When one take to heart Christ’s teachings concerning the need for His church and all things to be built upon a solid foundation. His wisdom in teaching us that when something is built on a faulty foundation, it will be shaky in all its ways and of no real value to Him, I can’t help but question all aspects of any religion that was built on such a faulty foundation of wrong and error in so many of its ways.

Due that such racist practices were taught by the Mormon church to its body without any shame and in obvious conflict with the Holy Scriptures, Christ teachings, I wonder how is it possible that such racist beliefs are not still ingrained in the brains of many Mormons, including its Black members feeling inferior due to the church’s past teachings that they are inferior etc…and not much being done even until this present day to acknowledge the grave error of the church’s ungodly and un-Christian teachings conerning people of African descent.

How does one reconcile the fact that one’s church was built upon such a foundation in conflict with the very foundation of Christ teachings?

Also this statement in the story highlighted is of great concern, stating:

On Sunday, the church will celebrate the 30th anniversary of what Mormons believe was a revelation from God that allowed blacks to become fully participating members. It will be the first time the church leadership sponsors a commemoration of the revelation in Salt Lake City’s Mormon Tabernacle..

———————————–

The church is still very much in error and appears unwilling to accept responsibilty for its error as proof by the statement:

“…Mormons believe was a revelation from God that allowed blacks to become fully participating members”.

This was God’s revelation Mormons think, that God 30 years ago told you that it was now okay to allow blacks to become fully participating members, but that God did not give the Mormon church the revelation that they were practicing grave sin and was in error of His will and Christ’s teachings? Very difficult to take the church serious that it has truly repented from their sins of racism.

While racism is obviously not of God, what the poster D. Walker seems to be missing is that if you condemn the Mormons for being racist, then you must even more so condemn the Baptists, the Methodists, and many other American denominations. It wasn’t the Mormons singing hymns and giving sermons at the lynchings in the south. Clearly there have been racist Mormons and inappropriate things have been stated over the pulpit. Clearly, more could have been done. But, to condemn only the Mormons is to have a myopic world view.

Most black Americans still worship in mostly black churches. While other churches continue to struggle with how to integrate the races, the revelation on the priesthood caused the Mormons to give their full support to the cause. I am grateful that God still corrects man through revelation. I am grateful that some men still listen.

The church led by the Apostle Peter was built on the foundation of Christ and His resurrection. Even so, Peter and other Christians needed time to overcome prejudice against Gentiles. Peter needed a vision to show him that Gentiles were not unclean. He then took the gospel to them.

The Mormon faith is built on the foundation of Jesus revealing Himself in modern and ancient America. A key teaching is that all people are God’s children. Blacks were part of the church from its beginnings in the 1830s. Some held the priesthood and Mormons were generally opposed to slavery. Please look at the History time line at http://www.blacklds.org to compare the Mormon dealings with race issues compared to other churches and the nation.

I wish changes had happened faster in various churches and in the nation. I am glad to see subtantial improvement in the Mormon community over the last thirty years.

Scott,

I condemm all racism within all churches. God’s church is no place for racism, nor the acceptance of sin period, it’s an abomination to God.

I am very aware of the racism in American churches. In fact, no one has done more research on the subject than Fredrick K.C. Price, PhD. in his series “Race, Religion and Racism.” I suggest that every American read, or watch on DVD the series.

The difference between these other churches that you mention and the Mormon church is that these other religions did not teach racism as part of the churches Christian foundation, but where racism showed its ugly face within the church due to the racism that resided within the hearts of the church’s members.

Mr. Gordon, the thing you fail to realize is that the racist in both the north and south did not do what they did because of their religious teaching, but because of societal mores which were in fact against their religious teachings as christians. As one blogger stated earlier, all are equal in the eyes of God.

Chris Kite,

Notice that the old Saul who had those prejudices was not the one who took the message to the Gentiles, but not after the old Saul became the new, as Peter. Jesus gave Saul the vision and after Saul received the vision he became Peter taking the message of Jesus to the gentiles.

Real visions from Jesus we know from scripture do not conflict with His teachings as revealed in the Holy Scriptures. That is why it can be stated without any doubt that the Mormon church has been built on a very faulty foundation since the vision shown conflicted with the very basics of Jesus teachings.

