Anne,

One has little to do with the other, I realize and I do not for one minute celebrate slavery as the means to a better life for many black Americans, but it’s undeniable that their lives are better than most black Africans.

ooh, you’ve touched on a hot topic there. Are you really saying that blacks in America today have it better than they would have had it in Africa if Western countries did not go in and rape the African continent of its finest men and women?

Dan, get a grip. Slavery and rape are still going on in Africa, black on black. It was black men who kidnapped the other black men who were sold to white men for slavery. Africa itself has blood on its hands when it comes to America’s slave trade.

And yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Ask any black American today if they’d rather be living in Africa. I know it’s not PC to say it. It’s the truth. It’s awful, it shouldn’t have happened. But African-Americans (and many white Americans who are on the bully pulpit) need to ask themselves where they would be had slavery not occurred. Are they Americans and glad of it?

Then they need to add the caveat to the awful remembrances of the lives of their ancestors. I do not celebrate slavery. I support reparation–that forty acres and a mule? I’d support housing and educational advantages as part of reparations. I think we owe it and I would consent to my tax dollars being used that way instead of the Iraq war.

But we have to look at it more objectively in the terms I’ve described, African responsiblity (and African continued slave trade)and the undeniable advantages of living in America re Africa.

I agree with you, David. I realized after the speech and the subsequent criticism that probably few minds were changed (mine was, a bit)because minds are made up. Those looking for stuff to criticize will find it and vice versa.

Perhaps the undecideds, like me, learned something and that might be a good thing in the long run. As far as Mitt’s concerned. I still don’t know who I’m voting for.

Anne,

But African-Americans (and many white Americans who are on the bully pulpit) need to ask themselves where they would be had slavery not occurred. Are they Americans and glad of it?

Oh I understand fully well that blacks in America today have it better than blacks in Africa have it today. But that’s not how you phrased it. You tied it to the slavery. And if you do so, you have to take into consideration what Africa was like BEFORE slavery, and that the Western powers really did take the best Africans as slaves. What kind of continent do you think Africa would be today if slavery never happened? What kind of continent would Africa be today if Western powers did not brutally interfere as they have? Frankly speaking, that Africa would be a beautiful place today.

Black slavery– blacks selling other blacks, often to yet another group of blacks–has been going on for many many centuries, long before America was ever an idea in anyone’s mind.

The early Muslims were among the world’s most savvy slave traders.

The Americans did not invent slavery or the trade. They merely participated in what was already an entrenched system and had existed at least half a millennium prior to any American’s exploration or settlement.

The whole mythos surrounding the slavery issue and the issue of blacks in America has been incredibly distorted over the years to the point where any real discussion of the issue is practically impossible due to all the mis-information that is regarded as fact (such as Abraham Lincoln’s alleged fight to discontinue slavery).

There were more slave states in the Union than there were in the Confederacy at the start of the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln wrote in a letter to NY Times editor Horace Greely, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union;”

Anyway, I am straying a bit off topic, but the point is that yes, the descendants of former slaves have it much better here than they would have had they not been sold by their fellow kinsmen, to a rival black tribe, and then to whitey, and brought to America. Admitting reality takes some guts though, especially on an issue like this.

I see I have slipped to the seventh most posting person. I need to get on the ball.

Ben There,

I see I have slipped to the seventh most posting person. I need to get on the ball.

Hop to it, son.

Honestly, I have no idea how or why this is my 780th comment on here, and why I’ve commented more than the next two combined.

My fictitious response to Sherri:

“The apostles and presidents of the Church who advocated that position are all deceased. The current president of the Church and some of the other living apostles were present on the day in 1978 when the decision was made and have commented publicly on how the revelation was received. The current president of the Church has publicly condemned racism. I can’t claim to understand why the past was the way it was. I’m grateful for modern-day prophets and apostles to guide us.

It is sad to see the sufferings of those who suffered at the hands of bigotry – including my own ancestors, who were forced to leave their homes because of religious bigotry. I oppose bigotry in all its forms.”

queuno,

I don’t know if I can agree that Romney wouldn’t lose Mormon votes if he said his church was wrong. We’ve got some pretty tightly-wound members out there.

David – You’re (sadly) right, but would it be a material loss? He wouldn’t potentially lose Utah over it, I don’t think.

Queno, your response is better than mine. You better believe it’s going to come up again.

As far as “hey, we’re not as bad as the Baptists” well, that’s true, but it’s not my point. My point is, “why aren’t you questioning the racism in the religious communities of the other candidates, if that’s what you really care about?”

