The Church and Race: "All Are Alike Unto God"

[LittleWyvern]

Sorry, but I have heard many times from fellow LDS, including some raised in the church and including one that is now a bishop, that the reason blacks used to not be allowed to obtain priesthood had to do with the Nephite/Laminite thing. Now that the issue has generated much publicity lately, the LDS church is suddenly saying it doesn't know what the reason is for this? One can't help but to wonder what "revelation" the living prophet will get next.

From how I read it, the Church is making it very clear that none of those "reasons" are (or were) true.

[HiJolly]

How do you reconcile that with "The prophet will never lead the church astray"?

-RM

President Wilford Woodruff first made that statement, in context of the 1890 ban statement against the practice of polygamy.

I don't think it applies to anything else.

HiJolly

[RMGuy]

President Wilford Woodruff first made that statement, in context of the 1890 ban statement against the practice of polygamy.

I don't think it applies to anything else.

HiJolly

Well that is interesting since it was included as part of the 14 fundamentals that are so highly touted.

-RM

[NeuroTypical]

Sure ---- it's all fine and dandy if you are a white guy or gal. But what about the black folks during the first 150 years of the restoration?

The more one studies the history of blacks in America, the goofier this question becomes. And when you throw in the history of mormon persecution and our history regarding the slavery issue, it becomes downright laughable.

Pop History Quiz:

1- How many LDS missionaries got tarred and feathered under the charge of "inciting our slaves to riot"?

2- What was Joseph Smith's presidential platform regarding slavery?

3- What side of the Civil War did the Mormons pick, and what difficulties were they enduring at the hands of their side at the time?

4- What was the experience of blacks in the LDS church, vs. their experiences with other "white christian churches"?

Edited March 1, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Vort]

The more one studies the history of blacks in America, the goofier this question becomes. And when you throw in the history of mormon persecution and our history regarding the slavery issue, it becomes downright laughable.

Pop History Quiz:

1- How many LDS missionaries got tarred and feathered under the charge of "inciting our slaves to riot"?

2- What was Joseph Smith's presidential platform regarding slavery?

3- What side of the Civil War did the Mormons pick, and what difficulties were they enduring at the hands of their side at the time?

4- What was the experience of blacks in the LDS church, vs. their experiences with other "white christian churches"?

All that is irrelevant, LM. The only relevant point is that cwald is much smarter and more enlightened than the Church leaders of previous generations.

[prisonchaplain]

It is so difficult to discuss this topic--for any church, or any group that is predominantly white (realizing your church is about 50% non-American now). If you apologize profusely, questions are raised about founding fathers. If you defend the integrity of the founders, based on historic context, you are deemed insensitive. If you bemoan the difficulties and struggles of a given minority, you are considered paternalistic and condescending.

If the one complaining is part of the minority group, then I mostly listen, and try to empathize. We should walk with our brothers through their pain, right? If it's another white who is pontificating about the sins of our fathers, I still mostly listen. Afterwards, I'd suggest he ask some of the current members who are from the minority group how it is they overcame the alleged failures, and maintained their faith in the Church.

[confuzzled]

I am going to go out on a limb here and share my 2 cents.....

In my life time I have found individuals who search for one "bad" (for a lack of a better word) thing and then they hold tight to that one thing. Nothing else matters but that one thing. IF there is a "bad thing" then by all means everything else has to be questioned.

I don't know the reason for the ban and perhaps (at least for me) my salvation isn't dependent upon it. What I do know is that black, brown, yellow, orange, blue, red, and white all are my brothers and sisters.

My 2 cents.

[Just_A_Guy]

I've wondered at times if this were not the real reason... But why did no Prophet after him reverse this? Did none of them bother ask God what he thought of it 'till 1978?

YES.

