LDS Church Condemns Racist Past, BYU Professor's Remarks In 'Washington Post'

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints denounced its racist past and comments made by a Brigham Young University professor who said the faith didn't allow black priests to enter the priesthood until 1978 because God didn't think they were ready.

The remarks, published in the Washington Post, stirred up controversy among church officials and students who deemed the comments racist.

In the Feb. 28 article, theologian and professor Randy Bott attempts to explain why the Mormon church originally barred African-Americans from entering the priesthood. In addition, he says the ban "was the greatest blessing God could give them" at the time:

Bott says that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on Earth — although not in the afterlife — protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers.

On Feb. 29, the LDS church issued a statement acknowledging its past and emphasizing that Bott's remarks were his own opinions:

BYU faculty members do not speak for the Church. It is unfortunate that the Church was not given a chance to respond to what others said ... It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine.

However, Bott allegedly told one of his classes that he was misquoted in the article, the Deseret News reports.

"He said he just shared the scriptures with the reporter and told them that the church hasn't given an official reason for the priesthood ban," student Katie Cutler told the Deseret News.

Still, Joanna Brooks of Religion Dispatches observes that Bott was certainly not the first to offer a theory based on "Old Testament pretexts."

Additionally, the LDS church has never directly addressed the origins of the ban, but only denounced racism, according to Brooks.

The Mormon church might not condone racism, but moving forward from its tainted past may be easier said than done.

HuffPost blogger and author Samuel Brown offered the following insights:

Until the malevolent nonsense masquerading as historical theology about race is exposed to public view, the Church may prove unable to purify itself entirely of the stain of prior racism. Even as many, hopefully most, Latter-day Saints have moved beyond a racist past they unfortunately shared with most of white America, some holdouts will continue to cause difficulty for the Church and its members...We who value the church can earnestly hope that this debacle will persuade those Latter-day Saints who hold such moth-eaten, malignant beliefs that it is time to abandon them.

Comments

[IraqOut]

03:35 PM on 05/29/2012

Well if you actually read the statement, they did not condemn their racist past at all. They admitted to nothing and simply said that racism is bad. "We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church."

They don't deny racism and they don't say racism inside the Church is ok, but they sure as hell don't acknowledge anything racist that they ever did, despite a long history of being the most virulently racist church in America. This is not being accountable and is not acceptable and Mormon racism remains the albatross around Romney's neck.

[Brett Baylis]

10:22 AM on 05/24/2012

Maybe the Mormons didn't allow black priests until June 9,1978-the day after my father's 65th birthday-because they thought Ken Norton would defeat Larry Holmes that day to retain his World Heavyweight Title.(Holmes won a split 15-round decision and successfully defended his
large lads belt 20 times,second only to Joe Louis' 25 Heavyweight Title Defenses!!!!)

[FrankInCarson]

07:48 PM on 03/23/2012

This is far too little, and far too late. The mormon men who were the Administrators of the USDA systematically denied federal benefits to black farmers, across America, and mormons are responsible for the death of countless black farm business. Shame on them and their sham theocracy.

[Stn Sndiman]

05:20 AM on 03/24/2012

what!?

[FrankInCarson]

12:00 PM on 03/24/2012

Since FDR's time mormons have been in the executive eschelons of the USDA. (Look it up) All the decision makers were mormon men. They developed very early on a distaste for helping black farmers. The government realized that the ability to grow food is a national interest. The government also realized that farming is dependent on weather conditions, which cannot be controlled. Whenever that was a drought Black and White farmers were not able to produce a paying crop, hence were not able to pay their mortgages, etc. White farmers routinely received crop subsidies when poor weather caused crops to fail. Black applicants were denied in some instances 100%. of the time. This meant often, that white farmers. living next door to black farmers, would have the government assisted help to buy the farm land of the black farmer at foreclosure auctions. The black farmers were labeled "poor businessmen" at the same time the white farmer was getting a government hand out. (This is the crux of the "Pigford Lawsuit). Essentially, blacks were shut out of assistance programs routinely given to whites. The mormon executives heading the USDA created, encouraged, and enforced this policy for over 70 years.

[FrankInCarson]

12:01 PM on 03/24/2012

"Whenever that was a drought" should read: "Whenever there was a drought..."

