Mormons, is it true...?

[Pjs2ejs]

Is it true that blacks were not allowed into the LDS church one time in LDS history? I have heard this but want to find out from some who know this for sure. If anyone knows also, did any of the “prophets” comment on this?

 

[happygal]

Oh really, interesting to find out what the LDS have to say.

 

[christianley]

Is it true that blacks were not allowed into the LDS church one time in LDS history? I have heard this but want to find out from some who know this for sure. If anyone knows also, did any of the “prophets” comment on this?

Blacks were always allowed in the LDS Church. Up until 1978 blacks could not hold the priesthood or enter the temple. There were blacks in the early LDS Church and at least one was given the priesthood prior to the time they decided blacks could not hold it. There is a historical debate about whether the priesthood ban originated with Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, led by Joseph’'s son, did allow blacks to hold the priesthood.

 

[Maria1212]

Blacks were always allowed in the LDS Church. .

I had heard that there was a time when individuals with dark/black skin were not allowed in the LDS Church. Does anyone know of some reputable literature on this ? (LDS literature, and non-LDS publications).

Why were they not allowed to hold higher positions in the church until 1978? How did the LDS Church justify this change in doctrine? Or rather, how did they rationalize excluding them until 1978?

Sincerely,
Maria1212

 

[kell0618]

I had heard that there was a time when individuals with dark/black skin were not allowed in the LDS Church. Does anyone know of some reputable literature on this ? (LDS literature, and non-LDS publications).

Why were they not allowed to hold higher positions in the church until 1978? How did the LDS Church justify this change in doctrine? Or rather, how did they rationalize excluding them until 1978?

Sincerely,
Maria1212

I suggest you go here , here or here. Interesting stuff that cannot be refuted.

 

[puzzleannie]

bear in mind that all churches, seminaries and divinity schools in the South were segregated until less than 50 years ago (including many Catholic, sadly), which is why African-Americans formed their own vibrant churches. Churches in the north were usually segregated de facto if not by law, with separate seating for blacks if they were allowed. There were some divinity schools in the North that accepted blacks earlier than the civil war, but no black was allowed into a Catholic seminary until the last century. Augustus Tolton had to complete his seminary education in Rome to become the first African-American Catholic priest. As a homegrown American sect, Mormonism evolved in the context of a culture (including slavery and its surrounding laws that were binding even in the north) in its first generation, and the legalized and de facto segregation that pertained in America for the next 100 years of its history.

 

[kell0618]

bear in mind that all churches, seminaries and divinity schools in the South were segregated until less than 50 years ago (including many Catholic, sadly), which is why African-Americans formed their own vibrant churches. Churches in the north were usually segregated de facto if not by law, with separate seating for blacks if they were allowed. There were some divinity schools in the North that accepted blacks earlier than the civil war, but no black was allowed into a Catholic seminary until the last century. Augustus Tolton had to complete his seminary education in Rome to become the first African-American Catholic priest. As a homegrown American sect, Mormonism evolved in the context of a culture (including slavery and its surrounding laws that were binding even in the north) in its first generation, and the legalized and de facto segregation that pertained in America for the next 100 years of its history.

Point understood, yet we need to look at the fact that it was in 1978 that they would finally consider allowing a black to even enter their temple. If racism had a sliding scale, they would be in a canyon.

 

[Jerusha]

What keeps them in the canyon is the fact the the Book of Mormon, itself, has many racist passages.

 

[christianley]

What keeps them in the canyon is the fact the the Book of Mormon, itself, has many racist passages.

The Book of Mormon may have passages that some would consider racist, but it always maintained the races were equal. There are times in the Book of Mormon when the Lamanites, the dark-skinned people, are equal to or superior to the Nehites in righteousness. In fact 2 Nephi 26:33 states:

“For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”

The decision to withhold the priesthood from people with African ancestry is derived from passages in the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham. Dark-skinned Polynesians were given the priesthood before blacks even though their skin color was just as dark. Many people believe the decision to withhold the priesthood from blacks was a response to problems which occurred when Mormon missionaries taught black slaves in Missouri. Their owners weren’t happy about it and since many Mormons came from the Northeastern U.S. the Missourians were afraid the Mormons were abolitionists. In fact some Mormons were. So there was a practical reason in the 1830s to limit the contact of Mormon missionaries with blacks. During Brigham Young’s time the practice was turned into a doctrine and revelation which made it harder to change later on.

