Racism in the Book of Mormon

Frankly, racism in the Book of Mormon isn't an issue for me when it comes to the question of whether or not it is an ancient record. 

1) It doesn't occur once after the record of Jesus' appearance (after everyone in the record had intermingled and then broken apart again).

2) There is the very clear statement in 1 Nephi (the very first section of the Book of Mormon) that all are alike to God, including black and white, explicitly.

3) Most importantly, as a former history teacher, nearly all historical records that deal with multiple races that are written by people at the time include racist statements - especially in relation to inter-racial marriage with darker-skinned native groups, which I believe is the demographic foundation of the Nephite-Lamanite situation described in the book itself.  We have blatantly racist statements in our own American writings, even from US Presidents, into the 20th Century. 

From a historical analysis perspective, it would be more troubling if there was no racism in the book, given what it purports to be. 

For a fuller explanation of how I see the dark and loathsome references, read the following post I wrote back in 2007:

"Reflections from a Mixed-Race Family" (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2007/09/reflections-from-mixed-race-family.html) 

One More Time: We Need to Stop Justifying the Priesthood Ban Using Former Justifications

I heard again recently the former Priesthood ban justified as being God's will because it was similar in nature to the restrictions established with the Levitical Priesthood in the Old Testament.  Once again, I cringed. 

We must stop trying to justify the ban by citing justifications that existed and were used prior to the ban being lifted in 1978.  There are too many statements by prophets and apostles since that date that have told us that all previous justifications were incorrect for us to continue to use them.  (If anyone who reads this wants to see some of those statements, search under the label "Race" near the bottom right of this blog.) 


As to the claim, the following is my response:

1) EVERY instance in our canonized scripture of such a restriction, if it existed, occurred prior to the ministry of Jesus Christ. Look it up: Every reference is from before he ministered among the Jews. I believe that simple fact is critical to understand as the foundation of the discussion. Thus, if someone posits that there were “bans” based on lineage or race prior to the modern one, they have to admit that those bans appear to have stopped with Jesus’ ministry – according to our scriptural canon.

2) There are NO recorded revelations justifying the modern Priesthood ban. ALL of them used the Old Testament time period justifications that were common within “apostate” Christianity at the time. Think about that aspect of the discussion – that the justifications were borrowed from denominations that we classified as “apostate” at the time. It’s instructive, I think.

2) Jesus’ statement in Matthew 15:24 about being sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel says absolutely nothing about the Priesthood. It refers only to his ministry – his preaching, healing and blessing. The woman in question wasn’t asking for the Priesthood; she was asking that He perform a miracle on behalf of her daughter. Thus, that passage is completely irrelevant to the modern Priesthood ban and any other similar ban.

3) The last message Jesus gave his disciples in Matthew before his ascension is recorded in Matthew 28:19-20, which reads (emphasis mine):

“Go ye therefore, and teach ALL nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

Notice, they were commanded to teach and baptize ALL nations (which doesn’t address a Priesthood ban, since even under the modern ban, all people could be taught and baptized), but notice that once ALL were baptized they, without exception, were to “observe ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you”. In other words, there is NO restriction of ANY kind on what ANYONE who was baptized was required to observe – and all members at that time couldn’t have followed that commandment without the Priesthood being given to them. Thus, by default (not reading into the passage what isn’t there), there was no Priesthood ban in the early Christian Church that was based on nationality or race.

4) Nephi (a prophet from the Old Testament time period) passed along the idea of a curse in his writings, but the Book of Mormon also has NO mention of it after the visitation of Jesus in 3rd Nephi. It ended, if there was one, with the ministry of Jesus among them. Furthermore, Nephi undercuts the idea that the curse he mentioned was skin- or lineage-related when he said in 2 Nephi 26:33 (again, emphasis mine):

“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.”

Nephi says in that verse, explicitly, that black and white are “alike unto God” – and that God invites ALL to “come unto him and partake of his goodness”. People who are partaking of the same goodness and who are alike unto God eliminates, obviously and unequivocally, the idea that one group held the Priesthood and could attend the temple while the other group didn’t and couldn’t. The ban makes NO sense whatsoever when read according to that verse – and it was written before Christ’s ministry. If that verse is interpreted literally, and if there actually was a race-based Priesthood ban at some point in history, it had ended by around 600 BC – or, if read to coincide with the ministry of Jesus, it ended at that time, at the very latest.

5) The issue with the Gentiles in the early Christian Church wasn’t about Priesthood or the temple in any way. At least, there is NO mention whatsoever of the Priesthood in any passage dealing with the issue. It was about baptism, and once the Genitles were baptized, there is no reference to any of them not receiving the Priesthood based on race.

6) To add something that I almost never hear discussed or even recognized, there's a HUGE conceptual difference between the following: 1) giving one group in a "multi-tribal" population the right to perform rituals; 2) giving everyone except one specific group in a "multi-racial" population that right. In very real, practical terms, the modern ban was the exact opposite of the ancient Levitical structure.