David O. McKay's secretary recalls seeing him emerge from his office one evening, in tears. McKay explained that he had been pleading for permission to extend the priesthood to blacks and just been told "no". McKay nevertheless took baby steps at limiting the policy; and the priesthood ban's theological and historical underpinnings were a perennial topic of study and debate by the Twelve--both collectively and individually--for over three decades. Edward Kimball's article in BYU Studies (available for $2 here; I've seen it for free somewhere online but can't find the link at the moment) is essential for a balanced understanding of the issue. The anecdote I just cite, I believe appears in Woodger's biography of McKay and may also have been cited by Kimball as well.

We can quibble over whether the ban was proactive in nature--in other words, required by God for His own theological reasons--or reactive in nature, due to God's concern as to what internal and external forces might do to the Church if it adopted a revolutionary policy prematurely. Historians can also note the events that coincide historically with Young's first injunctions against the ordination of blacks, and point to the absence of any identified written revelation to that effect recorded in Church archives. (And there's always a possibility of a mislaid, miscatalogued, or uncatalogued document floating around somewhere in LDS Archives or the First Presidency Vault--much of the embarrassment of the Mark Hoffman affair, for example, came about because the Church hadn't implemented a reliable, systematic catalog of its holdings and so it couldn't definitively state what its archives did and did not contain.) But such quibbles cannot be definitively resolved based on the information available to us.

Try as they might (and some have tried hard), no one has been able to prove the idea that Young or any of his successors were violating the Lord's instructions or otherwise abusing their authority when they conceived/implemented the policy. The arguments that gain the most currency generally come from people who explicitly or implicitly accept the idea that God's raison d'etre is to implement Western twenty-first social notions of social justice on a global scale.

"We don't know" means "we don't know". It does not mean "God had no hand in it" or "Brigham Young was full of doodie" or "the Church was led astray" or any of the other histrionic claims that some liberal Mormons are so fond of making.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[skippy740]

It is so difficult to discuss this topic--for any church, or any group that is predominantly white (realizing your church is about 50% non-American now). If you apologize profusely, questions are raised about founding fathers. If you defend the integrity of the founders, based on historic context, you are deemed insensitive. If you bemoan the difficulties and struggles of a given minority, you are considered paternalistic and condescending.

If the one complaining is part of the minority group, then I mostly listen, and try to empathize. We should walk with our brothers through their pain, right? If it's another white who is pontificating about the sins of our fathers, I still mostly listen. Afterwards, I'd suggest he ask some of the current members who are from the minority group how it is they overcame the alleged failures, and maintained their faith in the Church.

Precisely!

Speaking as one who has participated in one online baptism, one online reactivation, and 3 local baptisms of our black brothers and sisters, I can tell you this:

They universally wonder why there aren't more blacks in the church. They want to know how blacks are treated today. They want to know what to teach their children about past teachings. They need to be able to defend their faith.

I am part of the African American Outreach Program. I help people of color (of which I am not) to know that I can understand on some level what they are (or will) go through in joining the church. We use the "Blacks in the Scriptures" DVD lectures to help them to understand that WE understand... and that we want them to feel loved and included in our LDS family.

For those of you who are wanting "the whole story"... I propose there is a reason why we are NOT given "the whole story" directly from the Church. Perhaps their wisdom is greater than ours? That said, the spirit of suspicion and criticism will not coincide with the spirit of God in the heart of man.

We need to be students of the words of the Prophets, not blind followers. We all need to study things out and pray about them. We do not lose our free will when we become baptised. We need to continuously pray and study - including addresses from General Conference. It may all be "good", but some of it is not good for us at a particular stage in your life. For example, it is not a good time in my life to focus on family history work. That's just not in my plans right now. Yes, I'll agree with the doctrine, but for everything there is a time and a season. That's just one example.

It's the idea of "blind obedience" that can give others outside of our faith the idea that the LDS is a cult. Let's not perpetuate that notion.

[skippy740]

I agree. I don't see how one can say otherwise.

Sure ---- it's all fine and dandy if you are a white guy or gal. But what about the black folks during the first 150 years of the restoration?

