Do you believe mormonism/LDS was racist in the past? And now?

Question

How do you feel about the LDS church and the treatment of blacks prior to 1978? And after?

Was it really racist that black men could not become priests before 1978? Was 1978 a little late to accept blacks equally?

Was Brigham Young a racist?
"Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 272)

Lots of questions. Thanks for answering.

Answer 1

The doctrine was very racist in the beginning, but up until 1978, it was maintained mostly out of ignorance and tacit acceptance of previous racist sentiments, although not necessary advocating the same.

**EDIT: Thank you to Bowman and Bartolomeo for confirming the following statement (maybe people will accept it easier from believing members' mouths)**

Most Mormons think that the doctrine originated at the time of Adam and Eve when Cain killed Abel. They are taught that Cain's race was cursed right then and there, and that ever since, blacks couldn't hold the priesthood. The truth, however, is that Joseph Smith openly ordained several black members to the Priesthood, and even performed temple ordinances for a few of them. It wasn't until 1852 that Brigham Young began the ban. At this point, the Church was residing OUTSIDE of the United States and had no government but its own. It wasn't until 1858 that Utah was again included in the US as a territory. Thus, the reason for it was strictly internal, and not due to "anti-Mormon persecution." Brigham Young simply chose to enact the ban, whatever his reasons. He knowingly left Elijah Abel (the most prominent black priesthood holder from Nauvoo under Joseph Smith) in his office as a Seventy, but restricted his temple attendance.

In later years (around the 1860s), Church leaders began to proclaim an eternal nature for the ban. After Lorenzo Snow, most evidence even points to Church Presidents even believing that it was eternal. Kimball, however, investigated the history as well as the doctrinal quotes, which is why he felt good about repealing it. Without saying as much (for fear of ruining the faith of the members), he essentially accepted the doctrine as "uninspired" and repealed it without a literal mandate from God, but rather by "the Spirit" (i.e. burning in the bosom).

Until the mid 1970s, the risk of repealing the doctrine was much higher than the risk of keeping it. Because a good portion of the membership was still more or less racist, and because there is always a risk of large-scale exodus when doctrines are changed, it was still convenient to keep it.

Finally, when sentiments had sufficiently shifted in the positive towards the African-originated races, the risk of exodus was higher with the doctrine in place than without it.

That being said, today I believe that the vast majority of LDS members are not racist... I think that the sensitivity to accusations of racism has actually made them cognitively remove racist ideas from their minds. This is actually quite a positive thing because nowadays, Mormons are much more tolerant of minority races than most other religious groups.

At the time, there actually was IMMENSE pressure on the church to drop the doctrine. Colleges were threatening to boycott playing BYU in sports games, and the church was threatened with losing its tax-exempt status... not to mention the criticism from the Brazilian government, which was angry that the church built a temple with Brazilians' tithes only to refuse entry to more than half of them, since most Brazilians are at least part black.

Two apostles who were in the meeting with Spencer W. Kimball (including Pr. Hinckley, the current prophet) testified later that the meeting was a result of all of those factors "weighing heavily" on the minds of the 1st Presidency, and then after a prayer, "feeling good" about removing the ban. They said that it really made them feel a lot better towards the black members of the church who had been required to pay a full tithe but couldn't enjoy the pinnacle of what the church promised to provide to its tithe-paying members. Many black members, in fact, didn't bother paying tithing anyway, because they knew they wouldn't be getting a temple recommend. After the "revelation" though, this was no longer a concern.

"Too late" is in the eye of the beholder, but they were definitely slightly behind the times. Just like it took 28 years from the time polygamy was outlawed for the church to ban it (and 42 years to actually stop practicing it), so also it took roughly 20 years from the time the Civil Rights movement was started before they lifted the ban.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the later leaders were racist (well, except for Harold B. Lee), but simply that the LDS Church teaches that for revelation to be valid, it has to be in line with past revelation and scripture. Thus, the risk was that people would lose faith in the church for "changing". In the 50's and going forward though (with Joseph Fielding Smith and David O McKay), a popular sentiment was taught that there was "a time" in the future when God Himself would decide to repeal it. Once this idea was accepted, the doctrine was able to be repealed without too much of a fallout effect.

