- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My dad, who was very involved in genealogy, told me that one of the main reasons the church needed to change the teachings on blacks was because of missionary and temple work. It was taught that if you had even one drop of negro blood in you, that you could not hold the priesthood. This made it very difficult for missionary work in some countries and for temple work. My dad was thrilled when the ban was removed as it made geneaolgy and missionary work so much easier. My husband and I have a wonderful black friend who joined the church in the early sixties while he was in the army in Germany. Unfortunately, the missionaries who taught and baptized him, never told him he could not have the priesthood or go to the temple. I think his ward leaders just assumed he knew. He was a single man at the time and after his baptism started dating a white lds girl. When he became serious about her, she told him that she could never marry him because he could not hold the priesthood or take her to the temple for an eternal marriage. He was shocked when he came to find out that was true. It really upset him and almost left the church over it. But, he prayed about it and the Lord told him that he loved him and that he would have all the blessings of the church soon. He still did not understand why there was this ban and it did make him feel like blacks must be inferior somehow, but he has stayed with the church. I really admire blacks who are in the church and process this as I watch Gladus Knight on dancing with the stars this season.
I do find the church news release interesting.
I hate to say this, but the “We don’t know” approach to dealing with objectionable doctrine reminds me of in the new testatment when Jesus asked where John got his authority, from man, or God. The Pharisees replied “We don’t know where he got it from”, to which Jesus replied “Neither do I tell you the authority by which I do these things”. The bottom line is that the Pharisees feared how the people might react if they took a position on the subject. Their motive was to avoid any public outcry over their own opinion.
Frankly, I feel the Church takes the same line. Like when GBH on Larry King Live mentioned that he didn’t know the answers to the biological basis for homosexuality. Or how he didn’t know a lot about the “As God is….” couplet. It’s a cop out to avoid creating a negative sensation when asked publicly — an avoidance tactic.
For the longest time, people believed blacks had no priesthood because they were fence sitters in the pre-mortal life. One missionary quoted an OT scripture that I won’t even quote here because it’s so objectionable. Bottom line is, when people come out with these kinds of objectionable policies, people invent reasons to justify them. It’s sad, how we are a Church which tends not encourage the kind of critical thinking that leads to enlightenment.
bridget_night wrote:My dad, who was very involved in genealogy, told me that one of the main reasons the church needed to change the teachings on blacks was because of missionary and temple work. It was taught that if you had even one drop of negro blood in you, that you could not hold the priesthood. This made it very difficult for missionary work in some countries and for temple work. My dad was thrilled when the ban was removed as it made geneaolgy and missionary work so much easier.
that is what I understand as well. In south america, especially in brazil, there are many who have mixed ancestry. The one drop doctrine was nothing short of crazy– loony, absolutely no way of reconciling it. I was a missionary mid-70s in chile, and teaching the few mixed-ancestry people there was definitely difficult.bridget_night wrote:My husband and I have a wonderful black friend who joined the church in the early sixties while he was in the army in Germany. Unfortunately, the missionaries who taught and baptized him, never told him he could not have the priesthood or go to the temple. I think his ward leaders just assumed he knew.
I think no-one in the chain of his conversion wanted to break the bad news to him, so this minor bit of data fell through the cracks. It was really lame when this happened. Telling someone with a budding testimony that they cannot parcipate as a full member is too painful. I did it, mostly because I was often the inteviewing district or zone leader, and the elders or sisters didn’t feel prepared to do so. In the raibow discussions, there was no lesson on this ‘doctrine’, so elders had to wing it. I never believed the doctrine was god-given, but delivered the news several times. I felt awful after each time. I cannot understand how anyone could justify this heinous doctrine.bridget_night wrote:He was a single man at the time and after his baptism started dating a white lds girl.
heavens. BY’s doctrine for such a thing was ‘death on the spot’, spilling out one’s blood to atone for the sin of mixing her blood with his.How can anyone justify this BS?
Wayfaryer, Thanks so much for your comments to my post! wayfarer wrote:…..
heavens. BY’s doctrine for such a thing was ‘death on the spot’, spilling out one’s blood to atone for the sin of mixing her blood with his.
