mormonism racist?

[cardero]

Btw, who's Jeff?

Can we call you Jeff?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sure. It's not the name my mother gave me, but then neither is Mr Spinkles.

 

[Katzpur]

The reason I'm talking about it is, first of all, because that's what this thread is about. It's not my business to tell you how to run your church, that's why I would never march into Salt Lake and issue demands, but certainly I'm free to share my opinion on an open forum.

I know you're not issuing demands, and I know that you are free to share your opinion. You have to admit, though, that you have continued to imply that the Church leadership should have just "[stopped] prohibiting them. Make an announcement, like a 500-word essay at most." Now to me, that sounds like you're trying to tell us how our Church should make its policies. How am I misunderstanding you on that point?

Secondly.....and this is the core of the point I'm unsuccessfully trying to make.....is that there's an important lesson to be learned from the LDS history here. It's such an obvious lesson (to me) that it's actually difficult to articulate.

It may be "obvious," but it's flawed. It's flawed because we sincerely believe that Jesus Christ stands at the head of His Church and guides it through revelation to men He has personally chosen to direct it in His physical absence. As long as you continue to insist that the leadership of the Church should have just changed the policy, I'm going to remind you that it's not up to them. It's up to God. True, the policy banning men of African descent from holding the priesthood has no written revelation backing it. For this reason, I don't personally believe God authorized it in the first place. Some Latter-day Saints agree with me; others don't. The point is that nobody in 1978 knew for sure and it would have been wrong for the Church's leadership to simply draw up a 500-word essay declaring that things were going to be different in the future. They knew that if they were to ask God, He'd give them an answer. Which He did.

Let me put it this way: what would it have taken, in terms of habits of mind and thought, for a devoted Saint to come to the conclusion that the policy was wrong and should be changed right away?

Many devoted Saints came to that conclusion. The thing is, the opinions of 13.5 million Saints don't matter if the directive doesn't come from God.

Whatever that habit of mind is, I think we want to adopt it.

There you go again, telling us how we should go about making changes to Church policy.

Consider another (perhaps better) example: what habits of mind would it have taken for an American living in the 1940's to realize the Japanese internment camps were wrong, and to speak out against them instead of passively permitting them? (Or maybe just refusing to think too carefully about them?) Think of the enormous social, ideological, pressures....remember the 1940's was when patriotism was high, the Japs had bombed Pearl Harbor and were killing American youths every day. We take it for granted that the camps were wrong, but it is not trivial at all to consider how YOU would have figured that out at the time, and spoken out against it or prevented it if you worked in government, when virtually everyone else, especially smart, well-intentioned people who carefully considered the issue, reached the "wrong" conclusion.

Government policies are not mandated by God (regardless of what some right-wing conservatives may think). Religious doctrines should be.

That is one mindset a person might have and it might be useful in certain situations....but it is the opposite of the mindset I am looking for. The mindset you would need to overcome the situations I mentioned would be the mindset of the civil rights movement: WE will make it right, not in the end, but starting right now. If something is wrong, we ought to be IMPATIENT. Things will change if we STOP waiting. Things are NOT as they ought to be. Do NOT trust authority, authority has to prove its legitimacy and if it can't do that, it should be changed. Question everything.

* sigh *

I'm really running out of ways to explain this. Changes in LDS doctrine must come from God. If they don't, they have no meaning.

I don't understand, what is complicated about allowing people with black skin to go through the same rights and rituals, and afford them the same recognition and authority and treatment as everyone else?

I know you don't. You don't because (1) You don't believe in God, (2) You don't believe that, if there were a God, He would communicate directly with human beings, and (3) You don't have a clue with the priesthood is all about. Could we start by discussing #3. Would you mind explaining what you believe the LDS priesthood actually is to a Latter-day Saint. Your answer will be very helpful to me in trying to explain how none of what you believe should have happened with regards to the ban makes any sense at all to someone in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Incredibly, the converse is also true: that Dr. King didn't affect the LDS Church's policy in the slightest.

And why should it have done?

I concede in this case, it's questionable how much "hurt" was done by reversing the ban in 1978, instead of earlier when everyone knew there was no good reason for the ban (right?), except the chance God might have some bizarre interest in skin pigmentation.