[analisae]

02:38 AM on 03/16/2012

Although it seems this article is past its time, I found this too entertaining not to share here. Just a little Mormon humor about our dear LDS Newsroom: http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/2012/03/so-you-think-you-can-write-lds-newsroom-press-releases/

Well, some humor and some wisdom as well. I wish I had written this:

"Racism is among the worst remnants of humanity’s tribally divided efforts to lift itself beyond its evolutionary origins. Professor Bott’s misguided efforts resemble the racist teachings of former leaders of the Church. We hope that he had the best of intents in responding to the questions he was asked. Nonetheless, his efforts to justify the unjustifiable stand as a witness that we have not yet succeeded in eradicating the pernicious effects of past racism within our own community. For that, we apologize and commit to redouble our efforts to teach and foster a spiritual home for all persons of all descents and heritages."

[xxixpines]

11:19 PM on 03/17/2012

a perusual of FAIR indicates that apolegitics is encouraged at the universtiy, but is one ones own time. (nudge nudge wink wink) they also make it known that those working on apologetics are on their own, thusly when something goes negative, fired and disavowed is the solution.

Sounds something like CIA operatives, they are rouges if they get caught.

[Terri Skau]

12:03 AM on 03/18/2012

Nudge nudge wink wink.. Great Post...;-)

[analisae]

02:10 AM on 03/18/2012

You apparently either don't understand what an apologist is, or you didn't understand the point of the link. An apologist would try to justify the wording of the church press release. The link I posted criticizes it. Here's another quote that reflects my point of view:

"Statements crafted by committees and reviewed by attorneys are not asking for grace and can’t lead to repentance. They are designed to project an image to the public while avoiding the pain and consequences that might come with an actual apology. I don’t expect the church to solve all the worlds problems, I don’t even expect it to be perfect, but I think in part what it means to follow Jesus is to have the character and dignity to admit you are wrong and ask for forgiveness. For the church to do anything less than this is to reject the atonement and the very Christianity it preaches."

[Kiwi57]

05:10 PM on 03/12/2012

@iridium53:
"I'm asserting only that those members of this particular organization who actively participated before 1978 were, in fact, actively participating in the furtherance of these goals."

And what might those "goals" be?

@iridium53:
"When someone is running for POTUS, character matters."

Indeed.

If you want to find out if he was a "racist," then I suggest that his reaction to the June 1978 Revelation would be far more telling. You want to argue that he had "free will" to do whatever he liked? Fine. Then if he was a "racist," we should expect to see some indication of that post June 1978, shouldn't we?

Otherwise you are simply arguing that all Mormons who were adults in 1978 are automatically disqualified from holding public office, and your own bigotry is plainly in view.

@iridium53:
"Critical examination of Romney's active role in this organization’s active racial prejudice and misogyny are fair topics to help ascertain the true nature of the candidates character."

Except you have offered no "critical examination" at all. You have *assumed* actions on his part *solely* upon the basis of his church membership.

Do you suppose that is a "liberal" posture to take?

[xxixpines]

08:58 PM on 03/12/2012

"Otherwise you are simply arguing that all Mormons who were adults in 1978 are automatically disqualified from holding public office, and your own bigotry is plainly in view.
"
that would be the electorate decison to make not yours.

[Kiwi57]

04:57 PM on 03/12/2012

@iridium53:
"That a well-educated adult of considerable means with free will didn't have any choice but to accept membership in any church organization is a total rejection of the idea of FREE WILL."

I didn't say he had no choice but to accept membership in the Church. Do try to pay attention.

Religious believers start from acceptance of certain core truth claims. External or incidental considerations are ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to those truth claims. If we accept (exercising our free will) that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820, we don't then pull out a political correctness checklist before deciding whether to act on that belief or not. The notion that anything ought to -- or even could -- be more important to a religious believer than the Will of God is absurd and actually incoherent.

Accepting the Church's truth claims, Romney therefore had no choice but to accept the Church's position upon how it assigns leadership roles. This is how consequences flow from choices. "Free will" is not "rejected."

@iridium53:
"When one acts as a leader of an organization, perhaps a Stake Bishop, one enforces the rules of the organization."

Oh, so you don't actually have any evidence of him *doing* anything. Got it.

@iridium53:
"I'm asserting only that those members of this particular organization who actively participated before 1978 were, in fact, actively participating in the furtherance of these goals."

What "goals" do you think the Church had?

[xxixpines]

09:01 PM on 03/12/2012

any citations?

