Black and LDS

[zerinus]

The priesthood was segregated, was it not?

Priesthood was never segregated. Some had the priesthood and some did not; but there was not segregation between those that had and those that didn’t.

zerinus

 

[ibkc]

Priesthood was never segregated. Some had the priesthood and some did not;

White males had the priesthood, and black males did not. Correct?

but there was not segregation between those that had and those that didn’t.

Semantics. If there was a room full of 100 Mormon men, and 10 of them were black and did not have the priesthood, and 90 of them were white and did have the priesthood, and everybody in the room knew it, then there was segregation.

 

[zerinus]

Then why was it in place? There had to be a reason. There are reasons that only men can be priests. Surely there is a reason men of African descent were banned.

There was a reason. We don’t know what that reason was. But it does not imply superiority and inferiority; in the same way that denying the priesthood to women does not suggest superiority of men to women.

True, it could not have been a knee-jerk reaction. What about the issue of tax-exempt status?

What about it?

I see a minor difference. If you tell someone that they are welcome but they can never acheive any position of importance, and you cannot give a good reason for it, are you not still segregating? What is the difference between the back of the bus or a “coloreds only” water fountain and no black priests?

You can “see” what you like. That is not what I see. There was no segregation practiced by LDS.

zerinus

 

[wademann]

I see a minor difference. If you tell someone that they are welcome but they can never acheive any position of importance, and you cannot give a good reason for it, are you not still segregating? What is the difference between the back of the bus or a “coloreds only” water fountain and no black priests?

It does not make you, any more important, to have the priesthood, it is a calling, it is a position of service. Blacks were able to have priesthood blessings, which is the important part.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It does not make you, any more important, to have the priesthood, it is a calling, it is a position of service. Blacks were able to have priesthood blessings, which is the important part.

Maybe this is a idea but in practice, your priesthood makes you important. I’ve known a few who are “running for bishop”.

And no, a black person could not go to one of your temples and be sealed to their spouse, which, you consider to be your most highest and important blessing. And is, indeed, required for you to become a god.

A black person could not lead his family, as a priesthood leader, which is very important to your culture and your beliefs. They could go to someone else, certainly, but so could an unbeliever, such as myself.

A black man could not bless his own baby or baptize his own children or confer your priesthood on his sons.

Not so equal.

Also, the role of a man in your church is priesthood holder and all that entails, and the role of a woman is that of wife and mother. What, exactly, was the role of a black man in your church prior to 1978?

 

[wademann]

Maybe this is a idea but in practice, your priesthood makes you important. I’ve known a few who are “running for bishop”.

And no, a black person could not go to one of your temples and be sealed to their spouse, which, you consider to be your most highest and important blessing. And is, indeed, required for you to become a god.

A black person could not lead his family, as a priesthood leader, which is very important to your culture and your beliefs. They could go to someone else, certainly, but so could an unbeliever, such as myself.

A black man could not bless his own baby or baptize his own children or confer your priesthood on his sons.

Not so equal.

Also, the role of a man in your church is priesthood holder and all that entails, and the role of a woman is that of wife and mother. What, exactly, was the role of a black man in your church prior to 1978?

In eternity they will be denied nothing. In God’s eyes it does not make you more important, which is all that matters.

 

[RebeccaJ]

In eternity they will be denied nothing.

So, people prior to 1978 were doing temple proxy work for deceased people of African decent?

Poking around, I did find Jane Manning James, an African American pioneer woman who petitioned repeatedly to be able to be sealed to her husband and children, which was repeatedly ignored or denied.

After her husband’s death, she petitioned to be be sealed to another African American man, who was an ordained priesthood holder, also denied. So she brought to the “brethren” the fact that the Smith family had promised that she could be sealed to Joseph Smith. So what happened, she was sealed to Joseph and Emma Smith as their eternal servant.

Is this what you call “being denied nothing”?

Also, the site that Mormons keep pointing to, blacklds.org, has a biography of Jane Manning James, which is really quite touching and very interesting. However, it mentions NOTHING of her attempts to be sealed to her family and those requests being denied and finally being sealed as an “eternal servant”. This smacks of whitewashing history, don’t you think?

Also, this really sucks for the people who are LIVING. Good heavens, what would be the point in living (from the Mormon pov)?

 

[RebeccaJ]

and segregation was never practiced by the LDS Church anyway, even while the ban against the priesthood was in force.

zerinus

March 30,1955 - Quorum of Twelve recommends establishment of separate unit or branch for     African-american members in Salt Lake City. 

Nov 10,1960 - Brigham Young University's president tells Executive Committee of BYU's     trustees "about a colored boy on campus having been a candidate for the vice     presidency of a class and receiving a very large vote." The three apostles present     want to exclude all African Americans from BYU. "If a granddaughter of mine should     ever go the BYU and become engaged to a colored boy," Apostle Harold B Lee fumes,     "I would hold you responsible." 

June 22,1961 - First Presidency supports plan to persuade U.S. Army to send its     "colored contingents" to California rather than to Utah. At its same meeting     Presidency agrees to allow baptism of Nigerians seeking membership in church. 

Sep 19,1962 - First Presidency rules that prominent Egyptian polygamist can be baptized     because polygamy is legal in Egypt. This is in reference to "an earlier ruling in the     matter of Indians who had married more than one wife and it was decided that they may be     baptized, if they were legally married according to their tribal customs. 

March 3,1965 - Apostle Harold B Lee is "protesting vigorously over our having given a     scholarship at the BYU to a negro student from Africa. Brother Lee holds the traditional     belief as revealed in the Old Testament that the races ought to be kept together and that     there is danger in trying to integrate them on the BYU campus. 

