The insightful and sympathetic observer of Mormonism, John G. Turner (history professor at George Mason University) offered recently in the New York Times the most incisive call yet for Mormon leadership to formally repudiate Mormonism's historic (ca. 1852-1978) refusal to allow people of African descent to participate fully in the church.
In responding to Professor Turner, I want to emphasize three basic points in his excellent editorial that are commonly misunderstood.
First, some Mormons are racist.
Second, some Mormons are not racist.
Third, whether Mormon church leaders should issue an institutional apology for the prior policy of racial exclusion is about more than just racism.
The first point should go without saying because many humans are racist and Mormons are human. But even though it should be obvious, this point matters enough to say it explicitly. Some modern Latter-day Saints (LDS) still believe and employ the toxic folklore that once made sense of the policy of racial exclusion. (That folklore, while using some idiosyncratically Mormon imagery, does not differ in fundamentals from other racist Christian folklore.) This racism occurs more among people of prior generations and it appears to be waning, but this is a fact that must be acknowledged in any discussion of Mormonism and race.
Second, and this point warrants frequent repetition, many Latter-day Saints are appalled by racism. Many of them see the pre-1978 policy as a national sin that church leaders should have avoided but didn't. Many of them see the persistence of folklore and the refusal to issue an institutional apology as markers of Mormon difference from broader American society with unfortunate ramifications. Many believe that their predecessors were not as different from other Americans as they should have been. Most Americans have grandparents or great-grandparents, perhaps even parents, who were or are unapologetically racist. This racism bothers most of us, but when they are people we know well, we tend to try to contextualize their racism, to see them as products of their cultural setting, even as we gently correct them where possible. Many Latter-day Saints have a similarly familial relationship with their church and its past. As few other religious groups in modern America, Mormons honor their recent predecessors, tell stories about them, explicitly reenact their epic experiences in pageants and special campouts. They study those predecessors in their Sunday School classes and other worship services. These Latter-day Saints love the Church and want the very best for it. They are generally willing to contextualize prior racism as they would for a family member, even as they hope to eliminate its vestiges in the contemporary church.
There are at least two types of Mormons who are not racists, though, and that fact points to the third idea I want to emphasize. Some non-racist LDS would very much like the LDS Church to repudiate the racial exclusion policy and its associated folklore, including a formal institutional apology, just as Professor Turner and others have recommended. Other non-racist Mormons feel that the 1978 termination of the racial exclusion policy was fully adequate, and an institutional apology would have significant secondary effects that would be toxic to the Church.
The secondary effects of such an institutional apology are important to consider, and I congratulate Turner for recognizing this explicitly. Put simply, the question of repudiation of the prior racial exclusion policy is about more than racism. It is also a question about community ties and Mormon theologies of divine revelation. Painting Mormon reluctance to repudiate their church's prior policy as mere racism is unfair and inaccurate. For many LDS, respect for the authority of prior Church leaders is more important than compliance with modern expectations about penance for prior racism. I think for many Latter-day Saints, being in most respects modern Americans, the tension between loyalty to past church leaders and revulsion toward racism feels insoluble. They feel damned if they do and damned if they don't: they can either doubt the integrity of their spiritual leaders or be accused of racism. Forced to choose, many of them commit to their church and hope that their own lives make clear that they are not personally racist.
I suspect that most LDS would be delighted to reject their history of racial exclusion if there were only a way to do so that would not threaten their beliefs about prophetic reliability. This tension has immediate relevance for contemporary Mormons in the midst of current culture wars. Modern Mormons are currently being asked by their leaders to adhere to a particular view of gender, particularly as it applies to female leadership and heterosexual marriage norms. If earlier LDS leaders were simply wrong about race, what keeps them from being wrong about gender? Though Mormonism contains a variety of ideas about the significance of gender, in both theory and practice, for many the question of prior racial exclusion feels relevant to current debates about sexual identity.
