- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m not entirely interested in defending the Church on matters like this anymore. At one time, I was, and greedily assimilated every single apologetic answer I could find to the vexing questions. But I’ve moved on from the “all or nothing” approach to our religion. I’m comfortable that mistakes by prophets can be part of a restored Church where men are asked to do the work of God. I don’t really even feel interested in debating whether the Book of Mormon is true or not — and I’ve realized that over the years I never had a testimony of Joseph Smith’s first vision, although I accept it as possibly true, and that the BoM helped me feel closer to God, so I continue accepting it as a possibility.
It truly is liberating when you view the Church as growing organization that sometimes inadvertently adopts the ideas of men that are wrong. When you realize that prophets like Moses made mistakes and were reprimanded by God, it becomes easy to accept that men at the top of our current organization make mistakes, and that outright inaccuracies or bad doctrine sometimes becomes part of the cultural norms of our Church for long periods of time.
My concern, really, is getting the most out of the Church experience as a way of helping my family feel spirituality, live a clean life, and serve God without surrender to the norms and even values that are unhealthy in our religion. I’ve had many growing experiences in the Church (as well as some downright rotten ones — lots of them!!!) and whatever roots the Church grew out of, it’s settled into a religion where blacks DO have the priesthood, and on that count, the leaders and the ensuing culture finally got it right. I prefer to focus on that.
But I don’t want to appear insensitive or uninterested in the historicity of being black and religious, or to curt’s opening post. What was it like to be a black Christian in the 19th century? Does anyone know? Were blacks allowed to be ministers in mixed-race Churches (if they even existed)? Did other Churches also ordain blacks? How did the Methodists, Presbyterians, and other protestant Churches deal with issues of race and the priesthood?
The RLDS church was formed in 1860, just 1 year before the Civil War began. As such, they have a strong emphasis on advocating peace (during that horrible war), and never had any sort of a priesthood ban. I know that William Smith (Joseph’s brother) eventually joined the RLDS church, and Mormons essentially invalidated his ordination of Walker Lewis because of the fact. (I don’t know if Walker actually joined the RLDS church.) Both the LDS and RLDS did not actively promote proselyting to blacks, though the RLDS record is much better than the LDS record on the subject. As for other churches, even in the “tolerant” North, segregation was the rule. There are those in New York, for example, that were uncomfortable with slavery, but felt it was a states rights issue and the federal government should keep out. The Jim Crow laws segregating blacks and whites were all across America, not just in the south. Southern churches held many of the “curse of Cain/Ham” doctrines that Mormons adopted. I’m sure there were some exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, churches didn’t integrate blacks and whites very well at all. In that respect, Joseph Smith was ahead of his time. I don’t know if you heard about Joseph welcoming Jane Manning James into his household, though many Mormons in Nauvoo looked on her “with much rebuff.”
His presidential platform to eliminate slavery was not only the first of its kind, but would have avoided the bloody Civil War. I did a post on Joseph’s presidential platform. Bushman quoted Josiah Quincy (see
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/04/21/joseph-smiths-presidential-platform/
Quote:Josiah Quincy, soon to be mayor of Boston, visited Joseph Smith in the spring of 1844 when this platform was in circulation. Much later, Quincy wrote about that visit, saying that Joseph Smith’s proposal for ending slavery resembled one that Emerson made 11 years later in 1855.
As Quincy put it, writing retrospectively in the 1880s, “We, who can look back upon the terrible cost of the fratricidal war which put an end to slavery, now say that such a solution of the difficulty” – Joseph Smith’s and Emerson’s – “would have been worthy a Christian statesman. But if the retired scholar was in advance of his time when he advocated this disposition of the public property in 1855, what shall I say of the political and religious leader who had committed himself, in print, as well as in conversation, to the same course in 1844?”
The AME churches (African Methodist Episcopal) of the late 19th/early 20th century came about as a reaction to lack of integration in white churches. Blacks wanted a church to feel welcome in, so they created their own.
