mormonism racist?

[Autodidact]

Do you have a link to the revelation revealed to Brigham Young?

[FONT=Verdana,Courier New,Courier,Monaco]"Any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it."...[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Courier New,Courier,Monaco]Though it is now popular among Mormons to argue that the basis for the priesthood denial to Negroes is unknown, no uncertainty was evident in the discourses of Brigham Young. From the initial remark in 1849 throughout his presidency, every known discussion of this subject by Young (or any other leading Mormon) invoked the connection with Cain as the justification for denying the priesthood to blacks. "Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot receive the priesthood." (1852);87 "When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood.... it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity"(1854);88 "Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood" (1859);89 "When all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain" (1886).90[/FONT]
...[FONT=Verdana,Courier New,Courier,Monaco]Though Brigham Young clearly rejected Joseph Smith's manifest belief that the curse on Ham did not justify Negro slavery, possibly an even greater difference of opinion is reflected in the importance Young ascribed to the alleged connection with Cain. "The seed of Ham, which is [p.70]the seed of Cain descending through Ham, will, according to the curse put upon him, serve his brethren, and be a 'servant of servants' to his fellow creatures, until God removes the curse; and no power can hinder it";83 or, "The Lord put a mark upon [Cain], which is the flat nose and the black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race-that they should be the 'servant of servants'; and they will, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree."84
[/FONT]
all from
Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview

Lester E. Bush, Jr.


Bush gives an extremely detailed history. This site seems to be the most detailed and complete.

 

[Autodidact]

I do see a problem with racism. I do think racism is wrong. Do I think the racist policy of the LDS church was divinely inspired? No. So, I'll ask again, can you link me to that evasive revelation Brigham Young received?

O.K. So racism is wrong, and the LDS church had a racist policy for 130 years, so the Church was wrong for 130 years, and failed to follow divine inspiration, is that right?

 

[Watchmen]

You quoted Brigham Young. His discourses do not qualify as "divine revelation." If they did, they would be included in the "Doctrine and Covenants." Curious name for a book, isn't it? "The Doctrine and Covenants."

We agree there was a policy of racism.

We agree that racism is wrong.

But we do not agree that it was divinly inspired and quoting Brigham Young does not help your case because the fact that the statement is attributable to him does not make it divine.

 

[Watchmen]

[FONT=Verdana,Courier New,Courier,Monaco]"Any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it."...[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Courier New,Courier,Monaco]Though it is now popular among Mormons to argue that the basis for the priesthood denial to Negroes is unknown, no uncertainty was evident in the discourses of Brigham Young. From the initial remark in 1849 throughout his presidency, every known discussion of this subject by Young (or any other leading Mormon) invoked the connection with Cain as the justification for denying the priesthood to blacks. "Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot receive the priesthood." (1852);87 "When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood.... it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity"(1854);88 "Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood" (1859);89 "When all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain" (1886).90[/FONT]
...[FONT=Verdana,Courier New,Courier,Monaco]Though Brigham Young clearly rejected Joseph Smith's manifest belief that the curse on Ham did not justify Negro slavery, possibly an even greater difference of opinion is reflected in the importance Young ascribed to the alleged connection with Cain. "The seed of Ham, which is [p.70]the seed of Cain descending through Ham, will, according to the curse put upon him, serve his brethren, and be a 'servant of servants' to his fellow creatures, until God removes the curse; and no power can hinder it";83 or, "The Lord put a mark upon [Cain], which is the flat nose and the black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race-that they should be the 'servant of servants'; and they will, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree."84[/FONT]

all from
Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview

Lester E. Bush, Jr.


Bush gives an extremely detailed history. This site seems to be the most detailed and complete.

For Katzpur's benefit, should she be interested.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That can't be an official ban, because we have records of blacks being ordained afterward.

That's a non-sequitur.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes. It amazes that those ignoramuses accuse the Church of racism because it was a policy that (1) was never doctrine, (2) was not in place when the Church began, and (3) is not in place today. By your logic, people should continue to consider the US government racist.

I agree with your basic point. I don't think it's fair to call the modern LDS Church "racist".
..But...
This one particular argument, about it not being "official" or not "doctrine", seems very, very weak. It's true as far as it goes, just as it would be true enough to say racism was never official "law" in the U.S. after emancipation, but neither observation redeems much of the history of the LDS church or the U.S. government.