For this reason it truly cannot be claimed that it was Jesus who revealed himself to your founder, Joseph Smith in America because we know through scripture that the Lord is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, never changing, and this Jesus that supposedly revealed himself to Joseph Smith gave him a different gospel than the one we find in the Holy Scriptures.

I do not condemn the people of the Mormon church. But, I must as a Christian defend the teachings of Christ and speak up when I see error.

D. Walker - Saul became Paul, not Peter. Paul believed in taking the the gospel to the Gentiles before Peter. He did not rebel against Peter and start his own church. He respected Peter’s authority. eventually Peter caught the vision.

Many Mormons and Mormon leaders hoped and prayed for the priesthood ban to be lifted many years before it was. There were also early leaders who never wanted it put in place. It was difficult to accept because it goes against the key beliefs of Mormons that we are all children of God and the gospel should go to all His children.

As for other churches, I do not think the Bible motivated people to own slaves and be racist. People were motivated by greed and fear. Since the Bible was the standard for morality, people became selective and creative in using the Bible to defend slavery and racism.

Got my names and story mixed up when you mentioned Peter’s vision, my mind for some reason went to Pauls vision on the road to Demascus.

Peter was still living under the Law in this area of his life, the practice of being ritually clean and the Jewish practice of being ritually clean that you are calling racism were not considered sin in God’s eyes or racism, but was required by God under Jewish Law. The practice was not required to be practiced under the New Law and Gentiles did not practice it.

God dealt with Peter concerning the fact that it was no longer a requirment to practice of being ritually clean, a practice which was still ingrained deep into Peter’s psyche. God dealt with this stumbling block of Peter’s through a vision, where Peter finally got it deep within his heart that Gentiles were nolonger considered unclean because of not practicing this Jewish ritual.

This is totally different from the Mormon church teachings of racism concerning African Americans within the Mormon church to its members. The Mormon church was built upon these types of errors that are in total conflict with the teachings of Jesus.

Scott:

So, prior to the revalation from God, were blacks actually cursed? Did the church realize that it was wrong, or did it just say that God changed his mind?

You make a valid point about racism in the Baptist and other protestant churches. I condemn the people of those churches for that. It was never part of their official teachings, and they are on the whole repentant for those actions.

But the difference is that it seems that the Mormons seem to believe that the racist teachings were okay for their time, then God decided that they should change, so as a church, they believe they were always doing the right thing.

To Mike & D. Walker,

Please see the video clip from the link above for “Nobody Knows the Story of Black Mormons”. Rev Chip Murray of the First AME Church of LA has three parts in this clip. His last segment tells of Mormon President Hinckley apologizing to him for the Mormon role of racism in our country.

See the History section of http://www.blacklds.org for the 1978 statement where Apostle Bruce R. McConkie says he and other leaders were wrong in their past views on the priesthood ban. Other apologies and corrections have been given. God works with imperfect people.

The History timeline also shows the positive statements and actions by Mormon leaders - Joseph Smith said Blacks could do as much or more than Whites if given the chance and confirmed they were children of God. He ran for president on an anti-slavery platform in 1844 and that was one of the reasons the mob killed him. Scholars say Brigham Young’s racial views were comparable to Abraham Lincoln. Both made statements that were racist, yet accepted for the time. Even so Brigham helped Blacks in Utah gain their freedom before the Civil War.

I referred to the Apostle Peter as having a prejudice against the Gentiles. That’s true. As D Walker notes, a separation based on ritual cleanliness was engrained in Peter. Many other great leaders had their cultural biases. That is true of some Mormon leaders. Even Jesus has seemingly harsh words for Gentiles when he referred to them as dogs in one of His sayings. You have to look at the context of the time and try to understand their perspective.

I believe that the Mormon priesthood ban would have never happened if our nation had accepted God’s inspiration sooner to get rid of slavery. It could have been lifted sooner even so. Mormons adopted the racial attitudes toward priesthood that other Christians had adopted to rationalize slavery, discrimination, and segregation. Mormons have been making more progress than most churches toward integration and brotherhood. It’s amazing grace that God lets us learn from our mistakes.

