I was a teenager in the 70s, living in the south. The mission president came up with a great idea to get more people for the missionaries to teach. We, the members, were to call every name in the phone book in our cities, and simply ask if they would like to learn more about the church.

I was about 16 years old, and I participated. I went to an adult member's home and was given pages in the phone book to call. I was given suggestions of what to say.

Many of the people I talked to weren't happy to have me call. But many were happy! "I would love to talk to your missionaries!" "Jesus came to America? I never knew that! I want to know more!" I wrote down the name, phone number, and address of everyone who said they would like to talk to the missionaries. My list got longer and longer.

The people in charge were a bit confused about why I was having so much success, when others were coming up with little or nothing.

Looking into it more, they figured it out. They had accidentally given me pages from the phone book of mostly black neighborhoods.

They threw my list away.

Big shelf item for me.

"Looking into it more, they figured it out. They had accidentally given me pages from the phone book of mostly black neighborhoods."

Having grown up in the church in the '60s and '70s in Montgomery, Alabama, I'm well aware that missionaries didn't intentionally proselyte black people. However, your story doesn't make sense, seeing as how phone books carry surnames in alphabetical order, without regard to race. There's no way that anyone could intentionally give you a page of a phone book that was mostly black people, unless your particular area was majority black. If the phone book was from a city like for instance, Tuskegee, Alabama (93% black, 4% white), it could happen.

You are so wrong on this one. It makes total sense.

Two years ago Tennessee had an initiative on the ballot to change the state Constitution allowing politicians to make abortion restriction laws unfettered, with no vote or referendum from the people. I worked hard on the "No on Amendment 1" campaign and did a LOT of phone banking.

My favorite day phone banking was when I was given pages and pages of people with the last name of Jones. I will tell you that 90% of the people I talked to were Black. And they were so nice to talk to, friendly, asked questions, and genuinely seemed to want information.

There are other surnames in the South that are prolific and predominantly Black. I think it's hilarious that they were calling these people in the 70s (I'm assuming pre-78) and asking if they wanted to talk to the missionaries.

"You are so wrong on this one. It makes total sense."

I have no idea what you think I'm wrong about.

"My favorite day phone banking was when I was given pages and pages of people with the last name of Jones. I will tell you that 90% of the people I talked to were Black.

"There are other surnames in the South that are prolific and predominantly Black."

You live in Memphis, right? Memphis is 63% black and 27% white. So it's no surprise that most of the people named Jones you spoke to were black. As I'm sure you're aware, a lot of slaveowners gave their slaves their own surnames. That's why there are a lot of black Washingtons, Jeffersons, Jacksons, Joneses, etc. But as time has passed, a lot of the white people with those surnames have died out, and/or a lot of their descendants have moved out of urban areas due to "white flight." So it's not surprising that you'd encounter a lot of black Joneses in Memphis.

Also, the OP didn't mention calling a bunch of people with a particular surname. He clarified that the phone book was of an area that had a large percentage of black people. He could have called people who had 100 different surnames, for all we know. If the area was majority black, then the majority of people he called would have been black. Duh.

"Whoa...randyj, I grew up in the South, too. I don't know much about statistics, but NormaRae's explanation totally rings true. I don't doubt the OP's story at all."

The way the OP originally posted his story didn't make sense. He clarified it in another post. When someone gives you a phone book and tells you to call people in alphabetical order, there's no way of telling what race they are. The only way you could call random numbers and get a majority of black respondents is if the community that the phone book covers is a majority black community. Based on what the OP wrote, the missionary who assigned him the area phone book from which to call people probably wasn't aware that that particular community was majority black.

I cited the city of Tuskegee, AL as an example (93% black, 4% white.) Tuskegee sits between Montgomery and Auburn, in the heart of the old cotton belt. So a large percentage of its residents are descendants of slaves. The historically black college Tuskegee Institute, founded by Booker T. Washington, is also there, so that attracts a lot of black students and employees (the singing group The Commodores met each other while students there.) So naturally, if you call random phone numbers in that area, you'll get a majority of black respondents.