And besides, was it ever doctrine that blacks should be ordained? (This isn't rhetorical, I'm just asking.) Sometimes an omission or lack of clarity is worthy of criticism, especially in context. If the best we could say about the writings of Martin Luther King was that he didn't explicitly condone racism, we wouldn't consider them great moral teachings, much less unquestionable "Doctrine" from God. In fact Aristotle (if I'm not mistaken) and many early philosophers (for sure) failed to address slavery, wars of aggression, colonialism, women's rights, etc. It's valid to criticize their work, in spite of their brilliance on other issues, for not taking a clear and morally sound stand on those issues. And they never even claimed to be perfect or commanded their writings be accepted as doctrine, we should hold supposedly divine books to an even higher standard, if they are what they claim. OTOH if "The Doctrines.." is a human-made book from 19th century America then it is noteworthy that it doesn't explicitly endorse racism.

 

[Scott C.]

I agree with numbers 1 and 2. I disagree with numbers 3 and 4. However, since it's getting late and I've got to be up early tomorrow, I'll save my explanation until later. I would, however, appreciate it, if you have the time between now and then, if you could tell me where I can find the revelation denying the priesthood to Black men. Unlike you, I don't believe we have a record of any such revelation or that there actually was one.

There's no place in scripture that says something like "Thus saith the Lord, men of black african lineage may not be ordained to the priesthood until a future time that I will reveal later."

But, such a revelation is not necessary for me to believe that the church was correct to impose the ban when it did.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

As for how to deal with the problem...I see no problem to deal with because God already dealt with it himself in 1978.

The problem is that otherwise compassionate people think they must discriminate because God orders it, unless their human leaders give them the all-clear to be tolerant. And this problem continues today with the gay-marriage issue. Well-intentioned people are taking their moral advice from old, white men who frankly don't have a clue.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hi DeepShadow,

A single instance does not constitute a correlation.

True, but we have at least two instances (curse of black skin, white and delightsome)....

A single instance is an outlier. How many instances were there of a group being cursed this way? One.

Okay, but a single instance of racism is nevertheless a single instance of racism. You can argue the BoM "on average" isn't racist, fair enough, but the part about cursing a wicked people with black skin is a racist part any way you slice it. It's difficult to imagine a story (or sub-story if you like) *more* racist than that. I think it's fair to say racism is not the main thrust of the BoM but nevertheless a story like that, and its widespread acceptance was clearly harmful to the cause of racial equality. And similar stories and doctrines--both "official" and unofficial--continue to hinder the cause of LGBT equality.

I'm glad most Mormons apparently don't take the curse of the skin of blackness story over-seriously today, but there was a lesson there: maybe other church pronouncements which most everyone currently accepts are wrong, too. Sadly, the enthusiastic response to the LDS leaders' call-to-arms on Prop 8 makes me think this lesson hasn't been learned. So it's worth pointing out how wrong (yet plausible) some previous LDS thinking was, just as it's worth pointing out that racism in the U.S. was in many ways firmly-grounded American law and principles from the beginning. If we're going to reject racism and homophobia we should reject them even in their most persuasive forms.

 

[Katzpur]

This one particular argument, about it not being "official" or not "doctrine", seems very, very weak. It's true as far as it goes, just as it would be true enough to say racism was never official "law" in the U.S. after emancipation, but neither observation redeems much of the history of the LDS church or the U.S. government.

I can see where it would be insignificant to you or to any other non-Mormon. To most Mormons, the distinction between "doctrine" and "non-doctrine" is huge. Whether God said something or whether men decided upon it themselves makes an enormous difference to us, or at least it should.

And besides, was it ever doctrine that blacks should be ordained?

As far as I can see, there was never any doctrine stating that any worthy male male member of the Church be excluded from being able to be ordained. The 1978 revelation established as doctrine the fact that no one should be excluded in the future.

 

[Watchmen]

I agree with your basic point. I don't think it's fair to call the modern LDS Church "racist".
..But...
This one particular argument, about it not being "official" or not "doctrine", seems very, very weak. It's true as far as it goes, just as it would be true enough to say racism was never official "law" in the U.S. after emancipation, but neither observation redeems much of the history of the LDS church or the U.S. government.

The distinction of whether it is doctrine or not is incredibly important (at least to me and some other LDS). If it was doctrine then it means it was God sanctioned racism. If it was not then it means it was the follies of man. My personal belief is the latter.

And besides, was it ever doctrine that blacks should be ordained? (This isn't rhetorical, I'm just asking.)

