Possibly the thing I hate the most

Our general topic is still sexism, but I am going to approach it via racism.

From 1849 to 1978, Black men were not allowed to hold the priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. That meant that they were not able to participate in temple ordinances and affected their ability to hold callings.

I was only 6 when that ended, but it sounds like it was not common knowledge that the ban did not start until 19 years after the organization of the church. There were people who expected it to change - even Brigham Young (who started the ban) said it would end - but there were also people who were not ready to accept that. I have heard that my own father said that if Black men were ever given the priesthood he would leave the church. (He did, though it took a few years and did not seem to be directly related.)

In 2013 the church's web site put out a number of gospel "topics" about things we don't talk too much about, like the ban and polygamy. Although the articles didn't use very strong language about being wrong, some people found them really disturbing. I thought they were overly gentle and glossy.

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng#14

I am sure some of the reason for not discussing things further was discomfort. It is embarrassing to be on the wrong side of history. Probably there was relief that we didn't need to worry about it anymore; since 1978 everything was good except for occasional awkward questions.

For my next anecdote, I can't remember if it came from an institute teacher or a mission president. Both of my mission presidents were church education men, so there were some similarities. As it was definitely either from college or mission, it occurred sometime between 1991 and 1996.

He was relaying a story of a Black girl (teenager or maybe young adult) talking about Black men not getting the priesthood, and she explained it as her Black brothers playing basketball in the pre-mortal life instead of doing the things that they should have been doing.

Now, this is an old theory, referenced in a letter from Joseph Fielding Smith in 1907 (see notes at the previous link), though at the time he acknowledges that while it is generally believed it was merely an opinion and not official.

There was never a good explanation given for the ban, because there was no good explanation. It was racism, it was common, and that doesn't sound good so we will say it is temporary and move on. It should have been clear that would never work; if you don't give people an explanation, they will imagine one.

So the thing I hate is that this imagined reason carried through the years and became a reason for this girl to look down on people who looked like her. It gave her a reason to think that her father and brothers and any male relatives were inferior. As it was a priesthood-specific issue, maybe she could tell herself that it did not apply to Black women. Maybe after 1978 she could tell herself it was just the older people, her ancestors that were inferior but her living family was good.

It is still a rotten thing to do to someone.

And I know that white man - and without remembering exactly which one he was, I know he was a good man that I was very fond of - used that story because her saying it made it better. If even one of their own accepts that it is not simple racism, then it's fine, even though it was wrong all along.

I hate that the people of the church taught her that, and that the leaders of the church did not prevent it.

I remember similar instructors also saying how the ban never applied to people of Asian descent or Native American people, and even some people who looked pretty dark but were not from Africa. There was still some pride there, a good decade after the ban, because it was just being descended from Ham (also debunked), and it was not simple racism. A more complex look at racism could have factored in anti-Blackness and model minorities, but they didn't go there.

Of course, if they had really dug into it, they would have had to examine and realize and remove the ban much sooner.

No one wants to think Brigham Young was racist, or all the others after him who did not lift the ban, or grant temple access to Black men who had gotten the priesthood before the ban (which also happened) were racist, because we also know them to be good men who did good things. It's uncomfortable (and might threaten your confidence in your own lack of racism) so we try to not think about it so much.

That's exactly how we avoid improvement. That's how we leave really good people responsible for justifying our racist acts.

We have to stop that.