- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
There’s a new article on the church’s website related to race. Race and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SaintsIt’s not grouped with the other gospel topic essays, it’s just it’s own article under “Topics and Questions”.
While reading the first paragraph of the article, I automatically replaced the word “race” with the word “gender” as if on autopilot. The following quote is the first paragraph from the article but with my replacements:
Quote:Gender is a concept that categorizes people based on the social, cultural, and psychological aspects of being male, female or non-binary. Unfortunately, gender is often used to justify mistreatment or to suggest that one group is better than another. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that everyone is an equal child of God regardless of race, ethnicity, background, skin color, gender, or nationality. The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God.”
I don’t mean to hijack or take away from the very serious issues related to race. I only point that out because the current battles and language used regarding the topic of gender mirror the battles and language once used regarding the topic of race.
Back to the subject…
Kudos for mentioning that it was more than just a priesthood ban. Black people were also barred from all temple ordinances.
Quote:Brigham Young’s explanation for the restriction drew on then-common ideas that identified Black people as descendants of the biblical figures Cain and Ham. The Church has since disavowed this justification for the restriction as well as later justifications that suggested it originated in the pre-earth life.
What’s not said is that many of these justifications were put forth by church leaders themselves.
The following quote comes from the First Presidency on December 15, 1969. This excerpt was from pages 70 and 71 of the February 1970 edition of The Improvement Era. Titled, “Letter of First Presidency Clarifies Church’s Position on the Negro.”
Quote:From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding Presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which he has not made fully known to man.
Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, ‘The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God. . . .
Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s preexistent state.
My point in bringing this up is that the justifications weren’t things that random members in random wards were doing. The very top leaders of the church were putting forth the justifications. I believe that’s an important point that I’ll cite later.
Quote:There is no documented revelation related to the origin of the priesthood and temple restriction. Church Presidents after Brigham Young maintained the restriction, in spite of increasing social pressure, because they felt they needed a revelation from God to end it.
That’s an important point. There’s a teaching that people just “know” and they feel pressure to adhere to that teaching because of their beliefs. I do find myself wondering at what point the scales begin to tip. People in that belief paradigm require a revelation to escape but how do they arrive at a place where they feel confidence that they have received a revelation? How might personal racist or bigoted attitudes of people that are in the unique position to receive revelation for the church (we’re all imperfect) factor into the process?
(cont.)
The article mentions the fact that leaders said the ban would end one day but the article understandably fails to get into the specifics that critics often cite. For example, some quotes from BY where he implies that black people would one day get the priesthood but only after every white person had already gotten it. It’s unfair to expect the article to air the dirty laundry, like sending Mark E Peterson away so they could finally get a common consent vote on lifting the ban, but I do wonder whether the actual healing can begin without having open discussion on some of these points. I don’t know.
Quote:Soon after the June 1978 revelation that ended the restriction, Elder Bruce R. McConkie declared: “Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon 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.”
I’m glad this quote is in the article. Specifically, “
Wespoke with a limited understanding…” This goes back to my point in the other post. I think it’s important to know that our leaders are fallible, even in their pronouncements of doctrine.
Back to modern day. I see many members espouse bigoted attitudes, citing church doctrines. Church doctrines that could be equally fallible. Church doctrines that could be made “with a limited understanding.” Yet I see people project their prejudices onto god and later use it as a defense for said prejudices that initiated in their own hearts.
I think church would be a more hospitable place if we injected a massive dose of humility into the culture. Not just being humble on a personal level but also being humble as it relates to arrogance surrounding “knowing” doctrines that alienate and discriminate others.
Again I’ll ask, how might personal racist or bigoted attitudes factor into the process of receiving more enlightening revelations? What will it take for us to feel confident enough to say, “I’ve received a revelation from god” to end our prejudices?
nibbler wrote:
That’s an important point. There’s a teaching that people just “know” and they feel pressure to adhere to that teaching because of their beliefs. I do find myself wondering at what point the scales begin to tip. People in that belief paradigm require a revelation to escape but how do they arrive at a place where they feel confidence that they have received a revelation? How might personal racist or bigoted attitudes of people that are in the unique position to receive revelation for the church (we’re all imperfect) factor into the process?(cont.)
Regarding “scales beginning to tip”, it seems to involve passing on beliefs to the next generation is a very common one.
I haven’t known many bi-racial couples, but I saw the social defensiveness firsthand in RS when chatting with and listening to the sisters. I felt them living their testimony of loving the specific child of God that they were married to.
