I was left feeling that the Race Issue will not be repaired fully with this type of approach.

It felt to me as a position of justification and denial. To have the first African GA in near 15 years, talk at his first GC about how God has often denied privileges to certain groups of people through out the dispensations, felt very patronising.

Even for me someone who supports that theory that God restricted Blacks from the full fellowship in the Church for it’s own good.

It just felt like if an African tells us the Church was not racist then all is well in Zion.

“We need to learn to love one another, red, yellow, black or white. He loves no one more, he loves us all the same. He weeps for the siners, his lost children. We should do the same. ” AMEN and AMEN

But if God could intercede and reform Saul – Paul, provided life changing experiences to Martin Luther, William Wilberforce, and others then how could the Lords Anointed be so blind, I agree many GA’s were racist but I feel it was part of Gods plan or the health of the church.

I agree that the argument isn’t the most compelling, however I’m holding onto this unrealistic view because I belive that God must have played some part for some reason.

I would disagree with the threat of Polygamy, it had the “peculiar effect” of defining the early Utah saints, strengthening their resolve to build the Kingdom of God and be a peculiar people.

It is difficult to find historical evidence of persecution of those looking equal civil rights during the 1850′s because segregation was so embedded. And every worthy male receiving the Priesthood and full Temple access would have been interpreted as equal rights. even though the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated for considering suffrage. “To kill a Mocking Bird” emphasises the institutional racism, even from the hero of the tail Atticus Finch. additionally news of a state that offers such rights to the priesthood could have lead to a exodus to Utah.

Finally the David O’McKay experience does not demonstrate a non-issue, it highlights the segregation of the mid-west and the all is well in my area mentality.

Regarding my point about protection, this was not protection for the Black man, although that might have been a result, but protection for the Church and its growth within a unarguably racist country. I am more comfortable with this idea than I am others because Christ must lead the Church, and his ways are higher, please don’t get me wrong by way of this form of protect if I was born in the 1900′s I would be 78 before receiving the priesthood, I hope that I would have endured this type of prejudice, although I doubt it.

As I suggested I would be looking for some type of comparison, did the CoC cope well, what issues arose perhaps at the early stage but more in the 1950′s when culture by that time had changed, and was no more a threat to the survival of the LDS Church? I too wish we as a Church could have been a leading force for change, however none but JS ever seemed to present anything radical and charismatic as abolition.

I think you’ve made a mistake–perhaps you were referring to someone else other than Walker Lewis–I don’t think Walker was involved in any form of polygamy. His son did marry 1 white woman, but not Walker (at least in my studies.)

I’ve heard this argument before, but I just don’t believe it. This makes discrimination a form of protection, and that is just a repugnant, racist position. It’s almost like putting someone in jail “for their own protection.” This is not a reasonable form of protection–especially for 140 years because it takes away so many rights and privileges. Would you like to be protected in jail for the rest of your life?

Perhaps John or someone from the CoC can answer more correctly than me. The RLDS church was founded around 1860. By 1864, the Civil War was almost over, and Lincoln had declared the Emancipation Proclamation, so I can’t image a mass exodus of RLDS church members as a result of this revelation. I think a reasonable case could be made that Joseph III saw the writing on the wall that blacks would be free. By late 1864, the Union troops were making great progress in the war. It’s too bad Brigham didn’t see the writing on the wall.

I have long held the belief that, the Priesthood ban was initiated not due to race, but as protection from the reaction of racism, if accounts are correct, Walker Lewis married a number of white women, this obviously caused a great deal of issues for the early Church. By way of protection the Priesthood ban was initiated in the 1850′s. again this is not a race issue or a Walker Lewis issue, but a result of embedded racism, ignorance and immaturity of a culture across the Americas. The Church simply would not have survived or at least been significantly crippled by the consequences.

on this basis I can understand God authorising a ban, other churches used other methods to enforce segregation and glass ceilings.

my comment is how did the RLDS in 1864 providing the priesthood to all males regardless of race, affect the church with the race issues surrounding the Americas, did they notice a lack of support form membership did some leave, did others simply disaffect, is the fact that the membership of CofC only 250,000 a result of this policy?

“The day the church become more diverse will be the day I believe that the LDS church is sincere.”

Then I guess it’s time to start believing.

Sorry, but the last sentence of #69 is ignorant, at best. It really isn’t worth trying to address.

I’m sure you and Hitler also share some common traits.