How can anyone justify this BS?
I don’t think it can be defended. The church was wrong. BY was wrong. All those who believed it were wrong. The church does many many good things for many people. It is one pathway, one among many, that some folks can follow to find the gods and peace in this world, and perhaps the next. It just doesn’t work for me at this time.
PS – Ray, I’m sure this is probably one the tougher topics for you to parse…but I think you do as good as job as anyone on this issue minimizing blatant apologetics and helping folks to take the edge off – minimize the pain and bitterness. You have a tough job here. Thanks. cwald wrote:I don’t think it can be defended. The church was wrong. BY was wrong. All those who believed it were wrong. The church does many many good things for many people. It is one pathway, one among many, that some folks can follow to find the gods and peace in this world, and perhaps the next. It just doesn’t work for me at this time.
Totally agree with this. The Vatican has apologised for certain mistakes, why can’t we? Are we big enough to do so?
Surely Christianity includes admitting our own errors and repenting of them.
Just to recap: The priesthood ban was rescinded in 1978.
10 years later in 1988, Elder Oaks is still calling the ban a commandment from God though we don’t know or understand the reasoning. Kind of a “God works in mysterious ways and we won’t know all the reasons till we get to the other side” argument.
Now in 2012 (24 years after Elder Oaks’ statement and 34 years after the rescinding) the official church position is the following: “At some point the Church stopped ordaining male members of African descent, although there were a few exceptions. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church”
We no longer know where the ban came from. It is just a historical oddity.
I am comparing and contrasting this in my mind with polygamy.
With Polygamy we actually have a written and canonized revelation. Today more than a century after the manifesto, a common position in the church is the same one that Elder Oaks was taking in 1988 about the priesthood ban. That it was from God but all the explanations are pure speculation. I have even heard suggested that JS himself didn’t understand the reasons for the command, that his explanations are suspect, and even that the way that he went about implementing polygamy was wrong at worst or improvised at best.
Why the difference? Because we have a written and canonized revelation on the subject and to repudiate that would more heavily cast doubt on the remaining revelations. I am persuaded to believe that if we never had the polygamy revelation (or to a lesser extent if we had it but never canonized it), we would have the same official church position as with the priesthood ban. That “It is not known precisely why, how or when [Polygamy] began in the Church.”
I am thankful that BY didn’t feel the need to expand the canon with his own revelations.
cwald, thanks (sincerely) – but it’s not that difficult for me to parse, simply because I’ve always said I don’t believe the ban was from God and that I view it as a perfect eaxmple of the incorrect traditions of our own fathers. I think most of the very top leadership recognize that by now, but I understand totally why the press release said it without saying it. It’s not a GC statement from a prophet / apostle, so it had to be much less direct and blunt than I’d like a GC statement to be.
Therefore, I can parse it and point out what the words themselves say (liking what the words themselves say), without having to defend the ban in any way. The fact that I think the ban was horribly wrong makes my parsing much, much easier – when it comes to a press release. If this had been a statement in a GC talk, my parsing would be the same, but by personal reaction and comments would be different.
wayfarer wrote:I felt awful after each time. I cannot understand how anyone could justify this heinous doctrine.
You couldn’t feel good about it because you had to face the problem in person, and face the reality that those teachings were wrong.
I can understand how others back in their isolated world in SLC Utah could justify it. They had zero contact with “the other” (black people, in this case) and felt none of the pain caused by their false speculations. It is so much easier to create harmful social stories about “the other,” that outside group of people, when there never has to be a check on reality — like getting to know them and finding out they aren’t really any different.
Wouldn’t a simple apology and acknowledgment of wrong doing be much more effective? It’s been over 30 years since the ban was lifted. Once again —- the cover up is worse than the crime, IMO.
Brian Johnston wrote:wayfarer wrote:I felt awful after each time. I cannot understand how anyone could justify this heinous doctrine.
