mormonism racist?

[DeepShadow]

First Presidency Statement on The Negro Question, August 17, 1949.

Okay, now THAT is getting closer. I'll do some research into this, and I'm prepared to put this date into my sig if I'm wrong. But if that's the official ban, then how did the ban last for 130 years, as your previous source attested? Judging by this, the ban lasted for 29 years. Which is it?

 

[DeepShadow]

For you to be right, The Black Mormon, Armand Mauss, Lester Bush, and The First Presidency would all have to be wrong.

Except they contradict on when the ban was actually put in place.

 

[Autodidact]

Okay, now THAT is getting closer. I'll do some research into this, and I'm prepared to put this date into my sig if I'm wrong. But if that's the official ban, then how did the ban last for 130 years, as your previous source attested? Judging by this, the ban lasted for 29 years. Which is it?

The source cited says right in it that it has always been official church doctrine. As I have said repeatedly, the ban was instituted in 1847 by Brigham Young, and was official church policy until 1978. This is one of many sources that document and support the ban extending throughout that period. We're not discussing how long the ban lasted--that's undisputed. The only thing we're disputing is whether it was official. I have now provided you with several reputable Mormon sources, including official communications from and signed by the First Presidency, making it clear that there was an official ban.

 

[Autodidact]

Except they contradict on when the ban was actually put in place.

No, they all agree that the ban was put in place by Brigham Young in 1847. It was repeatedly confirmed by a number of church documents over the decades between that date and 1978, and I have given you those original sources.

 

[DeepShadow]

The source cited says right in it that it has always been official church doctrine. As I have said repeatedly, the ban was instituted in 1847 by Brigham Young, and was official church policy until 1978.

It looks like I'm going to be writing a new sig, but there's still a few issues here to clarify:

1) Brigham Young cannot have issued an official ban in January 1848. There was no church conference for him to do so.

2) Blacks were still being ordained well after 1848. We have record of that.

So the length of the ban IS open to debate.

 

[Autodidact]

Of course there was a ban. Every single Latter-day Saint who has posted on this thread has acknowledged that. What we've been saying, but what you have been ignoring, is that the ban was never part of the official doctrine of the Church. .

Actually, what DeepShadow said is

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

Edited: emphasized "official" as the operative word.

Not "doctrine" but "official." Clearly, there was an official ban for 130 years. It was proclaimed from Church leaders and endorsed as an official ban in numerous primary documents, including letters and other publications, which I have given you. So the argument is not about "doctrine." It's about "official." Do you dispute that there was an official ban?

 

[Autodidact]

It looks like I'm going to be writing a new sig, but there's still a few issues here to clarify:

1) Brigham Young cannot have issued an official ban in January 1848. There was no church conference for him to do so.

2) Blacks were still being ordained well after 1848. We have record of that.

So the length of the ban IS open to debate.

Well debate it with someone else. Our debate is over whether it was official or not. Clearly, it was.

After you change your signature, will you let maklelan know, since he thinks I'm a bigoted liar who demonstrates my prejudice by culling anti-Mormon propagandists, rather than the actual primary Mormon documents I have actually provided. I hate being slandered.

 

[DeepShadow]

No, they all agree that the ban was put in place by Brigham Young in 1847. It was repeatedly confirmed by a number of church documents over the decades between that date and 1978, and I have given you those original sources.

No, the First Presidency documents (i.e. the actual proclamations) don't give a date for when the ban started. They just say that this has been the policy since the early days of the church. The say the position "remains where it has always stood" despite the fact that we have ordination records for black people. Curious.

[FONT=Verdana,Courier New,Courier,Monaco]"From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man."--1969 FPM[/FONT]

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., let's agree on "a long time." There was an official ban for a long time. Correct?

Could you provide the info on the exceptions? Not Fijians or whatever, but Black American.

 

[DeepShadow]

Well debate it with someone else. Our debate is over whether it was official or not. Clearly, it was.

Agreed, and I concede that I was mistaken; I'll change my sig. I don't know if you'll believe me, but I'm grateful for the research you did, and for what I've learned today.

