Black and Mormon
 

Thoughts from the book:

One of the main topics of discussion in the essays in the book is the folklore that evolved in the church to explain the priesthood ban (descendants of Cain, less valiant in the pre-existence, etc.). While the revelation of 1978 would seem to refute this folklore, it still persists within the church. In fact, a strong case is made that the persistance of the folklore is a hindrance for the church's efforts to gain black converts. Perhaps more significantly, it is a hindrance for black converts to stay active in the church. Once they try to fully integrate into the LDS society, they are met at every front by clueless members informing them that they were less valiant in the pre-existence. This is a huge hurdle for many of them to overcome.

Interestingly, the book recounts how a few years ago a group of people including Elder Marlin K. Jensen (I have always admired him) petitioned the church leadership to make a full and explicit denunciation of the folklore in an attempt to support black converts and put the issue to rest. An official committee was formed that included Elder Jensen and at least one non-GA (black, as I recall). One of the members of the committee was so excited that he leaked word to the LA Times, who ended up running a story about it. Reportedly, this infuriated top LDS leadership and they disbanded the committee. When pressed on the issue, GBH responded that in his travels through the world, people he meets don't seem to be upset about it, so he believed that no action was necessary. He felt that the 1978 proclamation stands on its own. Thus, the quasi-official strategy in the church is to not make any official statement to repudiate the folklore, and let the erroneous writings of past church officials related to the folklore fade into the oblivion of history.

A few points:

1) The book is quite convincing that the folklore is still widely believed in the church and that it is doing significant harm. And yet Pres. Hinckley perceives that it is not a big deal. Why such a disconnect? As you watch video of GBH's world tours, it appears he is wisked from venue to venue where he speaks to adoring crowds and visits with local church leadership. I wonder how much interaction is had with common members. Probably not too much and it is probably superficial at best. That's a pity.

2) Yet again, we see a case where the church distances itself from making a statement that would be perceived as an admission of weakness or error. Yet the cost of this silence is significant.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Elder Jensen were called to quorum of the twelve?

Historians (and bloggers and internet riff-raff) have usurped the prophets. How many times do I have to say it?

Who still believes that. I was at a large family gathering around Christmas and the subject came up. No one believes the Cain thing. At least no one in our family and my family has some folks in it that would make Tex look like a liberal.

I kinda agree with 71 here. I don't think many believe that anymore. And addressing it might actually legitimatize it for some. I would like to see a public announcement on that, but it doesn't bother me too much. I do love MKJ and would love to see him as an apostle.

I think all kinds of old folklore are alive and well in the church.

I've heard some of the folklore.

"Let's just hope people forget about this."

Very nice.

Seems to me there's likely more to the story here. Barring full Church disclosure--which I'm sure many of you would love--it's hard to get an unbiased view of how events unfold.

I'm not sure there isn't some wisdom in letting 30-year-old sleeping dogs lie.

That's pretty tough for us white Mormons to gauge don't you think? Our retention rates for black converts are abysmal. Many point to this issue as one of the causes. I see no reason to disbelieve them.

Interestingly, an essay in the book by Mauss shows the results from surveys that indicate that LDS people are less racist than the US population at large using standard measures ("Do you believe neighborhoods should be segregated..?", etc.). And yet the folklore persists.

The anecdotal stories provided in the book indicate that the folklore is often related more out of ignorance than malice. This is exactly why many are pushing for an explicit statement from church leadership.

I got the impression (I could be wrong) reading the book that it was more of an issue in the southern states. Whether white members there are more racist or whether there are simply more black converts in those areas, I am not sure.

I dare bet that if you polled a typical LDS ward, there would be quite a few people that still believe the folklore. And it only takes a few to cause some damage. And often the biggest dumbasses in the ward are the most anxious to share their opinions.

I think you're really underestimating the potential for unintended consequences. Bringing a fresh public light on to all those statements over all those decades, despite a current and re-emphasized denial, could have a backlash effect. To say nothing of the opportunism it would smack of in the current political environment.

And then it puts the church in the dicey position of explaining the difference between prophetic doctrinal pronouncements, and prophets' opinions--a debate we can find NO resolution to here on Cougarguard. You think the media will be more forgiving than SeattleUte? Or you, for that matter?

Agree.

I do see some merit to Tex's point on unintended consequences. Everyone remembers Danny Ainge as a biter, even though it was Tree Rollins that bit him, not vice versa. If Danny Ainge called a press conference to tell his side of the story, I'm sure a year later even more people would remember Ainge as a biter.

That's exactly the logic I would expect from you, Tex. "All is well." "Don't rock the boat." And I suppose you could be right. But I doubt it. I think I will side with Elder Jensen on this one.

Interestingly, there is zero evidence that anyone in church leadership believes in the folklore. Yet there is hesitation to correct obviously false doctrine. That seems more like the actions of a parochial western US church, and less like the actions of a confident, progressive, international faith.

That's quite a stretch.

Oh, that's nice. What should I say now, "I think I will side with President Hinckley on this one"?

My GA is bigger than your GA. Come on, Leb.

There is zero evidence anyone in chruch leadership believes in, supports, teaches, or practices polygamy. Yet the stereotype persists. That doesn't mean we have to put out continual press releases about it.

That's not how I meant it, but if you want to twist it that way, go ahead. The point is that this is not a trivial issue promoted by wacky fringe mormons whom you so love to marginalize.

Weak analogy. Do we classify polygamy as "folklore"? Is there any evidence that church leadership unanimously considers polygamy to be false doctrine?

We still practice polygamy, BTW. Celestial polygamy.

