I’d respond as follows:

Dear sir or madam,

I apologize that you had to sit through this film, because you are not the intended audience. You see, I don’t make films for retards.

LOL ESO & DKL. While we’re at it, we might as well assign the OT, since there’s no skin of blackness in it, not even for Cain.

Way too harsh, 1, 2, and 3.

The questioner is not trying to justify prejudice; s/he is trying to understand where the ban came from, and rejects the claim that “Brigham Young was a false/fallen prophet,” which is really the only explanation that Bloggernacle chatter leaves for the institution of the ban. I still haven’t been able to see Untold Story and don’t know how Margaret and Darius do handle that, but evidently not entirely successfully. Deal with that successfully, and the sincere but appalling attempts to understand will melt away. (Insincere attempts, and inveterate bigotry, not so much.)

I realize that not falling into line with mocking and mean-spirited responses puts me on the wrong side of the discussion. If all you want to do is have fun, jeer away. But if you want to contribute a tiny bit of good, you should offer suggestions that a decent woman like Margaret could actually use, and figure out a way to reach someone like her questioner who doesn’t have the advantage of all the enlightenment of the blogs.

Dear sir or madam,

I appreciate your efforts to think about and come to understand a difficult part of our history. At several points in your letter, you offer reasons for why blacks did not hold the priesthood. But at another point in your letter, you say, “we don’t fully understand why.” I think that, unless there is more revelation on this subject, we’ll have to be content with that answer and that answer only. In fact, some church leaders have pointed out that looking for reasons for revelations where none have been given is dangerous:

In 1988 Elder Dallin H. Oaks, of the Quorum of the Twelve, gave an interview to the Associated Press. And this is what he said in the interview:

… It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that. … “The lesson I’ve drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it. … I’m referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking. … Let’s [not] make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that’s where safety lies.:

I am afraid that I see some dangers in the reasons for the ban that you pose. Elder McConkie offered reasons for the ban, but after the ban was rescinded, he said:

“I would like to say something about the new revelation relative to our taking the priesthood to those of all nations and races…. There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, ‘You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?’ And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more. It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them.”

As for your comments on Jews, may I suggest that you prayerfully consider 3 Nephi 29:8, 2 Nephi 29:5, 2 Nephi 33:8. I also disagree with your final paragraph, but perhaps that is a topic for another day.

I doubt if this individual would respond well to anything other than quotes by “authorities.” My response:

I realize these ideas reflect your understanding, but unless you can find statements in the current words of the prophets or the current manuals of the Church, those are your ideas only, and they contradict what our prophets believe today.

Bruce R. McConkie:

“There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.
We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept (2 Ne. 28:30; Isa. 28:9-10; D&C 98:11-12; 128:21). We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter anymore.”

Gordon B. Hinckley:

“Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.
Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?”

Margaret,

My first response is that we as a church still have a lot more to do. The problem is that a prophet of the Lord (Brigham Young) stated that blacks were not allowed to have the priesthood due to the “sins of the parents,” and of Cain’s “curse” and skin of blackness (which Brigham Young, of course never divulged how he knew that, as it isn’t in the scriptures). What is really needed is for today’s prophets to speak out even more strongly than what President Hinckley did in conference last year. But we’re not going to see that, at least not quickly.

This person shows the usual responses your typical Mormon has about blacks and the priesthood. Heck, that’s what I thought (as that was what I was taught) before really researching the topic.

The best thing to do is continue the education of members, and also speaking to church leaders to continue pressing against the racial bias. The church and its membership is heading in the right direction. It will just take time and effort, as with anything.

God’s Law and the Scriptures are all that remain immune to the tyranny of political correctness. They are not subject to the trends of pop-culture. Any efforts to enforce these limitations of speech on religion is dually un-constitutional and blasphemous. The LDS Church makes no apology for following the direction of the creator.

Honestly, I think the best “response” in this case is simply no response at all. This writer is stating as fact things which he or she very likely was taught by various LDS instructors and writings decades ago. He or she has incorporated such teachings into his or her firm belief of what deity says. In my own experience, those who state their religious views as unquestionable “fact” are rarely responsive to reasoned disagreements. What they think deity says trumps anything that could be said by humans.

If I truly felt compelled to respond, I would say something like: “Thank you for sharing your views. While I am aware that such ideas were once common in the LDS church, my own study of the teachings of LDS general authorities would suggest that these views have not been taught as LDS doctrine for at least three decades. It is my hope that on doctrinal matters, our film reflects the current understanding of the Brethren.”

Jeff,

Are God’s prophets immune from racism?

a random john,

The term Racism has become pejorative and is too often used as a weapon, therefore rendering the effectiveness of the term when used in a debate impotent. It would help clarify the intentions of your question if you defined racism and the context in which you wish to use it.

