Saturday, June 8, 2013

An Apology Would Be Nice

Today marks the 35th anniversary of what Mormons generally refer to as the repeal of the Priesthood Ban. I remember that day well, actually. I was on my mission at the time, and we had just pulled up to visit with some members. The wife sent us out to the barn to find her husband, who was working on a tractor, and he had the radio on. That's when we heard the announcement. A combination of shock and excitement! Was this for real? Was it immediate? What about the Temple and everything else? These questions, of course, were eventually answered. But it was somewhat surreal to be listening to it in the moment.

What has not been answered in the 35 years since is the question of exactly WHY the Priesthood Ban was instituted in the first place? Why did we deny the Priesthood to those of African descent? And WHY did it take 120 years to end it? WHY? We have a pretty good idea, actually, of how it all started in Brigham Young's day. Nothing exact, but the forensics reveal enough evidence to be reasonably sure. The bottom line is that it was racist, and was justified by what many considered the "doctrine" of the Curse of Cain.  Here's a letter issued by the First Presidency in 1951 that gives a neat summation:


“The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said, ‘Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their father’s rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God.’ They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and receive all the blessings we are entitled to.’ President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: ‘The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.’ The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.”
                                              (Official First Presidency statement, August 17, 1951)

Since the end of the Ban, the Church has made a vain attempt to "move on" and leave this sad bit of our history behind us. In doing so, we have begun to whitewash the seriousness of our former docrtine, labeling it as simple "folklore", and claiming that we really "don't know" the origins of the practice. As you can see from the text I marked in bold above, this was hardly considered "folklore"!

Here's a recent quote from a General Authority. This now seems to be the official sentiment when referring to our previous practices:

“When you think about it, that’s just what it is — folklore. It’s never really been official doctrine… We have to keep in mind that it’s folklore and not doctrine… It’s never been recorded as such
(Elder Sheldon F. Child, “LDS marking 30-year milestone”, Deseret News, June 7, 2008).

See a disconnect between these two quotes?!

We also have the recent introductory paragraph added to the revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants that ended the Priesthood Ban - known as Official Declaration 2. It offers only this by way of explanation:

"During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice."

I personally don't think this goes far enough. This is, again, whitewashing. I don't think you can ever really "move on" unless you face the issue head-on and own that history - all of it - no matter how ugly it may be. It is, after all, the truth. I like blogger Kevin Barney's take on this:

“We don’t know” was an interim strategy that worked well enough for its time. But the problem is, that mantra was meant to preserve the possibility that God ordered the ban from on high, and a lot of older Saints understand it in exactly that way. And as long as we try to leave that option on the menu, people are going to continue to fill in the doctrinal vacuum with the old, offensive ideas. Those ideas will not die under a “we don’t know” rubric; they will only die under a firm disavowal.”

So what do you think - are apologies in order? Do you think the Church should go further to disavow the Priesthood Ban?

7 comments:

Duck said...

I believe an apology would go a long way. I also believe it is never too late to apologize.

The apology could even be very succinct, to the point: "Referring to the blacks not having the priesthood: we were wrong. It was simply folklore from the time period that carried forward. It was erroneously stated as commandment when, in reality, it was not. We got it very wrong and we are very sorry." It is to the point, explains what happened, an apology is given, and, NOW, people could move forward.

I also remember that day very well. I was, unlike you who was already serving, waiting for my mission call and it was coming "any day". I was downstairs at home. My mother came running down, "Duck. Duck. Hurry. Come upstairs!" I thought it was my mission call, so I raced up the stairs. Instead, it was President Kimball repealing the priesthood ban. (I was young and impatient- I was a bit peeved that it was NOT my mission call, rather this announcement- I can be a dodo head sometimes. Of course, I got the extreme importance of this revelation. I just wanted my mission call and wanted it N.O.W.!! :) I received it 2 days later.)

I love the research you have given in this post. As always, Neal, impeccable writing and post. Thank you!

Happy day. Duck

Neal said...

Thank you Duck! I like your apology suggestion. They should put you in charge of Church PR! :)

Job said...

The truest form of forgiveness is the forgiveness that comes before, or without, an apology.

Neal said...

True, Job. However, we're talking about an institution here that has committed a grievance against an entire race of people. In this case, an apology is especially warranted in order to clarify and reinforce the new doctrine. Plus its good manners. ;)

Duck said...

@ Job: sure, it is wonderful, and very altruistic, to be able to forgive someone of a grievance without an apology rendered. It is also very hard, but can be done. I know I needed it for myself, to forgive those who perpetrated horrific things against me as a child. They have never given an apology, and never will, and I have been able to forgive them. But, that does not make what they did to me any less awful.

We are taught, from the bible, that "fathers should not provoke their children." Sure, a child might be able to forgive said parent for what they did and never receive an apology for it, but how much better would the child have been, and the parents, to have never provoked them in the first place?

And, I agree with what Neal wrote, that it IS good manners to apologize. I see someone who IS willing to apologize as a true follower of the Savior. I see someone who is NOT willing to apologize as being someone who is prideful and never accepts responsibility for what (s)he has done.

@ Neal: I agree completely with you that an apology is warranted for what has been done. Again, I believe, it is NEVER too late to apologize. It could be short, to the point, but enough to accept responsibility for what was done. Everyone knows the truth. I think by NOT apologizing, it just makes matters worse and makes a whole lot of people even more angry with the church, especially as an institution, and have desires to leave it.

And, thank you for the kind compliment. But, I could never be in charge of PR for anything. I react too quickly, most times for the bad, and I often make things much worse than they were. :) But, I am glad you "see" me in a better light than what and who I know myself to be. I tell you, I am a heathen. But, most times, a loving one, until I get pushed into a corner. :)

How are you? Are you OK? In reading your post, I had a feeling that something is hard for you right now, in your personal life? Is there anything I can do to help you? If I am wrong, just give me a boot in the tush and I will not bring it up again. :)

Happy night! sending good energy and love your way. Duck

Neal said...

Duck,

I generally like heathens! :)

And thanks for asking about me. I'm fine, other than being perturbed by ignorant Church/cultural stuff from time to time. I guess I get impatient for the Church to 'man-up' on some of these issues and just deal with it. Its easy to feel that way as an individual, but I know when you're looking at it from the standpoint of the entire organization it gets a little more complicated.

Love and peace!

ellie said...

First off let me say that I fully subscribe to the notion that any so-called "curse" that changed any human's skin color, is purely the origin of racist and hateful human beings.
That being said...
Here is a question I have always had...wondering if anyone else has too...
1. The location of Eden has not been found. There have been many theories (most centering around whether or not the flood or even Eden itelf were literal or lessons). The general consensus, though, seems to be that it was in either the Middle East or Africa.
2. Skin/pigment/melanin- you know those fun parts of our biology that actually serves a purpose?

So with the information we have wouldn't it go to figure that if there was any kind of curse it would be to have white skin. You know- "curse you descendants of Cane- now you will burn!" Having no protection from the sun in such hot conditions seems to be more of a punishment.
Just saying....