[xxixpines]

01:41 PM on 03/12/2012

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/apology

mormon apology petition

[xxixpines]

05:05 PM on 03/11/2012

http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/hitlertemplework.htm

[xxixpines]

02:19 PM on 03/09/2012

Would baptising Adolph Hitler be fighting racism or would it be the exercise of racism in itself?

[krissymax]

12:48 AM on 03/09/2012

The elements of a fraud - a misrepresentation, with the intent to deceive, relied upon, which causes damage. The Mormon Church is a fraud - misrepresentation - failing to tell investigators of the Church and members that Joseph Smith was a polygamist (33 wives, 11 of them teens, one only 14 years-old), Joseph used a "seer stone" stuck in a hat to "translate" the Book of Mormon. That the official version of the First Vision was written 22 years after it allegedly took place, (many different versions before that visited by angels, then Jesus alone, the God the Father and Jesus), The Book of Abraham (look up the movie) overwhelming evidence that it was a fraud. It is the intent of the Church to make sure members and investigators don't know this stuff because if they did they wouldn't join and or stay. People relied upon the "official version" of the Church, which omitted known history. Causes damage - brainwashing people taking 10% of income and making them into "stepford wives." It is a perfect fit for a fraud. Sorry folks that's just one person's opinion See Mormonthink.com or 20 Truths about Mormonism, or Mittmo.com, or just read Fawn Brodie' Book No Man Knows My History. It is all there for everyone to study and decide.

[analisae]

12:35 PM on 03/09/2012

I reassert my earlier argument, which your answer below did not actually answer: Why would the authors of MormonThink.com continue to be faithful Mormons if the histories they publish prove the religion is a fraud?

My answer: none of the the histories or facts or whatever else you find can prove the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Book of Mormon, or the priesthood power our church possesses is fraudulent. You may think it does, but it doesn't.

I'm sorry you decided to leave the church. I hope you find joy elsewhere.

[xxixpines]

01:09 PM on 03/09/2012

nor can you prove it is fact.
what is your point?

[krissymax]

01:09 PM on 03/09/2012

Mormonthink is a great website. You would have to ask the authors - don't ask me. In fact the website says some are active some are not. I am not them. But reading their website it is quite clear that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God. Please don't think that the gospel of Jesus Christ is owned by the Mormon Church. I am sure if the Jesus of the New Testament was alive, he would take billions of dollars and buy a shopping mall. He wouldn't have declared polygamy as the right thing to do, he wouldn't have denied blacks equal status, he wouldn't have to lie and not tell the truth about his own history. He would not instruct his "prophet" to pretend to translate Egyptian. Please the beauty and truth of the message of Jesus Christ should not be co-opted and sullied by a Church that has a main goal of profits and power. Joseph Smith in the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham, declared himself second to Jesus in greatness. That is actually embarrassing. The Priesthood story also has the same factors as the First vision - revisionist history. Read any of the sources that I have cited.

[Kiwi57]

03:47 PM on 03/11/2012

The elements of bigotry: negatively characterising a target, relying upon broad brush strokes, appealing to mere prejudice.

@krissymax:
"failing to tell investigators of the Church and members that Joseph Smith was a polygamist"

It is nowhere denied and is published in official Church publications and investigated in scholarly papers written by faithful LDS academics.

@krissymax:
"That the official version of the First Vision was written 22 years after it allegedly took place,"

You keep repeating that. It is false.

The official version was written in 1838. That is 18 years later, not 22.

@krissymax:
"many different versions before that visited by angels, then Jesus alone, the God the Father and Jesus"

That's false. The earlier versions were much shorter; therefore a lot less detailed. But there are no contradictions and all of them can be harmonised without doing violence to any of them.

@krissymax:
"The Book of Abraham (look up the movie)"

The "movie" is a hatchet job put together by a gang of EV Protestant propagandists.

@krissymax:
"Causes damage - brainwashing people taking 10% of income and making them into 'stepford wives.'"

"Brainwashing" is a discredited bit of nonsense folklore. And you do know that "The Stepford Wives" was fiction, don't you?

[xxixpines]

04:30 PM on 03/11/2012

so you would like to infer that fictional writing cannot mimic the truth?

Ill take the word of a former LDS than a present, the former no longer being hypnotized.