I suppose Hitler done some good thing for the Jews before the Holocaust also. There are many the even say that the Mormons were good, kind and gentle slave owners. I suppose none of them had a whip. I find that ironic too.

If what you say is true, why isn’t there one drop of evidence in Temple Square?

Why isn’t there one picture of a black person in Temple Square?

I have been there about 10 times thinking that one day it might change. All the church history that exists and is showcased in Temple Square, there isn’t one wall or one corner with one black person. I am sure there are about 1000 paintings, murals, and photos but there isn’t a painting, mural, or photo of one black person. The day the church become more diverse will be the day I believe that the LDS church is sincere. For some reason I get the impression that heaven won’t have any black people.

Thanks for the updates. I always have enjoyed your perspectives.

And who would know anything about Mesoamerica and think that Nephi or Alma thought Lamanites were African in the first place?

As MH points out in the main blog entry, Joseph Smith ordained some black men to the priesthood. He also campaigned for the U.S. presidency in 1844 on a platform that included an abolitionist plank. However, he also revealed new scripture (the Book of Abraham) which canonized the popular American racist belief that black people were descendents of Cain. Different Mormon successor churches built upon different portions of this legacy. Brigham Young, who was a committed racist, as judged by the standards of his own day, emphasized the racist aspects of Joseph’s legacy and set the LDS Church on the course it took through until 1978.

Meanwhile, the RLDS Church was busily reorganizing in the Midwestern United States during the period of the Civil War. Joseph Smith III received a revelation in 1865, which stated:

“Hearken! Ye elders of my church… It is my will that my will that my gospel shall be preached to all nations in every land, and that men of every tongue shall minister before me; Therefore it is expedient in me that you ordain priests unto me, of every race who receive the teachings of my law, and become heirs according to the promise…Be ye content, I the Lord have spoken it.” (D&C 117:1a, b-c, 4b [RLDS])

Therefore the RLDS Church received a commandment to ordain men of all races to the priesthood more than a century before the LDS Church received the same. (Although, in keeping with Joseph III’s pragmatic nature, the 1865 revelation cautioned, “Be not hasty in ordaining men of the Negro race to offices in my church…” 117:4a.) So the path was cautious and perhaps slower and less zealous in its commitment to civil rights than liberal members of the Community of Christ today would have liked.

Today, of course, the Community of Christ has an apostle who was born in Zambia, Bunda C. Chibwe: http://www.cofchrist.org/bio/current/Chibwe-Bunda.asp.

Let me remind you of a few quotes that you have conveniently ignored. Bruce R McConkie, “We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more…. It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year. This includes Nephi and Alma, who wrote well before 1978.

Pres Hinckley, “Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ.” Pres Hinckley’s remarks put you in serious condemnation, and you are in great need of repentance. You are obviously not a true disciple of Christ.

Personally, I will not engage you further, as I have no desire whatsoever to grant your racist bile any semblance of credibility. It simply isn’t worth the effort if you are going to ignore the modern prophets and what I actually quoted from the Book of Mormon. I am done with this conversation.

Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them.
And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy brethren, that they may be cursed also. (Alma 3:14-15)

First of all, I wanted to use God’s own words. The mark came from Him. It was a curse. Secondly, Brigham Young – “its nothing to do with the blood”. Well, President Young, for once I couldn’t agree with you more. Now if you will excuse me I need to talk to MH. MH. How could it possibly have anything to do with the blood? The blood was pure – straight from Adam and Eve – the image of God – the whole works. Now when I say that Cain did something very awful and God put a ‘mark’ on him and I use the Book of Mormon to define what that ‘mark’ did. I’m not trying to create a race of black people so God can take the priesthood away from them. I’m trying to explain the origin of the black race. Now that they are there, should the priesthood be withheld from them? I don’t know. I thought for many years that I did. The only thing I do know is that from the time Brigham Young instituted it till the time that it was lifted, the answer is, of course, yes it should be withheld from them. Why? Because the Lord’s anointed said so. Right or wrong that is the way it needed to be. And when the Lord’s anointed make strong comments about the worthiness of a priesthood holder to hold the priesthood then you need to watch your step. If you get in trouble with them, you will probably have to get yourself out. Don’t expect God to come along and save you.

