30 years: Of Blacks and Priesthood

[Moksha]

From SL Tribune:

President Spencer W. Kimball's revelation brought a string of firsts for the church: first black missionary; first black bishop; first black couple married in the temple; first black men ordained in Los Angeles, Rio de Janeiro, Jamaica, Nigeria; first black general authority. It also brought relief to many white Mormons mortified by charges of racism leveled at them and their church.
Notably, it also opened Africa to Mormon missionaries, a great boon to the church. Today, 255,050 Latter-day Saints hail from Nigeria in the west to Kenya and Ethiopia in the east to Zimbabwe and South Africa in the south.

1902: James sealed as servant
Added by The Salt Lake T.
1902

Jane Manning James, a faithful black Mormon since the days of Joseph Smith Jr., is given a special temple sealing as a "servant" to Joseph Smith Jr. She continues to pursue her endowment.






< Prev EventNext Event >


2006: President Hinckley condemns racism
Added by The Salt Lake T.
2006

LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley condemns racism during the all-male priesthood session of the church's Annual General Conference.

Mormon and Black - Salt Lake Tribune

[Moksha]

Sorry that the pic of President Hinckley turned out a bit too big. That particular session where he condemned racism as being wrong both now and in the past was one of my favorites.

[Bookmeister]

I remember sitting in Priesthood meeting when the announcement was made. We were told that it wasn't something that we should talk about, but just to accept it and go on. I was in the Army at the time and many of my fellow soldiers were black. I felt the Spirit telling me that this was a true revelation and I was very grateful for that.

[prisonchaplain]

IMHO, the problem of racism in the Christian church is real, and cannot be ignored. If we believe we are in the latter days, then the Spirit is to be poured out on all flesh. We are no longer male nor female, Greek or Jew...

My church's largest congregation is in Seoul, Korea (800,000 members, Yoido Full Gospel Church). Our largest national membership is Brazil (over 20 million vs. 3 million in the U.S.).

And yet, we too have had racial incidents and imperfect human prejudices are not totally expunged from our congregations. Better to admit the reality, and work towards God's righteousness, than to sweep our ills under the rug, and suggest they are minimal.

I'm wondering if part of the difficulty for LDS is the underlying sense that since the early pioneers were also persecuted and rejected, members of the church do not deserve the same criticism as the greater society?

[Xzain]

Moksha, that picture of Pres. Hinckley is awesome- don't feel bad because of its size. It gets the point across.

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

I'm wondering if part of the difficulty for LDS is the underlying sense that since the early pioneers were also persecuted and rejected, members of the church do not deserve the same criticism as the greater society?

...? I'm not quite sure what you're saying- are you suggesting the LDS Church is trying to hide a racist past or agenda?

[prisonchaplain]

Originally Posted by Xzain

...? I'm not quite sure what you're saying- are you suggesting the LDS Church is trying to hide a racist past or agenda?

Not at all. Rather, I sense a desire on the part of many LDS members (and, of course, from whites in general--including myself) to dismiss racial problems within the church membership by minimizing them, arguing that members are imperfect, but rapidly improving. In other words, "Let's just move on and not think about it."

I'm further asking if perhaps part of what makes LDS members feel they do not need to grapple as much with the history of racial problems is that the church also has a history of being persecuted, rejected, etc. Perhaps there is a feeling, "You were treated badly, we were treated badly, so do not hold us responsible for how others treated you."

And please...I'm raising a question, not leveling an accusation.

[Xzain]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

Not at all. Rather, I sense a desire on the part of many LDS members (and, of course, from whites in general--including myself) to dismiss racial problems within the church membership by minimizing them, arguing that members are imperfect, but rapidly improving. In other words, "Let's just move on and not think about it."

I'm further asking if perhaps part of what makes LDS members feel they do not need to grapple as much with the history of racial problems is that the church also has a history of being persecuted, rejected, etc. Perhaps there is a feeling, "You were treated badly, we were treated badly, so do not hold us responsible for how others treated you."

Maybe- among the membership in general. I think the unique problem the LDS community faces is to show the ban on the priesthood was not racism but practice derived from direct revelation- to 'admit' that all the church leaders before 1978 were in fault would be erroneous and would completely destroy the credibility of our claims.

I agree- I have heard saddening stories- that racism does in fact exist among the members of the Church. However, there's a huge difference between official doctrine and lay culture. I think we're so sensitive about it because it's one of the few areas, like polygamy, where the Lord's way of 'doing things' was so vastly different than man's it can become a stumbling block to weak testimonies.

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

And please...I'm raising a question, not leveling an accusation.

No worries; it would be out of character for you to make such a claim. That's why I was confused.

[lds9999]

I posted this on another thread, but thought you might find this video interesting that the Church just posted on Youtube for the 30th anniversary:

YouTube - Priesthood for Mormon Men of Every Race

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by Xzain

I think the unique problem the LDS community faces is to show the ban on the priesthood was not racism but practice derived from direct revelation- to 'admit' that all the church leaders before 1978 were in fault would be erroneous and would completely destroy the credibility of our claims.

The claim of black men not being acceptable for the Priesthood was not credible to begin with. President Hinckley's insistence that racism is wrong and has no place in the Church, cut through that pretense that the ban was ever justified. The important thing is that the wrong has been righted and that a 30 year anniversary of this correction is to be acknowledged and celebrated.