The following guest post is from Dr. Warner Woodworth.
Latter-day Saints around the globe recently celebrated the 1978 Church announcement regarding the Priesthood being conferred upon all worthy males. For me it’s a time to pause in gratitude, remember that momentous event, and reflect on the days of struggle many of us, Black and Caucasian, went through to achieve a better, more egalitarian society. I sat in the tabernacle June 8, 2008 with a group of friends—African Americans, Polynesians, and Africans—as we shared recollections and listened to the program. One conclusion was that the event wasn’t black enough. We wanted more jumping up and singing, clapping, and a lot more energy. Said one, “When are you white Mormons going to break out of your stiff culture and let your hearts soar?”
I didn’t have an answer.
The experience brought back memories of the history and LDS culture from decades ago, and I wondered if changes have really occurred in terms of race within LDS society. During the late 1960s-early ‘70s, the University of Michigan where I sought a Ph.D. was a hotbed of activist protests about race in America. The Black Panthers came to speak on campus with their guns and guards. Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), formed earlier by Tom Hayden and others at Port Huron, Michigan, spread across the country like wildfire, launching campus sit-ins, marches against the Vietnam War, and combating all forms of racism.
Tom and Jane Fonda came to one of my classes during my Ph.D. work and inspired us to organize a university-wide strike over race issues. We spent several months planning the strategies and tactics, building collaboration with fledgling Black activist groups on campus and then pushed to shut down the 40,000 student school. Our efforts were successful and the U. of M. was largely shut down for weeks. In response, the University ultimately announced new scholarships for Blacks, a commitment to hire minority professors, and approval to establish a Black Studies program. The school became an academic center for fostering Black music, art, poetry, and other cultural expressions.
I was the LDS Institute of Religion Director of a growing Mormon program in Ann Arbor, and enjoyed a certain notoriety for having shoulder-length hair, along with a full beard and moustache during those years. It was good to be a fairly long distance from CES offices in Utah.
These were the days of fighting segregation, of the heroic Martin Luther King, Jr.’s nonviolent push for social justice in our country. With other pastors and ministers in town, I participated in exploring how we as churches should address the problems of U. S. race relations. We invited minority church leaders to discuss their perspectives on white America. An organization called the Black Action Movement (BAM) consisting of radical Blacks began to confront religious leaders in New York, Detroit, and even in Ann Arbor. They had prepared a Black Manifesto and sought to read it in every church of any significant size. Upon discovering that the Mormon Church of Ann Arbor was on their hit list, we as local leaders decided to preempt their attack because we saw the damage done, the broken stained glass windows, the emotional turmoil caused in other churches BAM had confronted before us.
So we invited them to come and read the Manifesto and confront Mormons about our racist past through an official planned Sunday event. We spent a week preparing our members to not react angrily or accusingly, although we warned them that they would be attacked and accused by the radicals. Our concern was not so much the anger of BAM because it was to be expected. Instead, our concern was with our Mormon congregation–that our members act like Christians in response. We consulted with Church leaders in Salt Lake City, letting them know what we planned to do and asking if they had any advice. The Church’s Presiding Bishopric told us that they assumed we would soon be confronted anyway, and that by taking this initiative, hopefully things might turn out more positive than that of other religions. We told them BAM had broken into other churches and conducted sit-ins until the police came and arrested them, and we asked Salt Lake officials for advice. We were told to not call the police, but rather to send in the Relief Society with food for those conducting the sit-in, if that were to occur. There was to be no confrontation.
The big Sunday came and our chapel was packed to overflowing. Learning in advance of the upcoming event through the grapevine, LDS members came from not only Detroit, but also from Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois. Some of them from other progressive college towns told us afterward that they fully expected that BAM was going to be ordained to the Priesthood that day in our ward. Instead, we listened as they read the Manifesto and criticized our past. Some of our members asked polite questions while others became defensive and said they weren’t responsible for the racist practices of their ancestors.