[velamatson]

11:05 PM on 03/08/2012

i suffered so much pain growing up, as a mom, etc, i lived on wantland road, after the squatters, my ex husband was an alcoholic, he had stuck a gun in his mouth onetime when the grandparents took the children to the coast, i ran down the gravel road with no shoes on, when i saw that,i was so scaired . he kept telling me to come back, i was so scaired , my feet hurt. I went back,, i went back he was asking me to take the gun away from him. some people actually take there life, and some are just crying out for help. either way in this case i was scaired, and terrified! the alcohol continued, i kept coming up with incentives for him to quit drinking, i bought him a corvette, he said he would quit!, next day he drank again. we were avid mormon goer's i was going to the temple etc, and then, he lost it, the kids werent allowed to watch wholesome stuff anymore, even goofy movie was forbidden, my country music was forbiden he lost it! he lost it, him loosing it on me made me loose it, he told me he wanted to sleep with alot of people just not me! we built a cedar home on the land i was trying to make everyone happy, he still would get drunk once with a laser site aimed at my head. and my nephew was behind me.

[analisae]

12:43 PM on 03/09/2012

Your story is heartbreaking. I wish I could give you a hug. I hope you are able to find peace.

[iridium53]

07:16 PM on 03/08/2012

Just keep in mind that Romney was preaching this stuff as a fully grown adult until 1978.

That's thirty-one years of age.

Until age 31, Mitt Romney was an active, official, racial bigot.

[xxixpines]

08:49 PM on 03/08/2012

Please stand by, a member of FARM or MAD will be with you shortly.

[iridium53]

09:17 PM on 03/08/2012

Great.

As a well-educated adult with free will he still continued to associate himself with and preach racial prejudice as part of the Mormon Church.

[iridium53]

12:12 AM on 03/09/2012

Perhaps so.
But, moderators are not going to let me respond.
It will, I fear, be a one-sided conversation.

[Kiwi57]

10:27 PM on 03/08/2012

@iridium53:
"Just keep in mind that Romney was preaching this stuff as a fully grown adult until 1978."

Was he?

Do you have a record of Mitt Romney "preaching" anything about the Priesthood ban in, say, 1977?

@iridium53:
"That's thirty-one years of age."

Wow. He can do arithmetic, and everything.

Well, that puts you ahead of some of your fellow (heh heh) "liberals."

@iridium53:
"Until age 31, Mitt Romney was an active, official, racial bigot."

As opposed to being what? An active, official, religious bigot?

Because, let's be clear on this point: there is *absolutely no* moral daylight between racism and the kind of religious bigotry so conspicuously on display in this community.

[iridium53]

12:02 AM on 03/09/2012

At age 31 Romney was a well-educated Stanford and Harvard graduate.
He was a man with free will.

He opted to accept the core tenets of the Mormon Church and act as a missionary and a lay preacher.

One of the core tenets of the Mormon Church was organizational racial bigotry towards blacks. Clearly documented in their Church teachings.

Those are the facts.

When an educated man of free will accepts the tenets and becomes a missionary for an organization that practices racial bigotry he is, himself, a racial bigot.

If an educated man of free will accepted the tenets of the Ku Klux Klan and became a recruiter for the KKK, we would reasonably conclude that individual is a racial bigot (amongst other things).

If an adult, educated German joined the Nazi Party in 1936 and acted as a Nazi Party recruiter and official, would we not conclude that individual was a Fascist?

How is it then, that Romney, or any educated, aware Mormon of adult age in '78, is not a racial bigot?

[xxixpines]

06:20 AM on 03/09/2012

Wow. He can do arithmetic, and everything.

Well, that puts you ahead of some of your fellow (heh heh) "liberals."

Do you suppose this somehow diminishes the truth you face?

[iridium53]

07:13 PM on 03/08/2012

I've seen better loads of this at rodeos and dairies.

We use this stuff for compost.

[xxixpines]

09:25 AM on 03/07/2012

I couldnt help but notice that when things are slow enough the MAD will attack one another.

"I have extensive experience in engaging ex-Mormons and ant-Mormons. They both do not like the Mormon Church and have no interest in honest discussion. I am extremely troubled by the last sentence in your comment. A religion's doctrine is not something to be challenged. Either you accept it or reject it. The way to determine what to do is by praying and asking God if it is true and not by asking someone else’s opinion or seeking consensus. I suspect that you are lacking a testimony from the Holy Spirit and as a result are struggling with your faith. Only God can answer your questions. I have a couple of scriptures and a link to an article that might shed some light on this:"

It was only a matter of time before the female was questioned I think, given their subjugated position in the church.

then there is the self professed agenda:
"
Our "agenda" being to counter the intentional and malicious misrepresentation of our faith"

All over a book written with the sole purpose of docmenting a journey journey to america 600 years before Christ so they would be here when he came to the ameicas.