Even though you're 'banned', I'm going to respond:

How many churches out there encourage a fully-active lay clergy (for no pay) and encourage all its members to speak in the name of the Lord?

See D&C 1:20

But that every man might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;

That is one of the big differences between the LDS church and other churches.

That said, because of the beauty of the gospel of eternal families and the ordinances of the temple, yes, the ban was difficult. And I'd have to agree that the church did not enjoy the growth it could have had if it didn't have this practice.

But all we need to help our black brothers and sisters know that we love and support them... is the study of the scriptures on this topic... and to show how easy it was to misinterpret them... yes, even from Prophets.

[skippy740]

President Wilford Woodruff first made that statement, in context of the 1890 ban statement against the practice of polygamy.

I don't think it applies to anything else.

HiJolly

I do like this comment. Let's explore it just a bit further.

The saints at the time, were practicing the new and everlasting covenant of marriage - with multiple wives. Even the Prophet Joseph waited 12 years before revealing this revelation to the Saints.

The Saints were willing to put God first above the persecutions and the government orders and sanctions. They were willing to die for their religion because of their faith in the Prophet Joseph.

And now, President Woodruff is ending plural marriage with the manifesto? Think about it! How would you respond?

President Woodruff was reassuring the Saints that the Lord knows what is good for His Church and His people. That if the Prophet were to lead the saints away from the commandments that He gave (and from the saving doctrines of faith, repentance, baptism & the gift of the Holy Ghost), then the Prophet would then be removed from his place. But that does not mean that prophets cannot make mistakes... because prophets are human beings.

The doctrines of the church are perfect. The people (including leadership) are not.

[skippy740]

I keep getting ideas of things to add to this thread.

Let's also acknolwedge that the priesthood ban had to be removed by revelation. To have done so for any other reason would be to bend to political or social pressures without having the doctrinal knowledge to back it up.

Did you know that because of the revelation in 1978, the Church produced a new edition of the scriptures in 1981?

Here is the speech by Bruce R. McConkie regarding the 1978 revelation where he said to "Forget everything I have said":

“All Are Alike unto God” - Bruce R. McConkie

If you would like further clarification on some of the verses in the Book of Mormon, I would suggest reading this lesson outline:

Lesson Outline For Teachers | BlacksInTheScriptures.com

[bytebear]

Did you know that because of the revelation in 1978, the Church produced a new edition of the scriptures in 1981?

The 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon came about because in 1979 the church republished a new version of the Bible. It was a multi-year project started in 1976, and it was always planned to republish all the standard works as a coordinated effort.

The Church Publishes a New Triple Combination - Ensign Oct. 1981 - ensign

"The concept of a new triple combination was first considered during the preliminary discussions about the Bible, but the need for the new edition became more pressing in 1976, when the Church accepted as canon two additional revelations: Joseph Smith’s vision of the celestial kingdom and Joseph F. Smith’s vision of the redemption of the dead."

So this project started two years before the priesthood ban was lifted.

"(For an interesting discussion of errors in the Book of Mormon, see Ensign, Sept. 1976, pp. 77–82.)" - also two years before the lift of the ban, the church knew there were errors in past editions that needed to be fixed.

"In the 1840 printing, which the Prophet edited, this passage was changed to read “a pure and delightsome people,” but for some reason later printings reverted to the original wording."

So, the change from "white" to "pure" had nothing to do with the the priesthood ban. (and 2 Nephi 5:21 still says "white")

The revelation given to Spencer W. Kimball was added to the Doctrine and Covenants, but the project was nearly complete by then.

Edited March 1, 2012 by bytebear

[skippy740]

And what do the footnotes say?

[skippy740]

From the link:

As always, inspired direction came from the Scriptures Publication Committee of the Quorum of the Twelve: Elder Thomas S. Monson, chairman, Elder Boyd K. Packer, and Elder Bruce R. McConkie, with Brother W. James Mortimer serving as executive secretary.