One woman stood up and suggested we stop sending our tithing to Salt Lake and instead use our offerings to establish an LDS fund to help provide jobs and education for African Americans in our community. After considering what to do over the following days, we eventually decided to continue paying our tithing to Church headquarters in Salt Lake, but to also establish a separate Black Action Movement LDS Fund to benefit local minorities. In the weeks that followed, I took our new BAM friends to several other Institutes of Religion in the region and invited them to participate with us in the BAM Fund, which they did.
During my five years in Michigan, I began training and advising companies throughout the state, as well as labor unions, city governments, and other organizations about how to value diversity, methods for creating improved race relations, and so on. I carried out action research projects, and with colleagues designed innovative strategies for conflict resolution. I worked to establish systems of joint problem-solving in which Blacks and whites, rich and poor, could begin to understand each other, build trust, and improve the quality of life for all. My partners and I began to see real change—in attitudes, structures of power, and community economic development. These efforts continued for many years after leaving Michigan during which I traveled the country and helped such groups as Ohio Black Muslims gain more equality and economic well-being.
I made the transition to becoming a new professor at BYU, and within a couple years the June 8, 1978 revelation was announced. I remember tears of gratitude and joy streaming down my face when I heard the news. I ran to a phone and called several of my Black friends. Some whites at BYU were relieved that now the school’s football and basketball programs could return to business as usual rather than be boycotted by other universities. But Church members around the globe, especially in Africa, the Caribbean, Brazil, and those of us Americans who had lived in those countries and knew Latter-day Saints in those regions, had a deeper appreciation for the revelation. Now all worthy men of every race would have the privilege of being ordained to the priesthood, and all righteous members around the globe could now enter the temple and be married for eternity. Essentially, the Church had reached the tipping point. It was no longer a Utah religion, or even a white American one, but a global organization.
For two decades I have worked with Brazilian business and government officials, NGOs, as well as LDS leaders, to foster the nation’s development. Most Brazilians are of mixed Black and white ancestry, and I can witness that the 1978 revelation has made a huge impact on the Church’s success in that huge country. Today there are over a million Mormons there, and in just a few more years that number will double, along with growing to 10 temples and 50 some missions. As near as I can determine, the 1978 decision gave the Church a major new thrust. Without the change, we would still be a much smaller, mostly U.S. institution with little, if any, global impacts.
Through the past 15 years-plus, I have had the wonderful opportunity in Africa to use my business and organizational consulting skills among urban Latter-day Saints in Kenya, and in rural Muslim villages of Mali. I have worked to establish programs, train and send young college-age Mormons to do village development, build schools, establish microcredit programs, and in other ways empowered the poor of Africa—whether Mormon, Muslim, evangelical, or animist. I have had the great blessing of recruiting donors who gave millions of dollars, designing systems and building best practices that strengthen family life and move individuals toward economic self-reliance. All together, we have impacted for good the poorest of the poor in Mozambique, Uganda, South Africa, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, and Ivory Coast. Others of my LDS friends have likewise dedicated years and more dollars to serve the poor of Tanzania, Ethiopia, and so forth. The restoration of the Priesthood to Blacks worldwide has inspired many of us in our efforts to reach out in a special way and give of our material resources, our personal time, our professional skills, and most of all our deep love for all of God’s children, Black and white.
On the significant day of June 8, 2008, as we commemorated the Church’s 30th anniversary of the priesthood announcement, it was exciting that it occurred during the same time frame that a 46 year-old Black man, Barack Obama, had won the Democratic Party’s nomination for president of the United States.
Yet the thrill of this occurring was diminished a few days later when I learned a white Utah couple, the Lawson’s, of West Jordan, was attempting to make money off Obama’s achievements by designing a sock monkey dressed in a suit with a presidential lapel pin for the candidate. The depiction appeared like America’s Jim Crow culture back in the Southern states of the 1880s when Blacks were depicted as apes. What were these people thinking? The typical white plea that they were naïve has done little to quell the national uproar. Their “SockObama” toy is clearly a caricature, not just of Senator Obama, but Blacks everywhere who are now offended and see Utahns as a century behind the times.
After massive negative reactions in the media and on the web, the Lawson couple apparently withdrew the product when their manufacturer, Binkley Toys Inc., stopped production. However, rumor has it they are planning a doll re-launch. Whether that happens or not, this episode made me wonder: When, if ever, will Utah project a new image as a more progressive place? We have recently suffered the embarrassing comments of LDS Republican Senator, Chris Buttars, about his view of a disliked law as “a dark ugly thing” What do readers think about these things? Do you see implications for us as a people?
