Print Friendly and PDF

Sunday, June 7, 2020

The Church's Unapologetic Racial Past

The recent resurgence of racial protests, violence and terrorism has brought to the forefront the church's stand on race. On June 1st, Pres. Nelson said on his Facebook account, 
  • "We abhor the reality that some would deny others respect and the most basic of freedoms because of the color of his or her skin."
  • "The Creator of us all calls on each of us to abandon attitudes of prejudice against any group of God’s children. Any of us who has prejudice toward another race needs to repent!"
  • "During the Savior’s earthly mission, He constantly ministered to those who were excluded, marginalized, judged, overlooked, abused, and discounted. As His followers, can we do anything less? The answer is no! We believe in freedom, kindness, and fairness for all of God’s children!" [1]
I really like what Pres. Nelson said, especially the part about Jesus. However, there was a section missing in his statement that I feel needs addressing.

As you well know, the church has not always been such a huge champion for peaceful racial relations.

Prior to June 1978, when the church announced what was later canonized as Official Declaration 2, prophetic statements about African-Americans were actually quite the opposite. In fact, the church has approximately 126 years of racially-biased, authoritative statements condemning blacks both in this life and in the eternities. 

Last year, when Pres. Nelson spoke at the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Annual Convention on July 21, 2019, he did not apologize for the church’s previous racial statements, the long-upheld ban on blacks getting the priesthood and eligibility for temple marriage. [2]

If he had, he would have most likely reiterated the church's reasoning as stated in its "Race and the Priesthood" Gospel Topic essay. [3] There are two portions I wish to highlight:
  1. "Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions" [3]
  2. "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 unrighteous 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." [3]
This is deceptive. 

The church's disavowal of "theories" rings hollow because leaders never advanced any "theories"; they were immovable, inviolate, unquestionable, confident, definite, definitive doctrinal statements with such a high degree of certainty, that even God's name was sometimes invoked as having endorsed the doctrine. It has essentially disavowed nothing.

The Gospel Topic essay continued by saying, "None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." [3]

While that may be true, church leaders have yet to repudiate the definite doctrinal statements by past leaders. That may be because, as Pres. Oaks stated in a January, 2015 interview, the church doesn't "seek apologies, and we don't give them." [4]

So what we essentially have here are a ton of authoritative statements given by LDS presidents that have been allowed to let stand without refutation nor disputation by current church leaders. This leaves the church in a "Catch-22" -- if the church apologizes for past racially-charged statements, then that would (1) contradict Pres. Oaks "no apologies" statement and (2) sets the precedent for the church to have to apologize to other groups, like women, gays and sexual molestation victims.

I have to give Pres. Nelson credit. At the 2019 NAACP event, he struck an optimistic tone: "I pray that we may increasingly call each other dear friends. May we go forward doing our best to exemplify the two great commandments—to love God and love each of His children. Arm in arm and shoulder to shoulder, may we strive to lift our brothers and sisters everywhere, in every way we can. This world will never be the same." [2]

Yet at the same time, the lie (an official church document stating past leaders' statements about blacks were "theories") continues. And the non-apology still stands.

The effects of this double-standard are readily apparent:
  • In the October 2006 General Conference, Pres. Hinckley stated, "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?" [5]
  • A June 9, 2019 Salt Lake Tribune article detailed the experiences of two African-American LDS women. "Tamu Smith was called the N-word in the Salt Lake LDS Temple a week after her wedding day more than 20 years ago. The same slur was aimed at Zandra Vranes in April (2019) on her Facebook page by a temple-going Mormon. In both cases, the women were advised to forgive the offense, take the high road and focus on the positive." [6]
Let's return to those "theories". Below are a few of them. I have bolded those portions which declare their degree of definitiveness. You tell me if they are indeed "theories," or something more. And if they are, if they are deserving of an apology:

OFFICIAL CHURCH STATEMENTS REGARDING BLACKS & THE PRIESTHOOD


“I have this section in my hand, headed “An Act in Relation to African Slavery.” I have read it over and made a few alterations. I will remark with regard to slavery, inasmuch as we believe in the Bible, inasmuch as we believe in the ordinances of God, in the Priesthood and order and decrees of God, we must believe in slavery. This colored race have been subjected to severe curses, which they have in their families and their classes and in their various capacities brought upon themselves. And until the curse is removed by Him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences; I am not authorized to remove it. I am a firm believer in slavery.”  [7]

"If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the priesthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the residue of the posterity of Michael and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the priesthood, until the [Millennium] shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from Michael’s seed"  [8]

“A man who has the African blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of the priesthood. Why? Because they are the true eternal principles the Lord Almighty had ordained" (ibid)

“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind… That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof.” [9]

"After the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God." [10]

“our elders should not take the initiative in proselyting among the negro people.” [11]

“From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.” [12]

“The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to." [13]

“those who were not faithful [in the pre-mortal life] received less.” [14]

“If that negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.” [15]

“I emphasize Justice as an attribute of Deity, because it is the Lord who, though He “made of one blood all nations,” also “determined the bounds of their habitation.” In other words, the seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man, but goes back into the Beginning with God.” [16]