Just so that you know, it wasn't a matter of skin pigmentation. Maybe that's a minor point to you, but it was lineage that was the issue and men who were not of African descent but who had very dark skin could be ordained to the priesthood.

Yes they stopped the racist policy. They get credit for that. They could have stopped it, or at least spoken out strongly against it, for years and years, but they supported it (and by all means correct me in cases where I am wrong). I do hold that against them, they had the power and the moral obligation to treat everyone equally all along, whether they were willing/able to acknowledge it or not.

Who is "they"? You are not recognizing that there were individuals involved here. You are grouping every single LDS leader together -- the one who founded the Church, the one who instituted the ban, the ones who supported it over the next century and a quarter, the one under whom it was removed, the ones following him and the one today. Do you do that with the Presidents of the United States, too? Is Lincoln responsible for Washington's or Jefferson's policies? If Obama signs a new law into effect, should people two hundred years from now refer to both him and Bush as "they" when talking of early 21st century U.S. policy?

So if you are in charge of the Church how do you end the policy? Just stop prohibiting them. Make an announcement, like a 500-word essay at most.... I can't imagine anything special has to be done to accomodate people with a skin of darkness in the temple endowment, sealings, and ordinances -- although I admit I don't know exactly what's involved. Nothing has to be done to allow blacks to participate....

And if anyone "in charge" during the period in which the ban was in effect had made that announcement and Black men had been given the priesthood because of an arbitrary change in policy, what do you see as the result? What would Blacks have had that they did not previously have? This is an important question. I hope you'll stop and give it some thought and consider everything I've said before you answer.

 

[Katzpur]

This entire debate is pointless when one party automatically dismisses everything the Church leadership says as inventions of their own imaginations while the other party honestly believes it to be revelation.

The only real, and honest, debate that can take place on this topic is between members of the same party.

You're right, actually. One would almost have to at least be a theist to be able to even have some common ground from which to begin a discussion.

 

[Katzpur]

Btw, who's Jeff?

LOL. 9/10ths Penguin. I don't know what I was thinking. All you atheists sound alike, you know.

 

[cardero]

Well I have yet to see that the ban was actually racist. What I mean is that I haven't seen anything that shows that the purpose of the ban was to be hateful towards those of a specific lineage.

I think the discussion seems to truly be about position. In the mid 20th century, blacks had to ride in the back of the bus. Now I am sure that the color of their money was acceptable but when it came time to be seated they were usually positioned in the back of the bus or had to give up their seat when a white person needed it. The only equality that they shared with white people was that they were allowed to ride the bus and pay their fare, the only difference was in their position on the bus. I would have to leave the moral fairness of this analogy to our dear readers and to apologize in advance for this civil rights comparison.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't think I'm having difficulty understanding this issue or your perspective.

I think you are, and I think so because of the statements you continue to make.

I still don't see why the policy couldn't be changed, even in your analogy any teacher could have changed the policy at any time just by announcing it to the children.

But I already stated that the teacher did not have the authority to make the rules. You do understand the nature of authority, don't you?

(And I really loathe the analogy for that reason, by the way.....the implication is that grown adults in the LDS Church are merely children, who don't know elementary right from wrong, they have to obey leaders.)

Well, I should have known you'd pick it apart. No analogy is perfect. I thought mine was fairly decent, but if it serves no purpose, then let's just forget it.

The principal may not have liked it, the children may not have complied with it, but those are separate questions.

The principal was supposed to be representative of God. You're saying, "God may not have liked it, but what the hell. It would have made everybody else happy."

Suppose the Church leadership had an announcement repealing the ban without a supposed revelation. The official Church policy, and therefore official discrimination, would be over by definition. In practice I suppose it would mean performing the washing & annointing ritual and giving a temple garment (for example) to people regardless of skin color. Was there some invisible force-field emanating from black peoples' skin which physically prevented anyone from washing & annointing them and putting a garment on them? Come on. There's no obvious reason black skin makes the ritual more complicated and you haven't provided any reason at all, even with your analogy.

