In any case, I didn’t really want to argue the point much. I appreciate that you offered an example of church leadership before 1978 trying to show movement toward removing that bias.

“that black males cannot receive the priesthood and the reason behind that belief, which is indeed based on the perception that blacks are an inferior race.”

I am not sure I want to re-litigate this whole thing, but the way I see it was:

1. There was the ban, clearly endorsed from the time of Brigham Young forward
2. Then there were the theories and explanation for it afterwards.

That most definitely included the “inferior race” idea which was a commonly held belief among so-called leading authorities in anthropology. In fact, a number of Church leaders quoted those authorities as justification. I went through Gospelink and found a number of them.

I thought the JFS piece the most “liberal” of all of them. And he does say that Blacks will inherit the celestial kingdom and arise in the first resurrection, if they are faithful. He would say the same about us. I take that statement at face value and do not read anything behind it. Just simply because I wouldn’t accept political correctness from JFS. Clearly, a number of his brethren were not afraid to share their views on the subject.

BTW, I did excerpt it somewhat.

Thanks for that quote. It’s a deceptive quote though, because JFS refuses to mention that black males cannot receive the priesthood and the reason behind that belief, which is indeed based on the perception that blacks are an inferior race. So the attempted answer to this question completely avoids the very issue that made Mormons be perceived as racists.

Question: “Clare Boothe Luce in her ‘Without Portfolio’ column in the June issue of McCall’s Magazine writes an answer to the question: ‘Do you think George Romney has a chance of getting the Republican nomination for the presidency in 1964?’ And I quote: ‘Mr. Romney is a Mormon. It seems that the Mormon Church teaches that the Negroes have inferior souls. If this is so, a Mormon might have some difficulty in carrying the Negro vote in Michigan. But Mr. Romney’s own views are known to differ in this respect from those of his church, just as President Kennedy’s views on the constitutionality of aid to parochial schools differ from those of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.’ ”

Answer: “….The Latter-day Saints, so commonly called “Mormons,” have no animosity towards the Negro. Neither have they described him as belonging to an “inferior race.” There are Negroes in the Church who are respected and honored for their integrity and faithful devotion. The door into the Church is open to all.”

“Therefore if a Negro joins the Church through the waters of baptism and is confirmed by the laying on of hands and then he remains faithful and true to the teachings of the Church and in keeping the commandments the Lord has given, he will come forth in the first resurrection and will enter the celestial kingdom of God.”

Now, I realize that there were some, maybe even many, that held differing views, but it is interesting that JFS, a hardliner if there ever was one, made these statements which were published in the Improvement Era as well as these volumes..

I think I see your point, and would agree with you, Institutionally when the ban was removed it was sort of an about-face. Internally, and a little less public there was some division between Church leaders, and as Douglas Hunter points out, Mormon intellectuals. However, as I have said, I am not aware of any pre-1978 Mormon outreach to the black communities, I think that there was some softening of the “general” perspective on the nature and destiny of the Black communities, from say a John Taylor point of view where blacks were here to allow Satan representation on the earth, to the McConkie take that blacks represent the less valiant population of the pre-existence, but who ultimately can be saved in the highest degrees of glory. I think just prior to 1978, Bruce R. McConkie’s position on blacks is the view that most Church members espoused.

Thanks for your answer. I guess I was looking for something akin to what President Gordon B Hinckley said in April 2006:

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. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

Did Hugh B Brown ever say anything like that before 1978?

Douglas,

Thank you for your answer too. The reason I ask this is because as we seem to be going back and finding answers and understanding (for example Ardis’ Keepapitchinin blog), my impression from my understanding, is that as a church pre-1978 belief about the role of blacks within the church, and of course in society in general, was that of an inferior race, and that the revelation of 1978 made an immediate change upon the church. I mean, I guess because of the way the church is designed with one prophet speaking for the church (akin to a king), anyone under him speaking contrary to his dictates would be under penalty. Could any Apostle (heck could Elder Hinckley) have said what President Hinckley said in April 2006 back in say April 1968?

The Wyoming PBS station does have a doc on their website about the Wyoming 14 called “The Black 14″ but it does not go into who made the film.

#74- your question is hard to answer because its not really clear what you are asking. As I am learning more about how the church handles issues of civil rights and inclusion I have to say that, as of now, I’m not really aware of institutional effort on the part of the church to have better relations with specific groups. I think this is often the case because different groups want the church to admit to some sore of wrong doing or apologize for past mistakes. For example there is the current Mormon Apology petition.