You couldn’t feel good about it because you had to face the problem in person, and face the reality that those teachings were wrong.
yeah…. sucked.Brian Johnston wrote:I can understand how others back in their isolated world in SLC Utah could justify it. They had zero contact with “the other” (black people, in this case) and felt none of the pain caused by their false speculations. It is so much easier to create harmful social stories about “the other,” that outside group of people, when there never has to be a check on reality — like getting to know them and finding out they aren’t really any different.
perhaps a nuance here. there is a difference between people and cultures. forcing sameness when there are differences can deny the distinctiveness and diversity that makes us human. yet difference does not mean one is better yhan another. each human has unique and infinite value.we seek comfort and sameness with people. sameness is predictable. it’s secure…i’m ok…you’re ok. we’re good if we are alike. yet, to the extent that i get confirmation from you in the goodness of our sameness, then i am induced to supress my distinctiveness. and that is a denial of me, of my identity.
one of the tragedies of the historical racial doctrine and today’s mormon culture is that diversity is discouraged. vestiges of racial homogeneity are still in the book of mormon…whiteness and fairness of skin is still equated with blessing, and blackness a cursing. we are taught to come to church in white shirts, ties, and suits. (isn’t passive voice a wonderful thing? i mean, “we are taught” wonderfully de-sources the doctrine) people who express heterodoxy are shunned. looking, acting, and smelling mormon become the hallmark of the culture. there is comfort in conformity.
i think the statement that the church leadership and members do not tolerate racial discrimination is absolutely a step in the right direction. but it is still far away from accountability for the past and inclusiveness in the present and future. gandhi one told a hindu who had killed a muslim boy that he could have forgiveness if he found another muslim boy and raised him as his own and as a muslim. to fully accept blacks is to accept, as well, the uniqueness and beauty of their own black culture, whatever that may be.
i live for a zion that is remarkably similar to utopian socialism, where we are of one mind and one heart, and there are no poor or underclass anywhere. zion resides in my dreams and waking vision of what life should be like. i yearn for us to be equal in both the bonds of earthly and heavenly things. i seek for oneness – perfect unity, the tai chi tu where yin and yang are unified together in perfect harmony.
but equality and oneness do not require sameness. as yin (the black, feminine, receptive) and yang (the white, male, creative) are exactly and equally yoked (yoga, union) in the taichitu (yinyang symbol), the retain their distinctiveness.
i believe the church needs this unity amidst diversity. to really embrace diversity, we must not assume that others are “just like me”. rather, we should be thinking…wow, you’re really different, and that is so cool…. what can we learn from each other? or speaking of myself, “what can i learn from you?” i think this was the way joseph smith could adopt principles from multiple religions and thought systems including masonry to create this amazing mishmash called mormon doctrine. BY, with retrenchment and valley tan pants did his damndest to eliminate such independent thinking.
ahhh….
Excellent post Way. +1000
wayfarer wrote:i live for a zion that is remarkably similar to utopian socialism, where we are of one mind and one heart, and there are no poor or underclass anywhere. zion resides in my dreams and waking vision of what life should be like. i yearn for us to be equal in both the bonds of earthly and heavenly things. i seek for oneness – perfect unity, the tai chi tu where yin and yang are unified together in perfect harmony.
Poetic. Love it.
cwald wrote:Wouldn’t a simple apology and acknowledgment of wrong doing be much more effective?
It’s been over 30 years since the ban was lifted. Once again —- the cover up is worse than the crime, IMO.
I agree totally.
I have had a problem in another organisation that I’m in, because it seems that one of the founder members of the society… who has been widely regarded as some kind of father figure (they even did a volume about him etc) had a murky past. Basically the guy was from France, and there is some pretty substantial evidence that he was a Nazi collaborator. The problem some members of the society have is that they knew him, and liked him, but the evidence seems to be there. And oddly enough, there is no evidence that this collaborator engaged in any far right activities after the war, it may have been a matter of convenience at the time… but…
I keep on telling them not to cover up this story OR come out with some whitewash, like the LDS does, but they don’t listen to me. My attitude, is that way back in the Sixties, he was just one of a number of founder figures… but that he managed to become some kind of father figure. I’ve said repeatedly that I’ve no wish to engage in a cover up for this man, and that the organisation shouldn’t either, because it looks bad and does not reflect well on us.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.