7) Joseph Smith ordained multiple black men to the Priesthood, so it’s patently absurd to argue that he believed a ban was necessary – regardless of how he felt about any other bans that might have existed in the past.

Conclusion:

Based on our actual scriptural canon, even if some bans actually did occur in the Old Testament times, there is NO evidence that any ban continued after the ministry of Jesus Christ – in either the Bible or the Book of Mormon. In fact, there are multiple sources that imply or state explicitly that a ban from that point onward was not the will of God – that ALL people everywhere now were considered “alike unto him”.

Finally, the LDS Church has published a statement entitled, "Race and the Priesthood" that can be found on lds.org in the Gospel Topics section that states more clearly than ever before how the ban originated and how the leadership views it now.  The link is:

"Race and the Priesthood"

So, if even our modern prophets and apostles say the former justifications were incorrect (“spectacularly wrong”, in one quote) – and if even they say they don’t know exactly why the ban was implemented (with which I can’t argue strongly, since I think it’s obvious but am willing to admit that I can’t see 100% into Pres. Young’s mind and know with total certainty why he did what he did) – and if they are saying forcefully that we should not perpetuate the former justifications – and if even they now have said that the Church condemns ALL racism of any kind, including that of our own LDS members, past and present – and if ALL the written evidence since the time of Jesus’ mortal ministry points to the incorrectness of a Priesthood ban (especially based on one drop of blood from a long-ago ancestor – who, by the way, is a common ancestor to ALL of us, if the “one drop” standard is used) — how can someone possibly argue that the modern Priesthood ban was justifiable based on the beliefs of those who lived and recorded their beliefs before Jesus was born, even if previous bans existed and were justifiable back then?

Such a position simply is not tenable, and, just as importantly, it is in direct opposition to our current leadership and their requests of us.  That, perhaps, is the ultimate irony in the justification being used  today by someone who believes in "following the prophet". 

Racism and the Atonement

Given the hoopla over Cliven Bundy's racist statements this week, I am providing the link to a post I wrote in March 2012 - after Prof. Bott's comments on race were broadcast.  Just as was the case at that time regarding Brother Bott's words, I am appalled by Bro. Bundy's words - but the same thing applies now that did then.  I have tried hard to condemn what was said without condemning those who spoke, even though I have called Bro. Bundy a "racist hypocrite".

The Atonement of Jesus Christ: Powerful Enough to Cover All, Including Those Who Believe(d) Racist Falsehoods

Repudiating Racism in Our Mormon Past: An Update with Yesterday's lds.org Statement

Back in April 2009, I wrote a post compiling the most direct, explicit statements from LDS Church leaders about racism and previous justifications for the Priesthood ban.  The Church just published an updated statement in its online Gospel Topics section entitled "Race and the Priesthood", so I edited my previous post to include the latest statement.

I am including two links in this post: the first to the official statement published yesterday afternoon and the second to my updated compilation post.

Please, anyone who reads this post, share both links.  This is information that must reach as many members as possible.

Race and the Priesthood

Repudiating Racist Justifications Once and for All

The Irony of Protests about the LDS Church Being a Racist Organization

A couple of years ago, I came across a newspaper article about a member of the Scottish Parliament complaining about how racist BYU and the LDS Church was.  As I read that article, I was struck by something I have known for some time - something that includes the former Priesthood ban but goes to the power of continuing revelation and the synergy that is found often within the LDS Church. 

The real irony of the parliamentarian's claim is that, despite the ban and our relatively recent implementation of official integration, we are WAY more integrated than most of the Protestant churches that surrounded my family when we lived in the Deep South in the 1990's.

Say what you want about about the previous policy, and say what you want about the danger of group-think and such, but when Mormons and the LDS Church mobilize around "good" they tend to do it better than most others. This is one great example.

Sure, there still are some racist members in the Church - and, yes, there are some wards and branches that struggle with racism - and, of course, there still aren't enough black members in many places - and those are important issues - but there also are many units where black members sit side-by-side with white members and members of other races and ethnicities, both in the pews and in leadership callings.

One of my most memorable temple experiences was seeing the Lord put forth his hand at the veil and realizing it was black.

When we do something good, we tend to do it very well.

The Most Fundamental Reason Mormons Are Christian: Sets and Sub-Sets

Someone once asked the following question in a group discussion in which I was involved: 

"If Christians aren't Mormons, why is it OK for Mormons to want to be called Christians?"

My response was: 

Let me re-phrase your question in terms of another set and sub-set - one that has direct and obvious historical precedent:

"If humans aren't African-American, why is it OK for African-Americans to want to be called humans?" 

This is a simple question of sets and sub-sets.  It's not any more complicated than that.

If it's OK for people to disagree about some doctrines (and Protestants of different denominations have disagreed VIOLENTLY over lots of "foundational" doctrines over the centuries) and still be considered Christians - and if the only immutable concept which everyone within Protestantism must confess in order to be considered Christian is that Jesus is the Christ and Savior and Redeemer (which, in a nutshell, is the standard for Protestants who disagree vehemently about lots of other things) - and if, in fact, Mormons actually do confess this required concept (which, in fact, they do) - then the only way to exclude them from being Christian is to change the rules explicitly for them - to hold them to a different standard and definition than that to which others are held.