“The Church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the priesthood. There's really nothing we can do to change this. It's a law of God.” [17]

"HAM: Through Ham (a name meaning black) 'the blood of the Canaanites was preserved' through the flood, he having married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain. ... Ham was cursed, apparently for marrying into the forbidden lineage, and the effects of the curse passed to his son, Canaan. ... Ham's descendants include the Negroes, who originally were barred from holding the priesthood but have been able to do so since June 1978." [18]

OFFICIAL CHURCH STATEMENTS REGARDING INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE


"In the preisthood I will tell you what it will do. Where the children of God to mingle there seed with the seed of Cain it would not only bring the curse of being deprived of the power of the preisthood upon themselves but they entail it upon their children after them, and they cannot get rid of it. If a man in an ungaurded moment should commit such a transgression, if he would walk up and say cut off my head, and kill man woman and child it would do a great deal towards atoneing for the sin. Would this be to curse them? no it would be a blessing to them. -- it would do them good that they might be saved with their Bren. A man would shuder should they here us take about killing folk, but it is one of the greatest blessings to some to kill them, allthough the true principles of it are not understood." [8]

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." [19]

“And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Hams wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God" [10]

"No special effort has ever been made to proselyte among the Negro race, and social intercourse between the Whites and the Negroes should certainly not be encouraged because of leading to intermarriage, which the Lord has forbidden." [20]

“Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous” [21]

“We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.” [21]

Cain was the father “of an inferior race” [22]

"If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would all be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn't any argument, therefore, as to inter-marriage with the Negro, is there? There are 50 million Negroes in the United States. If they were to achieve complete absorption with the white race, think what that would do. With 50 million negroes inter-married with us, where would the priesthood be? who could hold it, in all America? Think what that would do to the work of the Church!" [23]

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question” [24]

"We’ve always counseled in the Church for our Mexican members to marry Mexicans, our Japanese members to marry Japanese, our Caucasians to marry Caucasians, our Polynesian members to marry Polynesians. The counsel has been wise. You may say again, “Well, I know of exceptions.” I do, too, and they’ve been very successful marriages. I know some of them. You might even say, “I can show you local Church leaders or perhaps even general leaders who have married out of their race.” I say, “Yes—exceptions.” Then I would remind you of that Relief Society woman’s near-scriptural statement, “We’d like to follow the rule first, and then we’ll take care of the exceptions.” [25]

“The probabilities of a successful marriage are known to be much greater if both the husband and wife are united in their religion, language, culture, and ethnic background. Thus, in choosing your eternal companion, please be wise. It’s better not to fly in the face of constant head winds. Occasional squalls provide challenge enough.” [26]

(For a really detailed overview of the church and race relations, please consult "Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview" (Dialogue, Spring, 1973) [27]

QUESTIONS

Based on the aforementioned facts, I have the following questions:
  • You've read official past church leaders' statements regarding priesthood and temple restrictions upon the blacks. You've read the highlighted portions which spotlight the depth of the statement. Do these appear to be "theories" (syn: suppositions, speculations, presumptions, guesses, suspicions) to you?
  • Do any of the above remarks seem disparaging towards blacks?
  • If so, how do you reconcile that with Pres. Hinckley's observation 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 Jesus Christ"? [26]
  • As Christians, we're expected to apologize when we have unjustly wronged another. Shouldn't the church do the same?
  • Why is it just so darn hard to officially say these past leaders' statements were not "theories", but were instead uninspired doctrinal statements?
  • Is it fear that prevents leaders from admitting past mistakes? If so, is it fear of man or God? 
  • An August 18, 2012 New York Times opinion stated, “Still, acknowledging serious errors on the part of past prophets inevitably raises questions about the revelatory authority of contemporary leaders. Such concerns, however, are not insurmountable for religious movements. One can look to the Bible for countless examples of patriarchs and prophets who acknowledged grave errors and moral lapses but still retained the respect of their people.” [28] Wouldn't such transparency and honesty actually add to, not diminish, the good name of the church?
  • Besides donating money and working on projects with the NAACP, and Pres. Nelson talking about non-discrimination, what is the church doing at local levels, to combat racism (where vulgar discrimination is still an acknowledged issue)?
  • Are we taught that our leaders are "revelators," receiving revelation from Heavenly Father? If so, then why do some LDS apologetics say that "Prophets in all dispensations have been "men of their times," who were raised with certain beliefs and interacted all their lives with others who shared those beliefs"? [29] Aren't prophets (aka "the mouthpieces of the Lord") supposed to reveal truths which transcend mortal man's knowledge and thinking -- especially in terms of something this significant (the salvation and eternal life of African-Americans)?
  • In speaking of past LDS leaders' statements which are incongruent with doctrine, Elder Neal L. Anderson quoted Ether 12:6 and said, "The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men." [30] Of course they are. But is it proper to use that explanation when dealing with something as significant as the salvation and eternal life of African-Americans? 
We ask our bishops and stake presidents to "protect the purity, integrity, and good name of the church" [31] by keeping a watchful eye in their areas for members' statements which are incongruous with doctrine. In fact, members who do so are prevented from teaching or speaking in church meetings. Who's responsibility is it to ensure the 15 brethren are not saying anything incongruous with doctrine?