The “require a revelation to escape” trap is one I have seen since Ordain Women in 2014. President Hinkley opened the door many years earlier when he said in an interview (I think it was the 60 minutes one), that women are content and aren’t asking for a revelation. 10 years later, we have Oak’s “women already have the priesthood” perspective and the non-ability for women to bless and pass their own sacrament bread and water in their homes during COVID times. It is baffling from a priesthood administration perspective that the female stake leaders were told that they could no longer sit on the stand as part of fulfilling their calling to the best of their ability.
I have come to understand that the biased attitudes of individuals and block those revelations are more interested in narrowing and “purifying” the tent of Zion. I assume that that is the intended result and not an accidental consequence.
This article first came to my attention in the Salt Lake Tribune. Interestingly, it is not mentioned on either of the church owned news outlets, Deseret News or KSL TV. After signing in to the church website, it is visible on the home page, but I had to scroll down to see it. The point of giving this observation? I’m again not sure how serious the church really is about ending racist attitudes. Like the gospel topics essays, if you have to look for it, it’s less likely to be found. And like the essays, I think the vast majority of member are and will remain unaware. Granted I rarely attend church, but of all the things I do hear people mention about Nelson’s teachings or changes I rarely hear anyone mention his words about ending racism. Even with this statement nigh to GC I’m not expecting to hear it in GC. I agree with your assessment, Nibbler, I do think it’s important to know our leaders are fallible, but also to your point I think it would go a long way for our leaders to admit they are fallible (obscure statements you cited notwithstanding). I do not think this likely under the current regime and even more unlikely under the likely successor. In fact I only see a slight chance of it being likely in the foreseeable future if, and only if, DFU ever occupies the big chair.
nibbler wrote:
The article mentions the fact that leaders said the ban would end one day but the article understandably fails to get into the specifics that critics often cite. For example, some quotes from BY where he implies that black people would one day get the priesthood but only after every white person had already gotten it.It’s unfair to expect the article to air the dirty laundry, like sending Mark E Peterson away so they could finally get a common consent vote on lifting the ban, but I do wonder whether the actual healing can begin without having open discussion on some of these points. I don’t know.
Quote:Soon after the June 1978 revelation that ended the restriction, Elder Bruce R. McConkie declared: “Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon 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.”
I’m glad this quote is in the article. Specifically, “
Wespoke with a limited understanding…” This goes back to my point in the other post. I think it’s important to know that our leaders are fallible, even in their pronouncements of doctrine.
Back to modern day. I see many members espouse bigoted attitudes, citing church doctrines. Church doctrines that could be equally fallible. Church doctrines that could be made “with a limited understanding.” Yet I see people project their prejudices onto god and later use it as a defense for said prejudices that initiated in their own hearts.
I think church would be a more hospitable place if we injected a massive dose of humility into the culture. Not just being humble on a personal level but also being humble as it relates to arrogance surrounding “knowing” doctrines that alienate and discriminate others.
Again I’ll ask, how might personal racist or bigoted attitudes factor into the process of receiving more enlightening revelations? What will it take for us to feel confident enough to say, “I’ve received a revelation from god” to end our prejudices?
I understand that young black college students get together and form groups to share their experiences and advocate for change tend to leave the church. I think that many of these students begin with faith in the church leaders and taking leaders at their word about the need for repentance from racisms and they think that advocacy can help create change. Unfortunately, many factors contribute to change not happening and this becomes frustrating for these young people. I do not see this article moving the needle among those individuals. It dances an awkward line denouncing racism but not really coming out and owning up to any racism.
I have previously seen Elder Oaks state that God commanded the priesthood and temple ban and then God commanded for it to go away.
Here in the article, we have BY implementing the priesthood and temple ban in the Utah territory using then common (but erroneous and later church disavowed) explanations and justifications. The article further states that “There is no documented revelation related to the origin of the priesthood and temple restriction.” If BY started to priesthood ban without documented revelation and using faulty explanations and justifications, I am wondering how hard would it be to say that the ban came from BY and not from God.
I am hopeful that church leaders are inching towards being able to say that the priesthood ban was not from God. That would be wonderful. I personally speculate that this step will not happen until after any Oaks presidency.
Quote:Does the Church teach that Jesus Christ was a white northern European, as is sometimes depicted in Church art?
No. Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem to a Jewish woman and raised in Nazareth.