Edit: Brother G, that is technically incorrect. Several prominent LDS people did have slaves, although you're right, it was much less common among the saints than southern Churches. However, it is important to note that both Joseph Smith and Heber C. Kimball have black people sealed to them as servants for eternity. Jane Manning ("black Jane", as she was called) was sealed to Joseph and Emma as a servant for the eternities in 1841.

Answer 2

Nope.

Blacks have always been able to be baptized as members in the church. There have been some issues in all black areas (like africa) because they couldn't hold the priesthood, and therefore local wards and branches couldn't be established.

The Lord has always dictated who could and could not hold his priesthood. In the Old Testament, only those from the tribe of Levi could hold the priesthood.

In the New Testament, all those worthy men in the house of Israel, and eventually all men (but not women).

Does this mean Mormons hate women? No. It's God's priesthood, and not the Mormons. It is his to decide who can and cannot hold it.

It is interesting that Mormons get so much flack for this when it was a pretty normal thing for many churches in America to have some pretty strict policies and habits when it came to blacks and their church.

Cain was cursed and as a result was marked. His descendants were not cursed, but they carried the mark. It is the acts of individuals (not parents) that make people cursed. Black people are not cursed at birth according to Mormon theology.

Answer 3

I guess there will be a lot of hateful answers about Mormon's regarding this question... So I will try to do my best without any hate at all, and only give you the facts that I know to be true:

When asked a similar question, Joseph Fielding Smith once stated, "a meaningful response to this question rests on an understanding of what the Priesthood is."

However, even with a firm understanding of the Priesthood, (Which can be found at lds.org or through missionaries), a person is still left to wonder why Black African members would be denied the blessings of the Priesthood. Some people believe it to be an issue of racism or prejudice. This is not true. In fact, in the early days of the Church members were persecuted for NOT being prejudiced enough.

"The saints were accused of being abolitionists and a threat to the status of the state of Missouri, then a slave state. Even from the 1900s to the 1940s, when there was a general segregation of Blacks from so-called white churches, there was no Church policy of racial segregation of blacks and whites in THE CHURCH of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints. "

D. Charles Pyle, Encyclopedia of Mormonism

In those days the general public was not concerned about the blacks receiving the Priesthood. Most of the white folk owned slaves and believed that Black Africans should not be allowed even the least of privileges. The truth be known, many believed that black people did not even possess souls. The prophet Joseph Smith spoke out on this matter.

"...they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. "

History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 217

And in 1863 Brigham Young taught,

"For their abuse of [the Black African] race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent. "

Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.110

Thus showing that Brigham Young was not racist.

So, if prejudice wasn't the cause, what was? In 1855, George A. Smith, gave the following explanation:

"The Lord conferred portions of the Priesthood upon certain races of men, and through promises made to their fathers they were entitled to the rights, and blessings, and privileges of that Priesthood. Other races, in consequence of their corruptions, their murders, their wickedness, or the wickedness of their fathers, had the Priesthood taken from them, and the curse that was upon them was decreed should descend upon their posterity after them, it was decreed that they should not bear rule. "

Journal of Discourses 3:29

More detailed reading about why God would deny the blessings of the Priesthood to worthy members of his church based on their lineage can be found here: http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQRace.shtml

Then, in June of 1978, after spending much time in prayer, President Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation from the Lord which announced that all worthy male members of the Church could receive the Priesthood.

"I was present when the Lord revealed to President Spencer W. Kimball that the time had come, in His eternal providences, to offer the fullness of the gospel and the blessings of the holy priesthood to all men."

Bruce R. McConkie

Since that time, the rise of Black Africans joining the Church has increased tremendously. Evidence of this was displayed in 1998 when Gordon B. Hinckley traveled to five different African countries and announced a temple to be built in Ghana. There he was welcomed by thousands of members who not only held the Priesthood but rejoiced at the news of having their own temple. President Hinckley was also the keynote speaker for the 1998 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People conference.

I hope that cleared up some of your confusion.

Answer 4

I believe that the Church was and always has been less racist than any other part of our society. Changes brought about in the Church are and were made in keeping with the principle of unity.

