Why were some blacks not allowed to be baptized before 1978?

[_moksha]

This guy had a strong testimony and a bunch of followers and they were meeting "unofficially" using guidelines provided by the church. What part of the priesthood ban prevented missionaries from going over and baptizing these people?

The original RLDS missionaries to Africa should have printed a well maintained forwarding address in each copy of the Book of Mormon handed out. Unfortunately, they were unable to sustain an African mission. Membership may have been handled with a greater fellowship.

[_lulu]

Well, I've been a Mormon for some 50 years. I've never heard that a person could not be baptized where there was no organized church.

Quite the opposite, baptisms of Vietnamese during that war, various Moslems and Hindus at random times and places were part of the lore. The toe hold, the seed.

My uncle worked for the US State Department. At times he was stationed in locations that had no organized Mormon church. Nevertheless, his children born in such locations were baptized.

Someone please give a truthful, no spin, specific answer to the specific question, why didn't Bateman baptize him?

[_Stormy Waters]

I don't think that statement is false. This claim is not the same as saying that baptism has been made available to everyone who desires it at all times. The issue in Ghana wasn't that the people were unwanted for baptism because they were black; it was that baptism was not made available in their area because of other issues tied to race.

Perhaps the statement should be amended thusly...

People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning including blacks if there were worthy non-black priesthood holders to preside over them.

To me when you contrast this statement made October 22, 1961 "I keep hearing you say, "if we are sincere." Elder Williams, I want you to know that I am sincere. I am an old man . . . I am sick. But when I heard you were going to be here, I walked 16 miles this morning to see you and to hear what you have to say. I still have to walk 16 miles to get back home, and I am not well. I want you to know that I am sincere or I would not be here. I have not seen President McKay. I have not seen God. But I have seen you. And I will hold you personally accountable to tell President McKay that I am sincere." with this statement "People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning." When you consider this man wasn't baptized... the latter statement sounds like a lie to me.

You can argue that the church had justifiable organizational reasons for not baptizing the members in Ghana, but regardless they still didn't baptize them and it was entirely because they were black. If they were white, they would have been baptized. It was a direct consequence of the priesthood ban.

[_lulu]

I don't think that statement is false. This claim is not the same as saying that baptism has been made available to everyone who desires it at all times. The issue in Ghana wasn't that the people were unwanted for baptism because they were black; it was that baptism was not made available in their area because of other issues tied to race.

Perhaps the statement should be amended thusly...

People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning including blacks if there were worthy non-black priesthood holders to preside over them.

To me when you contrast this statement made October 22, 1961 "I keep hearing you say, "if we are sincere." Elder Williams, I want you to know that I am sincere. I am an old man . . . I am sick. But when I heard you were going to be here, I walked 16 miles this morning to see you and to hear what you have to say. I still have to walk 16 miles to get back home, and I am not well. I want you to know that I am sincere or I would not be here. I have not seen President McKay. I have not seen God. But I have seen you. And I will hold you personally accountable to tell President McKay that I am sincere." with this statement "People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning." When you consider this man wasn't baptized... the statement sounds like a lie to me.

You can argue that the church had justifiable organizational reasons for not baptizing the members in Ghana, but regardless they still didn't baptize them and it was entirely because they were black. If they were white, they would have been baptized. It was a direct consequence of the priesthood ban.

I would state it as follows:

Any worthy person desiring LDS baptism could receive it unless he/she was a Black African living in Africa outside of South Africa.

[_DarkHelmet]

Circumstances being what they were, I actually have some sympathy for the church's course of action in this case. Love it or hate it, the LDS church has always liked its order. Everything has to be done according to a proper order. I still mentally roll my eyes when we have Mormon visitors and they ask my husband to choose someone to say an opening prayer---which they always do---because I know that's their way of saying that he's the patriarch and the one who presides in our family. He isn't, and I completely resent the suggestion that my husband has authority over me, but it's such a small thing that it never seems worth the effort to stop and correct them on it. Ordering and micromanaging everything is a very Mormon thing and it's kind of unrealistic to expect them to change on that anytime soon.

Since the church didn't have the resources to appoint white priesthood holders to oversee these congregations, they had two options:

(1) Let these people continue to go rogue (which is what they did). They weren't members of the church, but they weren't accountable to the church, either.
(2) Occasionally send missionaries out to baptize them and allow them to continue managing their own congregations as official members of the church, without priesthood leadership.

But (2) had its own issues. It would have suggested that the church was okay with non-priesthood-holders managing congregations when the necessity of priesthood authority has been one of the central messages of the church since the 1830s. How could the LDS church be telling the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox churches of the world that they needed to repent and accept management by the proper priesthood authorities if it had official African congregations functioning just fine sans priesthood? If the African Mormons could be dedicated and devoted disciples of Jesus Christ without priesthood authority in their lives, then why can't the rest of the Christian world?