Dec 19,1967 - BYU's Daily Universe publishes article in favor of recruiting African     American athletes. BYU's president writes: "This agures all the more in favor of our     making the student newspaper an agency of our Communications Department rather than a     student publication." Universe ceases to be independent student paper on 18 Apr 1969,     but "nothing would be announced about this new policy." 

June 9,1978 - First Presidency announces "priesthood now available to all worthy male     members." First Presidency secretary Francis M Gibbons writes that this change     "seemed to relieve them of a subtle sense of guilt they had felt over the     years." 

June 17,1978 - Church News headline "Interracial Marriage Discouraged" in same     issue which announces authorization of priesthood for those of black African descent.     Sources at headquarters indicate that Apostle Mark E Petersen requires this emphasis. 

Oct 1,1981 - New York Times reports official announcement that new edition of Book of     Mormon changes prophecy that Lamanites will "become white and delightsome."     Instead of continuing original reference to skin color, new edition emphasizes inward     spirituality: "become pure and delightsome."

 

[ralphinal]

There was a reason. We don’t know what that reason was. But it does not imply superiority and inferiority; in the same way that denying the priesthood to women does not suggest superiority of men to women.

I will concide that in regards to women and men. However, there are a lot of statements saying that blacks are inferior, by BY and others. What about that quote that Paul put up? THere seems to be a lot of smoke for no fire.

What about it?

Between the 1950s and 1970, there were major changes in the status of the minority in America. IN the early 1970s, the IRS changed the rule to allow tax exempt status if a group was shown to practice discrimination based on color. Suddenly, there is a new revaltion showing that they were now worthy. What changed? Was it society accepting them? Was it the threat of lawsuits? Was it the Jazz moving to Utah from New Orleans?

You can “see” what you like. That is not what I see. There was no segregation practiced by LDS.

zerinus

z,
I love you, man. I really do. Can you not understand why we see it?

 

[ralphinal]

It does not make you, any more important, to have the priesthood, it is a calling, it is a position of service. Blacks were able to have priesthood blessings, which is the important part.

If it weren’t for all of the racist statements, I might agree. To an outsider looking in, it seems that the LDS honestly thought that blacks were not holy.

And since Jesus was holy, he must have been white.

 

[majick275]

In eternity they will be denied nothing. In God’s eyes it does not make you more important, which is all that matters.

and yet LDS leaders have taught that isn’t true. right up through mare e petersen it was openly taught that faithful black members cold only become servants in the celestial kingdom. perhaps you could share where Apostles or prophets have publicly denounced that and corrected it with your version.

 

[scipio337]

In eternity they will be denied nothing. In God’s eyes it does not make you more important, which is all that matters.

So, how did a pre-1978 black man or woman achieve the “celestial kingdom”?

Apparently, heaven is segregated by race.

 

[wademann]

If it weren’t for all of the racist statements, I might agree. To an outsider looking in, it seems that the LDS honestly thought that blacks were not holy.

And since Jesus was holy, he must have been white.

I don’t think God cares, what a mere mortal man thinks or doesn’t think, says or doesn’t say, or what it looks like from the outside. Man will always make mistakes, that doesn’t change what the truth is. I see problems with alot of religions, as an outsider looking in, but that’s just me.

 

[ralphinal]

I don’t think God cares, what a mere mortal man thinks or doesn’t think, says or doesn’t say, or what it looks like from the outside. Man will always make mistakes, that doesn’t change what the truth is. I see problems with alot of religions, as an outsider looking in, but that’s just me.

OK. In some ways, I cannot disagree. However, let me put it this way. If a man claims to be speaking for God, and claims that his words are directly inspired by God, teaches something that seems to go against God, what are we to think?

 

[wademann]

OK. In some ways, I cannot disagree. However, let me put it this way. If a man claims to be speaking for God, and claims that his words are directly inspired by God, teaches something that seems to go against God, what are we to think?

Other than Jesus, has there ever been a perfect prophet?

 

[newshadow]

Other than Jesus, has there ever been a perfect prophet?

There have been no prophets since Jesus.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

Other than Jesus, has there ever been a perfect prophet?

No, but all prophecy is necessarily perfect. From the KJV:

Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
Deu 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

Not to derail this thread, but this whole “blacks can’t be priests” thing is far from the only prophecy which conveniently turned out to be false.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3922717&postcount=2

 

[ralphinal]

Other than Jesus, has there ever been a perfect prophet?

Then this raises a new question. If Jesus was the only perfect prophet, why take a step back with new revelation through imperfect men.

Also, are you saying then that the prophets were in error in being racist? Are you saying that the doctrine was racist? Is there a connection?

 

[zaffiroborant]

A poster on the MAAD board had this to say about worship in Black Churches as you can see there is no real worship going on just making yourselves feel good. Although I have to say this quote also disrespects all churches that use enthusiastic song in praise.

People of the past have have “good feelings” about stoneing someone to death or sacrificing them at an alter. But, I don’t think THOSE feelings are from God, or any number of other examples from extreme to light. My point however is, is that in my view those who “praise” in such way’s, are more so making “themselves” feel good, not that they are actually feeling as much of God’s Spirit as they think. Much of this is the reason why African American Worship is so different. Because of slavery a type of “being alive” worship style was developed so as to make them forget their troubles for a time and feel good. That’s not “God” speaking to them, that’s them simply doing something that can feel good.

Oh and Whyme there is a lot more contempt there that belies your assertion that the LDS board is haven of respect and kindness.

 

[wademann]

Then this raises a new question. If Jesus was the only perfect prophet, why take a step back with new revelation through imperfect men.

Also, are you saying then that the prophets were in error in being racist? Are you saying that the doctrine was racist? Is there a connection?

The doctrine was not racist. The prophets being imperfect let the beliefs of that time, effect their personal opinions. God tells men what he wants them to know, they can possibly assume more.