I can tell you that most Mormons were relieved when blacks finally were given the priesthood in 1978.

 

[Jerusha]

I agree that there are some good passages in the Book of Mormon. However, some people prefer these passages:

I Nephi 12: 21-23 And I saw them gathered together in multitudes; and I saw wars and rumors of wars among them; and in wars and rumors of wars I saw many generations pass away. And the angel said unto me: Behold these shall dwindle in unbelief. And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.

Just depends on the LDS person you are talking to and what he thinks you want to hear.

 

[Jerusha]

II Nephi 5:20-26 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence. And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done. And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey. And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.

Jacob 3:5-9 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father – that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them. And now, this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore, because of this observance, in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them, but will be merciful unto them; and one day they shall become a blessed people. Behold, their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their husbands; and their husbands and their wives love their children; and their unbelief and their hatred towards you is because of the iniquity of their fathers; wherefore, how much better are you than they, in the sight of your great Creator? O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.

 

[Jerusha]

Alma 3:6-9 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men. And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women. And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction. And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed. Therefore, whosoever suffered himself to be led away by the Lamanites was called under that head, and there was a mark set upon him. And it came to pass that whosoever would not believe in the tradition of the Lamanites, but believed those records which were brought out of the land of Jerusalem, and also in the tradition of their fathers, which were correct, who believed in the commandments of God and kept them, were called the Nephites, or the people of Nephi, from that time forth –

III Nephi 2: 14-16 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year. Mormon 5:15 And behold, they shall go unto the unbelieving of the Jews; and for this intent shall they go – that they may be persuaded that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God; that the Father may bring about, through his most Beloved, his great and eternal purpose, in restoring the Jews, or all the house of Israel, to the land of their inheritance, which the Lord their God hath given them, unto the fulfilling of his covenant; And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry.

 

[Pjs2ejs]

I suggest you go here , here or here. Interesting stuff that cannot be refuted.

I am ill. I am very ill.

 

[Allweather]

I read somewhere (I may still have the book, and can search for this if necessary) that the Mormons as a general rule opposed U.S. slavery. At the same time, Mormons had no significant participation in the Civil War, which from the northern perspective was a popular war of mostly volunteers who were aiming to destroy slavery and the economic and social system that perserved it.

Of course, this opposition to slavery says nothing, or at least very little, about racism, which also existed in the U.S. northern states in spite of the popular determination to destroy slavery.

One other factor that I’ve wondered about: Utah, as well as much of the American southwest, was Mexican territory until the end of the Mexican War in 1848, which pretty much corresponds to Utah efforts to obtain U.S. statehood beginning in 1849 (!). When the Mormons were moving west into Utah between 1844 and 1848/49, were they doing it with the approval of the anti-slavery Mexican government? As in Texas prior to 1836? (where the immigrants were required to convert to Catholicism and renounce slave holdings).

I need to do some reading.

 

[Jerusha]

I think there was some dissent, with the split going RLDS (and Joseph and family) abolitionist.

The LDS did take some slaves with them to Utah.

 

[kell0618]

From this site:

Until 1978, Blacks of African descent were not eligible to hold the priesthood or participate in certain temple ordinances. It should be noted that the issue was one of genealogy and not skin pigmentation. For example, Black men from non-African descent were allowed to hold the priesthood. On the other hand, Caucasian, Asian, and Hispanic men who had some Black African ancestry were not allowed to hold the priesthood.

Note: This site is one made by the Mormons to refute the ‘allegations’ made ‘against’ them. They actually try to excuse their behavior/teaching/practice.

Them: “Honest guys, you look pretty dark, but if you don’t have African ancestry, we just love you like one of our own!”