As far as the origin of the black race or any other colored race – if you can’t see the white person underneath the colored exterior then you just can’t see!! Kuri and Ray, this goes for you too. White is the image of God. “O then ye unbelieving, turn ye unto the Lord; cry mightily unto the Father in the name of Jesus, that perhaps ye may be found spotless, pure, fair, and white, having been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, at that great and last day.” (Mor.9:6) The Atonement makes you spotless and pure, the resurrection makes you fair and white. In other word, the Redemption restores the image of God. God never created a colored race. He caused changes in white people to produce a different colored skin. The change was always temporary and it was never for the purpose of creating another race. It’s purpose was to segregate and bring about repentance. When the repentance was accomplished, God would eventually bring about a reunion.

Nephi wrote what was “pleasing to God” (2Nephi 5:32). He could do that because he was in tune with God. One of your big problems is that you have to tie the names of Church leaders to the two ‘r’ words (racist and racism). When David felt guilty about what he did to Saul, he didn’t feel that way because he was sparkling example of goodness. Whether the account says so or not, it was God who made him feel that way. Saul was the Lord’s anointed and he was even trying to kill David! No I don’t think the leaders are racist. (in the scriptures or out) Two things: You need to stop that and you need to find other ways to deal with those particular frustrations.

I don’t blindly follow anything. I trust no one on the face of the earth. “man should not…trust in the arm of flesh— “ (D&C 1:19). All mortality is the arm of flesh unless it speaks “in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world.” (D&C 1:20) If I don’t feel like something is true when I hear it or read it then I, simply, shelve it – I don’t care who says it.

““God hardened Pharaoh’s heart”, “God is a spirit”, “Women should be silent in church.” Should we go back to the death penalty for Sabbath breaking, adultery, and not honoring our parents?

How many times was I troubled with that because it didn’t sound write but yet I believed it anyway? Thanks Joseph. The part about the death penalty. God commanded the death penalty for those three crimes. How can you ask a question like that? Some day God will put us back there whether we want it or not. If you don’t like it when it happens then I would say that your duration in the Millennium will be short. Just a guess.

“you are spouting false doctrine if you think that black skin is a curse.”

Read 2Nephi 5:20-25 and when you do don’t assign any of Nephi’s words (verses 21 and 24) as racist. If you do as I say then you will have some good information. If you don’t then you will have twisted refuse.

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; (Ex. 20:5)

Interesting isn’t it. According to the 2nd article of faith, God really can’t punish the children for things their fathers did unless, of course, there’s something about the children that’s not right – whatever in the world that might be. You know in the D&C, verses 71-79 it describes the terrestrial inhabitants. Basically they wouldn’t go along with the ways of the telestial because they were so bad and unruly in their ways that they were unpleasant to be with and whatever any other reasons they had not to want to be with them. On the other hand the celestial created a whole host of other problems. It took courage and undying allegiance to be with them. Not to mention a lot of time and assets. In fact, when you consider the Terrestrial Kingdom, what you have is a whole kingdom of fence sitters – billions of them. And from our vantage point we can see the whole thing coming before it even happens. What made me mention all this?

I will be more respectful in the future.

My next “big” birthday will be when I turn 50, and anyone younger than I should cringe when they hear that phrase. It probably is accepted generally as the single most racist way to talk about others outside of explicit racial slurs. If you are over 50, or you were unaware of that, simply realize it is so.

Also, the implication of the statement Kuri quoted is that others who have non-white skin are a different “kind” than children of God – and that’s the most vile concept I’ve encountered in my entire life. It smacks of being a subtle way of stating the belief that Africans are descended from monkeys while Caucasians are children of God, and I actually heard that in the Deep South about 20 years ago from some people. It’s wrong; it’s reprehensible; it has no place here on this forum.

If that’s not what you meant, again, realize it’s what those words mean to nearly everyone who reads them.

You said, “You will have to point to the racist statement(s) I made.”

Well, here:

“Adam and Eve were created in the image of God and were told to multiply after their own kind. Their kind was white skin because they were created in the image of God.”

There are many, many ways one could define being made “in God’s image.” One could, for example, argue that it means Adam and Eve were self-aware beings, or that they had moral agency, or simply that they were human, with all that entails. Yet the one criterion you choose as meaning “in God’s image” is the amount of melanin they had in their skin? That’s not just racist, it’s absurd.

There was a post last month about the Priesthood ban that can be found at the following link. I would suggest you read the entire thread to get a good feel for how everyone here feels about the history of race in the Church – since pretty much everyone made at least one comment or more.

http://mormonmatters.org/2009/02/17/more-unbridled-speculation-the-priesthood-ban/

Jen asked me on that thread to find quotes from recent leaders about the ban and about racism in the Church. The quotes and links begin in comment #50 and continue through comment #56. They include Marlin Jensen, Jeffrey R. Holland, Bruce R. McConkie, Dallin H. Oaks, and David O. McKay. Pres. McKay’s quote in #56 is especially interesting, as it was given in 1954.