That's hypocrisy, pure and simple - since, just as African-Americans are humans no matter how others might have excluded them in the past from that category, Mormons are Christian no matter how others still exclude them from that category.  It's a simple concept made complex by people who simply are unwilling to let go of the incorrect biases and prejudices of the past, just like White Supremists who still won't admit that African-Americans really are fully human.

The Atonement of Jesus Christ: Powerful Enough to Cover All, Including Those Who Believe(d) Racist Falsehoods

[NOTE: I want to express thanks before I get into this post itself for two posts that provided the inspiration for this post: "What A-Bott Black Mormons" (by Sistas in Zion) was the initial inspiration, and "Three apologies and a rule or 'How I learned to stop worrying and love Mormon racism'" (by John C.) inspired the self-reflection near the end.]

Over the past few days, the Bloggernacle and other social media that are frequented or run by Mormons and non-Mormons alike have been awash in posts, articles, Facebook updates, Tweets, etc. about a BYU Religion professor (Prof. Bott) who was quoted in a Washington Post article about the LDS Church and its past Priesthood ban.  Unfortunately, Prof. Bott shared his own personal views as to why the ban had been instituted - and those views were nothing more than the most condescending justifications that had been given prior to the lifting of the ban in 1978.  What was most distressing to me was that a popular BYU professor of religion would be stating such things even after numerous repudiations of those justifications had been given by modern apostles and prophets, including Pres. Hinckley's very forceful condemnation of any such beliefs since the receipt of OD2 and the lifting of the ban.

This situation inspired my first New Year's Resolution post this month, during which I will focus on the Atonement of Jesus Christ - but this post will not be what my "natural man" would write.  I have commented extensively on the numerous posts at BCC about Prof. Bott's comments (which I abhor with a truly deep and profound loathing), and anyone who has read this blog for any length of time knows how I feel about matters of race, racism and the Priesthood ban (and if you haven't, feel free to click on the "Race" label near the bottom of this blog), but the heart of this post came to me only a few minutes before beginning to write what I had intended to write (an overview of how I see the scope of the Atonement of Jesus Christ).  I hope that sudden, dramatic change was inspired, since I had no intention to write what I am about to write until, literally, just as I sat down to write.

I believe in the universal power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ to reach all who ever have lived and leave us "amazed at the love Jesus offers (us) - confused by the grace that so fully he profers (us)".  I believe that the Atonement of Jesus Christ covers unconditionally our natural weaknesses, our ignorance, our transgressions, our disabilities, our unstoppable mistakes and every other manifestation of the effects of the Fall which we did not choose consciously.  I believe the Atonement of Jesus Christ allows us to be judged (to receive or acquire judgment, if you will) according to our "best selves" - who we would be without the limitations imposed on us by forces outside our control and not of our choosing.  I believe the Atonement of Jesus Christ doesn't make bad people good and good people better (and, importantly, great people infallible).  Rather, I believe the Atonement of Jesus Christ allows ALL people everywhere, of all times, in all places, throughout history and into eternity, to reach their highest potential without artificial restrictions of any kind.  I believe the Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to take deeply flawed "natural (wo)men" and raise them to the same eternal reward as barely flawed "natural (wo)men" - that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is the great equalizer of individual worth and growth and potential.

I am saddened deeply by Prof. Bott's recent words, but I also am deeply saddened by my own words in many instances.  I am outraged morally that he would believe the things he shared - that those things still haven't been eradicated completely from among us, but I also am outraged at myself on occasion - when I realize what things still haven't been eradicated completely from within me.  I honestly would like to see him removed from his position at BYU, if for no other reason than to prove to the world AND to the LDS Church that the views he shared will not be tolerated in today's LDS Church - but I also know that I do not want to be judged and treated "fairly" and "justly" according to the worst things I have said and done.  Most importantly, however, above and beyond everything else related to this appalling and sad situation, I do not want Prof. Bott condemned and rejected and shunned for what, in the end, might be (and I repeat, might be) nothing more than a manifestation of "the natural weakness, ignorance, transgression, disability, unstoppable mistakes and every other manifestation of the effects of the Fall which (Prof. Bott) did not choose consciously" - and, therefore, what, in the end, might be (and I repeat, might be) covered already by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

On a deeply personal note - to make this more personal for me: 

I have worked in many inner-cities throughout the Eastern US and have helped house and raise two young black men.  I have lots of friends who are black.  I have lived in the Deep South, and I was allowed once to see what tremendous growth the Church would experience there if the people (black and white, inside and outside the Church) could let go of their racism.  I write regularly about issues of race - trying the best I can to educate people about them. 

and, yet . . .