All but one (Brother W. James Mortimer) were serving in the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve at the time of the 1978 revelation. Do you think the 1978 revelation helped to edit the footnotes to help ensure greater understanding of the proper meaning of the scriptures? What do you think the bretheren want us to understand about these verses now?

IMO, there are no 'coincidences' in the Lord's work. I am okay admitting that I'm wrong in saying that the new editions of the scriptures were 'because' of the 1978 revelation. However, the 1978 revelation added new information that was incorporated into the 1981 edition of the scriptures.

[Just_A_Guy]

"In the 1840 printing, which the Prophet edited, this passage was changed to read “a pure and delightsome people,” but for some reason later printings reverted to the original wording."

The reason, incidentally, was that when the Twelve served their missions in England they arranged for another edition of the Book of Mormon to be printed there in Liverpool. That edition was based on the 1837 Kirtland edition, which lacked Smith's later edits.

When the Church fled Nauvoo, it wasn't really in a position to do any large-scale publishing in the US for the next several decades and most Church printing operations were based out of Great Britain. Therefore, largely through inertia, all future LDS-published editions of the Book of Mormon up until 1981 were based on the Liverpool edition (in turn based on the 1837 Kirtland edition) and not the 1840 Nauvoo edition.

[MarginOfError]

How do you reconcile that with "The prophet will never lead the church astray"?

-RM

How do I reconcile the stoning of disobedient children, or the unclean status of menstruating women with "The prophet will never lead the church astray?"

As I grow older and wiser, I feel more strongly that God tolerates some of our most horrific flaws while he tries to enlighten us to change ourselves from within.

We have a culture in the church that "The Prophet is always right".

As someone once pointed out, Catholics proclaim an infallible pope while no one really believes it. Mormons proclaim a fallible prophet while always acting like he's infallible.

A prophet's personal racism stopping an entire group of people from receiving the priesthood.... sounds an awful lot like leading the the church astray.

As I pointed out above, God has allowed much worse to happen in history. Entire cities were wiped out because they weren't of the right lineage. Children were slaughtered. Slavery was rampant. And many of the offenses were codified in sacred texts. If you're going to say that a prophet in the 1840's led the church astray, then at least be prepared to say that Moses and all those who supported biblical laws had led the church astray.

[RMGuy]

Perhaps a first presidency statement could be considered as "official"?

Honest question, if we are going to try to excuse this official statement from 1949 as "speculation and opinion, not doctrine" then are we to regard all 1st presidency statements as speculation and opinion?

The church's latest release includes the following statement:

"Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine." So in that instance was the first presidency statement below a personal statement that does not represent doctrine?

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes." Signed: The First Presidency, George Albert Smith, N Eldon Tanner, David O McKay

-RM

[RMGuy]

How do I reconcile the stoning of disobedient children, or the unclean status of menstruating women with "The prophet will never lead the church astray?"

As I grow older and wiser, I feel more strongly that God tolerates some of our most horrific flaws while he tries to enlighten us to change ourselves from within.

So do you believe God is just tolerating our "horrific flaws" of not allowing homosexuals the same rights as others? Or do you think he is "tolerating" the fact that we don't allow women the priesthood? Or are those really bedrock doctrine?

-RM

[MarginOfError]

So do you believe God is just tolerating our "horrific flaws" of not allowing homosexuals the same rights as others? Or do you think he is "tolerating" the fact that we don't allow women the priesthood? Or are those really bedrock doctrine?

-RM

I don't know.

What I do know is this, I'm open to the possibility of change. If there is a change, I will be among the first to stand up and say, "we got it wrong." But I simply don't know the answer right now.

[clevermoniker]

It's only today that we have the current definition of "racism". We are looking at the past with the standards of today. Back then, no one thought it was even wrong to be "racist".

Remember that the church was founded by CONVERTS. The church has had to grow and develop line by line, precept by precept. If the church was restored exactly as it is today, the church would not have survived.