First of all, a man must have been ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood in order to go through the temple and receive his endowment and other temple ordinances. Receiving those ordinances is in no way synonymous with receiving the priesthood. So, let's assume that in 1927, for instance, the then-President of the LDS Church had decided that he was going to do away with the ban. So, he wrote up his 500-word essay and read it to the membership of the Church at General Conference. After that, all of the Black men in the Church could be ordained. And what so you see as having been accomplished by this decision. Aside from going through the Temple, what rights and privileges would the Black men of the Church have that they didn't have before?

 

[cardero]

Katzpur writes: It may be "obvious," but it's flawed. It's flawed because we sincerely believe that Jesus Christ stands at the head of His Church and guides it through revelation to men He has personally chosen to direct it in His physical absence.

Katzpur, you do understand that sincerely/truly/faithfully/trustingly believing (even in the majority) does not make a belief correct/true/right/untrue/popular/acceptable don't you?

 

[Katzpur]

Katzpur, you do understand that sincerely/truly/faithfully/trustingly believing (even in the majority) does not make a belief correct/true/right/untrue/popular/acceptable don't you?

Absolutely. If it did, Catholicism would be correct/true/right/popular/acceptable, wouldn't it? :yes: Actually, it is immensely popular and acceptable to close to a billion people. That does not make it correct or true or right. Who knows... Maybe Patrickism is where it's at. Someday we'll all find out.

 

[Autodidact]

Well I have yet to see that the ban was actually racist. What I mean is that I haven't seen anything that shows that the purpose of the ban was to be hateful towards those of a specific lineage.

Have you read the many, many, extremely hateful, disgusting, racist quotes from your church leaders about this matter? Do I need to repeat them?

 

[Sola'lor]

Then segregation was not racist. Neither was slavery. Much of the modern white-supremacy movement is not racist. The purpose of racism is almost NEVER "to be hateful". That's only true in the most extreme cases. In general there's usually some sophisticated, carefully defended justification for racism. If you read what white southern congressmen were saying in the 19th century, for example, they made a lot of arguments about why slavery should continue, for example that blacks are better off as slaves, and their arguments are not totally without merit. It's only with our outsider perspective that their racist and selfish motivations come into sharp relief, despite the southerners' eloquent and intricate justifications. It's BECAUSE the rationalizations for racism often seem so benign and persuasive that racism has been so common, and that is precisely why it's so evil and why we must reject it.

The priesthood ban against blacks was racist by definition. Was it the worst form racism can take? Definitely not. But all forms of institutionalized racism are wrong, period.

Have you read the many, many, extremely hateful, disgusting, racist quotes from your church leaders about this matter? Do I need to repeat them?

But despite the rationalizations, isn't slavery itself a form of hate? Isn't claiming another race is a lesser people hate?

And even though certain past leaders may have held views that were less than perfect. That doesn't mean that the ban itself was in place to fulfill a hateful agenda.

Was only giving the priesthood to one out of twelve tribes being hateful to the the other eleven tribes?

 

[Autodidact]

But despite the rationalizations, isn't slavery itself a form of hate? Isn't claiming another race is a lesser people hate?

I don't know, but it's certainly racism.

And even though certain past leaders may have held views that were less than perfect. That doesn't mean that the ban itself was in place to fulfill a hateful agenda.

Well it sure doesn't mean it wasn't racist.

Was only giving the priesthood to one out of twelve tribes being hateful to the the other eleven tribes?

I'm sorry, weren't all white male Mormons eligible for the priesthood? Or are you referring to something mythical?

 

[Sola'lor]

I'm sorry, weren't all white male Mormons eligible for the priesthood? Or are you referring to something mythical?

I'm refering to the Twelve Tribes of Isreal.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm refering to the Twelve Tribes of Isreal.

What on earth does it have to do with this discussion? Or are you trying to assert that story is true? Because, you know, the LDS Church actually exists.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Katzpur,

Before I respond to each point I want to make two general comments:

1) I think you've described quite well exactly where/how we disagree. I'm happy leaving things at that without my having to convert or your having to leave the Church. In some cases, you've basically made my point for me, there's not much left for me to say except "thanks, good discussion".

