| OCR Text |
Show Negro Ban Has Wide Effect By Jim Todd The status of Negroes in the LDS church is a complex one. Much controversy con-troversy has centered around the fact that they are not allowed to hold the LDS priesthood. The tragedy of this denial of the LDS priesthood is not that it is unfair to the handful of Negroes actually in the LDS church. The odious part of this doctrine is that it serves to rationalize all other forms of temporal discrimination. Therefore, There-fore, this denial indirectly affects all Negroes who come in contact with members mem-bers of the LDS church. Taught Since Childhood People who have been taught since childhood that Negroes are "cursed by God" and therefore cannot hold the priesthood, probably find it perfectly natural na-tural to conclude that Negroes must be inferior why else would God curse them? and could not possibly make desirable neighbors, business associates, or sons-in-law. The indirect cost of this doctrine in human misery and wasted potential can only be guessed at. But while the Negro suffers serious effects from this practice, the individual LDS members can conveniently con-veniently blame their racial prejudices upon God instead of themselves. Still, appearances can deceive, and the conclusion that the LDS church is guilty of discrimination should be approached ap-proached cautiously because of the unusual un-usual type of issue involved. Actually, of course, there is no way to know. The answer lies both in the minds of high LDS officials, and in the actual reasons and origins for the practice. It is possible that even the LDS general authorities do not know the exact answer. Custom or Revelation Nevertheless, for practical purposes, if any changes whatsoever are desired (or are even possible), it seems that the Issue hinges on whether the priesthood is withheld because of long-continued local loc-al andor individual customs, or alternately, altern-ately, because the LDS general authorities authori-ties have what they believe to be a divine revelation(s) which bars the Negro. It is extremely important to determine deter-mine which is the case. If the practice is due mainly to old customs, then important im-portant changes can and probably will be made. If it is due to what the LDS church considers to be divine revelation, then the doctrine probably will never change. Simple Situation If the apparent discrimination by the LDS Church has no roots except in the "folkways" of early church members, the situation is relatively simple. Then because, and only because, revealed doctrine doc-trine would not be involved, it should be well within the discretionary powers of the First Presidency to initiate changes which could begin to remedy old abuses and deal fairly with the Negro. But what if it is not due to a simple retention of old customs now turned stale by the changing times? What if the denial of the LDS priesthood to Negroes is a matter of revealed doctrine? In that case, the situation is no longer simple. The prestige, reputation, and vitality of the LDS church itself would be perhaps irretrievably involved on the wrong end of a moral issue. (In order to maintain a claim to divine inspiration, a religion should not, or rather cannot, have its revelations found to be in error.) Unfortunately, any change, in a revealed re-vealed practice carries with it the inescapable in-escapable suspicion that the practice was wrong to begin with and, therefore, was possibly not too inspired. Scriptural Basis As was mentioned before, since there exists no official explanation, what reasons rea-sons can be put forth for this practice? Is there any sciptural explanation? David Da-vid O. McKay, who is President of the Mormon Church, has made the following statement: "I know of no scriptural basis for denying the priesthood to Negroes other than one verse in the Book of Abraham (1:26)." (Mormonism and the Negro, part 2, page 19) Unfortunately, the majority of the interesting in-teresting and informative statements were made by men who were not in the first presidency of the Church. Such statements should therefore not be considered con-sidered as binding on LDS doctrine fJhe f6W statements left, undoubtedly undoubt-edly the most important is the terse statement of Brigham Young: "Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot receive the priesthood." Sweeping as this statement is, it can have no literal meaning without causing great if not total reduction, in the number; m holding the LDS priesthood. ,M Of course Brigham Young made If mu statement a long time ago, and did nc: have access to later scientific concepts nm Nevertheless as his words stand, tit; jra comprise an absolute bar. Unfortunatel) !)(: for Pres. Young, absolutes do have a W of being quite impractical. This one is no exception. v ' One Drop 'K It has been claimed that probably (j .European is totally free of Negro ga The reasons involve human geneta and the data go back to Roman andpff (1 Roman times. (The Roman empire s tended far into Germany and km as well as into Africa.) It is onettt to say that most Europeans have 1 tively few Negro genes. That laaj -G certainly true. But they do have a Ci certainly more than the "one drop tioned by Brigham Young. Obviously, few if any Europe g barred from the LDS priesthood, w not Brigham Young's words requffe". should be so barred? Where, then, o -the line be drawn? , What possible method could be to detect a person who had a singi e n ancestor as few as four generations Furthermore, what if the colors cestor was eight or ten generations As a matter of actual fact, eve possession of relatively V&r. of Negro genes did, in theory, r a person (who probably would no know of his Negro ancestry), w could not be detected, and he w routinely ordained to the P S along with all the other t males. Therefore, unless or modified, there is no way Young's statement can have meaning. 5 Yet just what are the reas. . the Negro is denied the LDS pn Are they only trivial and An apparent injustice such as u moves against the winds of ctialajatic ; a reasonable and public w 't Why is there at present no conv ,,, . even any official, explananuu- Perhaps sooner rather J the LDS hierarchy will el t issue of the times, and eitnei or clarify it. |