But just a few miles from Tuskegee, across I-85, is the city of Tallassee, which is 68% white and 21% black. So if you call random phone numbers there, you'll get a very different demographic of respondents. But young missionaries who are making random phone calls would have no way of knowing the racial demographic of people listed in the phone book.

This subject reminds me of my mission in Australia, when my MP assigned me to an inner-city area near the riverfront wharf in Brisbane. When I met with the MP on my way to my new assignment, he warned me to "stay out of the bad areas." Problem is, I had no way of distinguishing the "good areas" from the "bad areas." All we knew was to take a street map and go out and knock on doors, like missionaries do everywhere. If we knocked on doors in "good areas," few people would talk to us. Or, a lot of those areas were apartment buildings with security buzzers, so we couldn't get in them anyway. The only people who would talk to us were in the low-to-middle-income, working class areas. A lot of those people were on disability or had mental problems and were on government benefits etc. So it was slim pickings for us. We taught a lot of 1st and 2nd discussions, but we rarely got past that point. But we had no way of knowing who was going to be worth talking to until we knocked on random doors and met them. Same goes for the OP and the phone book incident.

You're right, randyj, and I wish I had been clearer in my original post.

Below is the explanation.

Whoa, randyj, I didn't mean to be that contradictory or anything. Lord knows I'd like to have a sliver of your knowledge on most things.

Just stating why it made sense to me because of what I experienced. Thinking about it, there are other variables I did not consider--I was calling registered voters in the whole county, not the city proper. And now we have caller ID, so maybe more Whites ignore numbers they don't know. Normally only 1 in 10 people will even pick up their phones. All I know is I loved the day I got to call the Joneses. More people picked up, more people talked to me and they were predominantly Black. And of course, more Blacks were interested in knowing the specifics of the amendment, whereas more whites had been told by their preachers to vote No and not listen to anyone who wants to give them facts.

Maybe I didn't describe it right, as a "neighborhood." The phone book was for the main city, with separate sections for neighboring small towns. The book was huge.

I knew that I never saw black people in church, but that was the first I had heard that missionaries didn't proselyte to them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2016 05:39PM by liesarenotuseful.

"I knew that I never saw black people in church, but that was the first I had heard that missionaries didn't proselyte to them."

Oh, yeah. That was a big deal that has been discussed here and on other Ex-Mormon sites for years. When I was a teenager, I worked with the local missionaries a few times. They were told to not knock on doors in black areas, and if they happened to knock on a door and a black resident opened it, the missionaries were instructed to identify themselves and invite the resident to "Attend the church of your choice." They were NOT to teach them the discussions. Because of that policy, no black people joined the church in Montgomery until 1975, and only a handful joined before the priesthood ban was rescinded in 1978. Even after that, only a few black people joined the church from then until the mid-'80s, when the church began actively proselyting them (which they primarily did because few white people were joining.)

BTW, our mission presidents during the '70s when that policy was in force were Hartman Rector and Spencer Osborn, who were both GAs. Remember, Bruce R. McConkie, in his book "Mormon Doctrine," stated that "The gospel is not effectively carried to them" (black people) at that time.

I served a full two year mission in Texas in the early sixties after having grown up in SLC. I don't recall ever being told by anyone in authority not to proselyte Blacks. However, we knew not to since that church clearly taught back then that Negroes (as they were then called) were cursed by god and would not be given the priesthood until the end of the millennium.

I cannot recall any time that any of our missionaries ever taught the gospel to Blacks. Hell, members complained whenever "Latinos" joined the church. Many resented having to share their meeting house after it had been built with "Anglo" money and labor. I can only guess what would have happened had we brought a Black couple to Sacrament Meeting.

"I don't recall ever being told by anyone in authority not to proselyte Blacks."

It was very clearly taught where I lived in Alabama. A couple of years ago, John Dehlin (IIRC) asked for people's experience with this practice. I assume that he wanted to document it.