I also must admit that I am not free totally from the "little" manifestations of seeing people differently as a result of race.  For example, my initial reaction occasionally still is a bit different when I see a group of young black men congregated on a street corner than it is when the group is white. I have learned to recognize that initial reaction and change it immediately, but it is something I have had to learn.  I have had to recognize it for what it is and immediately address it head-on.  I am finding that it happens now much less often than it used to happen, but it still rears its ugly head occasionally - and it really is a necessary thing to admit and own up to that sad reality.  It's the first step in my on-going repentance - since it wouldn't be changing if I hadn't recognized it in the first place.

I can and will condemn Prof. Bott's words and his inability to discard the ideas that have been repudiated forcefully by our leadership for over 30 years, but I cannot bring myself, tonight, after having reacted naturally to those words this evening, to condemn Prof. Bott himself - and that conclusion only is possible for me because of how I view the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  I can and will condemn WHAT I should and must condemn, but I cannot allow myself to condemn another WHOM I am commanded not to judge. 

God bless you, Bro. Bott - even as I condemn your words and beliefs regarding this particular issue.

Some Random Thoughts on Racism in the LDS Church

As many of you know, I have written farily extensively about racism - especially given my experience helping to raise and house a couple of black young men.  The following are just some random thoughts that crossed my mind as I thought again about this topic:

1) Unfortunately, judging people who are different as inferior is one of the most deeply ingrained "natural (wo)man" tendencies in existence. It has always been so, and it is so deeply ingrained that it is extremely hard to recognize, much less root out.

2) One of my oldest son's favorite songs is called "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" - by Avenue Q. [There is a bit of language that some might find offensive in the clip I'm linking, so decide whether or not you want to watch it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9CSnlb-ymA)] It's pretty instructive, imo.

3) As someone who has housed and helped raise more than one young black man in a predominantly white area, I think I understand the overall issue as well as a middle-aged white man can. My own experience with racism saddens me deeply, but it has helped me understand and gain charity as much as any other topic has. I also think the LDS Church is far more progressive right now in terms of racial practices than most people recognize - and much more than the vast majority of still-segregated Protestant churches I observed when I lived in the Deep South.

4) The last part of #3 really is a truly amazing paradox. We still have a ways to go - and a LONG way for some individual members, but, institutionally, we have come much further than many realize.

There Is Room in the LDS Church for Those with Differing Opinions: The Priesthood Ban

I usually don't highlight "current" posts here - preferring to link to posts throughout the Bloggernacle that might have faded from the memories of those who read them when they first were published or missed by those who do not read as many blogs as I do.  I am making an exception today, since there were two very different posts written last week about the Priesthood ban policy. 

As those know who have read my blog over time, that policy (and all race-related policies and actions) are near and dear to my heart.  Rather than add extensive commentary here in the actual post, I simply am going to provide links to two posts with very different outlooks regarding the ban - then add a short postscript comment here. 

First, Margaret Blair Young has worked extensively with Darius Gray, the founding president of the Genesis Group - an officially sanctioned support group for African-American LDS members.  She wrote three posts for By Common Consent, the third of which I am linking here.  (To read the previous two, simply scroll down the home page at BCC and read them there.) 

"All God's Critters: Some Thoughts on the Priesthood Restriction and Differing Opinions"
(http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/07/24/all-gods-critters-some-thoughts-on-the-priesthood-restriction-and-differing-opinions-part-iii) 

Next, R.Gary wrote a response to Margaret's post(s). 

"LDS Prophets Tag-Teamed at BCC about the Pre-1978 Priesthood restriction"
(http://ndbf.blogspot.com/2011/07/tag-team.html) 

I don't want to try to summarize either post.  I much prefer to let them speak for themselves.  I only want to make one point here:

It is wrong - dead wrong - to characterize those who believe the Priesthood ban policy was not ordained but rather was allowed by God as apostate, faithless, unbelieving, etc.  (To be clear, R.Gary did not do so in his post; it was stated in a few comments in the thread that followed.)  Those who believe so are no less dedicated to the Restored Gospel and the LDS Church than those who believe the ban was God's will. 

It boggles my mind (and I mean, literally, that it is incomprehensible to me) that anyone would view Darius Gray (by association with their condemnation of Margaret's posts) as anything less than one of the most obvious examples of faith and endurance and Christ-like love we have in the LDS Church - now or in any other time of its modern existence.  Disagreeing with the origin of the ban is one thing; citing Margaret Blair Young, J. Stapley, Darius Gray or anyone else who sees this issue as we do and questioning why we bother to identify as LDS is quite another thing. 

I find it instructive that Margaret, in her post, mentions someone who disagrees with her about this issue - and speaks of him as a wonderful, faithful, loved brother in Christ.  I obviously disagree with R.Gary with regard to the question of the ban's origin, but I do believe he is a faithful member of the LDS Church.  I don't doubt that - not at all.  I respect him greatly, even as I don't agree with his view on this issue.  I appreciate that he did not question the "LDS-ness" of Margaret, J, Darius and others.

I write this post simply to show two very different ways faithful LDS members can view the ban - and to beg anyone who reads this post to refrain from the disdain and judgment that easily clouds our discussion of sensitive issues like this. 