Margaret,

Hard to respond, in context, when we haven’t even seen the film! When is it coming out on DVD?

The writer was a woman.
Here’s what I sent as a response:
Thanks for your thoughtful response, XXXXX. We don’t think we’re making ANY instructions to the Church about what should or should not be said; we are simply allowing people to tell their own stories and providing a historical context for past events. I like what Elder Holland has to say about the folklore which surrounds this issue:

“One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. … I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. … They, I’m sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. … It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don’t know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. … At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, … we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place…o [when asked to specify the folklore] Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don’t know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I’ve been able to live in the period where we’re not expressing or teaching them, but I think that’s the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. … But I think that’s the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. … We just don’t know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. … That’s my principal [concern], is that we don’t perpetuate explanations about things we don’t know. …We don’t pretend that something wasn’t taught or practice wasn’t pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we’re absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that’s not perpetuated in the present. That’s the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. … “

Jeff,

The term “political correctness” has become pejorative and is too often used as a weapon, therefore rendering the effectiveness of the term when used in a debate impotent. It would help clarify the intentions of your question if you defined “political correctness” and the context in which you wish to use it.

Julie, I cut and pasted it from Juvenile Instructor. David Grua quoted from an interview with Elder Holland, which was done in conjunction with Whitney’s The Mormons. The article is here.

ESO,

Margaret:
“The writer was a woman.”

I am very disappointed.

As to whether Males are born Male because they were not valiant in the pre-existence is opinion and conjecture.

MAC–well it hurts me that a woman would hold these opinions (every single person I have encountered in real life who still holds these views are males–maybe that is coincidence), but I am also disappointed in my own sociolinguistics–I am generally good at predicting gender, but maybe I read this too fast. Or maybe it was written in a “manly” voice.

I thought it was a man, too. I only started, “Dear sir or madam” because that seemed appropriately aloof and serious, so that it worked well to set up the punch line in the last sentence.

ESO,

well it hurts me that a woman would hold these opinions

Are you saying that you consider men more inclined to be bigoted or women have a greater responsibility to race-blind?

Or maybe it was written in a “manly” voice.

So right. I read back through it and must have missed the references to boobs, power tools and wearing underpants until they are threadbare the first time.

I think it’s a mistake to try to eek some kind of consistent or enlightened view out of scriptures.

In the book of Jonah and 1st Nephi, bad weather is caused by personal immorality. This is nothing more than an ancient superstition. (Hint: If ever you’re on a boat with bad weather, don’t volunteer to jump overboard just because you’re a huge sinner).

Before the return from captivity, the Israelites had a view of morality wherein God punished a person’s families and descendants for her sins. In Hosea 4:5-6, when the Lord says that “I will make your mother parish,… I in my turn shall forget your children,” it demonstrates a belief in the notion of collective responsibility, in which God punishes cities and nations and families in their entirety; as in Exodus 20:5 or Deuteronomy 5:9 & 7:10. The theological advance of individual responsibility begins with protests by the Deuteronomist against punishing children for the sins of their parents (e.g., Deuteronomy 24:16), and reaches fruition when Ezekiel becomes a champion of individual responsibility beginning in Ezekiel 14:20. We seldom see it after after this point. People have spilled immense amounts of ink trying to explain this away, when the answer is quite simple: The scriptures were written by ancient and ignorant people who had some pretty crazy superstitions, and it’s a mistake to read our own values into the Bible, because they’re simply not their.

And the scriptures don’t just represent different stages of advancement in terms of moral theory (e.g., collective responsibility vs individual responsibility). The scriptures also contradict themselves regarding the morality of specific actions. For example, Hosea condemns Jehu’s massacre (Hosea 1:4), but in 2 Kings, the Lord lauds it (2 Kings 10:30).

Truth is, the scriptures contain objectionable ideas of all kinds.

I agree with you, DKL, though I recognize my comment #26 sounds like I take all of it seriously and secretly harbor the belief that Blacks or those of African descent are the “seed of Cain.” I don’t believe that. I don’t believe in a Hamitic line. I don’t even believe that everyone was destroyed in a worldwide Flood. (Btw, Darius DOES believe in the Hamitic line.) Nonetheless, the scriptures I showed DO present a different message than what Mormons and anti-Mormons generally take from them.

