up nights wondering if DOG exists.

[llytn51]

Of course she feels out of place! She's the only Black in a group of Whites! She needs fellowshipping, prayers, love and understanding. This might be a wonderful Ward, but she hasn't gotten the message that she is a sister to all the members of the Ward.

When she spoke out during testimony, that was appropriate because she was crying for help with her feelings of lonliness within the membership of the church. This is part of her testimony! Go to her and ask forgiveness for not understanding her uncomfortable situation.

My son in law is Black and a Melchizedek Priesthood holder. When he was going up to bless a baby in a Ward that he wasn't from, one of the Bishopric quickly came down to tell him that he had to have the priesthood to come up there........this is only one of many times these things happen.

There are racists in our church and it will take more Black members to love them out of it. And I mean LOVE them out of it. These people (and they know who they are....they say they aren't racist, but then they open their mouth and you know they are) need to know that we are all brothers and sisters and they are the ones who will suffer eternally if they don't get a grip on reality.

We need this sister to return to church and help us to grow as the Lord has asked us to do. Someone needs to go to her and tell her how important she is to the growth of the church and that she is a shining example of true love between all people. It's been a month.........SHE IS OUR SISTER, so go and tell her that! P.S. Say an 'on your knees prayer' before you leave.

[Hemidakota]

We are even told to love our enemies. This can include other LDS members.

[Dossice]

We are even told to love our enemies. This can include other LDS members.

Of course. As the simple yet beautiful primary song goes, "Love one another, as he has loved you."

[dorave]

Of course. As the simple yet beautiful primary song goes, "Love one another, as he has loved you."

So have you done anything yet??

[Hemidakota]

Of course. As the simple yet beautiful primary song goes, "Love one another, as he has loved you."

Hymn 302? Don't you get emotional when that is part of the sacrament closure hymn? I do...

[llytn51]

I was a bit harsh in my last post and apologize for it. Please try to understand that the LDS Church does not have a racist past. Some racist members, yes, but the Gospel was in no way racist. There was a good reason for what they did and it had to do with the general feelings of blacks in this country as being equal. Not holding the priesthood wasn't a punishment....it's my understanding that even though they didn't hold the priesthood, they still were given all of the blessings of those who did hold the priesthood when they lived the Gospel. It was because of the social racism in America, not the church being racist. The church intervened and made it so that they had all the blessings of any other member in good standing. This was actually a blessing for the blacks and it was the opposite of racism. They were accepted into the highest kingdom without the priesthood....who else can say they got that privilege? The Lord knew that many just wouldn't accept a black man having a higher priesthood position then a white man. There were many blacks in the early church and I have seen some beautiful stories concerning Joseph Smith and Brigham Young in regards to their black friends and new black converts. When you understand why, then you will understand the love that the Lord had for these people and for the early church members and how the church went above and beyond to protect them. Check your Church History and you will see that it's true. Remember, "If it weren't for the people, the Church would be perfect."

[rameumptom]

But that IS a racist attitude. Yes, much of the country had the same attitude. But it was racist, nonetheless.

We used the same Cain/Canaan curse theory as did many Protestant churches. It was a racist idea when the Southern Baptists split with their convention prior to the Civil War, and it was racist in the 1950s and 60s when Alvin R Dyer, Bruce R. McConkie, Ezra Taft Benson and others expressed themselves on the matter. Of course, with the 1978 revelation, many had to rethink their previous positions, and thankfully many admitted they erred. It is a sign of true humility.

Not all of the beautiful stories of JS and BY with blacks are true, BTW. It was BY that established the ban on the priesthood, and kept Elder Elijah Abel out of the temple.

[Suzie]

Not all of the beautiful stories of JS and BY with blacks are true, BTW. It was BY that established the ban on the priesthood, and kept Elder Elijah Abel out of the temple.

As well as faithful black sisters....

Marvin (Perkins) sent me some time ago a DVD about Blacks in the Scriptures, I am not African American but I lived in a country with a high percentage of black population, it was an eye opening for many faithful Black LDS members because it put a lot of things into perspective.

[Moksha]

(And believe me, it is a rare thing when Moksha is not mocking-ya).

Regards,

Vanhin

What is it with male moderators and the disparaging use of my name? I am happy that Pam, Maya and Gwen do not do this.

[Gwen]

What is it with male moderators and the disparaging use of my name? I am happy that Pam, Maya and Gwen do not do this.

if we all focused on you imagine all the unattended members we'd have. when we see potential trouble makers we draw straws to see who gets to follow them around. just imagine you can hear the guys whistlin' and whittlin'.... we need a smiley that does the finger, "i'm watching you" thing

[dorave]

and it was racist in the 1950s and 60s when Alvin R Dyer, Bruce R. McConkie, Ezra Taft Benson and others expressed themselves on the matter. Of course, with the 1978 revelation, many had to rethink their previous positions, and thankfully many admitted they erred. It is a sign of true humility.

Can you provide sources?? plz

[Vanhin]

But that IS a racist attitude. Yes, much of the country had the same attitude. But it was racist, nonetheless.