God’s truth concerning race is as follows according to scripture:

For Christ Himself has brought us peace by making Jews and Gentiles one people. With his own body he broke down the wall that separated them and kept them enemies. He abolished the Jewish Law with its commandments and rules, in order to create out of the two races one new people in union with himself, in this way making peace. By His death on the cross Christ destroyed enmity, by means of the cross he united both races into one body and brought us back to God. So Christ came and preached the Good News of peace to all, to Gentiles, who were far away from God, and to the Jews, who were near to Him. It is through Christ that all of us, Jews and Gentiles, are able to come in the one Spirit into the presence of the Father. So then, Gentiles are not foreigners or strangers any longer; but are now citizens together with God’s people and members of the family of God. [Ephesians 2:14-18]

Peter was justified in his behavior because it was what God required of him all Jews before Christ begin his teachings. It was God’s truth that Gentiles were unclean and Jews were commanded by God to have this same attitude about Gentiles, and of course everyone understands that everyone non-Jew was considered Gentile.

Lastly, calling one a dog was a general insult referring Gentiles because Gentiles were not God’s people or children at that time, it was a general insult referring to sinners, fools and wicked people who where far away from God. No comparison to the practice in the Mormon church.

And Chris, you state that we have to look at the content of the time. I have, it was at a time when Christians had the word of God, that being said, all Christians who had access to God’s word were without excuse concerning their practice of racism.

It is a good thing however that Mormons is addressing and facing this evil that was part of their church’s indoctrination. God’s grace is sufficient to cover this grave sin as with all sin with true repentenace and worship of Him in spirit and truth.

To D Walker

Thanks for your comments. I agree with most of what you are saying. Paul’s words to the Ephesians are inspired. However, in his zeal to embrace the Gentiles, some scholars feel he became overly critical of the Jews. Or at least, Christians later misused his words to justify prejudice and persecution against the Jews. Martin Luther was an inspired reformer and yet he was guilty of anti-Semitism.

As for Peter’s view that Gentiles were unclean, I would say it was forgiveable rather than justified. Jesus had told Peter to take the gospel to all the world and he needed to change his view. Gentiles included dispersed remnants of Israel who did not view themselves as Gentiles - Samaritans thought they had the true temple and covenant. Jesus taught Peter that they were his neighbors to love.

The Bible essentially says all are cursed due to sin. The priesthood was for service and not for personal gain. It was typically passed from father to son and was often limited along tribal lines such as the Levites. Levites were chosen to serve and not given a land of inheritance. Thousands of years ago, descendants of Ham may have been temporarily cursed due to the sins of the fathers, but this never justified slavery and mistreatment of Blacks. It became a man-made curse.

The USA officially got rid of slavery after the Civil War, but in reality it persisted in other forms - forced labor, unjustified imprisonment, Jim Crow. Churches are officially not segregated, but most are not effectively integrated.

I believe God never wanted the priesthood ban. He may have allowed it as a test and waited eagerly until we were ready to accept it being lifted. Look at what has happened as a result of the 1978 change:

From: http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/race-relations

(In 1978 following the priesthood revelation) Newsweek’s Woodward went on to predict that the next steps were likely to be the creation of black congregations under the direction of black elders.

Woodward’s prediction is telling. Even in 1978, a decade after the civil rights movement changed the face of America, worshipers in many churches across the land remained, in effect, segregated. Most blacks still worshipped with blacks, and most whites with whites. Few ordained black ministers preached to white congregations and discrimination in other forms still existed years later.

In fact, nothing like that happened in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There was never any policy of segregated congregations. Where Mormons of various racial or ethnic backgrounds have lived as neighbors, they have always worshiped together throughout Church history. Blacks had long before 1978 been baptized as members, preached from the pulpit and offered prayers in largely white congregations — none of which required the member to hold priesthood office.

After announcing the change in June 1978, the Church immediately began ordaining active black male members to priesthood office wherever they attended throughout the world. The first temple in Africa was built in South Africa in 1981 and two more — in Ghana and Nigeria — were dedicated more recently.