They do provide interesting news opinon since they are lacking any "official" authority.

[analisae]

12:44 PM on 03/07/2012

xxixpines, Why to you insist on labeling others?

I take comfort in the fact that most of your arguments and conclusions are incoherent and harmless.

[xxixpines]

01:35 PM on 03/07/2012

I realize that would be true for those who suscumb in being told what to think.

[xxixpines]

02:02 PM on 03/07/2012

you do realize that labeling me a labeler does not diminish the truth?

[peacedude]

06:34 PM on 03/06/2012

Anti-Mormons tend to read LDS scriptures from a 19th Century racist point of view. Oddly they then condemn Brigham Young etc, for doing so, even though they actually lived in the the 19th century.
Anti-Mormons usually don't tell anyone that Most Mormons are probably dark skinned and that ancient Book of Mormon people would not have understood our modern racism issues. If there WERE any racism in the Book it would be a dark skinned superiority over whites.
White Europeans are called “gentiles” in the Book of Mormon and dark skinned Book of Mormon scribes imply that these white Europeans would need extra repentance, partially due to their lack of charity, and perhaps because of their mistreatment of Native Americans. The Lehites, who wrote the Book of Mormon, were all dark skinned, and were one race. They couldn’t be racist against themselves. They couldn't tell the difference between a Lamanite or Nephite except by language and perhaps dress.

Book of Mormon and other ancient dark skinned writers did use ancient symbolic language when describing religiosity. For example, the dark skinned Indians who wrote the Rig-Veda (about 1100BC) described themselves in terms similar to those used by Book of Mormon people. (See wiki “White Skins:” Anciently…“Religious conversion was described figuratively as a change in skin color. Similarly, the Rigveda uses krsna tvac "black skin" as a metaphor for irreligiosity.”

[analisae]

07:33 PM on 03/06/2012

Thanks so much for sharing this. I've never heard this interpretation before...

Just to clarify, are you saying the Lamanites were not actually darker-skinned than the Nephites? You interpret the language as purely symbolic?

[krissymax]

08:32 PM on 03/06/2012

The Book of Mormon is not actual history. Where exactly is Zarahemla? Please note that DNA proves that the American Indians came over the Bering Straight - they have no Jewish blood. The Book of Mormon was "translated" by Joe Smith with a seer stone (literally a stone placed in his hat). This Mormon Church and its history is so embarrassingly childish. Please don't pretend to give it some historical clout. See Mormonthink.com or Mittmo.com these websites cite actual historic documents and offer both sides info. See the Book of Abraham another Joe Smith fraud. Google the Book of Abraham movie - the jury is back on this one. With the Book of Abraham, the documents and facsimiles have been reviewed - they are not what Joe Smith said they were (Joe Smith said they were from the "hand of Abraham") They were merely funeral prayers. With the Book of Mormon, Joe Smith claims that the golden plates were taken back to heaven??? How ridiculous can it get?

[Kiwi57]

09:02 PM on 03/06/2012

@krissymax:
"How ridiculous can it get?"

Quoting bumper-sticker soundbites from boilerplate anti-Mormon propaganda as if it represented thoughtful analysis of the data is pretty ridiculous.

Calling Joseph Smith "Joe," as if you were on first name terms with him, purely to be demeaning and dismissive, and then expecting people to take your recycled opinions seriously, is pretty ridiculous.

Book of Mormon geography is a question that serious scholars are seriously studying. It does not get dismissed with mere flippant throwaway remarks.

The great DNA fiasco (yes, that's what it is) has failed to prove anything relevant to the Book of Mormon.

Etc, etc.

[xxixpines]

09:33 PM on 03/06/2012

@krissymax

take a look at your response and you will find that the following makes perfect sense.

Anyone who disagrees--however slightly--with any aspect of Mormonism is automatically an anti-Mormon, a bigot, or a fundamentalist whose views can be dismissed out-of-hand.

When they come up with defenses for their faith, LDS apologists and their sympathizers automatically assume that the scenario they've concocted, however unlikely, is "good enough" to provide Mormonism with an "out," at which point all criticism is dismissed