We used the same Cain/Canaan curse theory as did many Protestant churches. It was a racist idea when the Southern Baptists split with their convention prior to the Civil War, and it was racist in the 1950s and 60s when Alvin R Dyer, Bruce R. McConkie, Ezra Taft Benson and others expressed themselves on the matter. Of course, with the 1978 revelation, many had to rethink their previous positions, and thankfully many admitted they erred. It is a sign of true humility.

Not all of the beautiful stories of JS and BY with blacks are true, BTW. It was BY that established the ban on the priesthood, and kept Elder Elijah Abel out of the temple.

The historical record is not clear about the ban's institution, whether it was Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. It doesn't really matter to me which one instituted it, it is the same. Though the ban was lifted, the Lord has never provided a reason for the ban, and there is no apology for the ban either. There is no indication that the ban was unauthorized.

Regards,

Vanhin

[skippy740]

Some key notes on this subject:

1978 was the year of Official Declaration 2.

- What year were the new editions of the scriptures published?

- Do you think Bruce R. McConkie might have had a hand in that before his death in 1985?

- Do you think there might be some additional light and knowledge to be had in THIS edition of the scriptures compared to the previous editions?

Why has there never been an apology from the LDS church? Well, I'm going to answer that question with another question:

- Why are we commanded to live the law of tithing instead of the law of consecration? The members couldn't handle it!

The general membership of the church cannot stand the idea of their beloved Prophet being just a human being! That the Prophet may have their own opinions and ideas.

Always remember that our Prophets are still men... and they can and do make mistakes.

Here's the key question: Have they ever led someone astray from living their lives within the doctrines of salvation? NO.

The fact that the church prevented Blacks from having the priesthood shows that the CHURCH missed out on some great growth and spiritual nurishment from our Black brothers and sisters.

This information is NOT REQUIRED to know in order to receive and benefit from the blessings of the gospel. However, it MAY be required, if you want to become a better witness for Christ.

Did the Prophet lead the church astray? No. The PRACTICE put in place did not affect the TRUTHS of the DOCTRINE that is at the core of the church. There is a distinct difference between practices and doctrines. If we confuse the two, we may become like Lamanites that "cling to the traditions of their fathers".

It is my opinion that the past Presidents of the Church wouldn't mind if we spoke of this - if it helps us to bring more souls to Christ.

[skippy740]

I was a bit harsh in my last post and apologize for it. Please try to understand that the LDS Church does not have a racist past. Some racist members, yes, but the Gospel was in no way racist. There was a good reason for what they did and it had to do with the general feelings of blacks in this country as being equal. Not holding the priesthood wasn't a punishment....it's my understanding that even though they didn't hold the priesthood, they still were given all of the blessings of those who did hold the priesthood when they lived the Gospel. It was because of the social racism in America, not the church being racist. The church intervened and made it so that they had all the blessings of any other member in good standing. This was actually a blessing for the blacks and it was the opposite of racism. They were accepted into the highest kingdom without the priesthood....who else can say they got that privilege? The Lord knew that many just wouldn't accept a black man having a higher priesthood position then a white man. There were many blacks in the early church and I have seen some beautiful stories concerning Joseph Smith and Brigham Young in regards to their black friends and new black converts. When you understand why, then you will understand the love that the Lord had for these people and for the early church members and how the church went above and beyond to protect them. Check your Church History and you will see that it's true. Remember, "If it weren't for the people, the Church would be perfect."

I like the spirit behind your post! I'd like to clarify a few parts though.

They were accepted into the highest kingdom without the priesthood....who else can say they got that privilege?

Uh... no. Our Father in Heaven is not a changing God. He is everlasting. He has required covenants and ordinances to be performed in order for one to return to His presence.

Yes, temple work can be performed on their behalf after their death... but it must still be done. Otherwise, our God "is a respector of person's". He is not.

The Lord knew that many just wouldn't accept a black man having a higher priesthood position then a white man.

This is a statement that shows the hardness of hearts. The Lord wouldn't accept this.

America had to grow as a nation, and our church (being founded in America) needed to grow alongside America.

As part of the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that we would release our black slaves to follow the principles of freedom. The Southern States wouldn't allow it because it would cripple their economy. They had to PRIORITIZE! First, independence. They'll try to work out the slavery issue later. They can't just do it all, right now, all at once. Things take time.

Our church had a ROUGH start. Saints being tarred, feathered, murdered, raped... it was bad. The church lost the first two temples it ever built. They were driven west so they can finally establish a foundation on which to grow.

Imagine if the church started having other leaders who were BLACK preaching??? In Missouri??? Do you think it would've been SAFE for them? Baptizing other black people - maybe without their masters even knowing about it?

The church, like America, needed to grow. And if that meant that it had to put off some other issues and practices, so be it. The LDS church moved West to the Salt Lake Valley.

Heck, we had other issues while we were trying to follow the commandments of our Lord. Remember Polygamy? In Official Declaration 1, Wilford Woodruff states that he saw what would've happened if they didn't end the practice. Temples would be seized by the law of the land and the work of the Lord would essentially end.

BTW, did the end of the PRACTICE of plural marriage change our DOCTRINE about it? (Something to think about.)