2) You have to give me the benefit of the doubt sometimes.**** I may not phrase things exactly right and I may leave out nuances and unstated assumptions. I don't do that because I'm an idiot, I do it because lots of things go without saying.
***edit: That doesn't sound quite right. You don't "have to" give me the benefit of the doubt obviously....I'm saying, please give me the benefit of the doubt sometimes. Though I know this will go against your better judgment.

I know you're not issuing demands, and I know that you are free to share your opinion. You have to admit, though, that you have continued to imply that the Church leadership should have just "[stopped] prohibiting them. Make an announcement, like a 500-word essay at most." Now to me, that sounds like you're trying to tell us how our Church should make its policies. How am I misunderstanding you on that point?

First of all we were talking about HOW the policy could have been changed, and what I said was:

"So if you are in charge of the Church how do you end the policy? Just stop prohibiting them. Make an announcement, like a 500-word essay at most."
​

Secondly, I do not think any institution, including the LDS Church, should practice racial discrimination. That's my opinion, sharing opinions is the purpose of this forum. Sorry if it hurts. OTOH I acknowledge it's not my business to tell other people what to do -- again, including the LDS Church. It should go without saying (and this gets back to my comments #1 and #2 above) that "minding one's own business" is somewhat a matter of judgment. If Chinese people with an interest in Russian military history go on a forum, and someone shares his opinion that the Russians should have done such-and-such at the battle of such-and-such, are they "minding their own business"? Well technically no. Are they "telling Russians how to run their country"? Well, technically....I suppose in some very mild sense.... but the point is there is some fuzzy line where criticism turns into nosiness and bossiness. I simply don't think I've crossed that line here, in a discussion forum open to everyone, simply by sharing my opinion that the LDS Church should not have promoted racism. And I think you know it.

It may be "obvious," but it's flawed. It's flawed because we sincerely believe that Jesus Christ stands at the head of His Church and guides it through revelation to men He has personally chosen to direct it in His physical absence. As long as you continue to insist that the leadership of the Church should have just changed the policy, I'm going to remind you that it's not up to them. It's up to God. True, the policy banning men of African descent from holding the priesthood has no written revelation backing it. For this reason, I don't personally believe God authorized it in the first place. Some Latter-day Saints agree with me; others don't. The point is that nobody in 1978 knew for sure and it would have been wrong for the Church's leadership to simply draw up a 500-word essay declaring that things were going to be different in the future. They knew that if they were to ask God, He'd give them an answer. Which He did.

Well said. I agree with you, it is because of the fundamental religious beliefs you've described, which are taken on faith, that we don't see eye-to-eye on this issue. The beliefs you've described lead to different mindsets and different lessons being drawn. From my perspective these beliefs lay at the root of the problem, from your perspective they lay at the root of understanding the priesthood ban. Is that fair to say? (Again, see comment # 1 above).

Many devoted Saints came to that conclusion. The thing is, the opinions of 13.5 million Saints don't matter if the directive doesn't come from God.

Again, I have nothing more to add. I couldn't have said it better. The difference between us is you think this is a good thing in general, I think it's a bad thing in general.

There you go again, telling us how we should go about making changes to Church policy.

If you say so.

Government policies are not mandated by God (regardless of what some right-wing conservatives may think). Religious doctrines should be.

* sigh *

I'm really running out of ways to explain this. Changes in LDS doctrine must come from God. If they don't, they have no meaning.

But you and Watchmen and others spent all that energy arguing the ban wasn't doctrine. So why is this suddenly about doctrine, if a policy is not doctrine to begin with, you shouldn't need to change doctrine to change the policy.

I know you don't. You don't because (1) You don't believe in God, (2) You don't believe that, if there were a God, He would communicate directly with human beings, and (3) You don't have a clue with the priesthood is all about.

And (4) I don't believe that if there were a God, he would be racist. That does pretty much cover it, yes.