In the beginning of the Church it was established that men would receive the priesthood. There was no racial distinction.

 

[Autodidact]

You quoted Brigham Young. His discourses do not qualify as "divine revelation." If they did, they would be included in the "Doctrine and Covenants." Curious name for a book, isn't it? "The Doctrine and Covenants."

We agree there was a policy of racism.

We agree that racism is wrong.

But we do not agree that it was divinly inspired and quoting Brigham Young does not help your case because the fact that the statement is attributable to him does not make it divine.

When Young says that he's speaking as a prophet, and in the name of Jesus Christ he's what? Mistaken? When the First Presidency issues an official communication claiming that the ban is doctrine they're mistaken?

 

[Autodidact]

There's no place in scripture that says something like "Thus saith the Lord, men of black african lineage may not be ordained to the priesthood until a future time that I will reveal later."

But, such a revelation is not necessary for me to believe that the church was correct to impose the ban when it did.

So this racist policy was correct? Sometimes racism is good? When?

 

[Autodidact]

The distinction of whether it is doctrine or not is incredibly important (at least to me and some other LDS). If it was doctrine then it means it was God sanctioned racism. If it was not then it means it was the follies of man. My personal belief is the latter.



In the beginning of the Church it was established that men would receive the priesthood. There was no racial distinction.

So this policy was a mistake on the part of the Church?

 

[DeepShadow]

That's a non-sequitur.

How so?

 

[DeepShadow]

I think the problem here is that people are trying to argue against the current inspiration of the church because of a racist policy in the past. THAT is a non-sequitur. We don't understand how God works, and we never will.

I've seen arguments here to the effect of, "how do you trust anything they say if they can make mistakes?" Non-sequitur. "Inspired" is not the same as "infallible."

It's funny, but there was a guy in the days of Joseph Smith who left the church because the prophet misspelled his name in a revelation. He made the argument that if the Prophet could make a mistake on a name, he could make a mistake on anything else, too. I thought it was silly, but upon reflection, I wonder if he made the same non-sequitur: he assumed that the Church was an elevator to God, and all he had to do was climb on. Hitch your wagon to the Prophet's coattails, and hang on for the high road to heaven. Then, instead of an elevator, he found a staircase, and he balked that he wasn't going to get to turn his brain off and ride.

We're going to go around in circles here unless we get to the heart of the matter: I don't follow the LDS church or the current prophet because they speak for God. I follow them because God spoke to ME and told me to follow them. I've seen men make mistakes in the church, and do things I disagree with or don't understand. But I've always been told to stay, every time I asked God about leaving. Do I understand why I'm supposed to stay? Not always. I spend a lot of time saying, "I don't get it, but I trust you."

I don't mind AD or anyone else challenging the divine authority of the current church administration because of prior administrations. It follows logically. But the problem is, the LDS here are never going to listen because you are not addressing their actual reason for following the current administration: it's not because of Thomas S. Monson's revelation that they follow. It's because of their own.

 

[Autodidact]

How so?

The fact that a rule is sometimes broken does not mean there is not a rule. btw, you were going to give some examples of exceptions? African-Americans admitted to the priesthood after 1850?

 

[Autodidact]

I think the problem here is that people are trying to argue against the inspiration of the church because of a racist policy. THAT is a non-sequitur.

We don't understand how God works, and we never will.

But it's not a non sequitur. You always have the option to resort to the ever popular "God works in mysterious ways" position of last resort, but it's not a non sequitur to conclude that if the Church instituted a racist policy, then either God is racist, or the Church was mistaken. If I'm understanding everyone correctly, Scott believes that God is racist, and the rest of you believe that the Church was mistaken. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[DeepShadow]

But it's not a non sequitur. You always have the option to resort to the ever popular "God works in mysterious ways" position of last resort, but it's not a non sequitur to conclude that if the Church instituted a racist policy, then either God is racist, or the Church was mistaken. If I'm understanding everyone correctly, Scott believes that God is racist, and the rest of you believe that the Church was mistaken. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't see where you're wrong here. I've expanded my post above, to better drive at what I see is the heart of the matter. It seems to follow logically from what you've said here: if God is racist, why follow Him? If the church was mistaken then, how can we trust it now?

Both lead to what I think is the real issue.

 

[Autodidact]

I can't frubal DeepShadow twice, but I greatly admire his integrity. Instead of avoiding the problem, he confronts it honestly. There's your dilemma. How do you deal with it?