Last week my Mom came home from the gym and there was a gentleman sitting on her front stairs. It was a delivery person for Schwan's.
Mom is really polite and kind, and took a brochure. They struck up a conversation about her looking for a job in this insane economy, and somehow the topic turned to religion and church.
Now is a good time to point out that this man was African-American. After Mom told him that she had resigned from the Mormon church, he started to share his testimony of the Mormon gospel. It was a very strange encounter for her to say the least.
She was interested in one thing, though. How he dealt with the racism in the church's past (and sometimes present when you talk to certain members of the church). She asked him if she could ask him a personal question, and when he said "yes," she asked "How do you reconcile some of the things the church has said and promoted in the past?"
He said, "My bishop told me to ignore everything I had every heard about blacks and the church."
Holy. Shit.
Oh sure, like that is something you should just drop from your radar screen. Hello??? What the HELL???
This, to me, is evidence of mind control. This man's leader told him what should be a problem and what shouldn't. He obviously thought it was a problem at one time if he was speaking to his bishop about it. Why should he ignore and forget the comments that he would only be allowed into the Celestial kingdom if he went as a slave or servant to a white man? Why should he forget that Brigham Young told people that mixing your seed with a black person was punishable by death (supposedly the only way to save your soul for committing such a deed).
"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." (Journal of Discourses 10:110) -Brigham Young
"And 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;..." Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22, page 304 -John Taylor
"And if any man mingle his seed with the seed of Cain the only way he could get rid of it or have Salvation would be to come forward and have his head cut off and spill his blood upon the ground- it would also take the life of his children." (Wilford Woodruff Journal)
I often wonder how many people really understand how bad the racism was. I don't think they do. I think they know it existed, but they have never read the quotes. They have never studied the history of the church they claim to "know" is true. To know something is true, you should look at the whole picture, not just what the church wants to share with you.
In my opinion, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would have never changed their stance on African-Americans (and other dark-skinned people) holding the priesthood or going to the temple if they were not forced to do so by public opinion. The only reason they changed their minds is because people saw them for what they were... bigots.
Yet another way to show that non-Mormons and ex-Mormons know more about church history than most of it's members do. We are seen as people who are either misled or wrong, we are told that *we* don't understand. Sorry... we actually know the whole story and see the big picture. We are the ones who looked at Mormonism objectively.
Frustrating to say the least!
Andee
March 1, 2009 at 3:48 AM
I can't say I agree with what the Bishop said. I think that all black people and people of colour should understand the issue of race in the church. Its clear to me that the issue was a policy decision made by man's intellect. There was never a revelation given nor any doctrine which is actually contained in the books of the church (church doctrine that is)to repeal the policy. To me, it was always a policy decision based on what essentially was the collective conscious of the time.
Andee your rant on public opinion is simply not correct. McKay and Hugh B Brown were both trying unsuccessfully to have the policy overturned in the 50's and 60's but were never able to. The fact remains that when these more liberal brethren were able to convince the full quorum, then the policy was changed. They were the instigators of this, and they developed the beliefs during your country's liberalisation of race issues well before the freedom and rights issue reached its crescendo.
March 1, 2009 at 7:41 AM
They should have never said what they said in the first place Nicko.
Nothing makes what they did/said okay. Nothing.
On top of that, they said these things while claiming to be prophet, apostles and men of God.
I think you are in denial of the facts. Most Mormons are.
March 1, 2009 at 7:43 AM
Oh, and briefly...
I would have loved to seen the look on Brigham Young's face if someone told him what he was saying wasn't doctrine.
We ALL KNOW God would never in a million years tell man these things. These men are so far removed from God that there is no chance in Hell they are prophets or apostles.
That much is clear to me.
March 1, 2009 at 7:56 AM
Oooh, and one more thing...
The leaders of the church are now fighting like mad to make sure people in the gay community are not getting the same rights as the rest of us.
Is that of God?
Please.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a huge history of not seeing people as equal, and it always continues until society FORCES change from them. They never do it on their own.
They didn't change the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood/attending the temple until the boycotts and pointing fingers made them. Do men of God act in that manner?
Nope. They don't.
March 1, 2009 at 6:20 PM
Andee,
Come on, holy men have said ridiculous things throughout history. The Dalai Lama has said some pretty hefty things on homosexuality and yet we don't seem to think much about him being anti-liberal.
I would have argued tooth and nail with Brigham Young about the issue, but its as true as my love for my wife is that he was still a man living in a time when civil rights were unheard of. It doesn't surprise me one bit to hear him try and justify it spiritually.
I think the problem that we've constructed in the church is this belief (and I'm repeating myself again here I know) that the prophets and apostles were somehow always connected to visually to angels and principalities and powers. That is simply untrue. Whilst there has been revelations, quite stark ones, I can see much evidence to suggest that the men were guided by their own principles and beliefs which they thought to be true when they said certain things. But none of this is doctrine of the church Andee a fact you seem quite willing to dance over. The only things which are doctrines of the church are the scriptures and Jesus the Christ and the Proclaimation of the Family and The declaration on Christ given not long ago. The Journal of Discourses, Mormon Doctrine..these things are not doctrines of the church. And it was quite clear that the two brethren I mentioned above were Liberalist well before the public critique came and tried to change things well before it eventually did. I'm not sure how you justify that.