You quote a few lines from Brigham Young. I can add a few like them from Abraham Lincoln. These men were products of their times and were still instruments of change and progress. President Young was criticized by the Antis of that era for giving Indians and other minorities the priesthood.

In the 1960s the Church supported the civil rights movement. It did not support segregation or withholding voting rights. With a smaller Western membership, it did not have a major impact, but it was a recognition of the problem.

President Kimball was concerned about the priesthood for blacks in the 1950s when he was assigned to Brazil. He had it in his heart and mind. When the time was right he was the one who was prepared to bring about the change.

Answer 5

In the beginning there probably was a degree of racism there. The church will tell you that this was probably done to make the church a bit more "acceptable" to the mainstream public of the time. To a degree they are probably right. As racist is this was...had the church accepted black members it would have probably added to the persecution that they were already experiencing at that time. This was a group that was beaten, tarred, feathered, and ultimately expelled from the United States for their beliefs. On state had even issued extermination orders against all Mormons. To allow blacks to hold the priesthood, which would have been looked disfavorably upon at the time, would have only worsened their plight. The church did not feel that "society" was ready for this until the late 1970's. I'm sure that there was an undercurrent of racism there but they originally had some valid reasons for this stance. I do believe, however, that they were a bit slow in bringing the priesthood to the black community.

Answer 6

The fact is that yes, the policy seems racist. It was not based on a belief that Blacks are inferior. It was based on a belief that the father of the Black race (Cain) did a horrible thing and brought a curse upon his decendants. I personally feel that the challenges this curse brought upon his decendants will be returned to his own head.

The policy was that men of African Black herritage were not able to hold the priesthood. Cain's curse was the loss of that opportunity, not their skin color. The skin color is a sign of the curse, not the curse itself.

In 1978 (btw, I turned 3 in the fall of 1978, so I don't really recall the whole thing), many wonderful men of the church with unknown herritage wanted the blessings of the temple- to be with their families forever. Because these blessings were only available to men who held the priesthood, the opportunity for the blessings of the temple were unavailable to these men and their families

En mass, they wrote to the leadership of the church, begging to be allowed these blessings.

President Kimball took their requests to God. He prayed and fasted. I won't pretend to KNOW what he personally felt about the situation, but I suspect that he felt that their time had come. They'd kept the covenants they'd made so far, they qualified for temple blessings in every other way.

God accepted their righteousness and the blessings of the priesthood )and the temple) were extended to all worthy men, no matter their race.

The change in policy was in no way related to the civil rights movement or to pressure from the federal government about the church's non-profit status. It was because of righteous men begging for the blessings of which they were worthy.



Regarding President Young's statement- Again, I don't like to speak for others, especially when its something this sensitive, and easy to misunderstand.

Answer 7

I think they contridict themselves, they say that Cain has a Mark, and the laminites in the Book of Mormon have a curse of dark skin, but African Americans are OK now, its still a contridiction to me.
I don't believein the priesthood, so it doesn't matter to me whether African American have it or not.
Brigham Young was a racist.
Cain has a Mark and the indians have a curse. Thats what I was taught when I was a mormon.
Songs of Solomon 1:6
Do not stare at me because I am dark. Because my skin is darkened by the sun.

Answer 8

To begin with, the Journal of Discourses is NOT doctrine of the LDS church.

Regardless of whether or not it was racist, it is not practiced anymore. So, why worry about it?

99.99% of all people living in the mid-1800's were racist.

Blacks were given the Aaronic Priesthood from the first black man baptized. So, you need to get your facts straight. It was the Melchezedek Priesthood that was not given to Blacks until 1978.

GET OVER IT ALREADY!!!

