mormonism racist?

[Autodidact]

Actually, it's an analogy for the Tribes of Israel. Only one tribe (Levites) could be priests, and they served the other 11.

So it doesn't relate to Mormonism and its racism at all? Why are we talking about it then? You lost me.

 

[Autodidact]

Testimonies | Blacklds.org

1836: In March, Elijah Abel, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.
1836: In December, Elijah Abel, is ordained to the office of Seventy.
1844: Walker Lewis, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.
1846: William McCary, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.
1900: Enoch Abel, the son of Elijah Abel, is ordained to the office of Elder.
1935: Elijah Abel, grandson of Elijah Abel, is ordained to the office of Elder.
1958: All black Melanesians (Fijians) are given the priesthood (blacks in the Philippines even earlier)
1978: Revelation on Priesthood gives the priesthood to all worthy men regardless of color.
1990: Helvecio Martins becomes black General Authority Seventy.
Additional blacks were ordained in the early years of the church.


The Charge of ‘Racism’ in the Book of Mormon | Blacklds.org

Didn't you leave out the part where Black men were denied the priesthood? Isn't that kind of important?

 

[DeepShadow]

So it doesn't relate to Mormonism and its racism at all? Why are we talking about it then? You lost me.

It relates in part. It has to do with how the policies on priesthood have changed over time, and how the priesthood isn't a blessing of the church. You can actually have all the blessings of the gospel without the priesthood.

 

[DeepShadow]

Didn't you leave out the part where Black men were denied the priesthood? Isn't that kind of important?

That's the problem: there was never an official ban.

Edited: emphasized "official" as the operative word.

 

[idea]

30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
(New Testament | Matthew 19:30)

in the grand scheme of things, is it better to be first? or last?
just a random script...

 

[Autodidact]

That's the problem: there was never an official ban.

I love this! This is absolutely my favorite thing about Mormonism. As soon as they change it (doctrine, ban, theology, policy, whatever) the previous d, b, t, p or w is as though it never existed. It's like the old Soviet Union or something. Please, do go on. If there was never a ban on Black men gaining the priesthood, um, why didn't they get to do it?

 

[Watchmen]

I love this! This is absolutely my favorite thing about Mormonism. As soon as they change it (doctrine, ban, theology, policy, whatever) the previous d, b, t, p or w is as though it never existed. It's like the old Soviet Union or something. Please, do go on. If there was never a ban on Black men gaining the priesthood, um, why didn't they get to do it?

If it was official doctrine go find it in previous versions of the canon. Go ahead and try.


We've already answered your question (a million times). There's a difference between doctrine and policies and practice.

 

[Autodidact]

When President Spencer W. Kimball announced to the world on 9 June 1978 a revelation making Mormons of all races eligible for the priesthood, he ended a policy that for 130 years denied the priesthood to those having any black African ancestry.

Armand Mauss (Mormon scholar)
The Fading of the Pharaohs' Curse:
The Decline and Fall of the Priesthood Ban Against Blacks in the Mormon Church

Today marks the 30th Anniversary of the event Mormon Priesthood ban being officially lifted.

from here.
(Mormon site)

The Priesthood-ban, as it is called, wasn't really a question of skin-color but of lineage or bloodline.

By the Elijah Abel Society of Black Latter-day Saints.

The inter-racial marriage of his Mormon son to a white Mormon woman so infuriated Brigham Young when he learned of it at the end of 1847 that he wished to have the newlywed couple murdered, and soon thereafter Young instigated a complete priesthood ban against all men with any African ancestry at all (and a temple ordinance ban against both black men and women).

The Mormon Priesthood Ban & Elder Q. Walker Lewis: "An example for his more whiter brethren to follow" Connell O'Donovan (Mormon)

So all these Mormon scholars are wrong? There was no ban?

 

[Autodidact]

If it was official doctrine go find it in previous versions of the canon. Go ahead and try.


We've already answered your question (a million times). There's a difference between doctrine and policies and practice.

I didn't say anything about doctrine. Nor did I ask you a question. I said,

Black men were denied the priesthood

, and pointed out that the poster had left out this rather important fact. Now Deep Shadow tells me there was no official ban. What was it, unofficial? In any case, it's irrelevant to my point, which is the fact that Black men were denied the priesthood.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If it was official doctrine go find it in previous versions of the canon. Go ahead and try.

Just for clarification: previous versions? Are you saying they didn't just add to it, they actually went back and changed it the way they changed "white" to "pure" in the BoM?

That's what's going on in the Book of Mormon: one group turns darker when they get wicked. Five other groups do not. One group turns lighter when they get righteous. Two others do not. Hence, no correlation.

There's definitely a correlation, just not a perfect correlation (which we would never expect anyway). No tribes were "cursed with a skin of whiteness". No tribes became "black and delightsome". If that had happened, okay maybe there would be no correlation.

 

[maklelan]

So all these Mormon scholars are wrong? There was no ban?

I think the point was that there was a working ban that really had no indication of ever having been formally accepted as revelation or as doctrine. Thus it was not official, despite the assumptions of those in the church who espouse the idea that if a church authority said it, it's official.

 

[Katzpur]

Maklelan and DeepShadow,

As time goes by, I am seeing more and more Latter-day Saints who are willing to accept the fact that the policy of denying the priesthood to Black men was never an official doctrine of the Church. It is so important that we admit this. While presumably well-meaning and perhaps believing that they had a scriptural precedent for instituting the ban, Brigham Young and those in authority who followed him were not acting under direction from God. God never authorized the ban. We have to acknowledge this. I'm so glad to see that the two of you do.