Outsiders should recognize that Mormonism is not just an idiosyncratic Protestant denomination. While Mormons strongly desire the title Christian, they are not Protestant. There are elements of Mormon life that make it difficult for church leaders to issue an institutional apology. Mormons believe that they are a modern Israel led by modern prophets, and they see the voice of those prophets as having special authority. Repudiating such prophetic voices feels disloyal, like rejecting the Bible, which is, after all, a collection of prophetic voices from the past. Professor Turner suggests that Mormons could use biblical precedent to incorporate the possibility of prophetic fallibility. Many of the famous figures in the Bible made huge mistakes, as he correctly notes. In my experience, this approach has not been terribly successful; it is easier for many LDS to accept fallible prophets in an ancient culture than in their own lifetime. In part that comes from the powerful security that comes from seeing current church leaders as divinely inspired and authorized. Many LDS find great meaning in the confidence that their leaders are divinely inspired. Because of the theology and structure of their church, many non-racist Mormons have a difficult path ahead. Mormons, both individually and institutionally, will find their way through the sharp tensions associated with cultural change and the growing consensus that racist views are toxic. But they will need to find their own way, and that way will almost certainly involve specifically Latter-day Saints assumptions and practices.
For outside observers, then, I would offer the following advice: First, recognize that whether Mormon leaders formally apologize for historic racial exclusion or not is about more than race and racism. Second, workable solutions for Mormons loyal to their church and repulsed by racism will take time and special attention to the particularities of Mormon life and religion.
Gregory A. Prince, Ph.D. and Helen C. Whitney: Mormons and Polygamy: Truths, Lies and Ambiguities
Andre E. Johnson: The Evolution of Conservative Evangelicals, or How They Came to Love Mormonism
John G. Turner: Polygamy, Brigham Young and His 55 Wives
God decided when the Negro race (collectively and not individually) was to be given the blessing
of the priesthood. Hint; It has to do with pre-existant life (a doctrine of the church) . It was God's
call, not mans. There will therefore never be an apology or repudiation. And although this will never
be accepted or understood by the world it makes no difference. It is not in the church's power to
be politically correct against God's will.
No.
Besides the fact that people of every colour - from Scandinavian white to Tongan black - have ALWAYS been welcomed as members of the Church, the idea that the "[acceptance] is just coming now" is completely off base. The change in Priesthood policy happened in 1978 - some 35 years ago.
We were just over 3 million members back then. Right now, we're closing in on 15 million. That means that no more than 1 in 5 have ever known the Church with a restrictive policy about Priesthood in place.
And it's probably more like one in 6 or one in 7 because of Mormons who have passed on.
Today there are over 1 million Mormons of black African heritage worldwide. While African-Americans make up just 3 percent of Mormons in the United States, according to a 2009 Pew Research Center study, they make up 9 percent of Mormon converts… In Africa, now at just over 300,000 Latter-day Saints, church membership has grown by almost 10,000 new members per year, and they now have 3 LDS Temples there, and are building 2 more.
Something like that?
2 Fans Unfan
23 hours ago ( 7:47 PM)
@dandinnell>>Maybe you'd better look up a few people before you assume I hadn't read up on it. I suggest you delve a little deeper. Read up on Brigham Young to see how he felt about Blacks in the Mormon church.
Our gospel is the one that was originally taught, prior to being infused with all the NeoPlatonic claptrap.
Logic would tell us that we don't know what 1st Century Christians believed because what survived is what the 4th Century Christians wanted to survive. So many books were burned and people killed who disagreed with the Creeds that we shall never know what they truly believed.
Do you understand Ka-Ching!
First, if Brigham Young was a general purpose "racist", why did he direct so much into converting the American Indians among whom the Mormons lived? The Book of Mormon teaches that the Indians are descendants of a branch of Israel, that left Israel circa 600 BC, and that God has special promises for those descendants.
Second, Young and other Mormons actively sought to convert Polynesians. Among them was Joseph F. Smith, who later became one of Young's successors. The success of Mormon recruiting led to the establishment of a Mormon town at Laie, where Brigham Young University Hawaii is located, serving students from 70 nations around the Pacific Rim.
Third, Young and his immediate successors supported recruiting of people in Latin America, which has led to more than a million Mormons in Mexico and another million in Brazil.
Fourth, in the 1870s, the Japanese ambassador to the US was stuck in Salt Lake for a month due to snows on the railroad tracks. A direct result of that stay was a mission to Japan in 1901 led by Heber J. Grant, who became Mormon president in 1918. My father was a missionary in Japan in 1949-1952, and I served there in 1969-1971. My mother is a native Japanese.