Two, there would have been no one there to enforce Mormon orthodoxy. In case you didn't know, syncretism is and always has been a considerable problem for Christianity in Africa (and other parts of the world, for that matter). Who would have disciplined members who refused to abandon false teachings? Who would have ensured that the Mormon believers there were not practicing---for example---female genital mutilation? If the Mormon believers did practice that, and the church did not do something about it (like excommunication), the church would have been criticized for allowing these practices, e. g. "Mormons in Ghana are practicing female genital mutilation, and the church isn't doing anything about it." Also, what would have happened if the people got tired of waiting for occasional trips from foreign missionaries to baptize their children and started performing their own baptisms and serving the Sacrament? The church would have had to discipline them, and then it would have been seen as mean for disciplining African converts who couldn't help it that there were no priesthood holders in their area.

So, like I said: circumstances being what they were, I understand why the LDS church didn't offer baptism to these people. Believers in Mormonism's theological claims will say that they missed out on the blessings of baptism, but I say they also missed out on having to be accountable to the church for things that they might not have known better on. Instead, they were able to live their beliefs as they pleased until the proper leadership could be implemented.

What was unchristlike about the situation was the entire racist policy of not ordaining blacks or allowing them into temples.

Very good points. This simply puts into perspective how wrongheaded the priesthood ban was, and how it created problems, such as this. for the church. You are probably correct that the church simply does not want people practicing Mormonism outside of the SLC heirarchy. The funny thing is, if Brother Johnson could have found a few guys with non-African heritage living in the area, and convinced them to join the church, maybe the church would have sent missionaries over to baptize them and form a branch with the non-Africans as their leaders. What an insult that would have been to brother Johnson after all the hard work he did for the church in Ghana.

[_DarkHelmet]

Does this mean the women of Lesbos can't be baptized?

[_MsJack]

Quite the opposite, baptisms of Vietnamese during that war, various Moslems and Hindus at random times and places were part of the lore. The toe hold, the seed.

Is there any way to verify these, or are they just that? Lore?

Any worthy person desiring LDS baptism could receive it unless he/she was a Black African living in Africa outside of South Africa.

Can a person living in poverty in North Korea (or another country where Christianity is illegal) receive an LDS baptism? How should the church go about baptizing them?

[_lulu]

Quite the opposite, baptisms of Vietnamese during that war, various Moslems and Hindus at random times and places were part of the lore. The toe hold, the seed.

Is there any way to verify these, or are they just that? Lore?

You want to look up my cousin's baptism records?

Any worthy person desiring LDS baptism could receive it unless he/she was a Black African living in Africa outside of South Africa.

Can a person living in poverty in North Korea (or another country where Christianity is illegal) receive an LDS baptism? How should the church go about baptizing them?

By immersion. Do you want to show me the CHI provision that prohibits it.

Do you really think that if a staff member of the US interest section in N. Korea, Iran or Cuba was a Mormon, their children could not be baptised?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ngton.html

[_MsJack]

You want to look up my cousin's baptism records?

How would I go about doing that, and why is your cousin's baptism relevant to this topic?

By immersion. Do you want to show me the CHI provision that prohibits it.

I'm not sure I understand your answer or your question. Yes, it's a given that my hypothetical North Korean living in poverty would need to be baptized by immersion; but how would the church go about getting missionaries into the country so they could perform the baptism? And would they be willing to risk the ire of the government or the lives of the missionaries by baptizing native Koreans?

I was always told that the church will not proselyte in countries where Christianity is illegal. Was I misinformed, or does the church do it anyway under the table?

Do you really think that if a staff member of the US interest section in N. Korea or Cuba was a Mormon, their children could not be baptised?

I do think that such a person could be baptized. I also think that's quite a bit different from the hypothetical situation I asked about.

[_lulu]

You want to look up my cousin's baptism records?

How would I go about doing that, and why is your cousin's baptism relevant to this topic?

By immersion. Do you want to show me the CHI provision that prohibits it.

I'm not sure I understand your answer or your question. Yes, it's a given that my hypothetical North Korean living in poverty would need to be baptized by immersion; but how would the church go about getting missionaries into the country so they could perform the baptism? And would they be willing to risk the ire of the government or the lives of the missionaries by baptizing native Koreans?

I was always told that the church will not proselyte in countries where Christianity is illegal. Was I misinformed, or does the church do it anyway under the table?

Do you really think that if a staff member of the US interest section in N. Korea or Cuba was a Mormon, their children could not be baptised?

I do think that such a person could be baptized. I also think that's quite a bit different from the hypothetical situation I asked about.

Well, I don't know what your experiences with Mormonism are, but it has been happy to baptize anyone who believed where ever they were found except in Black Africa.

There are any number of places where the first Mormon converts were not baptized by missionaries, in fact, I would say that such is the exception.

The church proselytes however it can where ever it can and says whatever it thinks it needs to in order to get away with it.

Shall we start with the church in Vietnam, India, China or Brazil?

It would make a nice research paper but I'm not going to write it tonight.