 

[DeepShadow]

I love this! This is absolutely my favorite thing about Mormonism. As soon as they change it (doctrine, ban, theology, policy, whatever) the previous d, b, t, p or w is as though it never existed. It's like the old Soviet Union or something. Please, do go on. If there was never a ban on Black men gaining the priesthood, um, why didn't they get to do it?

That was a timeline, listing dates of specific events. The ban on blacks holding the priesthood was never issued on a specific date, hence it doesn't belong on a timeline. Matter of fact, the presence of several elements on that list demonstrate that the ban was never a blanket practice. It crept in slowly over time, because it was human error.

It's a simple thing to prove me wrong, AD. Just find a date when an official ban was issued, and by whom, and we'll include it in the timeline. Matter of fact, if you can find that, I'll put the date and other details in my sig.

That goes for everyone here. Obviously we can't prove a negative; the burden of proof rests on you. You can write my sig if you can find document an official ban, by a specific prophet.

 

[DeepShadow]

Maklelan and DeepShadow,

As time goes by, I am seeing more and more Latter-day Saints who are willing to accept the fact that the policy of denying the priesthood to Black men was never an official doctrine of the Church. It is so important that we admit this. While presumably well-meaning and perhaps believing that they had a scriptural precedent for instituting the ban, Brigham Young and those in authority who followed him were not acting under direction from God. God never authorized the ban. We have to acknowledge this. I'm so glad to see that the two of you do.

Thanks. It's important that we stop apologizing for this travesty using scripture, but when we do that, we get accused of Stalinesque cover-ups. Hence my challenge: find me an official date when an LDS prophet issued an official ban. Here's a hint everyone: in order for the ban to take effect, it would have to be instituted by the church records department, and there would be no more ordinations authorized by the church. Take a look at that timeline: where did the ordinations stop? Who was prophet around that time? Now go find one of the prophets of that time period who issued this ban as an official proclamation.

 

[DeepShadow]

So all these Mormon scholars are wrong? There was no ban?

Some of them are wrong--the ban obviously didn't last for 130 years. But the operative word was that the ban was never OFFICIAL. It was an abomination that crept into our practices slowly, as demonstrated by the timeline. I challenge you or anyone else to prove me wrong. I can't prove the ban wasn't official; burden of proof is on you to find an official proclamation.

 

[DeepShadow]

There's definitely a correlation, just not a perfect correlation (which we would never expect anyway). No tribes were "cursed with a skin of whiteness". No tribes became "black and delightsome". If that had happened, okay maybe there would be no correlation.

A single instance does not constitute a correlation. A single instance is an outlier. How many instances were there of a group being cursed this way? One.

 

[Autodidact]

I think the point was that there was a working ban that really had no indication of ever having been formally accepted as revelation or as doctrine. Thus it was not official, despite the assumptions of those in the church who espouse the idea that if a church authority said it, it's official.

Did that make the slightest difference to the Black Mormons who were denied the priesthood for 100 years?

 

[Autodidact]

That was a timeline, listing dates of specific events. The ban on blacks holding the priesthood was never issued on a specific date, hence it doesn't belong on a timeline. Matter of fact, the presence of several elements on that list demonstrate that the ban was never a blanket practice. It crept in slowly over time, because it was human error.

It's a simple thing to prove me wrong, AD. Just find a date when an official ban was issued, and by whom, and we'll include it in the timeline. Matter of fact, if you can find that, I'll put the date and other details in my sig.

That goes for everyone here. Obviously we can't prove a negative; the burden of proof rests on you. You can write my sig if you can find document an official ban, by a specific prophet.

The ban dates from January 6, 1848, when Brigham Young (prophet) declared:

Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot hold the Priesthood and if no other Prophet spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ."

Q. What is "official" Mormon Church doctrine?
A. Whatever the President of the Church "teaches" at any particular time in General Conference, or in letters from the First Presidency.
The "Curse of Cain Doctrine" was preached by Brigham Young, and other Church Presidents, in General Conference, for 130 years (1848-1978). It was called "a doctrine of the Church" in letters written by the First Presidency, and signed by all three members of that quorum. You simply cannot get any more "official" than that!

(all from the Black Mormon homepage)

I look forward to seeing your new signature.

 

[Autodidact]

Some of them are wrong--the ban obviously didn't last for 130 years. But the operative word was that the ban was never OFFICIAL. It was an abomination that crept into our practices slowly, as demonstrated by the timeline. I challenge you or anyone else to prove me wrong. I can't prove the ban wasn't official; burden of proof is on you to find an official proclamation.

The Curse of Cain Doctrine was an OFFICIAL doctrine of the Church for 130 years, and the Priesthood-ban Policy was an official policy of the Church for 130 years (1848-1978)

(Black Mormon)

some of those who fought on God's side

"were more valiant than others…Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin...The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence" (Mormon Doctrine, p.527, 1966 ed.).
​

Throughout Mormon history, theories to justify denying blacks the priesthood were interpreted as being doctrine.

Black and Mormon, BYU

 

[DeepShadow]

The ban dates from January 6, 1848, when Brigham Young (prophet) declared:

That can't be an official ban, because we have records of blacks being ordained afterward. See the timeline. If it was an official ban, it would have been enforced from church headquarters.

Also, was Brigham speaking to a friend, or to the whole church? Where is this quote to be found: Journal of Discourses, maybe? Let's track it down. I'll do some research for Jan 6, 1848, if that's to be in my new sig.

Hold it; the church only holds conferences in April and October. Those are the only times an official declaration can be made. Was this a special conference? Hmmmm...

You simply cannot get any more "official" than that!

Actually, you can get much more official than a private letter. Or was this a letter to the church? Maybe it was. We can't tell from this source, can we?

This last one is quite close, but we still don't have a source. If you can get me documentable source for a single letter--even a private letter--bearing the signatures of all three of the First Presidency, I'll put that in my sig.