If it's wrong today, it was wrong then.

[RMGuy]

I don't know.

What I do know is this, I'm open to the possibility of change. If there is a change, I will be among the first to stand up and say, "we got it wrong." But I simply don't know the answer right now.

MoE,

I can respect that position. One further question, if you are willing to share, and if not I understand. What do you think?

It seems to me, that our Heavenly Father expects us to reason things through and then seek confirmation. I think what is difficult in this situation is that we are told to trust the words of our leaders, of prophets and apostles. Many, many LDS did this, they trusted those leaders. They based decisions and behaviors on that guidance, now the church issues a statement that claims these teachings were just personal opinions and conjecture. I would hate to think that I cause harm, injury, or offense to others of my brothers and sisters simply because of the personal opinions of our current leaders.

There certainly is no easy answer.

-RM

[MarginOfError]

MoE,

I can respect that position. One further question, if you are willing to share, and if not I understand. What do you think?

It seems to me, that our Heavenly Father expects us to reason things through and then seek confirmation. I think what is difficult in this situation is that we are told to trust the words of our leaders, of prophets and apostles. Many, many LDS did this, they trusted those leaders. They based decisions and behaviors on that guidance, now the church issues a statement that claims these teachings were just personal opinions and conjecture. I would hate to think that I cause harm, injury, or offense to others of my brothers and sisters simply because of the personal opinions of our current leaders.

There certainly is no easy answer.

-RM

No, there really isn't an easy answer.

Personally, I don't think there is much damage done by the fact that there was a priesthood ban at all. I think most of the damage is done by the continued efforts to explain it.

I don't think it should be a surprise to anyone in the modern age that someone in 1840 might try to interpret religious text in a way that would justify a personal opinion. What caused the damage is that for over 100 years, there was an institutional repetition of that person's interpretation and very little consideration for the possibility that there were alternate interpretations. (I hope that makes sense)

The best solution I can offer is that we shouldn't dismiss alternate interpretations out-of-hand simply because it disagrees with a current or past leader. Alternate interpretations should be given their due consideration before disbanded (easier said than done, I know).

Most importantly, I think we need to accept that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about individual development and salvation first, and about family development and salvation second. Any social policies we develop are subject to our interpretations and we'll just have to live with the fact that sometimes we don't get it right.

[skippy740]

Perhaps a first presidency statement could be considered as "official"?

Honest question, if we are going to try to excuse this official statement from 1949 as "speculation and opinion, not doctrine" then are we to regard all 1st presidency statements as speculation and opinion?

The church's latest release includes the following statement:

"Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine." So in that instance was the first presidency statement below a personal statement that does not represent doctrine?

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes." Signed: The First Presidency, George Albert Smith, N Eldon Tanner, David O McKay

-RM

My only response to this is this question:

Do you believe in the 9th Article of Faith?

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Within the 14 Fundamentals of Following the Prophet, one of the tenets is this:

A living prophet is more important than a dead prophet.

The work of a later prophet to work to supercede the work of the past is more important to us today, than "worshipping" the words of a past prophet that have been found to be inaccurate.

Edited March 1, 2012 by skippy740

[bytebear]

All but one (Brother W. James Mortimer) were serving in the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve at the time of the 1978 revelation. Do you think the 1978 revelation helped to edit the footnotes to help ensure greater understanding of the proper meaning of the scriptures? What do you think the bretheren want us to understand about these verses now?

IMO, there are no 'coincidences' in the Lord's work. I am okay admitting that I'm wrong in saying that the new editions of the scriptures were 'because' of the 1978 revelation. However, the 1978 revelation added new information that was incorporated into the 1981 edition of the scriptures.

I was looking through the footnotes, and I saw nothing that indicated a preference to the revelation. Words like "white" link to other verses about white, "pure" to pure, "darkness" to darkness. Can you find any examples of where you think the footnotes were modified?