Damn, it makes me mad that every other candidate isn’t openly explaining every precept of their proclaimed religion. I don’t even know what religion most of them are. I’m not a Mitt fan, you all know that, but I am deeply perturbed by all this attacking Mormons.

Dan, I didn’t say, “Hey, what the hell, they’re better off anyway.” I despise what happened to those people, Dan. What I wonder, and frankly, it was more a question in my mind than an assertion, is “how can we make it right? You surely don’t want to go back to Africa. Think about what you’re saying here. Lives and families were destroyed by American slave trade, BUT the lives of their descendants might have been saved and made better.”

The dichotomy (hope that’s the right word) confuses me, too, I’m not sure what’s my point. How do we make sense of this?

And on this topic of racism, I am afraid to say it publicly. I’ve said it here, under a psuedonym. I said it once in Sunday School and I got my face ripped off and I haven’t been back since.

I write a column for our local paper and frankly, I think if I said that in print, I could be disfellowshipped. Or maybe just slapped around a little LOL.

So I think it is serious and I’m not sure if Mitt could survive the beating he’d take at the official high levels of our church if he openly admitted it was racism. I despise that attitude, yet, I’m as cowardly that way as the next guy.

In 1976 in Honolulu Hawaii a Filipino stake pres. along with his Tongan first counselor and his Portuguese/Moroccan second counselor would have denied a black man the priesthood because the church is “racist?”
The church being “racist” argument has never and will never make sense to me. To many people of various ethnic extractions were members of the church prior to 1978 to ever make me believe the church was a pig headed racist institution.
What m&m said above quoting Pres Holland is good advice for all of us. WE DONT KNOW THE WHYS and to speculate about them is fruitless.

Hmmm…..Craig, you make a good point. That has occurred to me and bothered me as well. However, bigotry doesn’t have be directed toward ALL minorities by a religion to be considered racism. Mormon refusal to ordain black men was racism.

Craig: “example a man from Libya could hold the priesthood but a man from Kenya could not. It was a ban on negro men to be exact…not a ban on men just because they were from the continent of Africa.”

This is just incorrect.

I personally knew an Egyptian, mediterranean race, who was banned (but served as sunday school president form ’69 to ’74), and the scripture explains it all in Abraham 1, where the ‘ban’ was for Egypt and all here children. It wasn’t a ban on ‘negro’ men only and remember that fijians who look negro where not banned since they couldn’t be traced to africa, similar to the australian aboriginal who could ‘look’ to be a close relatives of african pygmies.

I have to insert some history into the slavery better/worse debate. Far more raping/pillaging, whatever atrocity you would like to insert, happened through colonialism and missionary efforts in Africa.

Carlos,

“WE DONT KNOW THE WHYS” Rubbish! E.Holland was being political & careful only.

-Or is it that we really don’t know the motivations? Perhaps Elder Holland doesn’t even know prior GAs motivations. How about being honest and smart rather than spouting RUBBISH!

#23 Carlos and all the rest. Here is my story. http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/04/dna-mormons/

Sorry to thread jack Annegb.

Carlos (and anyone else) My question is about your Egyptian friend. Was the decision about the Priesthood a local one or was discrimination against North Africans a Church wide policy? How “negro”was negro?

As you can see I have a lot of Egyptian DNA (#2 on the list). My mother’s dna test has Egyptian dna as her #1. This Egyptian is a recent ancestor. My mother also has a lot of Berber dna (North African).

My DH Mike has significant amounts of South African, West African and East African dna. I have also figured out which lines these individuals came from. All of my DH Mike’s ancestors and my ancestors joined the church from 1831-1870ish. All of our male ancestors in the church had the Priesthood and were Temple worthy.

I think if the NAACP had not sought to ban missionaries in 1965 the ban would have fallen earlier. Basically the church would be in Black Africa and they had already discussed this issue.

In 1954, 1963, and 1965 the Church leadership talked about modifying and ending the ban. Each time there seems to have been a reason to pull back. Maybe it was revealed that the church was not ready but if so why was President McKay so often axious to see the ban end and doing all he could to molify its effects.

Although Carlos is abrupt, he is onto what is my understanding. The Lord uses timing in bestowing certain blessings. “The first shall be last and the last shall be first’, is just the beginnin of endless instances of the Lord’s timing in the scriptures. He blesses his children when they will benefit the most from the blessing and when it will bring about the most righteousness among His people.

It is very likely that our churches would be segregated just like the baptists, catholics and others with black and white congregations had the priesthood been conferred on blacks in the 19th century. The culture was fertile for integration in the 1970′s. I live in an integrated ward where I have served side by side with my “black” sisters.

