Black and Mormon

When Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1968, Georgia's few black legislators asked then-Gov. Lester Maddox, a fiery segregationist, if his body could lie in honor in the state Capitol. Maddox not only swore he would never authorize a public tribute of King in the Capitol Rotunda, he was outraged to see state flags, then dominated by the Confederate Cross, flying at half-staff in tribute to a black man. But in a sign of civil rights gains in the nearly 40 years since, the state plans to honor Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow, Coretta Scott King, with a public viewing at the Capitol.(Errin Haines Associated Press, Feb 3,2006)

Between 1968 and 2006 many things have changed in our society, and some things have remained the same...

In October 2004 a new book was published: Black and Mormon, a collection of articles that report on the changes that have - and have not - taken place within the church, since the revelation responsible for allowing blacks full participation.

Edited by Newell G.Bringhurst and Darron T.Smtih, this collection of articles is "taking stock of Mormon progress on the developing role of blacks" According to professor Joe R.Feagin of the University of Florida this book "raises deep questions about the intertwining of religion and racism not only in the history of US Mormonism, but also in the long-term development of US society".

Jeff Lindsay, on his 'Mormanity' web pages gives us an excellent review of Black and Mormon. Here is a part of the introduction to his review:

"Though I have some objections for part of the book, in general Black and Mormon strikes a healthy balance between optimism for the future and facing the pain of the past. It is time for Latter-day Saints to understand and acknowledge the pain that blacks have felt because of the past policy on limitations to the priesthood. Much of the pain came from insensitive attempts to provide a doctrinal explanation of what was never explained and what was not doctrine, but policy. Most whites have not pondered what it would be like to be a black investigator or member of the Church who was not only told that he could not have the priesthood, but that it was because he was a descendant of a murderer or because he was unworthy before being born. Alma Allred and others do an excellent job of clarifying the unjustified nature of such explanations, but gaping wounds remain, and reprints of some well-known LDS books continue to promulgate such harmful and unsound "explanations. This book further strengthened my respect for black members willing to accept the Church in spite of a policy that caused such pain. The faith and patience of many black members should be explored and celebrated much more. Especially poignant portions of the book retell the stories of some black members and their families, and provide valuable insights into the issues of retention and missionary work among minority groups.
An important contribution of the book, in my opinion, is helping to identify additional steps that could help to heal wounds of the past. For example, I personally look forward to some sort of formal clarification from the Church to repudiate the former racist speculations that were often given in the vain effort of creating doctrinal reasons for something that was never doctrine but an unexplained policy.
Following a thorough and intriguing forward by the editors, the book contains eight chapters written by an impressive group of respected writers, including some well-known African Americans within the Church. I believe all of the authors are LDS, but the book is hardly an exercise in defending the status quo or rationalizing the past. It is a sincere effort to help those within and without the Church to better understand blacks and the Church in terms of the past, the present, and the prospect for the future. It is well worth reading and pondering".

Jeff in his review also explains why he has some objections about part of the book, and asserts that Darron Smith takes certain paradigms behind the 'whiteness theory' far too seriously.
(The 'whiteness theory' is that: "people consciously suppress conflict (passive aggressiveness), not only because they wish to avoid the discomfort of confrontation, but also because this avoidance enables them to maintain white hegemony." )

Is perhaps part of our problem coming to terms with our own 'whiteness'? Let's for a moment define this 'whiteness' as: 'an attitude of unrighteous dominion that reminds one of a slaveholder's mentality', a mentality that at the time was perfectly legal and seen as morally acceptable. The master was often portrayed as kind and benevolent towards his 'black folk', merely trying to balance the dictates of his conscience with the dictates of his economic interests, if only people would understand...

We were forced to give up slavery as an institution, but the mentality lingers...
Our 'whiteness' still has problems accepting such things as loyal 'opposition' and justified 'contention' from 'minorities' in a number of ways, and we say these things offend us.
Throughout history, Christians for centuries had no qualms about stressing and penalizing a completely unfounded 'blackness' of negroes, where we're just now beginning to accept responsibility for our not so unfounded 'whiteness' as caucasians. Are we sure we're no longer seeking to 'maintain white hegemony'?
Slavery was about economic white hegemony, enabled by military white hegemony, justified by religious white hegemony, facilitated by political white hegemony, and in the process degraded blacks every step of the way.

Doctrine and Covenants 121: 39-40:
We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but afew are chosen.

The institution of slavery was abolished, the mentality and hegemony lingers. Of course great progress has been made since, however most of the times reluctantly and under outside pressure, giving further credibility to the 'whiteness theory'.

'The huge burden of racism' is not so much Darron Smith's but ours, a burden that we so far refuse to shoulder.
As a disclaimer we sometimes note that we're not responsible for the wrongs of our colonial ancestors, while at the same time holding blacks responsible for the assumption that their ancestor was a murderer! We find the whole issue a very sensitive one, so sensitive that it indeed seems that here too our 'whiteness' prohibits complete 'truth and reconciliation' within out communities. And perhaps in that line of reasoning we 're not sure that affirmative action is a good thing, since we feel no need to affirm our 'whiteness'!

Often, sharp words are spoken with the intention to get our attention, to wake us from a state of unconsciousness, but also want to tell us the truth about ourselves, and that truth is sometimes more than we can bear, or are ready to understand.
Perhaps Darren Smith has something in common with the prophet Joseph Smith, something else besides the obvious same last name.

Doctrine and Covenants 121:43:
Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy.

The black LDS community, by her very presence and endurance, has already shown us an increase of love, while few are paying attention to her words of sharpness and indignation.

We rather prefer to be 'colorblind', which enables us to ignore our 'whiteness'!

a quote from the Darron Smith webpages:

Social justice is more than empty rhetoric.
It requires strong empathetic identification with the underdog
a process requiring critical reflection.
Getting to this point is a painful process
because many deeply held beliefs come under scrutiny.
Those who are willing to engage
these ideological constructions
of the self will emerge as champions
of equality--and can be counted on one hand.

 

March 2006 - by Robert Poort