I believe that man has a habit of interpreting natural phenomona via apotheosis. See Reverends Jeremiah Wright, Falwell, and Hagee. (Katrina, 9/11, etc.) Centuries ago, somebody used the Bible to justify the obscene practice of enslavement. This carries over to a tendency to interpret our personal tribulations as punishments or “God’s will” rather than simply difficulties or even opportunities. We end up saying insensitive things to children who’ve just lost a sibling or a parent, like, “God must’ve really needed them…” or “God doesn’t take anyone unless it’s their time…” I believe in miracles, and I make a habit of looking for them, but I don’t see them as rewards or punishments, simply as signposts or reminders–or beautiful gifts. (I consider gardenias to be miraculous.) I don’t see my lineage as an indicator of righteousness in any way, but as a reminder that I will probably struggle with hormonal issues, depression, heart problems, etc. because of my genes—and that I’d better be careful in the sun. In fact, God cursed me with a sunburn when I swam with my son in Shark Alley in Belize. God cursed me because I was stupid. Happens.

Nonetheless, I enjoy turning the scriptures on someone who is using them to justify racism. (That would NOT be John Mansfield, whoever he is, because he was merely talking about the difficulty those scriptures pose–and they’ve troubled me as well.) If someone uses the passage John cited in #14 as evidence that Blacks were the children of Cain, it’s nice to show what else the scriptures in that book say. Anyone who uses the aforementioned scriptures to support a divinely ordained racial divide has a worldview I don’t share. I personally believe we’re all of African lineage, and I believe the Adam/Eve story is figurative. Some of us were even taught that, years ago.

I believe many things which my great great grandfather, George H. Brimhall, fired three wonderful professors at BYU for teaching. However, I live in a world inhabited by people who think much more like Brimhall than they do like me or those professors I’ve come to admire. And if I meet them on their own turf, things tend to go more smoothly.

Jeff (13 & 19),

In my comment #9, President Hinckley laments the persistence of racism in the Church, and the examples he gives are 1) disparaging racial remarks, and 2) believing that a person is not fit to hold the priesthood because of the color of their skin.
None of us care about political correctness, but we do care when false — and yes, racist — ideas and teachings are allowed to remain in the Lord’s Church.

I agree that the younger generation has improved in regards to racist beliefs. From what I hear from my kids; especially some missionaries my missionary son has encountered there is still room for improvement. I think that racism could be nearly eradicated in one generation if the current crop of missionaries were better instructed what to say and what not to say. They need to hear/read the words of Bruce R McConkie explaining “further light and knowledge” and that marvelous quote from Jeffrey Holland.

Margaret I look forward to your film coming out on DVD. Our family will surely won a copy. thank you for the amazing work that you have accomplished.

I think Julie Smith puts the soft answer best along with Dan Ellsworth capping it off with President Hinckley. That would be an effective answer. I’m hardly appalled at this portion of the letter. To be appalled seems to me to be out of touch with blue-collar Mormonism- an unfortunate state if you have something this important to share. Call it lack of education, retardation, or whatever you will out of whatever emotions it stirs to hear a little ignorance.

This person demonstrates a decent, though definitely not thorough, knowledge of scripture doctrine as prescribed therein. This person shows a decency in explaining their knowledge- hardly a staunch racism- at least in this shared segment.

It is unfortunate that Mormons often turn to Brigham Young or otherwise for guidance in the here and now (I agree with Ardis Parshall- the other extreme being the omniscient bloggernacle who often casts many a stone at the same). Much has been said since then and much has been done. It would be most beneficial for average Joe Mormons to know the current word of God concerning these things.

A sequel?

Not to redirect things to my most recent post, but why on earth can’t this material be covered in Seminary? Certainly the statements by apostles quoted in this thread would be appropriate material for high school students.

Institute missionary prep classes could cover this topic in even more detail.

Of course the thought of covering serious, non-devotional topics in Seminary is so unusual that this might not happen for a long long time.

DKL

What you wrote in reference to mental capacities was not very thoughtful.

Using a medical term that describes a disablity to mock another person is rude, I think.

Margaret thanks for you comment. I think that Mission Presidents could go a long way to eradicate a lot of misunderstanding. A couple of cases in point. My son was at a university the year before his mission. He had a good friend who was an adult convert who served his mission in the north among a large African American population. My son looked up to this RM who had a great missionary zeal and who was brilliant. If I remember correctly this RM was pre-med. One night the RM was telling my son about how frustrating anti’s are. He gave examples about how every African-American Anti he encountered would bring out “bogus” comments made by LDS leaders years ago. He quoted a few statements and in horror my son realized that these statements were in fact made by LDS leaders. I can not help but think that some future date this wonderful man will find out that these statements he believed were false were indeed made by LDS leaders. He will have some resentment that the church was “hiding” information from him.

Another story. My son serves in an area with a large black population. Elder Benson had a missionary companion from northern Utah. Once Elder Benson commented casually about Elder Elijah Abel. THe companion just went bonkers when my son told him all about Elijah Abel holding the Priesthood. The companion threatened to call the MP on my son for telling false doctrine. So on P-day they went to the library and Elder Benson showed him on LDS.org the facts on Elijah Abel. The poor companion was in a state of shock. My son felt bad that he had messed with his companion’s testimony.