I've often said that there was nothing to fear in losing a debate, because if you were wrong, you learned something. This has proven it for me.

I hope I wasn't the only one who learned something here.

After you change your signature, will you let maklelan know, since he thinks I'm a bigoted liar who demonstrates my prejudice by culling anti-Mormon propagandists, rather than the actual primary Mormon documents I have actually provided. I hate being slandered.

Will do.

 

[DeepShadow]

O.K., let's agree on "a long time." There was an official ban for a long time. Correct?

I can agree on that.

Could you provide the info on the exceptions? Not Fijians or whatever, but Black American.

...why do they have to be Americans?

 

[Autodidact]

All hail DeepShadow, a rare individual, able to admit error.

I'm learning all the time.

 

[Autodidact]

I can agree on that.



...why do they have to be Americans?

Why not? LDS started as an American Church. It's the "descendant of Cain" thing.

 

[DeepShadow]

All hail DeepShadow, a rare individual, able to admit error.

Thanks, but I'm a man, like any other. Glory goes to God.

Or in your case, maybe you could give glory to the sometimes-helpful, sometimes-hindering meme that others like to call God.

I'm learning all the time.

I would hope so, considering your forum ID!

Seriously, you helped me find one of the best quotes I've ever seen on this topic. I'm still pondering it, but if it means what I think it means, it's a life-changing quote.

 

[DeepShadow]

Why not? LDS started as an American Church. It's the "descendant of Cain" thing.

Exactly: "descendent of Cain" was denoted by dark skin, regardless of where they were born.

 

[tomasortega]

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.

oops, your mentor just sold you out... bummer.

 

[DeepShadow]

oops, your mentor just sold you out... bummer.

Don't let not knowing what you're talking about stop you from talking.

 

[tomasortega]

oh, and katzpur,since you believe that "Brigham Young and those in authority who followed him were not acting under direction from God." and that " God never authorized the ban"

tell me, what makes you so sure that god authorized other things in your religion? how do you know any part of the bom of it was actually inspired?

 

[DeepShadow]

Aren't you supposed to be looking up "correlation"?

While we're dredging up old stuff to retreat, how about Watchman's question about whether the church is still racist TODAY?

 

[Katzpur]

I can agree on that.

There may have been an "official ban" but it was not a ban authorized by God. When I have used the word "official," I have used it to mean "doctrinally binding." I'm assuming you have, too. In this context, that may not have been the most accurate word to have chosen. It was "official" in that any policy enacted by the General Authorities is "official." "Official" does not necessarily mean "revealed by God as true." In 1954, David O. McKay, then President of the Church, stated, “There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this Church that the Negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the Church of any kind pertaining to the Negro. ‘We believe’ that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the Priesthood from the Negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it.” You and I can understand what that means. Any non-Mormon who wants to understand what it means should not have too difficult a time doing so. It will unfortunately go right over the heads of those whose only point in posting here is to win a debate that is ultimately not ever going to be won by either side.

Several times during the past four or five years, I have attended the annual FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research) Conference here in Salt Lake City, and have twice been privileged to hear Darius Gray speak. Darius Gray, as you may know, Darius Gray was called in 1971 (six and one-half years prior to the ban being lifted) by Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson and Boyd K. Packer (then all apostles) as a counselor in the newly formed Genesis Group, an official auxiliary unit of the Church for the purpose of meeting the needs of Black members of the Church. He served as President of that group from 1997 until 2003.

On both occasions that Gray spoke, he said something that I wrote down verbatim but have been unable to find in my recent search. Unfortunately I can't give you a word-for-word quote, but I will convey what he said as accurately as I possibly can. In speaking personally to the Church's leadership (I got the impression it was to the First Presidency, but I couldn't swear to that), he asked them to please help him to understand the reason for the ban. They told him that the Lord had never authorized it but that He had permitted it. I wish I could recall the rest, but I can't. The one thing I do recall, though, was that he said that he had asked them for permission to share that explanation and was given their blessing to do so. That really made an impact on me, and I do not believe he would have made that statement had he been asked to keep it confidential.