It must have been frustrating for Hartman Rector to be mission president in an area that probably had few baptisms, like the south. I'm not sure, but I think his mission in San Diego was highest baptizing in the world, or maybe just the US.

I remember feeling sad and angry that they threw my list away, I can still hear their kind voices in my head, the people who said yes.

"It must have been frustrating for Hartman Rector to be mission president in an area that probably had few baptisms, like the south."

Nope, back in those days (1960s to mid-'70s) baptisms were flourishing in the south. For instance, one guy, a lawyer, who joined the church in 1970 was made SP in 1976, and he served for 10 years. His successor was a guy who joined in 1972, and he served as SP from 1986 to 1996. That guy is currently a county probate judge. A lot of the "pillars" of the church that area joined in the '60s and early '70s.

Hartman Rector was like a rock star while he was MP there. His personality aided in a lot of the conversions during that era.

Back in the 60s, missionaries did not have the now ubiquitous badges, so until we opened our mouths you couldn't be certain who we were.

I was taught on my mission that when tracting, if a Black person answered the door, we were to ask if this was the home of the Barriga family, or something like that, and hope to ghawd the person didn't say, "Yeah, we're the Barriga family..."

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Back in the 60s, missionaries did not have the now
> ubiquitous badges, so until we opened our mouths
> you couldn't be certain who we were.

That may have been true where you served, but in Texas they sure as hell knew who we were - badges or not. We were the only ones in town wearing suits on a hot day and riding bicycles!

Two things immediately different: we didn't have to wear suit coats when it was hot, and you and your companion were the same color.

Plus I did say indicate they couldn't be certain until we opened our mouths.

As a missionary I was never told to avoid certain races, but I was told we were bringing in too many poor people and riff raff. We were instructed to tract in more affluent neighborhoods. Shelf item.

Just curious...who told you that you were bringing in too many poor people and riff raff, funeral taters? This should remove any/all doubt that LD$, Inc., is all about the money...

edzachery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just curious...who told you that you were bringing
> in too many poor people and riff raff, funeral
> taters? This should remove any/all doubt that
> LD$, Inc., is all about the money...

I can state for a fact that when I first met with the local Mormon bishop after being transferred to San Antonio, he complained to me about the poor converts the previous missionaries had "dumped on him" and then moved on. I assured him that I would always introduce prospective members to him PRIOR to baptism and kept my word.

In one way he was right - missionaries often baptize individuals for their own selfish reasons and then leave the local leaders and members to deal with them.

On my mission in South America, the president didn't use insulting language (riff raff), but he did say that there weren't enough people with money being baptized. He said we needed more people with money because they obviously would have leadership skills and more leaders were needed. So, the elders were to hitch hike when possible. Because anyone with a car had money,plus leadership skills, and when they give the elders a ride, the elders could talk to them about the church. Also, if you found an investigator with money, the president would be happy to teach some of the discussions himself, in the mission home. That would really impress the investigator. Some of those wealthier investigators were baptized in the pool behind the mission home.

Well, it is a historic fact that the Church from its beginning has always sought out "the elect". Perhaps, the term today means "those of money" rather than "chosen of god".

Just another example of so-called continuing revelation.

"Just curious...who told you that you were bringing in too many poor people and riff raff, funeral taters?"

On an official, churchwide basis, they did it like this: the missionary discussions in those days were called The Uniform System For Teaching Families. The church wanted to primarily convert traditional intact families who had working fathers. The lessons were geared towards respecting the father as the head of the home, addressing the lessons and questions to the father, teaching the father to pray and how to hold FHE's, etc.

Also, the old Missionary Handbook, which was nicknamed the "white Bible," stated "There is little point in baptizing someone who does not intend to become an active member of the church"---"active" meaning participating and paying tithing, etc. They didn't want us to baptize any "deadwood"---social misfits, mentally ill people, etc.

