- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Interesting tidbit here, given the popularity of the church in the Pacific: 1958: All black Melanesians (Fijians) are given the priesthood
Contrary to popular opinion, the darkest skinned people on the planet are found in and around the Pacific, not in Africa.
[img]http://assets.survivalinternational.org/pictures/83/jarawa37_news_medium.jpg [/img] I think the whole reason why there was such a push in the 50s-70s to call the polynesians ‘lamanites’ was it meant they could have the priesthood and avoided alienating another continent. No-one would be able to question their right to the priesthood if they were the descendants of father Lehi.
Very interesting. Do you have a link to read more?
Edit: actually, what’s google for:
http://www.blacklds.org/priesthood http://www.blacklds.org/history “Melanesian “Blacks” are Given Priesthood
Under the direction of David O. McKay, Melanesian blacks are defined as from a different linage and not under the priesthood ban. The first Figians receive the priesthood in 1958 while the Negritos of the Philippines were given it earlier. (Armand Mauss, Neither White nor Black, Signature Books, pg. 152)”
To be honest, reading that history page, with its long list of ridiculous contradictions and prejudices made me ashamed of my membership.
In the same way we’ve denounced Brigham Young’s Adam-God theory, I hope that one day we’ll denounce the Black priesthood/endowment policy as a non-doctrinal, un-inspired mistake of a policy.
I wonder whether, in years to come, we’ll be having the same conversation about gay members.
I feel a little bit sick.
I found this interesting… I was well aware that some very dark skinned people lived in and around the Pacific (and the Indian Ocean, away from Africa), but that we also had a large presence there. I didn’t know if the p’hood ban applied to dark skinned non-Africans or not… I was completely unaware of this, as all previous discussion I’ve seen on this matter referred to people of obvious African origins.
Quote:Under the direction of David O. McKay, Melanesian blacks are defined as from a different linage and not under the priesthood ban.
Quite right… Europeans are more closely related to Africans than these people are…
I always fell Pres. McKay wanted rid of the ban, but couldn’t quite manage it. Maybe this was his attempt to chip away at it.
Yes, I would agree with you that the move to change the ban started with him. Although I’m glad they were able to find an exception for this group of people early on, there’s something uncomfortable about it being linked to lineage still – seems to confirm the misguided belief that African Blacks were blocked because of their hereditary. I still find it sad that it took us so long.
I find it interesting how the prophet, the Lords mouthpiece, has to “chip away at anything”. I have heard more than once that Pres McKay wanted to get rid of this, also that he wanted to get rid of Garments….but couldn’t get the support. It does sound more like a corporation when you hear things like that.
Would be an interesting discussion thread if it wasn’t going to just be a long line of hear-say (leading hearasy?)
Quote:It does sound more like a corporation when you hear things like that.
Yes, and there are other things too. How do you do away with this kind of thing without losing some of the membership? I know some people would say “good riddance”, but it’s more complex than that. Remember some of these people will take their children, others are good people saddled with stupid views etc etc.
Normally this is a minor issue, but South Sea folk are disproportionately represented in the church. Polynesians though practically southern European in appearance, obviously have some Melanesian input in their ancestry, yet extremely remote African origins. More remote than ours perhaps.
(By the way, if anyone wants me to explain the difference between Melanesians and Polynesians, I can, but it’s a long story. Fijians probably fit midway between the two groups… Melanesians with a Polynesian culture…)
SamBee wrote:Quote:It does sound more like a corporation when you hear things like that.
Yes, and there are other things too. How do you do away with this kind of thing without losing some of the membership? I know some people would say “good riddance”, but it’s more complex than that. Remember some of these people will take their children, others are good people saddled with stupid views etc etc.
Normally this is a minor issue, but South Sea folk are disproportionately represented in the church. Polynesians though practically southern European in appearance, obviously have some Melanesian input in their ancestry, yet extremely remote African origins. More remote than ours perhaps.
(By the way, if anyone wants me to explain the difference between Melanesians and Polynesians, I can, but it’s a long story. Fijians probably fit midway between the two groups… Melanesians with a Polynesian culture…)
Having been to Philippines twice this year and Borneo once (Sabah) I have entirely fallen in love with the South Sea asians. They are among the most beautiful people I have met, inside and out.
I would be very happy to hear more
Thanks for the original post and replies. I didn’t know anything about the Fijians or Philipinos and their priesthood history. I think in the future we will be as ashamed about our position on gays as we are now about blacks.
I can’t remember them well enough to restate the particulars, but there are two really interesting Mormon Stories interviews with Gregory Prince. They’re among the very first on the chronological list. I’m mentioning it because I’ve long wondered about this question. These are the darkest people in the world in some cases, but not African. In fact, they are part Homo Denisova. Black people were in Papua New Guinea and Australia before people reached Europe or the Americas.
Presumably Tamils (dark people from South India) were ignored because even today the church is small in India. (Okay, not Pacific, but probably from the same prehistoric stock)
The Kimball biography notes that Fijians and Negritos (native to the Philippines) were allowed to be ordained to the priesthood in 1948 under George Albert Smith. I transcribed much of the Prince interview, as well as Darron Smith and Margaret Young/Darius Gray interviews on my blog, putting everything in chronological order. See
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2008/09/14/was-priesthood-ban-inspired/ I hadn’t heard that McKay wanted to get rid of garments. Do you have a reference for that?
I would soooooooo love to have some documentation for that. I am guessing that any minutes from that meeting were burned, ashes blended with cement, then poured in the foundation of the church office building. This is actually very interesting. The church implies that the ban was lifted in 1978, but here’s some evidence that it was far more gradual than that.
One way round it would have been to grant the Aaronic priesthood to blacks first, which would at least acclimatise people to the idea.
Here is the quote from the Kimball biography Quote:For example, in 1948, during the George Albert Smith administration, missionaries in the Philippines did not know how to handle natives of a group called “Negritos,” who had black skin but no known African ancestry. The First Presidency authorized ordination, saying descent from black Africans was the disqualifying factor, not skin color or other racial characteristics.
Edward Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride, 200. The Kimball footnote states, “While in the Philippines to dedicate the land for proselytizing, Joseph Fielding Smith observed native peoples who appeared to be negroid. Despite this, he said in the dedicatory prayer, ‘I bless the native inhabitants both black and white with the blessings of the gospel and the priesthood—Amen.’ When asked about this, he responded upset, ‘That is what the Lord required me to do.’ He confirmed several years later that the event occurred and said, ‘I would not want it to be supposed that I gave the priesthood to negroes.’” (emphasis in original.)
Thanks MH, excellent stuff. Presumably the same applies to other extremely dark skinned ethnic groups, such as Tamils in south India, Australian Aborigines, Papua New Guineans & Solomon Islands, and Fijians who have no discernable African ancestry (at least no more recent than our own)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.