Black Mormons?

[Traveler]

It's clear that the early Mormon settlers were on the receiving end of persecutions, not the giving end. I can see how good relations would have been established between equally afflicted parties. Setting Native Americans aside for a moment, I think the particular attitude toward blacks was influenced by the prevailing segregationist attitudes of those days and the Mormons were far from the only ones who saw it as their "christian duty" to oppose integration. The reverberations in many Protestant churches from past racial segregation can be seen even today with congregations that are almost entirely black or white. I don't think the LDS church would be immune from the lag in racial homogenization experienced in so many other churches.

There is a racial problem regardless of what is done. If cultures are segregated then the criticism is that the separation is a racial and that the only reasons for segregation is distrust and hatred. If cultures are integrated then the criticism is that cultures are being lost and individual heritages are being destroyed - and again racial hatred and distrust are used and blamed for the cause.

My first discovery in marriage was how different my in-laws were. Any efforts I exercised to maintain my upbringing was seen by my wife as a dislike of her family and vice versa. In essence we can ether celebrate the differences and put aside our heritage or we can maintain our heritage and hold off full acceptances of differences.

There is one other possibility - we can seek the best of all cultures and disappoint (make enemies) of everybody that loves their heritage and who they are.

The Traveler

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

You read the testimonies, but did not go into the section on Priesthood?

Blacks and the Priesthood | Blacklds.org

Had you done so, you would have read my dear, deceased friend Renee state this:

True. This is a large site and I'm just becoming acquainted with it. That's why I was careful not to suggest that the issue wasn't addressed at all. But let's take a closer look here at this testamony:

What can we logically conclude from this? Only that the Lord knew of the ban, but did nothing to stop it. As to the exact reason why, only He knows....So even though He didn’t give the word for the priesthood ban, He used it to further His purposes.

This is the second time I heard a black man say that the ban was not inspired. This isn't like polygamy, a practice that was initiated by revelation and ended the same way. Renee and Marcus Martins are both saying that God never came up with the idea of the ban.

If you disagree and try to defend the Church, you’re already fighting a losing battle. Our Church leaders have made more than enough damning remarks to give our critics all the ammunition they need to accuse the Church of racism

And here addressed is the mistake that some here are trying to make, to whitewash LDS history of the taint of racism. As I said earlier, I have fellow Catholics who try to do the same with Catholic history. In both cases, an easy lie is being preferred over the hard truth. You're right that Elijah Abel, a black man, was appointed to the priesthood by Joseph Smith and then Walker Lewis, but then the restrictions took place indicating that a trend started but it wasn't started by JS.

I was also interested in Marvin Perkins' testamony and found this unique view on the curse of Cain and its reversal:

There are Blacks here today who are members of the Church. Why have we not turned White? But there are Blacks who have joined the Church, married White spouse, and their children became lighter than their Black parents. Then those kids grew up to marry those that believe as they do, which most are White, so they married White, and their kids became even lighter, and so on. Makes you think a bit, doesn’t it?

Perkins testamony is quick to point out that the curse is applicable only to those who don't repent, but in this statement indicates the favorable outcome by which the curse is reversed entirely by the lightening of the skin through directive eugenics. Clearly there is a difference between Renee saying that the darkness is not a curse but a calling and Perkins saying that it is a curse that is reversed through repentence and the reversal culminates through the undoing of its most obvious manifestation, the darkness of skin.

[rameumptom]

Darius Gray, a leading founder of the Genesis Group (Black members of the LDS Church) was given permission in 2004 by the First Presidency to state that we do not know how the ban began, only that it was ended by revelation. This is now the Church's stance. There are historians that believe it began, as I mentioned before, as a result of an apostate black elder who attempted to practice polygamy near Winter Quarters with white sisters.

You will see this is the stance the leaders in the LDS Black movement also take. And I highly agree with it.

[selek]

With the quoted sections of 2 Nephi in the BOM and also the Pearl of Great Price, how does any black man or Native American overcome the offensive hue=curse paradigm spelled out in the Book of Mormon to become a Mormon themselves?