So, Mormons have been actively recruiting and ordaining people of many non-white races throughout their entire history, for some 150 years before 1978.
The only curse that resulted in a ban from the Priesthood ban was the Curse of Cain. True other were non-whites allowed to hold the Priesthood before 1978 but they were still judged based on their skin color as people descended from those cursed by God. The so-called Lamanites are a prime example and as in many instances it was thought that as they became converted and righteous that their skin would become lighter. President Spencer W. Kimball taught as much.
The ban aside, to teach and promote the doctrine that dark skin is the mark of a curse from God is racist by definition not matter what else the LDS Church did.
Those old religions have survived for eons despite making progress at less than a snail's pace. And when they do take a human-sized step, as the Catholics did with Vatican 2, they immediately regret it and take two giant steps backward to restore equilibrium.
Removed canon and historical documentation if what shaped the church.
You can put some very nice smelling soap on it but you can not make it clean no matter how hard you try.
You can try to discount the Journal but it actually makes more people curious as to why the Mormons would rather Gentiles not know of it. Sorry, but the proverbial cat is out of the bag. What your leaders said was taken as Gospel by it's members, and now since everybody can read it, it is now discounted. Sorry, but you can't erase history, and that's what those sermons are, a piece of history of the Church. Since you've made such a big to do about it, I'm sure quite a few people have googled it, and are now researching it. So thanks for your help.
Any comment made in any sermon doesnt qualify as truth or doctrine just because somebody said it.
So if you want opinions of LDS leaders in the late 1800's, then Journal of Discourses is your source. If you want doctrine then look elsewhere.
They say that Lucifer was Jesus’ brother (JD 13:282) But the Bible says that Jesus is God’s only begotten Son (John 3:16) and that He created all things like angels (Colossians 1:15, 16).The Bible speaks of a triune (Trinity) Godhead and not some “quadrune” Godhead. Lucifer (an angel) is NEVER associated with the Trinity because he is a CRETATED being (Genesis 1:26; John 1:1; Matthew 28:19; Hebrews 1:7-13).
They teach ( taught or now omit) that Joseph Smith was holding the keys to salvation (JD 7:289; Mormon Doctrine p.411) but the Bible says that Jesus is the SOLE MEDIATOR for salvation (1 Timothy 2:5’ Colossians 2:10; Acts 4:12). They say that salvation comes by works (2 Nephi 25:23; Moroni 10:32; DC 76:52; Gospel Principles p. 291.2). But the Bible says that salvation comes ONLY through GRACE (Ephesians 2:8, 9, Romans 11:5, 6; Matthew 5:8, Hebrews 10:14). They claim that they are part of this Melchizidek priesthood. This is part of the “eternal progression” BS that is to lead them to being gods. Poor guys have to pay for their own mission trips to make sue that they are in line for that day of celebration (HC 1:39,40) But the Bible says that Jesus was the only Person QUALIFIED and with all the PREQUESITES to be “King of the Just” because is what Melchizidek means. How can any many be just if Jesus had to die for his sins???
End part 3…
Bumper sticker polemics. The only way that Mormons consider Lucifer to by ANYBODY's brother is in the sense that God created him.
"... the Bible speaks of a triune ..."
The Bible does not such thing. The word was invented about 3 centuries after Christ's crucifixion.
"... Joseph Smith was holding the keys to salvation ..."
At the Last Supper, Christ put the keys to judging mankind in the hands of the Apostles. Why do you think that every "died and went to heaven" joke ever told starts with St. Peter at the Pearly Gates?
This, however, does not mean mankind doesn't face Final Judgement, after they make it past the Apostles.
"... They say that salvation comes by works ..."
We say no such thing. We DO teach that even after all we can do (works) we still fall short, and it is only by the atonement that we are saved.
"... Jesus was the only Person ...
Excluding Melchezidek, of course. But Mormons agree with you that Jesus was the only one who could have brought to pass the Atonement.
End part 1A..
Truth
"But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel “who was in authority in the presence of God,” a “son of the morning.” (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25–27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)"
No need to continue, your post has been invalidated.
Thanks for playing.