Within the Church, Be the Change You Desire

When I lived in the Deep South, invariably a black investigator would join the Church, face intense pressure from family and friends for joining a "white church", stay active for about 3-6 months then fade into inactivity - sometimes citing the fact that no other black people were joining the Church. Just as invariably, about 3-6 months later another black investigator would be baptized - and the cycle would repeat exactly.

After a few years, if those black members would have stayed active, there would have been a thriving black membership in the Church in that area.

I'm NOT blaming them for leaving. I mean that sincerely. I actually understand how difficult it is to remain active in an organization when you feel like a token member - especially when you feel like the others in the organization don't really understand you. For many reasons, I get that completely. Furthermore, there still is residual racism in some members of the Church, and that is more than regrettable; it is shameful.

All I'm saying is that when someone leaves they automatically contribute to the stereotyped self-fulfilling prophecy against which they complain. They also reinforce, unfortunately, the stereotyped view of those who are unlike them - that black members, or liberal members, or gay members, or feminist members ad infinitum never make life-long members.

Being a pioneer or Christlike rebel is hard, but leaving only exacerbates the problem at both ends. "Be the change you desire" is great advice, as long as that desire doesn't include bitterness and harsh confrontation and self-righteousness. It's a tricky balance sometimes, and it requires serious humility and meekness, but it's worth it in the end for those who can do it.

[Postscript: I am not saying in this post that nobody ever should leave the LDS Church. I understand there are situations from which some people should flee - situations that are toxic and harmful. I also understand, for example, that it is brutally hard to be a homosexual member of the LDS Church. I believe in the principle about which I wrote in this post, but I also believe there are exceptions to every rule.] 

We Must Eradicate Even Subtly Racist Messages

I have a couple of black sons, and much of my reaction to the issue of racism is influenced by my experiences when they lived with us. I know a single, black mother who attends church regularly and has shared some of her concerns with me. I hope, somehow, some of this will help explain why we need to be aware of even subtle racial messages - especially when they appear among us:

1) When you are the only black face in a congregation of white faces, you already feel isolated and alone in a very real way. You already are hyper-aware of and sensitive to racial issues. After all, some well-meaning members automatically start playing match-maker every, single time there is a black man with the missionaries on Sunday - (without fail and without exception).

2) Being "color-blind" is an illusion when the 6'7" young man sitting amid the short, pale, white family is dark black. As my son says, "You don't see color, you blind."

3) When you see a good young man cringe and reflexively look for an escape route every time he hears a police siren - simply because he has spent his entire life from the age of ten being targeted as a potential trouble maker as a large, black man . . .

4) When you hear a school teacher say, the very first time he meets you, not to worry about your son in his classroom - because, "I know how to handle these kids" . . .

5) It is eye-opening when you realize how you would react if someone told you that being white is fine for this life, since righteous white people will be black in the hereafter.

I could go on and on for hours - and my repertoire of examples comes primarily from only 18 months of raising a black teenager. I understand that racism is charged in instances where it doesn't exist, and I also understand that it is very possible to be overly-sensitive to possible racist statements, but I just don't accept any statement at all that says we don't need to do all we can to be aware of and eliminate anything that would cause reasonable people of any color to be offended by something that has racist undertones - intentional or not. I believe the tone we take must be civil and meek to be most effective, but this is one area where I believe we owe it to our children and others to eradicate one of the worst results of the Fall - the judging and belittling of our brothers and sisters based solely on race - even if we need to be vocal and confrontational to do so.

Why I Don't Support "Hate Crimes" Legislation: Individual Worth

We live in a system that has said we can't be punished for what we think and believe, only for what we do. Hate crime legislation punishes people differently based on what they think and believe - for WHY they do what they do. It is that simple to me, so I don't support hate crime legislation.

If my wife or daughter is raped or killed, I don't want a white perpetrator to get a lighter sentence than a black man who was shouting racial slurs because my wife or daughter is a white woman. I also don't want a Baptist perpetrator shouting religious bigotry to be punished more harshly just because my wife or daughter is Mormon.

There is a MUCH deeper reason, however, that I am appalled by hate crimes legislation - and I choose the word "appalled" carefully and consciously.  

I want a lesbian, drug-addicted prostitute of any race or ethnicity to be viewed under the law exactly in the same manner as my wife or daughter - and I want someone who murders that prostitute in order to steal her money punished exactly the same as someone who murders her because she is lesbian or a different race or drug-addicted. None of those things makes her life less valuable or important, and the absence of those things doesn't makes my wife's or daughter's life more valuable or important, either. 
   

I believe they are equal in the eyes of God and should be treated as equal under the law, as well - no matter WHY the perpetrator of a crime did what he did.

(I also should note explicitly that I chose the above characterizations strictly because of the way they are viewed by many people in society.  I am NOT equating being lesbian with being a drug addict or with being a prostitute.)

Racism and Repentance: Change Is Better Than an Apology

On a group blog a couple of years ago, I shared an experience I had while serving in a Stake Mission Presidency almost 15 years ago in the Deep South. I was allowed to see the effects of racism on the Church in my own day, both the racism that still infected a minority of the membership and the racism that still infected a majority of the overall population - the white and black communities.