I didn't say anything about wacky fringe Mormons ... in fact, my response was quite reasoned and non-emotional. Stop being so defensive.

And since you brought it up, I'm not sure Jensen would appreciate your characterization of "his side" and "Hinckley's side."

The ideas fall under different categories, yes, but we're talking public perception here. Listen, I can't prove it ... it's my anecdotes vs. yours, so we're really not getting any resolution to this, although it's interesting you didn't address any of the points I made.

Complete red herring.

You do realize, of course, that the church DOES issue press releases about polygamy, right?

For some of us to believe it? Not too many times.

For it to be true? No such amount exists.

For you to be satisfied by the sound of your own voice? Likewise.

LOL. Classic.

"Don't be defensive" .... followed by an accusation that I am improperly characterizing discord among the brethren.

Not of the nature Leb is talking about.

Classic indeed. Anatomy of Lebowski post: 1 part substance, 2 parts snark.

huh?

Thanks for the post. Sounds like a fascinating read. And Marlin K. Jensen is also one of my favorites (which likely disqualifies him from consideration for the 12).

Jeff, would you include as folklore the explanation "the membership just wasn't ready for that yet"? I think that's the most prevalent explanation today, and I'd list it as folklore right up there with Cain and the Fence Sitter doctrine. The main difference being that the latter were espoused by GA's and the former has grown out of a lack of any explanation.

Guys, how do you think the typical member views or interprets Moses 7:22? I would be very pleased if most people were interpreting it in a figurative way or at least with the understanding that it doesn't apply to Africans in anyway way at all but must admit I am a little skeptical.

A good example of the first question the media might ask following such a clarifying press release.

I should be clear; I am not accusing the typical member of racism. At least not more racist than most groups. Jeff correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Mauss article found that Mormons were less likely to be racist using standard sociological survey questions.

I am guessing that won't be the first question the media would ask, since I doubt very much they have any clue what Moses 7 says.

More likely than not, their first question will be, "If the folklore wasn't the reason for the priesthood ban, what was?"

My guess is that the response is "racism," which probably wouldn't be a particularly helpful response.

Jeff, an important point on this is that I believe a minority group gets to decide what is offensive or hurtful to them. The majority group doesn't get to tell the minority group to shut up and stop complaining about petty things. So if this was deemed very important by a group of LDS then I would be inclined to agree and to give them what they want. That would probably override my comment earlier that by apologizing formally you could bring more attention to the issue and make things worse.

Thanks for typing this up.

My wife's uncle died recently and over the holidays her aunt invited me to raid his bookshelves. He was a scientist and served a mission in Africa before the 1978 decision. The choicest score I landed from his shelf was Mormonism and the Negro by John J. Stewart (ninth [!] printing). [http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listi...810158&sr=1-4]

While many of Stewart's ideas were evidently proven incorrect when the ban was lifted, his ideas and William Berrett's supplement (Berrett was VP of the BYU) bespeak a carefully constructed rationale for the systematic denial of the priesthood to black members. This rationale isn't just going to disappear, IMO.

The notion that "God" allowed blacks to finally receive the priesthood per a revelation he gave to SWK ensures that most LDS will continue to regard blacks the same as they did before 1978. The first order of business is to renounce any claim to revelation.

Dare I say, the reason they don't explain it, because they believe the average member will lose respect for general authorities as a result.

And nothing could be more dangerous, they believe.

A chink in their armor is much worse than millions dwindling in unbelief. That is the calculus. And it pisses me off.

They're probably right. You're exhibit A. You've lost respect without them explaining it, but unlike most LDS you're not comotose concerning issues such as these. They want to keep everyone nicely anesthetized. See the CB zombies. They don't want a bunch of MikeWaters'.

We swerved into the melodramatic.

By the way, I love that Stapely letter to Mitt Romney's dad. I showed it to my father. He was stammering and mumbling in reply.

If ever human frailty was more apparent in a recent GA, I am not aware of it.

That is correct. I mentioned this study in an earlier post in this thread.

also, my dad told me that my grandparents didn't like Mitt's dad, because he was too liberal. Funny.

I think not addressing this is a huge PR nightmare. I don't know much about PR but what I know is this:

If you refuse to address a subject, the only voice heard, and therefore believed, is your opponents voice.

By not addressing the folklore, the GAs are allowing the antis to define why the ban was in place. Huge mistake.

Its an ugly letter. I would like to think that we have come a long way since that letter (both rank and file and leadership). I know you think we need, as a people, to go further but don't you think the Stapley letter is pretty distant in the mirror in terms of attitudes?

Know I don't think so at all. Where do Mormons stand on civil rights now? They certainly don't lead up the charge. SU has pointed out that the Jews have reacted to the persecution they have faced, by defending others.

Mormons, on the other hand, have reacted by piling on. Look at the way LDS have treated fLDS. Look at the way LDS goes after gay groups. Look how Mormons vote for far-right conservatives seemingly en bloc.

The idea that there is any kind of "awakening" or "enlightenment" among Mormons regarding race, and everything around race, is complete hogwash.

There is an entire chapter in the book devoted to that verse. The author argues that the verse has been extrapolated far beyond what it was meant to convey. I don't recall all of the arguments the author made, but one of them was that it runs 180 degrees counter to the second article of faith ("We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.") Dooming an entire race due to the actions of one person is neither just nor doctrinally sound.

To make the argument linking this verse to the ban, one would also have to connect blacks with Cain. This particular folklore has been traced back to England (several centuries) and was developed as a justification for slavery.

I agree that we're not progressive as a people on these issues and one can certainly make a good argument that we should be but doesn't Mauss' survey data suggest that we don't tend to suffer from a extreme or obvious racial bias.