SD – I like what you have to say. Good perspective – especially this paragraph… SilentDawning wrote:My concern, really, is getting the most out of the Church experience as a way of helping my family feel spirituality, live a clean life, and serve God without surrender to the norms and even values that are unhealthy in our religion. I’ve had many growing experiences in the Church (as well as some downright rotten ones — lots of them!!!) and whatever roots the Church grew out of, it’s settled into a religion where blacks DO have the priesthood, and on that count, the leaders and the ensuing culture finally got it right. I prefer to focus on that.
Good point – however, I’m not entirely sure they have “got it right” yet. I look forward to the day when “all worthy
members” will have the privileged of holding the priesthood. That will be the day they “got it right.” Slowly the church evolves. 
I lived in the Deep South for a few years a while back, and many of the churches there still are segregated. There are VERY few that have predominantly white or black congregations AND leadership members of the minority race – and probably even fewer with multiple minority races of any significant size AND leadership members of one of those races. The scarcity of black members in many locations keeps the local units from having lots of black leaders, but it’s not uncommon at all in many other units to have someone of a racial minority serving in a congregation where the large majority of members are Caucasian. We still have a long way to go with regard to full integration, but the foundation is there – and the actual results in many units is quite progressive when compared with many Protestant denominations.
Quote:But my main point is this: just because one thing is wrong doesn’t mean that all “revelations” from Joseph Smith are wrong. And a single mistake in the past doesn’t rule out all future contact with the divine. We can find value and spiritual enlightenment in anything we want, anything the produces value for us. Don’t mistake my position though. I personally don’t have an orthodox LDS view of the nature of prophecy and revelation received from leaders. I see it in a much more fuzzy and non-fundamental perspective.
I like your answer. I just wanted to add one thing though. Just because we don’t understand something right now doesn’t make it wrong either. The idea that this one revelation could be wrong is a possibility. But that is not the only option here either. The revelation could have been correct and the way it was implemented was wrong, or…. it was implemented correctly, but the way people took it or understood it was wrong. Again, like you mentioned in your post, it is not an all or nothing option. There are so many perspectives that instead of saying, yup it was wrong….. we could say… I don’t understand it, and therefore I don’t agree with it. But I guess it could be right and I could be wrong… who knows… I don’t care… lol
😆 Old-Timer wrote:I lived in the Deep South for a few years a while back, and many of the churches there still are segregated. There are VERY few that have predominantly white or black congregations AND leadership members of the minority race – and probably even fewer with multiple minority races of any significant size AND leadership members of one of those races.
The scarcity of black members in many locations keeps the local units from having lots of black leaders, but it’s not uncommon at all in many other units to have someone of a racial minority serving in a congregation where the large majority of members are Caucasian. We still have a long way to go with regard to full integration, but the foundation is there – and the actual results in many units is quite progressive when compared with many Protestant denominations.
I was thinking about this thread today at church in sacrament meeting today and I started to wonder why it is, within a religion that is suppose to have so much good in it like Christianity, that slavery was such a problem and it was the godless atheists from the north that put it down and put the Christians in their place. Why were they, the Christians, the ones who found it so hard to let go of hatred of another race?
acarlton wrote:it was the godless atheists from the north that put it down and put the Christians in their place. Why were they, the Christians, the ones who found it so hard to let go of hatred of another race?
I don’t think atheism was really a movement of any substance in the 1800’s, and it certainly wasn’t the driving force behind the abolitionist movement. The abolitionist movement was a Christian movement, against other Christians.
There still aren’t that many atheists in the U.S. in the present “modern” day. They just generate an inordinate amount of attention.
Interesting… Then why is it that the south gets all the credit for having a strong christian influence? When I said godless atheists from the north, I was being very extreme. But the abolitionism being a Christian Movement was not something I was familiar with…. acarlton wrote:Interesting… Then why is it that the south gets all the credit for having a strong christian influence? When I said godless atheists from the north, I was being very extreme. But the abolitionism being a Christian Movement was not something I was familiar with….