Could we start by discussing #3. Would you mind explaining what you believe the LDS priesthood actually is to a Latter-day Saint. Your answer will be very helpful to me in trying to explain how none of what you believe should have happened with regards to the ban makes any sense at all to someone in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It's already well-established that none, or little, of what I think about former LDS racism makes sense to many Mormons, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate. But I think I see where you're going with this: you are trying to point out that "the priesthood" is understood to have profound supernatural and metaphysical meaning and characteristics, bestowed by God. You want me to describe the details of this in your own words, which of course would be a big headache for me, since to me it is basically word salad. Why don't we save a lot of time: I get what you're saying. Just because you perform the laying on of hands (or any ritual) for a black child doesn't mean God accepted it, or conferred any real supernatural powers. Then it would be pointless, as you said. Fine. But that's a two-way street: just because you say it's not legitimate, and you say it can't be done, doesn't mean God rejects blacks from the priesthood, as you yourself have indicated--even if the top LDS leaders said it. My point is, surely some group of Mormons would have used a temple to perform rituals conferring priesthood (at least in their minds--and in God's mind, if we accept your argument God never opposed it to begin with) IF they hadn't been officially taught it was meaningless and officially forbidden from doing so. (Right?) Grown-ups had control over their own actions the whole time, no member of the Aaronic priesthood was UNABLE to lay their hands and confer priesthood (at least in their minds) on a 12 year old child BECAUSE that child had black skin (or was African - whatever). In fact, they wanted to. In fact, they probably felt embarrassed or guilty for treating the black child differently from all the white children. But they did it anyway, because they were worried (as you pointed out) they might disobey God/the Church.

Is that fair?

If so, I rest my case.

By the way, interesting quote from How to Reach African-Americans

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]President David O. McKay, 1954: “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.”
[/FONT]​

And why should it have done?

For the record, your question is: Why should Dr. King have influenced racist LDS Church policy "in the slightest"? Once again, you've made my point for me. I don't have anything to add.

Just so that you know, it wasn't a matter of skin pigmentation. Maybe that's a minor point to you, but it was lineage that was the issue and men who were not of African descent but who had very dark skin could be ordained to the priesthood.

Yes, I think that's a minor point. But out of curiosity, was it everyone native to the African continent or only dark-skinned peoples?

Who is "they"? You are not recognizing that there were individuals involved here.

Etc, etc. See comment #2 above. It should go without saying I am talking about the leaders who supported, defended, rationalized racism, who didn't speak out against it. I haven't seen much material on people who really "opposed" the ban in the way I would consider appropriate, but obviously I am not talking about such people. I'm talking about Mark Peterson, David McKay, Harold Lee, Spencer Kimball, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce McConkie....of course some others going all the way back to that delightful fellow, Brigham Young. They all had their share in supporting/covering for the policy and I think that was wrong.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And if anyone "in charge" during the period in which the ban was in effect had made that announcement and Black men had been given the priesthood because of an arbitrary change in policy, what do you see as the result? What would Blacks have had that they did not previously have? This is an important question. I hope you'll stop and give it some thought and consider everything I've said before you answer.

You've set up a false dilemma: either the ban continues until 1978, OR it's an "arbitrary change". According to Wiki (never a sure thing, I know) Church leaders voted to repeal the policy in 1969, but Harold Lee blocked it saying it required a revelation. And see the quote above from President McKay....if they no longer believed (according to him) that the ban had scriptural precedent they could change the policy. It wasn't doctrine after all, as Watchmen has enthusiastically argued (it wasn't even "official" by his lights) therefore it didn't require revelation to reverse (according to McKay anyway). I'm not saying this argument is valid or invalid, I'm just saying you set up a false dilemma.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

By the way going back to the President McKay quote....

But they weren't withholding the priesthood from the Negro. How could they? After all, Katzpur says the priesthood is conferred by God, "period". So why did President McKay say he was withholding something that was out of his hands? If it was just a practice that they believed in, but wasn't doctrine, they could have changed the practice as soon as they no longer believed in it. So either a significant # (not EVERY individual, I hasten to add) of LDS Church leaders still believed in racism pre 1978, which to me is inexcusable, or they didn't believe in it but continued anyway, which again (to me) is inexcusable.

 

[tomasortega]

well, i guess that just about concludes this thread. pretty good run, roughly 660 posts in 7weeks and after all this, what did we learn? nothing we didnt already know.........

 

[Sola'lor]

well, i guess that just about concludes this thread. pretty good run, roughly 660 posts in 7weeks and after all this, what did we learn? nothing we didnt already know.........

I think that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Humanistheart]

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

So, your saying it was correct to ban people of african ancestory at the time?