The increase in ethnic diversity and international Church growth has been widely commented upon over the years since then. The Washington Post referred in a November 2007 headline to “the new face of global Mormonism.” The New York Times noted in a 2005 article that a new Church building in the city was “one of the most racially integrated congregations in Harlem, with about equal numbers of white and black worshippers.” …

Chris,

You state:

“Thousands of years ago, descendants of Ham may have been temporarily cursed due to the sins of the fathers, but this never justified slavery and mistreatment of Blacks. It became a man-made curse”.

The belief that the skin color of black people is a result of a curse on Ham and his descendants is taught nowhere in the Bible. Furthermore, it was not Ham who was cursed; it was his son, Canaan.

This false teachings within White churches have been used to foster racism againt Blacks within the body of Christ. It is completely made up with no truth what-so-ever.

Frederick Price made a point in his series, “Race, Religion and Racism”. that should be contemplated for anyone of the mind-set that Blacks were cursed with Black skin…

If God cursed Ham and the curse was blackness so that all of his children came out black, then what shade of black would they be? Black people come in every shade-but if God cursed Ham, it would mean that every cursed black person would have to be the same shade… If Ham were cursed, the color could never change, because it would not be determined by genetics, it would be determined by the curse. The only way that a child could come out a different shade than a parent who carries the curse would be if the curse changed.

I believe the whole curse idea came from the Protestant roots of Mormonism. It isn’t that Mormonism is a Protestant religion, but most of our believers came out of those churches. I lived through the sixties and seventies and recognize that many Mormons believed it, even some in positions of leadership. I typically ran into the belief when I talked with members from Utah or Idaho where the question came up infrequently because of the lack of diversity. But, I was always taught that it wasn’t true. It was OK for me to believe it wasn’t true as an active practicing Mormon (who held positions of leadership) because it was not put forward as a core church doctrine. It was discussed as speculation, as a possibility, as a belief of some, but not as official Church doctrine. There are two verses in our scripture that have been used as a support for the idea of cursing and skin color. I have always been taught that they were not being taken in proper context. So, this idea of cursing and skin is not central to our beliefs. As we read Journals, minutes and other historical data, we find a great diversity of opinion at all levels within the LDS church including in the highest councils.

D. Walker,

Wow! You misread what I wrote and added things I did not say. My intent was to emphasize that slavery and the mistreatment of Blacks was never justified by any ancient curse on the descendants of Ham.

I did not say skin color was a result of a curse. People improperly associated Black skin with the curse and mark of Cain and then extended it to descendants of Ham (at least from his wife). I do not know what the mark of Cain was, but I do read in the Bible that it was a protection and not a curse. A greater curse was to those who would harm his descendants.

Mormons actually have additional scriptures that refer to blessings given to the descendants of Ham. They say that the pharaohs came as wise leaders from this line and they received blessings of the earth and of wisdom leading to one of the greatest civilizations on earth.

See the link in the article for Blacks in the Bible. This DVD shows that descendants of Ham are throughout the Bible and are tied to many righteous and noteworthy people and even to our Lord Jesus.

Now science confirms that we are all connected. We all have roots in Africa and are just different shades of brown. I appreciate your comments. I just think you were reacting to what you thought I was implying and not to what I wrote.

I’m sorry Chris,

You are correct, whenever I hear anything mentioned concerning Ham or his descendants being cursed I guess I automatically think about the error of the teaching that Ham and his descendants were cursed with Black skin because Ham was not at all ever cursed and usually the mention of Ham and curses, refer to that teaching error.

D Walker,

Thanks for your gracious comments on this post and the other as well.

First, let me confess (no pun intended), I have been away from this site for far too long. Secondly, Tim tugged earlier this evening, and it worked. So, I now thank him. Tim, thank you. With all that is on my table to complete, I couldn’t help sharing a few observations from the many, many years spent throughout parts of W. Africa, primarily, and a very important time spent in South Africa. It always inspires and amazes me the furor in which continential Africans embrace religion from all places and from all sorts of theologies. Given that we academics still struggle with the legacy of colonialism, our role as anthropologists and the role of missionaries, Africans are generally so much more ready to embrace those of faith. It is not uncommon to attend mega-churches very similar to many here in the USA, and to commit an entire day to worhship and a number of days during the week. So, in short, as faiths go to Africa, they sometimes find a more welcoming reception than at home, wherever that might be. So, we of little faith can also learn something from our African sisters and brothers…..