Black Mormons Straddle Two Worlds

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

Dan, I think I have a copy somewhere of the speech McConkie gave repudiating the doctrine. Of course, one could make the argument that inasmuch as he didn't speak for the church when he made the allegations, he didn't speak for the church repudiating them either.

I don't know that the church has ever made a public declaration repudiating the Cain-related doctrines. If there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that the church is very cautious about making declarative statements of any kind.

What I do know is, the doctrine (such as it was) ceased to be discussed in official church settings and literature following the 1978 revelation, and at least one man who very publicly espoused it, subsequently denounced it. That's enough for me to recognize the shift in church position. I don't need a legal document notarized by the Savior to have that point driven home.

I am in agreement that there has been a shift, but from what I recall and am being told here, the most I am inferring is a shift to "we don't know." Certainly we haven't abandoned the concept that people can get cursed by God, included having their skin darkened. That is right there in the scriptures. But if all you are saying is that it is no longer clear that this is the case here and that because of the uncertainly we no longer here official commentary on it, then that sounds right to me.

[MikeWaters]

I think it's safe to say that there has never been an apology for all the racist, hurtful things that have been said.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think it's safe to say that there has never been an apology for all the racist, hurtful things that have been said.

I think the churches actions were more hurtful to the church than they were to the blacks.

If the Catholic Pope had indicated you would spend your life in pergatory unless you were a Catholic, would you consider that hurtful? I wouldn't, I am not a believer in their faith.

Where did the church thwart the black race in their civil rights. Was there a time in Utah where blacks couldn't go to white schools, drink at white fountains, etc. I submit the institutional bias was a religious one, not a civil one. Unless one believed in the truthfulness of the gospel, it would be difficult to feel descriminated against, wouldn't it.

How are you descriminated against if you are precluded from something you don't want.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think it's safe to say that there has never been an apology for all the racist, hurtful things that have been said.

You were expecting apologies from the grave?

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I am in agreement that there has been a shift, but from what I recall and am being told here, the most I am inferring is a shift to "we don't know." Certainly we haven't abandoned the concept that people can get cursed by God, included having their skin darkened. That is right there in the scriptures. But if all you are saying is that it is no longer clear that this is the case here and that because of the uncertainly we no longer here official commentary on it, then that sounds right to me.

Well, the ban did exist. And by my reckoning, it existed with the implicit "permission" of God. I recognize some may entertain fantasies of their own as to why, and that is their privilege. But short of a divine explanation for it, and acknowledging that heretofore given explanations were wrong, is not "we don't know" the most honest answer?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

But short of a divine explanation for it, and acknowledging that heretofore given explanations were wrong, is not "we don't know" the most honest answer?

I don't think it's honest. I think it's a politically correct.

It really is saying "there is nothing to see here, move along." But they won't even admit that it is that.

They refuse to address the issue head on, out of deference for their deceased friends whom they don't want to look bad. When the dead look bad, they look bad. They worry, "What if one member loses their confidence in us, if we admit to anything that it is less than perfect?" And this prevents them from saying anything than they have said.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

Well, the ban did exist. And by my reckoning, it existed with the implicit "permission" of God. I recognize some may entertain fantasies of their own as to why, and that is their privilege. But short of a divine explanation for it, and acknowledging that heretofore given explanations were wrong, is not "we don't know" the most honest answer?

Yes.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

You were expecting apologies from the grave?



Well, the ban did exist. And by my reckoning, it existed with the implicit "permission" of God. I recognize some may entertain fantasies of their own as to why, and that is their privilege. But short of a divine explanation for it, and acknowledging that heretofore given explanations were wrong, is not "we don't know" the most honest answer?

The ban existed that is all we can say. It is presumptuous to say it had God's permission, the most we can say is God acquiesced in it.

And perhaps they do know but as Mike has hypothesized, they don't wish to embarrass their dead friends or to lessen the membership's faith in them.

[BYU71]

Are there any doctrines we have left that honestly has us out of "mainstream" christianity. I really don't understand the belief in the Trinity as 3 seperate beings having a "cultist" flavor to it. Sure the Temple and the underwear may seem out of the mainstream, but still the way we act isn't cult like.

Cults to me seem like folks than can be manipulated and duped by a leader. They become mindless. Even BYU if you take a hard look at it can be compared to conservative religious institutes, not cultists.

Some may hear that the Prophets every word has to be obeyed, but someone being honest would have to concede the prophet either doesn't say much or his every word isn't as if God is speaking.

You have Harry Reid and Orin Hatch. Both LDS and quite a bit different in their opinions.

Poligamy and the treatment of blacks. If you accept they are in the past, which they are, what really do others stand on to call us a cult.

[Coach McGuirk]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think you are in a minority, ER. Just how were you taught this doctrine anyway, given that you were 4-years-old when the ban was lifted? Primary? Bishop's Youth Fireside? General Conference?

More than likely you weren't actually taught it through any official church vehicle, but were told it by parents/friends/the media/whomever, or you read it some place in pre-1978 literature. Or, some rogue leader or sacrament meeting speaker taught it to you against higher counsel. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I maintain my opinion that if you grab the average church 30-something or younger off the street and ask them about this doctrine, few will have heard it, fewer will have thought about it much, and almost none of them believe it.

I was born in '73 and I remember well being taught these things. Not by my parents but in church. I don't think you are right about the 30 somethings. you are probably right about people in their 20's.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I was born in 1974 and have a distinct memory of the "black people as descendants of Cain" idea even into my teenage years. I never hated or looked down on black people for it, but I know that I was taught this.

Even though I joined the Church around the time the Proclamation came out, I was not indoctrinated into the reasons but remember thinking, "boy that's a good thing." {Proclamation good, ban not goo].

Afterwards I remember reading on the reasons, thinking that sound weird. At my age I doubt I was really much of a deep thinker. Well perhaps I'm not today but I was certainly much more shallow then than today.