The fact that some popular Church artwork has portrayed Jesus as white does not mean, as some have mistakenly argued, that Jesus was “white” according to a modern understanding of race.
This snippet essentially says the following:
Q – Did you teach that Jesus was white?
A – No, Jesus was born to a Jewish woman.
Q – So then, you teach that Jesus is not white?
A – No.
Q – What about the consistency in depictions of Jesus throughout pieces commissioned artwork depicting Jesus as having white, northern European features?
A – The depiction of Jesus as white by some artists in some popular church artwork has no relation or bearing to LDS teachings on the subject and does not make any claims about the features of the historical Jesus.
Q – So then, you’ll commission a painting of Jesus as non-white?
A – No.
This is interesting. Jesus is “sometimes” depicted as white in “some” popular church artwork. I would say that we have a depiction of Jesus that was largely borrowed from our American protestant neighbors. We have no idea what Jesus really looked like. However, if an artist where to paint a more Jewish depiction of Jesus for the church, I predict that church members would not recognize that figure as Jesus and the church would decline to use that depiction.
The church has used these pictures for so long. Legends have grown up around the red robed depiction of Jesus as being more accurate than other depictions. It has also been strongly suggested that all apostles have seen Jesus. It has been specifically claimed by several church leaders to have had visionary experiences involving Jesus (David. B. Haight as a more recent example). If that is not what Jesus really looks like then why wouldn’t someone have said something.
JS, specifically described the features of the apostle Paul. If the facial features of his day did not match the resurrected Jesus, then it was a missed opportunity to set the record straight.
During a key part of my faith transition when I was giving serious thought to “the nature of God”, my family watched a Star Gateepisode where the civilization they were visiting interacted on a Deity level a hologram that was shaped like they were and what they were expecting. It made sense to me then that “the God we need” is one that we project/is projected for us as a possibility that fits the current circumstances. I know that we talk about “God as a projection” as a non-literal, metaphorical, maybe even metaphysical individual – but I don’t think that we are in any position to rule out a more literal aspect that God is physically undefinable outside of our definition of “God”.
I liked the article a lot and have had conversations with a lot of members who appreciated it. Interestingly, I have not had anyone talk with me about not liking it, although I am certain there are traditionalists who feel that way. The priesthood/temple ban was an enormous sore spot for me. While on my mission, we taught and baptized a ten-year-old boy, very mature for his age. Because of his age, we needed his parents’ permission. We met with his father, who was not opposed to his son’s baptism, but wanted to know more about the church before giving his permission. We met with him for a couple of hours, answering questions about various aspects of church life, including the Word of Wisdom, tithing, and many other things. He gave his permission, and we baptized his son, who only a few weeks later heard from other members at church about the priesthood ban. His father was furious when he heard about it, refusing to meet with us or allow his son to attend after that. I remember feeling that I wanted to end my mission right then and there, but thoughts of my shocked parents and the shame they would suffer in our ward made me abandon any such ideas. That was back in 1973 (which reveals my age). I returned from my mission and remained active, though the ban continued to seem inimical to what the gospel was all about. I remember feeling an enormous sense of relief when the ban was lifted, thinking that I could finally embrace the church without any reservations. But soon a disturbing thought entered my mind: How could the ban have been anything but a mistake? And if the church could be wrong about something like that, what COULDN’T it be wrong about? I’m glad to see the church go beyond the lame “it was only a practice, never a doctrine” explanation. The only thing it can do is admit that, along with polygamy, it is a rather embarrassing skeleton in the LDS closet.
I meant to add in my previous post on this thread that the ward I attend has several devout black members. Of course, I’ve never discussed the history of the ban with them, but I assume that they know about it, and tell myself that if they can deal with it then I ought to be able to also. Nevertheless, I still think that it would clear a lot of air if the church would simply admit that it was a mistake. After all, the Roman church has acknowledged some of its past errors, and it didn’t collapse as a result. I’m hopeful that by saying that there was no recorded revelation to start to priesthood and temple ban that future church leaders will be able to say that it did not come from God. Maybe they will say that it was a policy and not a doctrine. Perhaps, they could even use this as an example of the danger of just assuming that which was done under previous administrations is what should continue unless facing compelling reason to change or unless God directs otherwise. Maybe we should be much more curious and imaginative about the possibilities for evolution in our church positions. I suppose that one effect of having such an elderly leadership team is that we are continually behind the curve for societal change. In the proverbial race between the tortoise and the hare, we are the tortoise. Slow and steady has some advantages to be sure.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.