I think it had less to do with religion and more to do wtih economics. The south was heavily dependent on slave labor for their economic prosperity than the North, and so THAT made it harder to let go of slavery. Sadly, in many cultures, religion can be the servant of the prevailing culture and self-interest of the people in power, as we’ve seen throughout history. I’ll bet that in the hands of a gifted orator/persuader, you could justify slavery from the Bible very easily. Just as you can justify anti-semitism, and even murder from the Book of Mormon. I’m not saying I agree with these things, but that religion can be used how people choose to use it. It reminds me of the cartoon I saw outside my statistics professor’s office. It was a manager behind his desk talking to his assistant — passing him a paper. The caption said “That’s the thrust of what I want to say, not get me the statistics to back it up”. When it comes to preserving the interests of people in power, we can reword this to say “that’s the thrust of what I want to say, now get me the scriptures to back it up”.
I once saw a fireside by Jazz basketball player and black LDS convert Thurl Bailey. He came to accept the priesthood ban and find peace in the statement that “They were not ready.” This was in reference to both black and white members. This answer seemed to be enough for him. I however am not as cool and accepting as Thurl, still have my issues & tend to point a finger at BY and others… I need to learn to get over the past and focus more on the present… working on that. Its just that I still have memories of being taught as a young child in Primary that blacks were less valiant spirits in the pre-existence. I am glad my children will never be taught that BS.
I agree with Silent Dawning–religion has been used to justify many things. I also agree with Brian–there were pro-abolitionist and pro-slavery Christians. It certainly wasn’t the atheists that moved the country to drop slavery. I also note that the story of the Exodus was very popular among slaves. “Let my people go” was a rallying cry for them. To answer the question about the south “getting all the credit for religion”, well, the South is certainly loud and Baptist. The north is a bit quieter and Catholic. Religious leaders on both sides believed God was on their side.
I appreciate all the comments on this issue today. I’m glad that the conversation didn’t go to “let’s just bash the church” like I originally feared. I really liked this comment today, and I think it ‘s a great example of how the church has/is changed just in the past decade.
flowerdrops wrote:I once saw a fireside by Jazz basketball player and black LDS convert Thurl Bailey. He came to accept the priesthood ban and find peace in the statement that “They were not ready.” This was in reference to both black and white members. This answer seemed to be enough for him.
I however am not as cool and accepting as Thurl, still have my issues & tend to point a finger at BY and others… I need to learn to get over the past and focus more on the present… working on that. Its just that I still have memories of being taught as a young child in Primary that blacks were less valiant spirits in the pre-existence. I am glad my children will never be taught that BS.
I suppose I straddle both worlds of the eastern U.S. north and south. I am a “Yankee” but we have been living the past 6 years outside Atlanta, GA. The south is definitely more religious, at least in my experience. It’s very normal for most people to go to church there — mostly Baptist and Methodist around where we lived. I really like it. People are cool about it generally, and there’s a lot of diversity. It totally wasn’t like that in Maryland and Michigan. People aren’t so openly religious here in MD/DC. I kind of miss it.
I think I read the “godless atheists” comment too literally.
I agree with Cwald about being glad this thread didn’t turn into “let’s bash the church”. I’m also glad for Brian’s and others efforts in steering the conversation into some interesting and informative areas. I’m afraid I was too quick to want to end it having tried to get past the all or nothing approach to the church. Thanks to all for your insight. Here is something I thought of, which probably isn’t the first time it has been thunked, and does not necessarily represent my personal belief on the matter. What if God wanted his church to flourish and wanted everyone on earth to be a part of it, so authorized JS to baptise any race, but then understood and foresaw the growing racial mess, so decided his church would flourish faster if blacks were kept out of priesthood leadership positions until the race issues subsided. Then, maybe God and blacks had to wait until a later prophet figured out the church needs to have black priesthood members again in order to flourish worldwide and not stagnate and implode. Maybe it wasn’t about Blacks being ready, but the church being ready.
This same sort of big picture idea to grow a church could be used to explain polygamy as well. Retention is better if you born ’em in, rather than convert ’em in. Once there is enough to roll, now we can stop that practice before it destroys us.
I don’t know… whadya think?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.