What can we do now?

Be open and direct, but focus on addressing the problem that exists now. Of course, we should admit our role in the racism of yesterday, but an apology without change is just more "faith without works". When push comes to shove, I don't care one bit what someone says they believe; I care what they DO.

We need to preach Elder Wirthlin's message of acceptance, but we also need to LIVE it. We need to quit pre-judging others' ability or readiness or worthiness and simply invite EVERYONE to worship with us - regardless of race, personal habits, sexual orientation, religious or denominational affiliation, etc. We need to embrace each person we meet no matter how our differences manifest themselves. We need to quit "challenging" people and start "inviting" them - and loving them no matter what they choose to do. We need to want people to be with us in our worship even if they never join our actual recorded membership rolls.

We need to recognize and admit the bad parts of our heritage, even while we honor and respect the great and noble parts. We need to develop the characteristics of perfection listed in the Sermon on the Mount. We need to be a little better - do a little better - become a little better. We need to treat each other on blogs like we say we would treat each other if we were sitting face-to-face.

There are black members of the Church who have been hurt and let down by other members. Which do you think they want more - a personal apology from those who let him down or a change of heart that would mean no other member in their situation will be let down in that same situation from this moment forward? Both are ideal; the latter is more critical.

In summary, we need to be the people we say we want to be - and telling painful stories of the past is a big part of that process when it comes to racism. Racism, however, is only one example of the overall issue of repentance.

A Lesson from the Priesthood Ban: Pruning Our Modern Trees

I believe that the blessings that would have accompanied a lack of racism in the Church and full participation in the Priesthood of all worthy, male members were withheld from black and white members prior to 1978, but I do not believe it was God who withheld those blessings from us. I believe we withheld them. By that, I mean our (White) inability to accept the will of God in this matter kept blessings from being available to all of us (Black and White). We (White) kept those blessings from being given; in a very real way, we (not God) withheld those blessings from our black brothers and sisters. While the blessings our black brothers and sisters lost (and they literally were lost, as they had been given during Joseph Smith's lifetime) were more obvious and directly painful than those the white members lost, those lost by the white members were no less central to a full implementation of Zion and internalization of godliness, in my opinion.

Full racial equality is part of our modern-day vision of Zion (or at least it should be our individual vision and is the vision of the prophetic leadership), but I think the analogy of Israel being denied entrance into their Promised Land is a fairly good analogy for us being denied entrance into our own modern “Promised Land” until our own generations are prepared to enter it. I believe that general principle still stands and has other applications that we must address - by realizing the incorrect traditions of our fathers that still persist (the bitter fruit that still must be pruned from the vineyard) and doing everything possible within our own spheres of influence to eradicate them.

The Influence of Culture on the Universal Family of God

My biggest concern whenever people discuss culture and race is that it is almost impossible to have a dispassionate discussion of the central issues that cause contention in the first place - because culture is so tied up in individual perceptions of value and self-worth and community. I really like the “culture as a coat” metaphor, but it is very hard for most people to shed a coat when they feel cold or in need of protection. In other words, people feel naked (or even not themselves) when you remove them from their culture (take away their covering/protecting coat), so they cling to that culture passionately - and often irrationally.

I was raised in rural, central Utah; served a mission in Japan; attended college in Massachusetts, with many friends and acquaintances from other countries around the world; taught high school in southern Alabama; currently live in Ohio. I have worked extensively in the rural Midwest and in the eastern inner-cities. I have been exposed to many cultures, both societal and religious. The one thing I have learned from this experience that is most relevant to this post is that is it next to impossible in a group setting to discuss cultural concerns and not be labeled a bigot or homophobic or a hatemonger, no matter how carefully and narrowly you attempt to do so - specifically because the natural (wo)man feels attacked personally whenever “criticism” is directed to culture.

One example from my occupational history: About 10 years ago, the Ohio legislature decided to enforce a mandate that all 4th Grade students demonstrate reading proficiency before being advanced to 5th Grade. The vast majority of politicians and citizens saw this as a simple attempt to make sure that students were being taught as they deserved to be taught - of holding the educational systems in the state accountable for their performance. However, there was a good-sized minority that saw it as a direct racial attack, since the districts that would have been impacted the most severely were the inner-city districts - and the Black students would have been affected disproportionately. This group felt that it was racist to punish the students for what they perceived as the historical inability of the system to provide them the same quality education that the predominantly White, suburban districts were providing their students. The issue became so contentious that it disappeared completely within one year.

My point is not what most might assume. Honestly, as someone who was knee deep in the issue, I could understand both arguments. There was a degree of validity to each. I believed that there were a number of options that could have addressed both sides’ concerns - that could have brought about an acceptable compromise. It didn’t happen for one reason and one reason alone. Each side took a defensive posture to thwart an attack against its culture and educational perspective - so both sides lost in the end.