Now, why did it have to take so long to lift the ban? I don't know. Or we had some leaders that weren't ready to lift it yet. Remember that our leaders are human... and we have ALL been fed on the words of the past Presidents of the Church. Some must have felt very strongly about the MEN who said those words and felt that those words were still doctrinally true.

Sometimes it takes fresh minds to make changes.

Notice the WORDING of Official Declaration 2:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Just some additional thoughts on the subject.

[jayanna]

it's my understanding that even though they didn't hold the priesthood, they still were given all of the blessings of those who did hold the priesthood when they lived the Gospel.

Actually, without the Melc. priesthood the men were unable to go the temple and be sealed to their families.

Their rejoicing when the priesthood was made available wasn't just because they wanted to have the priesthood for the priesthood's sake, or even that they were worried about being socially considered to be equal...they were finally able to attend the temple, and be sealed to their families for time and all eternity.

While I don't understand why it took so long, it does testify to me of their great faith in the Lord, that they held to the rod, even when He wasn't giving them what they righteously desired.

Like when Jacob wrestled all night (Gen. 32:24), the night before he was to meet his brother, Esau, and possibly have an altercation with him. He wrestled, and wrestled, even when his leg was dislocated, he wrestled. He was shown his own strength, and was blessed. He was then named Israel.

These great, faithful people, had to wrestle, learned their strength, and were blessed.

I wonder if my faith would hold up under such circumstances.

[rameumptom]

Darius Gray, former president of Genesis, has written on the early black experience in the LDS Church. Joseph Smith ordained men to the priesthood and sent them on missions.

The issues of the ban did not begin until after his death, even though Brigham Young claimed Joseph approved of it. Most historians of the events involved believe it all came to a head in Winter Quarters, when a black member who held the priesthood, set up a small town nearby and invited white sisters to join him in polygamy. The fear of mixed marriages was a huge one for the white members, and it became the impetus for the ban. There never has been found a single piece of evidence pointing to any revelation imposing the ban. Instead, it seems to have been an action taken by BY and the 12 to stop something before it began (or went too far). Joseph ordained black men to the priesthood, and the Lord could easily have told him not to do so, but didn't. None of these men were released from the priesthood once the ban was put into place. Elijah Abel even served missions during the ban, as a priesthood holder, baptizing along the way!

The use of the scriptures to "explain" the ban by introducing the concept of the curse came about in Utah, not Nauvoo. As late as the 1960s, early 1970s, some GAs were still insisting on the curse as the explanation, as with Elder Alvin R. Dyer's published missionary conference discourse "For What Purpose?" explains the curse from his POV. Interestingly, he passed away one year before the Priesthood Revelation in 1978.

Dyer stated at the missionary conference in Norway:

There were three divisions of mankind in the pre-existence, and when you are born into this life, you are born into one of these three divisions of people. There is an imposed judgment placed upon everyone who leaves the Spirit World just the same as there will be when they leave this life and go into one of three places. When they left the Spirit World, they had already been judged by what they had done in the Spirit World and in their previous life. From what judgment is determined how they shall be born in this life? When you understand that, you know that God is not unjust to cause a righteous spirit to be born as a CURSED member of the BLACK RACE or to be CURSED as one of the other people who have been CURSED. Everything is in order. The procreation of man is orderly and in accordance with the plan of life and salvation. “In keeping with this thought, when Noah went into the Ark, here again he took with him his three sons—one representing the CURSED LINEAGE.... Those who have been cursed in the pre-existence were born through this lineage of Ham. “I suppose, and you may have often heard missionaries say it or have asked the question: Why is a Negro a Negro? And, you have heard this answer. 'Well, they must have been neutral in the pre-existence or they must have straddled the fence. That is the most common saying—they were neither hot nor cold, so the Lord made them Negroes. This, of course, is not true. The reason that spirits are born into Negro bodies is because those spirits rejected the Priesthood of God in the pre-existence. This is the reason why you have Negroes upon the earth.

So, if his thoughts are correct, then even though the ban has been lifted, there still must be three groups of people in the Spirit World, one of which must be cursed for rejecting the priesthood! Yet, if that is the case, why are they no longer cursed for what they did in the premortal existence? It is a case of seeking explanations AFTER the ban was put into place, not the other way around. Instead of just saying that blacks were not being given the priesthood blessings because the church isn't ready for it, they sought an explanation that put the blame on blacks.

Also, if they were cursed in this way, then what about the ban on Gentiles joining the Church in New Testament times? Were they cursed in the premortal existence, also? This, to me, is a very slippery slope.

God allowed the ban because the Church and world were not ready for it. And that sometimes included some of the General Authorities.

Elder McConkie also spoke frequently regarding the curse of Cain/Canaan. That is until the 1978 revelation. After that, he spoke more of the concept that God sends the gospel to each group of people as they and the world are ready for it (giving the gospel going to the Gentiles as an example). This is a major departure from previous teachings.

He stated:

It is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young…or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more. It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. — Bruce R. McConkie in 1978, after the revelation granting blacks the priesthood

You can get more from thse websites:

Blacks and the Priesthood | Blacklds.org

Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham" - FAIRMormon