CHECK THE COMMENTS BY LATTER-DAY
TRUTHS BELOW FOR UPDATES TO THIS POST
 

 

1    https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2020-06-01/president-nelson-addresses-race-in-social-media-post-185657
2    https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/president-nelson-naacp-convention-remarks
3    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng
4    https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2108746&itype=CMSID
5    http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/the-need-for-greater-kindness
6    https://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/06/09/39-years-later-priesthood-ban-is-history-but-racism-within-mormon-ranks-isnt-black-members-say/
7    Gov. Brigham Young, speech before the Joint Session of the Legislature, January 23, 1852
8    Gov. Brigham Young, speech before a joint session of the territorial legislature, February 5, 1852; Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, dated Feb. 5, 1852, located in the LDS Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah
9    Pres. Brigham Young, October 9, 1859, JD 7:290-291
10  Pres. John Taylor, August 28, 1881, JD 22:304
11  Minutes, the Council of the Twelve and of The First Presidency, August 26, 1908, in Adam S. Bennion papers, Brigham Young University
12  Pres. George Albert Smith, First Presidency letter to Lowry Nelson, July 17, 1947, archive.org
13  Pres. George Albert Smith, First Presidency statement, August 17, 1949
14  Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith, "Doctrines of Salvation", 1:61
15  Elder Mark E. Peterson, 1954 address to BYU students
16  Pres. David O. McKay, in Llewelyn R. McKay, "Home Memories of President David O. McKay", 1956, p. 231
17  Pres. N. Eldon Tanner, December 1967
18  Elder Bruce R. McConkie, "Mormon Doctrine," p. 343; sold in LDS-owned Deseret Bookstores until 2010
19  Pres. Brigham Young, Deseret News, March 1863; JD 10:110
20  First Presidency letter to Virgil H. Sponberg, May 5, 1947, in Adam S. Bennion papers, Brigham Young University
21  First Presidency letter to Lowry Nelson, July 17, 1947, archive.org
22  Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith, "The Way to Perfection", p. 101
23  Elder Mark E. Peterson, "Race Problems--As They Affect The Church", 1954
24  Pres. Spencer W. Kimball, “Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144; as quoted in Aaronic Priesthood Manual, 1995, Lesson 31, p. 128
25  Elder Boyd K Packer, “Follow the Rule,” BYU Devotional, January 14, 1977
26  Elder Russell M Nelson, “A More Excellent Hope”, BYU Devotional, January 8, 1995
27  https://www.dialoguejournal.com/2012/04/mormonisms-negro-doctrine-an-historical-overview/
28  https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/opinion/sunday/racism-and-the-mormon-church.html
29  https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_Was_Brigham_Young_a_racist%3F
30  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng
31  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/church-disciplinary-councils?lang=eng

4 comments:

Latter Day Truths said...

And not less than a day since I posted this, the NAACP says this:

there seems to be “no willingness on the part of the church to do anything material.”

He looks forward “to their deeds matching their words,” Wil Colom, special counsel to the NAACP president, said. “It’s time now for more than sweet talk.”

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/06/09/despite-joining-president/

Greg said...

Despite their cleverly crafted denials the church still believes the ban came from God. For evidence read Oaks' Remarks at the Worldwide Priesthood Celebration a few years ago.

"As a young man in the legal profession, I lived in the Midwest and the East for 17 years. The restriction on the ordination and temple blessings of persons of African ancestry—almost invisible to me as I grew up in Utah—was a frequent subject of my conversations in my life in Chicago and Washington, D.C.
I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray—as promised from the beginning of these restrictions—that the day would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple. Now that day had come, and I wept for joy."

Latter-day Truths said...

Greg,
Good observation. You may want to read a more in-depth analysis of Elder Oaks' comments in the new "Latter-day Truths" June 19th post. Bon appetite!

Liberty Ghost said...

In answer to the question that you posed: “Who's responsibility is it to ensure the 15 brethren are not saying anything incongruous with doctrine?”

It is the responsibility of all Melchisedek priesthood quorums, particularly Stake Presidents and High Councils. Each of these quorums holds power and authority equal to the twelve and equal to the First Presidency. When any of these quorums finds that any other quorum has uttered something which is not in harmony with the Gospel, they should call a council of all the quorums to try the matter, and if they find that a quorum has been wrong, they should call it to repentance. At least, that is what it says in the D&C 107.

\However, in practice, the church does not follow the practices laid out in the D&C regarding the organization and running of the church. These procedures were last followed when Joseph Smith was alive, who allowed himself to be subject to the discipline of other quorums. Since then, it appears that the 12 and First Presidency (aka the 15), have outgrown the need to be subject to the scriptures. One can only guess that while Joseph, with his acknowledged imperfections and limited spirituality, needed to be subject to the Scriptures, today's Apostles are so enlightened that they no longer need to operate in this way.

Dale B.