I think it failed because of the simple natural man issue - one group feeling attacked and the other group dismissing that feeling as ridiculous simply because they didn’t intend their actions to be an attack. In that sense, there was incorrect evaluation going on in each camp. However, each group felt the other was being insensitive and dismissive - and they were correct in that regard to a degree.

What would have happened ideally? I don’t think the “ideal” was possible, and I don’t want to get into that. I also don’t want to turn this into a political discussion of educational funding and administration, so I can’t answer that here in practical terms. However, conceptually, all it would have taken would have been leaders of each group who were willing to set aside cultural differences, really listen to each other in order to understand and look at the central issues from strictly an educational perspective - to quit making accusations about motivation and simply work out the practical issues. The solution might not have been ideal, but it would have been much better than what happened - which in the end was nothing. I wish they would have spent less time trying to convince the other side they were correct and more time simply trying to understand the valid aspects of the other’s perspective. If they had done that, the outcome might not have changed, but at least nobody would have walked away mad; there would have been a level of racial and cultural understanding that had not existed previously - and still doesn't exist nearly 10 years later. That would have been a wonderful accomplishment.

There is a deep and profound Gospel principle in that example for those who have eyes to see.

An Amazing Lesson on Race: Oh, That We Had Understood and Followed

I was preparing to write a post on fasting for my New Year's Resolution series, but I read a post entitled "Mormon Teachings on Race Relations, 1935" at Keepapitchinin (Ardis Parshall's amazing blog) that I want to use as the foundation for a follow-up to my Repudiating Racism Once and For All post from two weeks ago. I am going to excerpt freely from Ardis' post, with my own commentary following each quote:

"Below is the full text of a lesson taught in the Church’s adult Sunday School classes on August 4, 1935. I do not know the author; the lesson was distributed anonymously with the quarterly “Gospel Messages” leaflet issued by the Deseret Sunday School Union Board, as were all other Sunday School lessons in that era. I haven’t changed a single word, not even the occasional outdated vocabulary."

It is important to emphasize that the following quotes have not been altered at all from when they were published in 1935.

"The problem of getting along with people of different racial origin has been a difficult one of solution from the dawn of history and persists even to the present time. There seems to be some sort of a natural antagonism which exists between peoples of different ancestry. This tendency is stronger when there is a marked physical feature of some sort which distinguishes these races from each other. Thus, the difference in skin color between the white and the black races has always been a barrier between the peoples of these differing colors. The same thing is true in regard to those peoples which we know as the yellow races and the whites and blacks."

This beginning paragraph lays a foundation of "natural antagonism" as the source of racial tension. That is fascinating, since it implies that racism is a consequence of the "natural man" - the enemy of God.

"There has always been a tendency for those of one race to consider themselves superior to people of a different race. This feeling seems as natural as it is for members of most families to think themselves in some manner superior, or individuals to hold similar opinions regarding themselves. Usually, if examined from a purely objective point of view, these claims to superiority are found to be without foundation."

This is an amazing statement for the time - that any feelings of superiority based on race are incorrect and, again, "natural man" tendencies.

"Yet, without the multitude having been aware of the fact, their religion has been used in an attempt to determine a policy in this, as in every other important consideration in life."

Remember, this was published in a General Sunday School lesson - distributed throughout the Church. Wow!

"It is evident that the Jews considered themselves superior to the black people with whom they came in contact, for in their religious writings they tell us how God placed a mark upon the descendants of Cain and his children. And in another place the tradition has the story of the cursing of Ham, the son of Noah. As the result of these cursings, the descendants of these men became dark skinned and the children of Ham were designated as servants to the descendants of other sons of Noah . . . Here we see an indication of an antagonism between the dark skinned and lighter skinned peoples, the latter placing a curse upon the former."

The lesson says that people put the curse on other people and claimed it was of God, NOT that God did so.

"Most of the early Christians were Jews and they brought with them into the new religious group the race prejudices of their own people. Yet Paul explained to them how they had misunderstood their own religion in this regard and he succeeded in leaving the new and growing church the far greater idea of the brotherhood of man in Christ."

This says the expansion of the Gospel by Paul to the Gentiles is a model of how the racial prejudice of his time was overcome - that the prejudice needed to be rooted out by a pure understanding of the Gospel ("good news") of Jesus Christ.

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:26)

"No finer declaration of the brotherhood of man can be found than this. Here Paul says in substance: Jesus has given us a new vision of the universal Fatherhood of God. By faith in Jesus you are all the children of the God of Abraham. More, you are the actual descendants of Abraham and all the promises which God has made to Abraham he makes equally to you. God cares nothing for race, He cares nothing for condition of servitude, He cares nothing for sex. All God is interested in is that you follow the teaching of his son, Jesus."

This statement could not have been worded any more forcefully and clearly.

"Joseph Smith is credited with having said that when a man joins the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that he becomes, by so doing, of the “blood of Israel.” It appears that we are justified in concluding from what we have seen that John the Baptist and Paul and Joseph Smith all saw the great truth that actual physical descent, in other words race, is of no importance in the sight of God."