Answer 9

Everyone's a little bit racist Sometimes. Doesn't mean we go Around committing hate crimes. Look around and you will find No one's really color blind. Maybe it's a fact We all should face Everyone makes judgments Based on race. Princeton: Now not big judgments, like who to hire or who to buy a newspaper from - Kate Monster: No! Princeton: No, just little judgments like thinking that Mexican busboys should learn to speak goddamn English! Kate Monster: Right! Both: Everyone's a little bit racist Today. So, everyone's a little bit racist Okay! Ethinic jokes might be uncouth, But you laugh because They're based on truth. Don't take them as Personal attacks. Everyone enjoys them - So relax! Princeton: All right, stop me if you've heard this one. Kate Monster: Okay! Princeton: There's a plan going down and there's only one paracute. And there's a rabbi, a priest... Kate Monster: And a black guy! Gary Coleman: Whatchoo talkin' 'bout Kate? Kate Monster: Uh... Gary Coleman: You were telling a black joke! Princeton: Well, sure, Gary, but lots of people tell black jokes. Gary Coleman: I don't. Princeton: Well, of course you don't - you're black! But I bet you tell Polack jokes, right? Gary Coleman: Well, sure I do. Those stupid Polacks! Princeton: Now, don't you think that's a little racist? Gary Coleman: Well, damn, I guess you're right. Kate Monster: You're a little bit racist. Gary Coleman: Well, you're a little bit too. Princeton: We're all a little bit racist. Gary Coleman: I think that I would Have to agree with you. Princeton/Kate Monster: We're glad you do. Gary Coleman: It's sad but true! Everyone's a little bit racist - All right! Kate Monster: All right! Princeton: All right! Gary Coleman: All right! Bigotry has never been Exclusively white All: If we all could just admit That we are racist a little bit, Even though we all know That it's wrong, Maybe it would help us Get along. Princeton: Oh, Christ do I feel good. Gary Coleman: Now there was a fine upstanding black man! Princeton: Who? Gary Coleman: Jesus Christ. Kate Monster: But, Gary, Jesus was white. Gary Coleman: No, Jesus was black. Kate Monster: No, Jesus was white. Gary Coleman: No, I'm pretty sure that Jesus was black- Princeton: Guys, guys...Jesus was Jewish! Brian: Hey guys, what are you laughing about? Gary Coleman: Racism! Brian: Cool. Christmas Eve: BRIAN! Come back here! You take out lecycuraburs! Princeton: What's that mean? Brian: Um, recyclables. Hey, don't laugh at her! How many languages do you speak? Kate Monster: Oh, come off it, Brian! Everyone's a little bit racist. Brian: I'm not! Princeton: Oh no? Brian: Nope! How many Oriental wives Have you got? Christmas Eve: What? Brian! Princeton: Brian, buddy, where you been? The term is Asian-American! Christmas Eve: I know you are no Intending to be But calling me Oriental - Offensive to me! Brian: I'm sorry, honey, I love you. Christmas Eve: And I love you. Brian: But you're racist, too. Christmas Eve: Yes, I know. The Jews have all The money And the whites have all The power. And I'm always in taxi-cab With driver who no shower! Princeton: Me too! Kate Monster: Me too! Gary Coleman: I can't even get a taxi! All: Everyone's a little bit racist It's true. But everyone is just about As racist as you! If we all could just admit That we are racist a little bit, And everyone stopped being So PC Maybe we could live in - Harmony! Christmas Eve: Evlyone's a ritter bit lacist!

Answer 10

No they were not and are not. Blacks joined the Church from the beginning. Joseph Smith had many black friends who he gave of his own substance to.

The priesthood issue always causes some to think this. Blacks did not receive the priesthood back then. Women do not hold it now. If one is to believe that God can give his priesthood to whomever God wants to give it to, then why cannot one also accept that fact that God choose to do as he did. Mormons believe that God had certain limitations on who he gave the priesthood to. Since 1978, God has chosen to allow ALL worthy men to hold it if they desire it. Its God's priesthood. He can choose who he wants to give it to. Simple matter.

Answer 11

Imasis2 You lie like a snake.

Mormons never had slaves and don't have slaves sealed to them. They can only seal family members.

It was the Southern Baptists who made slaves out of black people. Mormons were never racist. All people of all colors can join and have the priesthood in our church. Yes before 1978 black men couldn't have the priesthood but we repented. Unlike Jones University and other baptist and fundie churches in the south. Mormons never had slaves.

No blacks weren't made black from the preexistence there were no fence sitters. It was impossible.

Elijah Abel was the first black to have the LDS priesthood in 1833.

Edit: Mr. Penguin They may have been sealed but they were never slaves. Ilinois at the time and always was a free state.
Personally I don't think Emma was around when the other women were sealed to Joseph. She was against other women being "married" to Joseph.