We really need to do a better job in seminary, institute, and mission education. We have many parents, institute, seminary, GD teachers who believe the old myths and they are actively teaching the younger generation. The leaders are going to have to get VERY DIRECT IN A PUBLIC KIND OF WAY in order to eradicate decades of false doctrine. If they would do this, I think that with these young minds, we could make some amazing strides in missionary work among the African American population.

>I understand that you might think that the term “retard” is offensive, and therefore unthoughtful — even the definition recognizes that. But it ain’t a medical term.

Growing up, my, uh, mentally retarded brother attended a school administered by the local “County Board of Mental Retardation” (so named). We were taught as children not to shy away from the term “mentally retarded”, but to try to avoid “retard”, because that was deemed offensive because it had been coopted away from its clinical use.

I guess DKL should have used the term “mentally retarded”.

The only reason I wish DKL would lay off using the word “retard” is because it’s an insult to lump the nice folks I know with Down’s Syndrome in with the buffoons, rascals, scoundrels and scalliwags who, unfortunately for us all, have ready access to the internet.

Pastor Wood–do you have any friends in interracial marriages in Utah? I have a bunch. Several of the Black men (mostly African American) hold leadership positions in the Mormon Church. Please note that the letter I posted is anomolous. If it weren’t so, it would not have drawn attention and you would not have seen the sometimes rude responses in this blog–almost all of which recognize that the poor woman’s view is unChristian. Granted, hers it wouldn’t have been anomolous a few decades ago–but no Baptist (or any other religion, for that matter) can hold up his Church as a shining example of racial equality. Southern Baptists lynched Black men who dared to even flirt with white women. And the most segregated hour in America remains the hour when we get our religious instruction. Nothing to chuckle about here.

So if you decide to share that woman’s letter on your blog or in a sermon, please also share the fact that we Mormons in 2008 generally know better. Allow us space to grow. Do not reduce us to our worst moments, and we’ll offer like courtesy.

The problem with saying that all the folklore that supported the priesthood ban can be thrown out is that we are left with canonized scripture that (at one time) supported it’s historical legitimacy.

POGP: Abraham 1: 26-27 explains a curse that the lineage of Ham could not have the right to the priesthood.

If we really support the 1978 revelation, why don’t we exsponge the last remaining vestiges of institutional racism in our “canonized scripture.”

We can’t fully repudiate this folklore until we come to terms that there are still some uncomfortable verses and passages that we would wish would simply go away (but yet are in our standard works).

It’s akin to the issue of plural marriage: we repudiate it as wrong now, but we come short of acknowledging it was wrong before; the same could be said of the priesthood ban (both in the times of Abraham as well as pre-1978).

This is why many are so uncomfortable and that more should be done to repudiate the basis of this doctrine (for pre-1978 times). The all familiar answer of “we don’t know” why the 1978 revelation occurred is a convenient stop gap to cover an ugly pattern of institutional racism.

I think we deserve better.

Way back in #5:

““Brigham Young was a false/fallen prophet,” which is really the only explanation that Bloggernacle chatter leaves for the institution of the ban.”

Not in my view. I think the conclusion of most of the enlightened “chatter” as well as my own view, is that BY made a mistake, as humans are wont to do in many matters both profound and trivial. That doesn’t make him a false of fallen prophet. It makes him imperfect, as I believe all prophets are and were. Hopefully, we can progress as a people and correct the mistakes of the past, while still holding onto the divine calling of our past prophets. They are not false or fallen just because they were not perfect or infallible.

And the scriptural references don’t say what you say they do, Anon. Nowhere does Abraham 1:26-27 say anything about the lineage of Ham not having the right to the priesthood. You’re extrapolating. And you will never hear an LDS leader say that plural marrriage was “wrong.” I personally reject the whole notion of polygamy or polyandry, but I’m in no position to make any statement for the Church.

You’re looking through some very tainted glasses and finding what you seek. Look higher, and you’ll see some stunning progress.

Margaret, you disagree with my impression that the general opinion of the Bloggernacle is that the priesthood restriction was a result of Brigham Young’s racism, but you don’t tell us what you DO find to be the general opinion. I know it’s hard to diagnose what “they” believe, but how do you think most bloggernaclers resolve the disconnect? Do you really think that most people hold a very complex or subtle analysis? because I just don’t read that in the shorthand remarks offered.

Is it enough to say he was mistaken without bringing racism into it?

I guess that was my point — can’t I say he may have been mistaken and leave it at that? Look, even acknowledging the idea that he may have been mistaken is pretty darn revolutionary, at least in my family.

(And I almost always do say “may have been mistaken”.)

I’m not trying to sweep it under any rug, but it’s kind of like evolution — there is a whole lot that we just don&#