The Lord works in mysterious ways for the greatest benefit for his children. Mistakes? No. Wisdom and Mercy Yes.

I may have confused Craig and Carlos, sorry guys.

Marcia, very good point.

Russian nickname guy (all words I can spell) What is a red herring, exactly? Is it just an excuse to attack him? Of course, I know that. But does it mean another meaning?

I still hear “the mark of Cain” and “fencesitters” too. Haven’t heard it in some time, actually, because I skip Sunday School.

I’m not sure I’d go so far as to call “the church” to repentance, although I agree with you on openness.

Somebody on the bloggernacle said “Catholics are taught that the pope is infallible, but they secretly don’t believe it. Mormons are taught that the prophet is fallible, but they secretly don’t believe it.”

Prophets can make mistakes. They can even make mistakes that impact the church. I believe that ultimately we are not led astray, but how can we say out of one side of our mouth, “the prophet is human” and out of the other side “no prophet has ever been wrong?”

This was a mistake. It wasn’t the kind of racism that tortured a young man like Emmet Till to his death for speaking to a white woman. It was the kind of racism that felt blacks weren’t quite as good as whites. The whole damn country had that kind of racism—exceptiing those who went to the lynch black men mode—for years!

What religion was George Wallace, who chose to defy a president rather than allow black students in school in I think it was Alabama?

My point at the beginning was that other candidates are not being called to task on religious issues and Romney is being targeted unfairly.

I know I made the side point (again jacking my own thread) wondering where the descendants of slaves would be today (think Darfur or Uganda, for heaven’s sake) had not their ancestors survived the slave ships. I still have no answer or explanation or conclusion on that one.

But JA makes a good point. If Mormons had allowed black men the priesthood, there would probably have been “black Mormon” churches just like there are (still today?) black Baptist churches.

I guess that’s a heck of a lot of “what ifs.” That’s what those who condemn us need to look at. Early Mormon leaders were not the original racists in the US.

Annegb–

Why don’t you e-mail Sherry? I used to be in a predominantly black ward and I taught youth Sunday School. These kids dealt everyday with their peers telling them they were crazy to belong to a racist church. I think that the perception of our chruch as racist is rampant amoung African-Americans even if unexamined by most on in individual basis. Much the same way an American Christian or Jew feels comfortable assuming the Muslim religion is violent, or that Bhuddists are peaceful–it is the feeling we have about them, but we can’t point to any particular teaching for proof, and we don’t necessarily have a believing and peaceful Muslim or believing and stressed-out aggrissive Bhuddist in our circle of friends to use as a counter-point.

Re: Africans here and there:
I reccomend this book by an African-American journalist who worked in Africa for many years. It is an interesting read (covers Apartheid, Somalia, Rwanda, etc.) and the author eventually articulates that he personally is an American and avoided the chaos of being an African in Africa in the 1980-1990s “through the grace of God.” Good reading.
http://www.amazon.com/Out-America-Black-Confronts-Africa/dp/0156005832/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197993309&sr=1-1

Africa is currently a very messed up continent (Congo, anyone?) and many, including or especially, Africans blame white entanglement, especially colonialism (not slavery). There is a lot to find fault with. Both slavery and colonialism are pretty ugly and degrading towards the oppressed side and, of course, have psychological ramifications for many generations after. We, the global community and Americans too, are still suffering from our great blunder and mistreatment of our African siblings.

They talk about viewer e-mail all the time, so I assumed they would have addresses on their homepage. The best I could find was ASK THE VIEW page here:

http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/ask

Which I would say is worth a try.

Thanks, I just sent them a link to the post and a small explanation.

Now, small to me and small to the rest of you are probably two different things.

Troy (42),

You have every right to ask him that question. But you also have to realize that most members of the church don’t fully understand just how racist the views of many early Church leaders were.
If you don’t understand his reluctance to condemn something he does not feel he really understands in the first place, then maybe he’s not someone you want to vote for, but if you don’t really try to understand where he is coming from, that’s your loss.
I personally feel like the policy on the priesthood was a tragic mistake based in racism, and perpetuated by Church leaders’ and members’ isolation from the rest of the world. I say that after reading and studying a lot about this issue, probably a lot more than Mitt Romney has done. But I always have to acknowledge that I don’t have the full picture.

Amen, Dan.

Troy, IF you asked Mitt that question (and I don’t care if you do, it’s fine with me) and he answered, “it’s unclear exactly how the policy developed and it’s a policy I personally struggled with for many years. I repudiate (thanks, JA) the many explanations based on the inferiority of the black man and I rejoice that we no longer discriminate in the manner that we did from (When, anybody???)until June of 1978,” would that be good enough for you? Not necessarily to embrace his candidacy but to accept that as a valid answer?