A friend told me we will know that racial culture change in Utah has succeeded when there are Black bishops and stake presidents in the state, not just in metropolitan areas of the East or South. Another said that these types of crude bigotry are the very image Mormonism projects globally, a comment that hurts me to the core. It appears that the Church still has a way to go in impacting members’ attitudes about ethnicity. More importantly, we as Latter-day Saints must change ourselves—our biases, religious assumptions, and our personal behavior.
On the positive side, maybe there is a growing “the audacity of hope” among our members as we face the future. With Obama’s overwhelming primary presidential election win among Utah’s Mormon Democrats last February, perhaps it’s a sign of better days to come. Reflecting on those results, my guess is that not only is Martin Luther King, Jr. smiling down from heaven above. So is Joseph Smith!


Aloysius: (Re your comment of July 3rd, 2008 5:41 am)
I’m afraid it’s even more complicated and nuanced than what can be distinguished by the label “ghetto culture.”
I’ve lived in poor areas, on the fringe of what may be called “ghettos”, and have worked in very rough parts of town.
I’d like to point out that in the poor/ghetto/rough neighborhoods, that the negative elements you are referring to are among the minority.
It seems as if the majority of residents both suffer from, and get blamed for, the negative behavior and attitudes of the problem-makers.
Not all culture, preaching, and music in ghettos is bad. There are many people who are just too poor to move out of those areas. Also, due to expansion of poor populations, the “ghettos” also expand, and subsume (take over) the surrounding lower-middle class areas. People who can’t afford to move and start over then get swamped by those forces. The good people in a neigbhorhood can (and most often do) out-number the bad, but the bad elements often hold more sway and have a disproportionate influence in relation to their numbers.
There are plenty of good people living in blighted areas (ghettos), who go to good churches in those areas, and listen to good music both at home and in their church.
Often, the bad cultural elements are not passed down from parents to children, but larger forces from outside the family (gangs, popular enterntainers, peers) over-ride the influence of parents who just don’t know how to fight those outside influences, and/or can’t afford to move away from them.
By the way, “hillbilly” can also be a derogatory term for rural folks. And be careful of the word “trailer-trash”, as some people might think you’re talking about all people who live in trailers or mobile-homes. There are many upscale “manufactured housing” developments and “mobile-home parks” where “trailer trash” is just not applicable.
Another distinction is between hip-hop and gangster-rap. As I understand it, gangster-rap is usually bad. Not all hip-hop is bad.
I know it’s hard to craft blog comments so they won’t be misconstrued.
I _think_ I know which elements you’re decrying, but it’s easy for some people to misconstrue non-specific type comments.
Bookslinger
A good way to destroy any argument is to demonize an opponents point as a broad stroke and nuance it into nonexistence. Its a typical “leftist” debate tactic to make uncomfortable subjects go away. Since you are not a “leftist” you may be only borrowing it. Or perhaps we have to get up in arms about my use of the word “leftist” or decry the broad stroke I used in choosing such a word and using it pejoratively.
I call BS. We can all turn on MTV. My kids attend(ed) an urban high school. I spent my mid twenties in Appalachia. I can see the popularization and spread of these cultures all around me. I am not blind. Ghetto, hillbilly, trailer trash etc. cannot be applied indiscriminately but we also know that no one invented these words to describe something that didn’t exist.
No I don’t believe that living in the ghetto, a trailer or a hillbilly holler force you into some specific lifestyle but I do believe that these words are acceptable shorthands for describing cultures.
Aloysius,
In my college years, some of my professors (social “scientists”) tried to convince me that I could never really come to any conclusions about anything, because there are always exceptions, extenuating circumstances, perspectives, opinions, nuances, blah, blah, blah. It was very ironic because they clearly tried to promote their leftist conclusions among their students. Maybe I should have gone into the physical sciences because I could have avoided all the subjectivity that the social sciences thrive on. Anyway, I see this tactic used by the left all the time. When you make a generalization, they respond with anecdotes about how their experience is different. At some point we all paint with a broad brush or arrive at conclusions based on the totality of our experience and observations. Our brains were built to analyze/organize data and come to conclusions based on that experience. On this topic I recommend the book “Blink” by Malcolm Gladwell — it’s very illuminating. I also find Matthew 7:16–20 and the promptings of the Spirit to be of great help in learning truth.