Problem was, that type of person was the majority of those who would listen to us. Most normal, well-adjusted people who had intact families and good jobs either already belonged to churches that they were happy with, or were agnostics who didn't care about religion. That's why we missionaries used the term "golden family" to describe the kind of stable, intact family that the church wanted to convert, and that was open to listening to us. Those were as rare as gold.

everyone in his mission (Louisiana Baton Rouge, I think) had been instructed to REALLY question potential black converts, to find out if they were more interested in the welfare program than in the gospel.

This kid was from a well-educated family in the Pacific Northwest, and he found this kind of instruction to be very offensive, and yet, he confessed to me (we got to be pretty good friends, and still are, though I'm old enough to be his mother) that he was struggling to be "obedient."

I told him that Nazis placed a high value on obedience too, but that ultimately, we were responsible for how we treated other people.

Years later, he told me that our talks helped him stay sane during his mission. Fortunately, most of his comps were pretty cool guys, and they tended to let their hair down and relax at my house.

BTW, he ultimately left the church too. When DH and I visited with him and his wife during vacation some years back, we toasted our ex-mo status with a glass of wine!

catnip Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The mish who baptized me in the late 80s told me that
> everyone in his mission (Louisiana Baton Rouge, I
> think) had been instructed to REALLY question
> potential black converts, to find out if they were
> more interested in the welfare program than in the
> gospel.

In the early 60s we did the same thing in Texas with poor whites. Every once in a while we were approached by an individual (usually a single mom) who wanted to know how to join the church. They had learned about LDS welfare and wanted to sign up. We fairly quickly eliminated them as potential investigators.

I wasn't in the South, but in New England in the early 70's we were instructed not to teach Black people when we door knocked them. We were told to simply be polite and invite them to attend their churches. We were also instructed to aggressively try to teach wealthy people in wealthy neighborhoods.

As a nevermo, this is all new knowledge to me and so disgusting that they call themselves a church! Truly despicable, IMO.

It was sickening then, and still sickening now.

"As a nevermo, this is all new knowledge to me and so disgusting that they call themselves a church!"

Well, you have to understand that this was in the 1970s and earlier, which was before or shortly after the civil rights movement in the USA. Most churches of many denominations were segregated before that time, such as the Southern Baptists. And of course, there were, and still are, churches that are all black or mostly black, such as the AME Zion church.

When you get down to the nitty-gritty, most black Americans wouldn't want to join, and wouldn't feel comfortable in, a church that was predominantly white like Mormonism was in the '60s and '70s, any more than the average white person would run out to join the AME Zion church or some other predominantly black denomination. I don't know why any black person would join Mormonism even today.

I agree Cinda, it is absolutely terrible!!

Why do people get sent to Atlanta, Baltimore, Detroit, St Louis etc ,? You think people would notice if they're doing that to a lot of people. I know some areas could be mixed, but what about E St Louis and Washington Pk in Il/ Mo, or Antacostia , near DC?
Someone might really be interested in the church, or they were praying about something and the missionaries turned up on their porch? They might want to try it and turn up anyway at Sacrament

Two elders tracting in northern Alabama visited northern Mississippi and baptised a family (and their slave's families), and a few others, in the late 1830s, who, after traveling to MC Headquarters (Ill), and finding ole Joe inside out, Briggy sent them back to Mississippi to gather their herds, coffee, tea, tobacco, slaves, tools, dry goods, blankets, propaganda (BoM) and such and join the first trek westward.

This was news to me not too long ago. I was in the 'Mississippi room', reading in a library, and came across a book entitled 'Religions of Mississippi' (or something like that). I was surprised to see mention (even a few pages, in a large book) of Mormonism, while also learning and thinking about this (unfortunate) family/ story.

So, elders baptised blacks in the early church days. Who knows what they told them [Mormonism] TSCC (it) was all about. Some may not have had a voice, or choice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/2016 02:35AM by moremany.

I knew that someone had documented RMs' stories of how they were instructed to not proselyte black people before 1978. I found it, and here's the compilation of those reports:

http://www.mormonthink.com/glossary/missions-pre1978.htm