On the other hand it does appear that there were many people in the 19060’s and 1970’s who felt that the church should examine its policy towards Black saints and civil rights. The well known Delbert Stapeley letter was penned to George Romney For the reason that Romney was “too liberal” on the issue of civil rights. If I recall correctly Eugene England also got into hot water on this issue penning a letter to general authorities stating that he felt it worked counter to the gospel. Ack, as I type this I realize that it might have been Lowell Benion who wrote such a letter. Anyway, There were also folks involved with Dialogue who took their concerns about the priesthood ban to friends in the quorum of the 12. Anyway the point is there was dialogue on the issue on the highest levels of the church for years prior to 1978. Does this have anything to do with what you were asking? If not sorry.

A quick response. I don’t know that there was any attempt “toward better relations with blacks before 1978″, as you put it, but there was a difference of opinion on the policy from some of the Church’s more liberal leaning leaders. Hugh B. Brown, seems to be one that comes to mind, who was “challenging” the Church’s policy, including the very origin of the pseudo doctrine. That may be a good starting place for you. I am also aware of some recorded conversation with LeGrand Richards about a problematic issue surrounding a South American temple that had been just built, not first realizing that a substantial number of the LDS members in the nation had black ancestry. The problem was two-fold. First, there sat a multi-million dollar temple that could not serve a large sum of the membership to whom it had been promised. Second, even if they were willing to segregate those with black ancestry, there really was no way to actually determine who would qualify. That also stemmed down to the Stake and Ward organization, where they may have had Stake or Ward leaders serving in Priesthood positions, who were supposed to be banned from those rights.

Anyway, I don’t claim to be an expert here, but this should give you enough to begin a search and become an expert yourself. For what it is worth, I’m sorry you feel unliked or ignored.

Like prohibiting worthy black women from being sealed to the priesthood-holding (i.e. white) husbands. Like the prohibition against sealing adopted black children to their (white) parents. Like prohibiting black women from holding offices such as Relief Society President.

My point is simply that the priesthood ban was just one part of a larger set of prohibitions.

MoHO,

“The prohibition was more than that.”

Like what?

Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons

http://www.kued.org/?area=pressReleases&action=details&id=NDI3

I think the focus on blacks and the priesthood is a bit of whitewash. The prohibition was more than that. (But of course, the LDS practice of using the word “people” to mean “male people” by default is another subject entirely.)

True. And therefore sodomy laws, or other restrictions on consensual sexual acts between adults, are illegitimate in a free republic.

However, it does not follow that having the freedom to pursue happiness as one chooses, equates to a right that government formalize and actively assist you in that pursuit.

You have the inalienable right to be left alone. Beyond that, it’s all a matter of legislative grace.

Men need to hold the Melchezidek priesthood to receive their endowment. Males need to hold the Aaronic priesthood to be baptized for the dead.

I don’t know of historical examples of blacks entering the temple. One black woman,Jane Elizabeth Manning James, was a household servant of Joseph Smith. She loved the Smiths and wanted to be sealed to the them. Many years later (1894), she was told she would be sealed to Joseph Smith and his family. Not allowing her entrance to the temple, church leaders had arranged for a white woman (Bathsheba W. Smith) to stand in for her as a proxy. She was thinking she would be sealed to them as a child. She was ingloriously sealed to them as “servitor”, a fancy name for a servant.

I don’t of the formal policy throughout the years.

I am certainly no authority on this matter, but for what it is worth this matter was historically ambiguous. There are GA quotes from early Church periods that limit the progression oppurtunities of blacks to servitude in the “higher” glories. Conversely, and particularly in the 1900’s the rhetoric theologically drifted from ultimately denying the highest oppurtunities of exaltation to blacks, to just precluding them from the Priesthood, including the Temple, until after the Millenium. A great deal of that line of reasoning came from Bruce R. McConkie, through Mormon Doctrine. Since the Joseph Smith era and before 1978 there were no blacks ordained to the Priesthood, that I am aware of, and therefore none were admitted to the temple. The thinking was that if they were faithful in their limited mortal capacities, they could ultimately achieve exaltation. This is a matter which was far from unanimous.

I read a comment somewhere that blacks were kept out of the temple and therefore “denied Exaltation.” I had never thought of it that way before… If they couldn’t go to the temple, they would essentially be forever barred from entering God’s presence based on their race. I find that idea far more horrifying than not being able to hold administrative positions in the church. Was that truly how it was?

There are people who live in the United States who are not Mormon, who are not Christian. We do not live in a theocracy. I don’t believe the conjured fairy tales about the imagined indoctrination that will happen in schools, etc. etc. etc.

Whether church leaders believe it or not gays are people who deserve the right to pursue their happiness. That is my polite, short answer to #59.