Regarding Dr. Woodworth’s conclusion that the church has a long way to go, I have to agree. But I think he, like other professors, has a “glass is half full” mentality and fails to see the incredible progress over time. In general, I think it’s unproductive to allege racism by the church and use guilt and shame as a means to motivate.
Correction — that should be “glass is half empty” mentality.
As a first time reader of this site I have to say that I have really enjoyed the back and forth. It is fun to see all of our beliefs, egos, mistakes, and even apologies on display. I think that Dr. Woodworth wrote a thoughtful post that was surely not free of his misperceptions of reality but we all suffer from this. However, I thought the spirit in which the post was written together with the responses, shows his love for all of God’s children.
Having served a mission in D.C. as well as rural Virginia, and West Virginia, I felt myself experiencing every perspective that has been posted. I worked with amazing saints who came from the trailer parks, country, the ghetto, and immigrants from black africa, and the middle east. I also was extremely frustrated by the cultural baggage that holds people back from making positive changes.
I think I have the problem of being overly sensitive of race. One experience. My first sunday in the mission I went to a dinner at a single black members home in the DC area. The man was a convert from Jamaica, and the ward organist. Having only two black friends growing up, and loving them, and never knowing a black LDS, I was thrilled to meet this man. I was so overjoyed to meet a black Mormon, (let alone an organ playing one!) that I couldn’t contain myself. I think some of my first words to him were,” You are black and Mormon. That is awesome!” Fortunately, this great member had met my type before and could see I was green, and felt my sincere love. To this day, I still love and give the benefit of the doubt to the “others” in our congregations because I hate people to feel uncomfortable. I have now learned that I can still show them I love them in word and deed, but need to let them know with quiet confidence that they fit in.
Truth be told, a group of LDS professors, and members need to have a symposium on music in worship. That would open a can of worms!! The liberal in me wishes that the culture of sacrament meetings was more flexible, but the 6th generation Mormon Republican,iron rodder in me worries about the risk. Anyone who hears Sister Gladys Knight give a fireside can’t help but wonder about music in worship. Are white Wasatch Mountain Mormons uncomfortable with someone expressing themselves in an animated way? A part of me fears emotions and expression getting out of hand, but right now our 18th century hymns are just not helping us create the most conducive enviornment for growth in some of our members and congregations.
In response to Geoff’s assertion that he disagreed with the professors assertion that..
1)that individual members were, through supplication and protest, able to convince the prophet to lift the priesthood ban and
I can realize why that concept can make you uneasy but couldn’t it be argued that they were supplicating and protesting based on the spirit teaching them beforehand that things that they should pray for? While I realize that members do not receive revelation for the church, maybe their petitions created an awareness within the leadership of the church that they needed to give thoughtful and prayerful consideration to the matter. The spirit and tone with which they went about it is important but I don’t disagree that the membership of the church has not effect on policy and revelation.
Of course we don’t want to cheapen revelation by creating lobbying interests within the church but when issues come up you have to really respect leaders that listen and council with their councils. Then wait for the Lord to push them to act. I don’t believe Pres. Kimball and Wilford Woodruff were simply lobbied to the point of decision in their manifestos but I do believe they were influenced to the point of prayer, and with prayer came revelation and direction.
Junto, You got a point there. I think it could be said that the revelation on the Word of Wisdom came about pretty much because of “lobbying” on the part of Emma, who was disgusted by the tobacco spit on her floor.
The heading to section 89 says: As a consequence of the early brethren using tobacco in their meetings, the Prophet was led to ponder upon the matter; consequently he inquired of the Lord concerning it. This revelation, known as the Word of Wisdom, was the result.
I forget where I read (maybe History of the Church) where Emma’s complaint was the motivator of Joseph “pondering upon the matter.”