At this point in my life, I'm beyond the racist stuff about Mormons. I think many of the children raised in Mormon families love their parents and copy their parent’s behaviors. That is nothing new. I do believe that Mormon people, like most people, want to live happy and moral lives. I do believe that they want to live in peace with their neighbor no matter the racial background. What bothers me is the cult-like loyalty that these people have for their fraudulent leaders. If you ring up some thing about Joseph Smith Jr., then it’s "No, he was framed! he didn't have multiple wives. No he wasn't a con artist." You don't hear ANYTHING about Jesus, but you do hear it about their founder. Then when you point the issues in their doctrine that totally contradicts the Bible, they want vociferously deny it. For example:
They say that God is physical (DC 130:22; HC Vol 6:305) but the Bible says God is Spirit (John 4:24). Now did God change?
They say that there is this “eternal progression” where man can “evolve” (yes, they are a religious group that does believe in all kinds of evolution) into a “god”, But the Bible says that God was always God (Malachi 3:6 and Exodus 3:14; John 8:58). No creation of god can become God!
End part 2…
1. Center around an individual or an individual’s misinterpretation of the Bible.
2. Adhere to the interpretations even if proven wrong.
3. Hold an individual’s writings to be in equal authority with Scripture.
4. Add to, take away or change the Bible to suit their teachings.
5. Maintain that they are the only ones that are right.
6. Maintain that they have a new revelation.
7. Maintain that they alone, are God’s chosen.
8. Must earn their salvation by works.
9. Attack the foundational doctrines of Christianity.
10. Lord over their members with an iron fist.
11. Encourage their members to break ties with families etc
Yep, that fits Mormonism to a T!!!
Lets apply religous faith, though It may not apply to just religous faith.
You will find that several, yet not all qualify.
Many religions qualify as cults,in spite of a respectable image provided to the public.
A cult is any group that sets itself up as the supreme authority between God and Man. Cults claim the following:
1. The Bible is seen as an insufficient guide for spiritual truth. Cult members are told to use the cult’s literature for the proper understanding of God’s truth.
2. Group leaders are seen as God’s “channel of communication” to man. They equate loyalty to the group as loyalty to God.
3. They foster a “we/they” mentality to the world, claiming that only inside the group can one find truth and ultimate salvation, and that outside the group is “Satan’s world.”
4. Doubt and criticism of the group or leaders are disallowed. They often claim that “independent thinking” is evidence of “pride,” and is seen as questioning God and His arrangement for life.
5. Adherents dispense personal identity for the group mold and take on the personality and characteristics of the totalistic environment of the cult.
End part 1…
Exactly! Precisely!! And what was going on in Galatia at the time?
The believers in Galatia, despite having the Holy Ghost, and despite having living Apostles, were going off the doctrinal rails. Paul says that he "marvel[ed] at how quickly was happening. And he told them not to believe anybody that was teaching anything different. Even if it was an angel.
Why? Because the Apostles had been given the keys to the kingdom, and were the "final authority" on doctrine.
What I marvel at is that anyone could believe that the Church, after the Apostles were all killed off and the "final authority" was gone - then managed to stay ON the doctrinal rails for 2000 years.
You were probably raised by caring people who wanted you to grow up right. I have no problem with that. I commend them for that. The problem that I have with Mormons starts with the name "Mormon". Just be Christians and stop with the cult (The church of Jesus Christ and..." Like a classic cult, you want to be "exclusive". Christians are all inclusive. I've heard all the BS of why a Christian can't enter a "Mormon temple" but you can enter any Christian church-even the Vatican without security clearance. The RCC may have added some apocryphal books to justify alms giving and such- but they didn't change the theme of the Bible. No Catholic believes that a man became a god ( Heavenly Father) by some "eternal progression". No Catholic will put ANY religious book above the Bible, No Catholic believes in three level of heaven. No Catholic believes that God is a white man composed of flesh, bones and somehow breathes oxygen where ever the hell he's supposed to reside. The tip off that your doctrine is from the Devil is that in your defense, you come up with those three questions that he asked Eve. The idea is to first question what one believes then ask another to plant the seed of doubt. Finally there is the sales hook of ,”We have something you need”. And it’s a false promise (Genesis 3:1-4)
M O N E Y .