Black and Mormon

[Solon]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Unpopular as it may be, I am going to partially agree with Tex. I see signs of the church leadership and rank a file doing more. I know MW thinks it is a snails pace and not fast enough (and he may be right). But it is movement. I thought Elder Holland's remarks in the PBS documentary were very helpful. MW will point out that they don't go far enough and that's probably true but this is going to be incremental. I think we should be grateful for the incremental steps that the church is taking to deal with this issue and be realistic about the institutional reasons that the pace will slow (which I think Elder Holland does point out):

So it's folklore now? We do know why the church had this doctrine. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

It's time for the church to sack up and admit, "yeah, we were wrong. This doctrine was false."

Or to have the courage to say, "yeah, curse of Cain is true. It's too bad, but there's nothing we can do about it."

[Pelagius, I know you were just the messenger here - I'm not attacking you or assuming this is your point of view. My issue is with Holland.]

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Solon

So it's folklore now? We do know why the church had this doctrine. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

It's time for the church to sack up and admit, "yeah, we were wrong. This doctrine was false."

Or to have the courage to say, "yeah, curse of Cain is true. It's too bad, but there's nothing we can do about it."

[Pelagius, I know you were just the messenger here - I'm not attacking you or assuming this is your point of view. My issue is with Holland.]

Fair, Solon. But are you a bit sympathetic to the position that Elder Holland is in? I am not trying to justify it (okay meybe a little) but there are clearly institutional constraints that limit the pace. We may not like the constraints nor how they limit things on this issue but I think it is fair to recognize that they may have an effect and be happy when we see incremental movement. Isn't it better than complete silence?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Fair, Solon. But are you a bit sympathetic to the position that Elder Holland is in? I am not trying to justify it but there are clearly institutional constraints that limit the pace. We may not like the constraints nor how they limit things on this issue but I think it is fair to recognize that they may have an effect.

I believe there are institutional limits, but I also believe that a prophet, a mouthpiece of God can overcome those institutional limits pretty darn quickly.

I posted a link to a black mormon website further down in this thread, and the site quotes Hinckley as saying the practice of denying the priesthood to blacks wasn't wrong.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...80759#poststop

While I can see Holland being restrained, I think the president of the church could get this issue settled in a hurry. "thus sayeth the Lord."

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Solon

A friend sent this link to me last night (helluva coincidence). It's a black Mormon homepage and chronicles very thoroughly the statements of LDS leaders on the issue from the beginning through Golden Boy Hinckley.

http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/homepage.html

My favorite part of the site is the photo of Eldridge Cleaver preaching in a Mormon ward in Oakland.

There's also an interesting snippet of an interview with GBH where Hinckley refused to say the church was wrong to deny blacks the priesthood. Hinckley is quoted as saying, "NO I DON'T THINK IT WAS WRONG. It, things, various things happened in different periods. There’s a reason for them. [emphasis by the website]."

So there you have it -Hinckley didn't think it was wrong. (if we can believe this source)

I do.

Thanks for the link, Solon. That's a nice find.

I love GBH, but that quote is unfortunate.

[Tex]

Someone on CB made a good point I hadn't thought of. How many members of the church were there in 1978 vs. today? It's fair to say that MUCH greater than half of today's members were not members at that time and don't remember there ever being a ban. I don't know how many of those are converts vs. those born after 1978, but I think it's fair to say high number are the former.

This, too, seems like a good reason not to re-open old wounds. For large numbers of people (not represented by CG), this has never been an issue. Why make it one?

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by Tex

Someone on CB made a good point I hadn't thought of. How many members of the church were there in 1978 vs. today? It's fair to say that MUCH greater than half of today's members were not members at that time and don't remember there ever being a ban. I don't know how many of those are converts vs. those born after 1978, but I think it's fair to say high number are the former.

This, too, seems like a good reason not to re-open old wounds. For large numbers of people (not represented by CG), this has never been an issue. Why make it one?

You keep trying to say this is ancient history...this history is not ancient. Most members of the church were alive when the ban was lifted. This is recent history. For that matter why does it matter if it is "ancient history" or not?

The wound is not that old and it was never properly treated. Infection has not been contained.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

You keep trying to say this is ancient history...this history is not ancient. Most members of the church were alive when the ban was lifted. This is recent history. For that matter why does it matter if it is "ancient history" or not?

The wound is not that old and it was never properly treated. Infection has not been contained.

If the church had, say, 4M members in 1978 and has 12M members now, it's hard to see how "most members" were alive when the ban was lifted, unless you're counting those who were not members at the time and have since joined. In the which case, I see this being an extremely weak case.

I know lots of converts (warning: anecdotal evidence to follow), many of them joining in the last 5 years or less. I can't think of one of them for whom the blacks/priesthood issue is a problem, or has even crossed their minds. They happen to be a little more forward looking than that. Is there some convert somewhere for whom it does? Probably. But I doubt they're in anything but a tiny minority.

The longer I read threads about this same topic hashed and rehashed and rerehashed on Cougarguard, the more I think this has more to do with assuaging your white guilt, and less about the good of the church's future. IMO.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

You keep trying to say this is ancient history...this history is not ancient. Most members of the church were alive when the ban was lifted. This is recent history. For that matter why does it matter if it is "ancient history" or not?

The wound is not that old and it was never properly treated. Infection has not been contained.

I agree.

Why is this hard? If someone believes blacks bear a "mark of Cain" I might have a completely different conversation with them than what is going on here. If I'm in an extremenly charitable mood I might talk to them about the evolution of the human species, about the patent delusion and violence done to reality of any viewpoint premised on Biblical creationism directly or indirectly, about the intrinsic evil of any kind of racism even with a religious pretext, about the morphing of the "mark of cane" into black skin in the fringes of medievel protestantism long before Joseph Smith or Brigham Young seized onto it, about the potential for making him or herself a pariah outside Mormonism by even uttering such patent nonsens. Probably I would not be so charitable and just not associate with such a person.

But if someone doesn't believe in the mark of Cain/cowardice in pre-existence/black skin explanation, how can they possibly argue against Mormon leaders enlightening the huge percentage of Mormons still lost in an abyse of sheer ignorance on this issue?

[MikeWaters]

I've got an easy explanation: the racism that led to the ban, maintained the ban, and now pooh-poohs the ban still exists in the church hierarchy.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I've got an easy explanation: the racism that led to the ban, maintained the ban, and now pooh-poohs the ban still exists in the church hierarchy.

The bittersweet thing about the priesthood ban and its legacy is that it's a metaphor, emblematic, or better, a microsocm, of so much. To a thoughtful person it is endlessly damning, it spreads like peritonitis. That's why the LDS Church needs to treat it.