 

[wussup]

I read somewhere (I may still have the book, and can search for this if necessary) that the Mormons as a general rule opposed U.S. slavery. At the same time, Mormons had no significant participation in the Civil War, which from the northern perspective was a popular war of mostly volunteers who were aiming to destroy slavery and the economic and social system that perserved it./QUOTE]

Try reading two sources, first, Arrington’s ‘The Mormon Experience’, the second, newspapers from the time of the Civil War. The Civil War was VERY unpopular, as much in the North as in the South. the ‘volunteers’ were volunteers in the sense todays fighters were volunteers. By the same token, their was a draft/conscription in effect. One could get out of serving in the Civil War by paying a fee. The rage against Lincoln during the Civil War was so great that 1000s and 1000s and 1000s (I believe the number was upwards of 14000) war protesters were imprisoned by the Lincoln administration. Were it not for Sherman’s March finally crushing the South’s reistance, and a few victories elsewhere, the South would have been successful in succeeding from the Union. Regarding the LDS participation in the Civil War, it is my understanding the Saints were split between establishing a seperate Church State (to be called Deseret) and staying in the Union.

 

[Allweather]

Try reading two sources, first, Arrington’s ‘The Mormon Experience’, the second, newspapers from the time of the Civil War. The Civil War was VERY unpopular, as much in the North as in the South. the ‘volunteers’ were volunteers in the sense todays fighters were volunteers.

I like biographies, and learn quite a bit of history from them. While there were segments of the northern populations that were rather sympathetic, if not supportive, of southern aims to disconnect from the Union and maintain their economic system, the majority of the population favored dumping slavery and enforcing the Union. One sign of this, early on, is the election of Lincoln, who couldn’t possibly have been elected if a majority of the U.S. population, which BTW in 1860 included the states later to secede, favored fracturing the nation and allowing a slave-trading coalition of states to exist along the southern border. It was Lincoln’s election which sparked the rebellion, the southern states facing up to facts, and deciding the secession was the only way out.

By the same token, their was a draft/conscription in effect. One could get out of serving in the Civil War by paying a fee. The rage against Lincoln during the Civil War was so great that 1000s and 1000s and 1000s (I believe the number was upwards of 14000) war protesters were imprisoned by the Lincoln administration.

That is true. But, most of the rage against Lincoln was in the south, not the north. There was a conscription, and it was corrupt by modern standards, bearing in mind that our draft laws and practices up until 1970 were also pretty corrupt, and if you lived in those days you know what I’m talking about. Yes, Lincoln established a strong war-footed government that undoubtedly took many liberties with civil rights. He did so with the consent, or at least the absence of resistence, of Congress, which gave him his free hand. Lincoln’s main problem until 1863 was his commander, McClellan, who was not willing to commit to the fight, and probably held some southern sympathies, or at least was not the soldier Grant turned out to be.

Were it not for Sherman’s March finally crushing the South’s reistance, and a few victories elsewhere, the South would have been successful in succeeding from the Union. Regarding the LDS participation in the Civil War, it is my understanding the Saints were split between establishing a seperate Church State (to be called Deseret) and staying in the Union.

You mention Sherman. And “a few victories elsewhere” by which I assume you to mean the defeats in Tennessee and Louisiana and “elsewhere.” By the time Sherman did his thing to Savannah, the south had been split down the Mississippi, and many southern states, important southern states, separated from the Confederacy, and control of the river essentially in Union hands. Lincoln won reelection in 1864 because he finally got some commanders who were willing to do the dirty work of destroying the Confederacy at ground level, so that, after Gettysburg, things went sour for the south, and it was all over except the mopping up. Sherman was important, but it was really just the coup de grace. The south was already finished. All that remained was the grinding down of the populations that would have presented a very large pacification problem if they’d been allowed to not be ground down. The south was starving. It had been under naval blockade for three years, all its men under arms. Grant called the south an “armed camp” and so it was. Slaves were doing all the farm work, and they werent exactly highly motivated. Meanwhile, the southern troops were not eating well, and there was a widespread fear of a slave insurrection that would leave southern women and children at the mercy of angry blacks.

So, yes, it is understandable that Lincoln was not well admired in the south, but he was fabulously popular in the north by spring of 1865 when Lee and his scarecrow army surrendered to a well-fed Gen. U.S. Grant.

 

[zerinus]

I am ill. I am very ill.

You were ill before you started. You just didn’t know it.

zerinus

 

[heathernoel]

You were ill before you started. You just didn’t know it.

zerinus