There are a number of errors in your chain of thought. First, the "skin of blackness" and "the curse" as one and the same (as opposed to two separate aspects of what God was doing) is both a very selective and a very inflammatory interpretation.

There is simply no evidence that this "skin of blackness" refers literally to melanin-rich skin tones- though that interpretation has certainly served bigots on both sides of the issue for centuries.

Simply put- you are engaging in a presentist fallacy: imposing your own "modern" prejudices upon the words, thoughts, and actions of those who lived in a previous and different era.

While it may serve to stoke your ego and reinforce a certain undeserved self-righteous preening, it is neither logical nor does it serve to advance understanding.

If you are Native American, then perhaps you can shed some light on this. There are so many respondants who are getting bent out of shape about the race issue, that I'm having difficulty getting an answer to an honest question. So let's look at this again

Yes, let's look at it again- "Native American" refers to a specific lineage, not a skin color.

In point of fact, it is you- not we- who insist on making this about color.

My question is simple. Of those of non white descent who become Mormon, how do they view this? Moreover, how do they overcome it?

Why do you insist on lumping all people of color into a single, monolithic group incapable of individual thought?

Don't you see how insensitive, and frankly- racist- that is?

It's little different than the "Muslims are too backward for democracy and self-rule" mantra currently in vogue.

It is a very self-congratulatory, and frankly condescending attitude to display.

Any person's conversion to Mormonism- regardless of skin color- is just that; a personal conversion.

Each individual's journey will be different than that of his fellows, and each must decide for himself as prompted by study and by the Holy Ghost.

So why do you insist on a pat, easy, one-size-fits-all answer for persons of color?

Also, why do you assume that the necessity of reconciling the Priesthood Ban would be different for a "person of color" than for any other member?

Every Mormon (and every potential Mormon)- regardless of race, sex, age, ethinicity, eye color, hair color, left- or right-handedness, political affiliation, or preference for chocolate or peanut butter must confront any number of dichotomies between Church law and policy and their own preferences and presumptions.

Why is the long-dead Priesthood Ban any different?

Finally, your use of sources- even those handed to you on a silver platter, is badly wanting.

If you're going to ignore the plain meaning of words- or worse, twist them to your own ends- why should we bother with you?

I offer the following exchanges as examples of this behavior:

What can we logically conclude from this? Only that the Lord knew of the ban, but did nothing to stop it. As to the exact reason why, only He knows....So even though He didn’t give the word for the priesthood ban, He used it to further His purposes.

What can we logically conclude from this? Only that the Lord knew of the ban, but did nothing to stop it. As to the exact reason why, only He knows....So even though He didn’t give the word for the priesthood ban, He used it to further His purposes.

This is the second time I heard a black man say that the ban was not inspired. This isn't like polygamy, a practice that was initiated by revelation and ended the same way. Renee and Marcus Martins are both saying that God never came up with the idea of the ban.

This is simply false. Renee and Marcus Martins are not saying the Ban was not inspired. Note the emboldened text.

They are saying, "We don't know whether it was inspired or not- simply that it took place and that God used it for his own purposes."

There is a vast difference between what these faithful members are saying and the spin you're putting on their words.

If you disagree and try to defend the Church, you’re already fighting a losing battle. Our Church leaders have made more than enough damning remarks to give our critics all the ammunition they need to accuse the Church of racism

And here addressed is the mistake that some here are trying to make, to whitewash LDS history of the taint of racism. As I said earlier, I have fellow Catholics who try to do the same with Catholic history. In both cases, an easy lie is being preferred over the hard truth. You're right that Elijah Abel, a black man, was appointed to the priesthood by Joseph Smith and then Walker Lewis, but then the restrictions took place indicating that a trend started but it wasn't started by JS.

Your logic is positively Machiavellian in its maliciousness: How the heck is an admission of racist comments by our past leaders a denial of racism?

How is an admission that our leaders made racist comments an attempted whitewash of Mormon history?

It's fairly clear here that you're willing to flatly ignore the plain meaning of words in order to advance an agenda.