"The brotherhood of man, as springing from the common Fatherhood of God, is the very essence of Christianity. The teaching of Jesus has no place for race hatred, racial distrust, any feeling of racial superiority. The brotherhood of man transcends all lines of color, of race, of family."

Again, no clearer words are possible.

"Christianity holds within it the solution to all our race problems. That solution rests in the mere application of the spirit of the religion of Jesus to all situations which rise."

AMEN, and amen.

Thank you, Ardis, for finding and publishing this lesson. Please, everyone, go to her blog and read the entire lesson.

Oh, that we collectively had understood and followed its simple message.

Repudiating Racist Justifications Once and For All

This post is not the typical resolutions post I normally write on Saturday. Unfortunately, yesterday I read once more on a Mormon-themed blog racist justifications for the former Priesthood ban, and, once again, I was nearly sick to my stomach.

THIS MUST STOP!

In order to have a handy place to refer anyone who continues to spout such nonsense, I am quoting here the most blunt statements by our modern apostles and Prophets regarding the ideas that were used in the past to justify the ban. Please, whenever you hear some repeat the nonsense of the past, direct them here to this post.

The most powerful modern prophetic utterances are:

Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley in General Conference, April 2006 - stating the current position regarding racism itself:

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. 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?

From last year's PBS documentary -

Marlin Jensen:

Q. What is that folklore that troubles people?

A. “The essential idea is that somehow in the life before this life, through some conduct on the part of black people, they were less worthy and had to spend some probationary time waiting then for the priesthood to be given to them. I think it’s that idea that somehow they came here with some inherent disability, spiritually speaking, and that bothers them. It would bother me, too. And I don’t think it’s true. I think those were theories that were advanced, but I don’t think there’s any scriptural or doctrinal justification for them.”

Jeffrey R. Holland:

“We don’t pretend that something wasn’t taught or practice wasn’t pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we’re absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that’s not perpetuated in the present. That’s the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. …”

Full text of the issue from that documentary: http://www.pbs.org/mormons/themes/prohibition.html

Elder McConkie:

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.

(”All Are Alike unto God” - BYU devotional - August 18, 1978)

Dallin H. Oaks (in the PBS interview):

I can’t remember any time in my life when I felt greater joy and relief than when I learned that the priesthood was going to be available to all worthy males, whatever their ancestry. I had been troubled by this subject through college and my graduate school, at the University of Chicago where I went to law school. I had many black acquaintances when I lived in Chicago, the years ’54 through ’71. I had many times that my heart ached for that, and it ached for my Church, which I knew to be true and yet blessings of that Church were not available to a significant segment of our Heavenly Father’s children. And I didn’t understand why; I couldn’t identify with any of the explanations that were given. Yet I sustained the action; I was confident that in the time of the Lord I would know more about it, so I went along on faith.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/elder-dallin-h-oaks-reaction-to-priesthood-revelation
Interview with Associated Press, in Daily Herald, Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988:

Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that…. The lesson I’ve drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.
…I’m referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking.

…Let’s [not] make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent.

More from Elder Holland in the PBS interview:

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. … I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. … They, I’m sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. …

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don’t know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. … At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, … we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

Pres. McKay in 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.

(“David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism”)


As Elder Holland said so clearly, "At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed."


I think it's interesting to realize that Elder Holland's statements "at the very least" and "the least that we can do" imply quite strongly that there is more we can do. I believe that the "more we can do" includes opening our hearts, minds, homes and church worship to ALL, regardless of race or ethnicity - or religious ideology or any other segregating factor. I think we need to be "no respecters of persons". 


[Postscript - 2012]

 In response to an article in the Washington Post in which a BYU Religion professor was quoted about the justifications for the ban, the LDS Church released the following press release:

The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. The Book of Mormon states, “black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.

People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning. In fact, by the end of his life in 1844 Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, opposed slavery. During this time some black males were ordained to the priesthood. At some point the Church stopped ordaining male members of African descent, although there were a few exceptions. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended. Church leaders sought divine guidance regarding the issue and more than three decades ago extended the priesthood to all worthy male members. The Church immediately began ordaining members to priesthood offices wherever they attended throughout the world.

The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared 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. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.”

Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject:

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”  (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church)  

Given the totality of what has been said, especially with Pres. Hinckley's General Conference talk and the 2012 statement from the Church, there is NO excuse for ANY member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to continue to believe or spout the racist justifications for the Priesthood ban.  Period.

[Postscript - December 6, 2013]

The Church just added a statement in its online newsroom section, under the title "Race and the Priesthood".  The following are the excerpts that are most relevant to this post: 

The Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in the United States. At the time, many people of African descent lived in slavery, and racial distinctions and prejudice were not just common but customary among white Americans. Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion. 

There is no evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. 

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church. 

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

Reflections from a Mixed-Race Family

Looking at us now, it is impossible on most days to see that we are, in a very real sense, a mixed-race family. After all, my wife and I and all six of our biological children are not only Caucasian but light skinned Caucasian. We have a hard time tanning; my wife was a red-head as a child; one of our sons still is a carrot top. We are the Wonder Bread in the bakery section of life.