As for the Gay issue, its clear in our doctrines that we simply don't believe that marriage is anything but between a man and a wife. I'm not sure what else to tell you about that. I personally think you are using that to further solidify your outrage at the church when its quite clear that the Catholics have also sided strongly and given their financial and collective support with us on this issue. I don't understand why one side would get so upset at the other just because they are standing up for what they believe in. In the end, it would be daft of us to think that the gay rights movement wouldn't attempt to say something to stand up for their rights. I fail to see how they would think that traditionalist institutions wouldn't stand up and say something back.
Personally I think its going to happen anyway (gay marriage that is) but it doesn't mean that those who feel strongly about an issue should be silenced by your side of the argument. That's not democracy, that's Liberalist dictatorship. If you want to argue with those who stand up for traditionalist marriage, do so, but don't yell stay out of the way if you believe wholeheartedly in democratic systems and freedom of speech.
At the end of the day, I PERSONALLY believe both sides are in the wrong. Both sides have made ridiculous claims in the media and BOTH sides are being far too emotive and not discussing things in a logical and reasonable manner. It makes me ill when I hear Conservatives trying to use statistics and research when its really just a moral issue. And it makes me doubly ill to hear the ridiculous advertisement campaigns which they ran. BUT it also makes me ill to hear the other side criticise the Right for interfering when your whole constitution is based on a belief in God and freedom of speech.
Both are wrong in the way they've gone about it.....that's my opinion...
March 2, 2009 at 8:42 AM
There is no excuse for a "prophet of God" to claim that the only way for a black person to reach the celestial kingdom (a place I wouldn't want to be, thanks) is to be a servant to a white man.
There is no excuse.
What makes it worse is that the church isn't honest about the past, and chooses to ignore it completely.
It was definitely doctrine, Nicko. There is no question. How many speeches did prophets and apostles give on this matter?
They don't get a free pass. No way. A prophet of God wouldn't say it. God wouldn't have any part of it.
I will never in a million years understand how you don't get that.
March 5, 2009 at 12:39 AM
I wonder if that tactic would work with infidelity...
"So my husband told me to ignore the panties that I found in his glovebox, and, ya know...my life has been blessed for it."
LOL.
Look at the RIDICULOUS exceptions that people make for their precious, precious faith-systems. Exceptions that would not fly in ANY other realm of life. Crazy.
Anyway, I'm a fan of what I've read so far, Andee, and just wanted to say thanks for linking to MY blog and recommending to others that they read it. You may have single handled caused the 300-fold spike in my readership, although the spike lasted, oh, about 2 days.
I go to Logan a lot. WHERE CAN I GET THESE CUPCAKES?!?!?!?!?!
March 5, 2009 at 12:40 AM
I wonder if that tactic would work with infidelity...
"So my husband told me to ignore the panties that I found in his glovebox, and, ya know...my life has been blessed for it."
LOL.
Look at the RIDICULOUS exceptions that people make for their precious, precious faith-systems. Exceptions that would not fly in ANY other realm of life. Crazy.
Anyway, I'm a fan of what I've read so far, Andee, and just wanted to say thanks for linking to MY blog and recommending to others that they read it. You may have single handled caused the 300-fold spike in my readership, although the spike lasted, oh, about 2 days.
I go to Logan a lot. WHERE CAN I GET THESE CUPCAKES?!?!?!?!?!
March 5, 2009 at 12:48 AM
Oh, BTW, I just noticed that "Nicko" pulled the "it's not doctrine" card. Besides being absolute bullshit (sorry if this is a family-friendly blog...feel free to edit for content), this is the reason that Mormons are able to cling to the pitiful tattered rags of the filthy security blanket that they call Mormonism: They won't be pinned down on a belief.
No matter WHAT you criticize about the church, no matter WHERE you find it, no matter WHO said it, someone will claim that it is not a valid criticism because it isn't doctrnal. These same people will freely endorse the ideas in conversation with other Mormons; they are mare than happy to propagate the belief that Cain is Bigfoot, Indians came from Jerusalem, that God hangs out in the Holiest of Holies, or that "when the prophet speaks, the debate is over," but as soon as a critic enters the room the tables turn. They treat us exmo's the same way missionaries treat "investigators" - that is, as though we can't be let in on the deep secrets, only given superficial gum-bumping about Joe Smith, the most upright man who ever lived.
This is why they come across as slimy greaseballs.
This is reason #569 why I quit and continue to abhor the LdS church.
Keep up the good fight Andee!
March 7, 2009 at 1:15 AM
March 9, 2009 at 8:34 PM
I deleted my last post because I responded at a time when I was being wayyyy to irrational and emotive.
I understand what you are saying mister, but I don't agree at all. You make assumptions about me which are simply not true nor ever have been. I've never believed in the stories which you've so easily subjected onto my personality (oh and thanks for the Greaseball comment....)
I believe in this church based on the BoM and experiences which I have received through personal prayer and revelation. I don't believe BY was revealing doctrine here nor do I believe that anything apart from the four standard works, Jesus the Christ and other 'accepted' works which are designated as doctrine by the 1st presidency to be doctrine.
And to be honest, as a person of colour, I could take immediate offense to what BY said. But I can take offense to alot of what people believed in that era. What is wrong? Of course. I think he was totally off the mark.
But it doesn't change my experience with the BoM, the Bible and other gospel works. In the end, even if you think the church is BS, which you obviously do, you can't deny that it helps people find meaning, develop hope and also deliver help to physically speaking to those out in the community.
In the end, I sometimes wonder like you all do if it really matters, but I think that a religion which teaches people to give and give some more (especially to the less fortunate) is not as horrible as you make it out to be, despite its history.