So, if you're not arguing in good faith or genuinely trying to understand, why should we waste our time with you?

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

There are a number of errors in your chain of thought. First, the "skin of blackness" and "the curse" as one and the same (as opposed to two separate aspects of what God was doing) is both a very selective and a very inflammatory interpretation.

I don't think the meaning could be more clear, especially when these dark skinned perpetrators are contrasted to the "fair skinned children of God". I'm not the one failing to take the text at its most logical meaning.

There is simply no evidence that this "skin of blackness" refers literally to melanin-rich skin tones- though that interpretation has certainly served bigots on both sides of the issue for centuries.

Interpretation. Is that like saying that jihadist Muslims have a false interpretation of the Qu'ran? In both cases, when conflicting interpretations come into play, there is always one interpretation that follows the natural, lay-of-the-land meaning of the text and another that stretches the meaning to serve an agenda. It's a painful truth that those Muslims that interpret the Qu'ran as standing orders to visit violence upon those who don't submit to Islam are the ones reading it correctly with no cohersion.

Simply put- you are engaging in a presentist fallacy: imposing your own "modern" prejudices upon the words, thoughts, and actions of those who lived in a previous and different era.

While it may serve to stoke your ego and reinforce a certain undeserved self-righteous preening, it is neither logical nor does it serve to advance understanding.

I forget, am I the one who is a hateful bigot here?

In point of fact, it is you- not we- who insist on making this about color.

An error indeed. It's just as incorrect as saying that color doesn't matter.

Why do you insist on lumping all people of color into a single, monolithic group incapable of individual thought?

Don't you see how insensitive, and frankly- racist- that is?

Considering I've been exploring contradicting opinions between different black Mormons, I hardly consider this indictment to be of any merit.

It's little different than the "Muslims are too backward for democracy and self-rule" mantra currently in vogue.

It is a very self-congratulatory, and frankly condescending attitude to display.

You can spin it any way you want, but the truth can sometimes cut like elephant grass. Muslims ARE too backward for democracy and self rule not because all Muslims are the same, but rather because those voices calling for democracy do not hold sway against against louder voices calling for religious despotism. I'm a truth seeker which is why I seem to rub you wrong. I seek out the truth no matter how unflattering or politically incorrect. The fact that I can see the ugliness in the past practices of the LDS and still find myself admiring this faith should tell you all you need to know about me. Islam is a religion I detest to the depths of my being because it lacks the Mormons' ability to overcome past mistakes and choose the right path. Mormons and Muslims are nothing alike.

Every Mormon (and every potential Mormon)- regardless of race, sex, age, ethinicity, eye color, hair color, left- or right-handedness, political affiliation, or preference for chocolate or peanut butter must confront any number of dichotomies between Church law and policy and their own preferences and presumptions.

Why is the long-dead Priesthood Ban any different?

I'm not sure I understand the question here.

Finally, your use of sources- even those handed to you on a silver platter, is badly wanting.

Perhaps it's an opportunity to see how the LDS is viewed from the outside. I'm not a basher nor am I inclined to believe anything calumnating of the LDS faith. I will say this as an outsider because now it's time that harsh words be directed at you. You represent your faith poorly, meeting any non Mormon's opinions and inquiries with xenophobic hostility and ripostes that drip with contempt. You have no grasp of the fine art of apologetics which is about building bridges not walls and you routinely ignore opportunities to engender better understanding of the LDS faith interpreting every opportunity given you as a threat.

It's fairly clear here that you're willing to flatly ignore the plain meaning of words in order to advance an agenda.

So, if you're not arguing in good faith or genuinely trying to understand, why should we waste our time with you?

Then don't. If you feel it's a waste of time, then why are you responding? I've done nothing to conceal my objective with this thread and I've gotten a lot of helpful feedback from many members here and have checked out the resources offered to me in order to better understand this issue. To them I owe much gratitude. But I can have no meaningful discussion with someone who circles the wagons to fend off any viewpoint that doesn't toe the party line. So you're right. We are wasting our time with each other.

[pam]

As this thread is going nowhere, I am going to close it.