I think the next obvious question would be “why, if you so loathed that policy, did you remain a Mormon?”

Which is a damn good question and one I would have a hard time answering myself, let alone if I were running for president. Any ideas, you guys?

And Troy, I repeat my question: Why isn’t Mike Huckabee being asked about the racism in the Baptist Church, the murders, the lynching, and the Ku Klux Klan?

Do you know what religion the other candidates are and that religious community’s specific track record regarding racism?

Because if you compare Mormonism’s official discrimination with many Baptist sects unofficial and despicably violent racism, you have to give us some credit.

Not as much as the Quakers or others who actively fought slavery, but still, damn, we weren’t Satan.

Who, indeed, is our brother. Our bad evil brother, but still, yep, we’re all related.

Did anybody hear (remember the old lady here repeats her joke and I can’t remember where I tell them) Stephen Colbert’s joke: “If you think about it, we’re all like, 50th cousins, at least, so every day is just one great big family reunion.”

I briefly lost my sanity and considering offering to have his children. That’s how much I love a good joke.

JA, boy, that raises all kinds of hornets nests in my mind.

I’m bothered by the idea of collective guilt. I also lay it on peoples, like the Germans who didn’t stop the Holocaust or the Japanese who tortured our soldiers so badly–or even American soldiers committing atrocities in Vietnam. So obviously I’m a hypocrite.

But one thing has always bothered me, maybe I’ve brought this up before. The second article of faith says that about men being punished for “their own sins.” Then why did God punish the children of Cain?

And I didn’t kill those people at Mountain Meadow, nor did the descendants of the Haun’s Mill murderers kill any Mormons.

How far do we have to go before we can just get over it and get on with our lives peaceably?

You know, we got in an argument in Sunday School one day when somebody was talking about how God had changed the skin of the Lamanites because they were evil.

And I said, “It has to be more than just being evil because Hitler and his minions were mostly light skinned people.”

And the fight was on…..

What I know about Sherri:
She is immature. Not in that sense. In the sense of being naive. Shes had her spouse cheat on her. She’s had her employment terminated (suddenly Susan). Her Son lives in LA while she lives in New York.

To me she wants to know why. Like a child wanting to know about a situation that doesn’t pertain to their direct happiness.

Why does she want to know? When my children ask me why . I usually stop the conversation there. They want to engage me in an argument. If they know the reason why they can argue against that reason.

There are no amount of answers a person can hear that will satisfy them when all they want to do is argue.

She probably wants to know the reason why her husband cheated on her. Maybe there is not reason. Maybe he was the one to father her child and not the one to raise him with her. We don’t know these things.

But the reason why Romney won’t speak about what he believes isn’t the same reason our past leaders didn’t allow Black Men to hold the Priesthood. He is restricted to what he can and can’t say. It’s all political. Just like the fact that he calls Polygamy Disgusting when he comes from Polygamy. It’s all polytical I mean Political.

Jamie Trwth

I think the next obvious question would be “why, if you so loathed that policy, did you remain a Mormon?”

Which is a damn good question and one I would have a hard time answering myself, let alone if I were running for president. Any ideas, you guys?

My answer:

“I have a testimony of God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. I believe that Christ died for my sins and that through his grace I am saved. I have a testimony that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ. Even though I haven’t received the same visual witness, I believe that they are real. That testimony has come to me by the Holy Spirit through prayer, fasting, and study.

I am a member of this Church specifically because the same Spirit has born witness to me that Gordon B. Hinckley is a living prophet of God. I cannot explain the decisions of past prophets. There are many things I do not fully understand. But I have faith and I hope that through my faith, I will understand everything one day. I believe that the Lord speaks to all men and will let them know what they should do. I believe that the Lord has led me to this faith and I remain in it because I believe that is what the Lord wants me to, despite my not understanding why things happen.”

Anne sometimes I am just cranky. The Church leaders gave such a wonderful apology for MMM. The argument could be made that the apology was not necessary (As a descendent of one of the perpetrators, I am glad that they did). There was not a President of the Church or an Apostle that committed those acts, but they did cover it up for a long while. The case can also be made that comments that were made by Brigham Young and others fueled the fire that was MMM.

The difference is that the whole Blacks and the Priesthood Ban was church policy not the rogue actions of a few. GA, Apostles and a couple Prophets made some horrible comments. As a church/people we are responsible for that policy. IMHO the Church needs to make a plain speaking public statement refuting the comments of the past.