MH quoted and linked Pres. Hinckley’s talk, so I won’t do that again here.

Also, comment #65 included a link to something I wrote over on Times and Seasons as a comment on the same basic topic. It is a detailed explanation of how I view the ban and why, focused on an experience I had as a member of a Stake Missionary Presidency in southern Alabama years ago. You might want to read that comment, as well – and perhaps the entire thread (although there are 173 comments).

I have wondered why there is so much hatred in the world. We are involved in terrible wars with lives lost and many crippling wounds. Coming closer to home, there is so much of jealousy, pride, arrogance, and carping criticism; fathers who rise in anger over small, inconsequential things and make wives weep and children fear.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.

Bruce R McConkie said in 1978 at http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=11017

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world…. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more…. It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.

Read it again–it says a “mark” was placed on Cain–it does not say black skin. The curse is separation from God. Besides, if men are to be punished by their own sins, should anyone be cursed by Cain’s transgression? If so, you’ve got some explaining to do, because you’ve just contradicted an Article of Faith. You’re also contradicting Brigham Young, who said, “its nothing to do with the blood, for of one blood has God made all flesh. We have to repent [and] regain what we [h]av[e] lost. We [h]av[e] one of the best Elders–an African in Lowell [i.e. Walker Lewis].”

Do you think it’s possible that Nephi and Alma were racists, just as many of our past leaders have been? (I’m not asking you to agree with me–just asking “is it possible?”) I’ve already stated on this site and my own that I think that Joshua was racist for destroying the Canaanites. It is quite evident to me that Jonah was a racist as well–he wanted Nineveh destroyed, yet God did not. I know that sounds heretical, but don’t you think it’s possible that they learn line upon line, just as we do?

I would hope we have progressed to understand that some things that are in the scriptures shouldn’t just be blindly followed because they are there. I would hope we would learn to be more Christlike, and less racist.

Here’s a few instance where I think you will agree with me that scripture is wrong. “God hardened Pharoah’s heart”, “God is a spirit”, “Women should be silent in church.” Should we go back to the death penalty for sabbath breaking, adultery, and not honoring our parents? Did the Inquisitors and Crusaders have correct moral judgments?

Why did Jesus pick the Samaritan as a good example? He was making a point about racism. Why did Nephi say the Lamanites were more righteous? Because they were, and he was also making a point about race. Skin color has nothing to do with righteousness, and you are spouting false doctrine if you think that black skin is a curse.

And please be more tactful. Just because someone disagrees without doesn’t mean they want to rebel. You are assigning motives to me, and you’ve never met me. Please be more respectful in your disagreements, (and read Ray’s post for help on respectful disagreement.)

“O then ye unbelieving, turn ye unto the Lord; cry mightily unto the Father in the name of Jesus, that perhaps ye may be found spotless, pure, fair, and white, having been cleansed by the blood of the Lamb, at that great and last day.” (Mor. 9:6)

Why did Moroni use the word ‘white’? I believe even after more than a thousand years the righteous Nephites still hurt because of the mark placed on the Lamanites. Nobody knew more about love for their brothers than they did. Of course God wants them to come back to Him but that does not change what He did and why He did it.

Again, show me precisely where my racist talk is. Oh, and MH is right. I don’t know much about this blogging stuff. You will have to show me where these statements from Bother Mckonkie and President Hinckley are. If you can, I will read them.

And I now believe you people are really sincere even though I still don’t comprehend your approach.

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.

Finally, you said:

“In closing, sometimes it comes across to me that you people just want to rebel?”

Frankly, that is one of the most sweeping, judgmental comments I have read EVER on this site. There is a WIDE range of perspective here, and to lump everyone together as “want(ing)to rebel” simply leaves me shaking my head in wonder.

You really ought to consider that the person who just told you that is seen by everyone here as a very “faithful” member – and someone who writes regularly about avoiding hyperbole. I don’t believe in hyperbole, so please realize how serious I am when I tell you how condescending and incorrect you are in making such a blanket statement.

If you want to label anything as “rebellion”:

I will rebel against pre-1978 statements; you can rebel against post-1978 statements. That is my and your choice to make.

Also, if you care, I wrote this when I first started my personal blog:

Reflections from a Mixed-Race Family