Case in point; we have dear old friends who are pioneers in the church. They are a black family who are sealed in the Temple. Both the mother and father served missions just after 1978. They both have held leadership positions in both the ward and the Stake. Recently their new home teacher brought “Mormon Doctrine” over to their home to read selected passages to them. He felt that they should know. They stopped him before he could read all that he had prepared. He then got up at Fast and Testimony meeting to complain about our friends. Thankfully this doofus was a moron to strong members of the church and not to new converts. Our friends will not leave the church over this incident, but they were plenty mad because their kids witnessed it all, but hey managed to forgive their brother. Their family is a Christian example to us all in long suffering, patience and forgiveness.

I have seen subtle racism directed at my AA brothers and sisters. I haven’t been to SS in ten years so I have no idea what is being said there. I do know that my kids here it from other kids. I gather that this nonsense is still taught in the home. The nice comments made by Gordon B Hinckley just don’t seem to sink in a few hard heads. I agree the Priesthood ban contradicts the basic teachings of the Gospel and the scriptures in the Book of Mormon.

I agree with you that Mitt Romney should not have to keep putting up with questions about the church. I want to see him answer the tough questions about national issues. I am bothered that we have (as a people) opted to be responsible for a false doctrine that was the brian child the Southern Baptist Convention. THey don’t own it anymore; neither should we.

Incidentally I would love to be a spectator in your ward’s SS. You would make my day dear friend.

I love Peterson’s quote. Seriously … what other religious order has as much of a “story” as we do?

One of my wise Wiccan friends has commented on this often — along the lines of “the Mormons are either completely nuts or else are the wisest people on earth”. (He’s also the one who observes that “The basis of Mormon church hinges completely on whether or not your prophets are truly called of God, because the Manifesto and the priesthood revelation are either total and complete political machinations or were the result of a God that was responding to a sincere, earnest prayer for guidance from His prophet.” (To which I say, yes, now do you want to read a copy of the BoM?)

disavowed bigotry

I should point out that my extended family thinks I’m an apostate for trying to get them to tone down their anti-homosexuality rhetoric.

I’m not a proponent for anything more than what was said in the recent pamphlet, but in their eyes, that’s enough of a “heresy”. The biggest “justification” I hear is stuff from what was said decades ago.

Seriously – if we’re going to have modern day prophets, then we have to recognize that they are going to alter things. (Even the Word of Wisdom, Carlos. :) )

Queno, my husband, the same (re homosexuality)—I know he keeps thinking one of these days I’m going to go off my nut.

But one of my dearest and most gentle friends is gay. I love her. My nephew is gay. My best friends’ son, who I have loved since he was born, is gay. I can’t blanket accept homosexuality as a valid alternative to marriage between a man and a woman, yet neither can I condemn it. I don’t get it. I have no answers. I count on God on that one.

Your quote (backtracking :)about what your friend said, you know, doesn’t allow for the fallibility of our prophets. Although I’ve read enough here to realize perhaps I don’t know enough about that either.

I can’t get away from my own hard-reached conclusion of racism. I didn’t want it to be, but that’s where I ended up with it. I wanted all the explanations to somehow make sense and I could never get them to make sense.

Can’t the church be true and prophets, erroneously, failed to ask the question to which God would have answered yes? No prophet in the Bible was infallible, even in matters pertaining to running the church. Think of Peter and Paul’s argument about gentiles and circumcision. Who was right?

I didn’t really want to know why God punished Cain. My point was, while I recognize the article of faith was directly disputing Catholicism’s idea of original sin, well, I wanted to point out that it contradicts itself in other cases.

You guys, I frankly almost deleted this entire thread last night. I kept thinking, “here I go again shooting off my mouth (I never think very hard about my posts, I just have a thought or experience and write it down just like I’m thinking it)and put something damaging spiritually up.” Plus maybe I could get in trouble.

But I hear the reason here. The points are valid, and with a few exceptions (sorry, Carlos, I think you were a little over the top with Elder Holland) have expressed our love of the gospel while feeling badly about a procedure in our church. I think there’s a difference.

I’m reading this cool new book called The Lost by Daniel Mendolsen (nowhere near correct spelling) and as I couldn’t get myself to close it last night at 2 am, thought, “well, if they throw me out of the church, I’ll become a Jew for Jesus because their beliefs and traditions are SO us.” Or we are them.

Now, don’t think I’m big and open-minded on the subject of homosexuality. I subscribe to the Proclamation on the Family and the recent pamphlet on SSM. But that also means that I’m more open-minded than the official thinking 20 years ago.

As I’ve tried to explain to family, I don’t see the need to be more conservative than the Church doctrine…