The Church and Race: "All Are Alike Unto God"

[skippy740]

The Church and Race: "All Are Alike Unto God" - LDS Newsroom

Official Statement

The Church and Race: "All Are Alike Unto God"

The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. The Book of Mormon states, “black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.

People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning. In fact, by the end of his life in 1844 Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, opposed slavery. During this time some black males were ordained to the priesthood. At some point the Church stopped ordaining male members of African descent, although there were a few exceptions. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended. Church leaders sought divine guidance regarding the issue and more than three decades ago extended the priesthood to all worthy male members. The Church immediately began ordaining members to priesthood offices wherever they attended throughout the world.

The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.”

Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject:

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

Note: This is the first time I've ever seen a statement from the Church that spoke of blacks being ordained to the priesthood by Brother Joseph.

[clevermoniker]

"For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. 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. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding."

If this is coming directly from the Church... How can they possibly say that they do not know WHY, HOW or WHEN the restriction began? Seriously?

I'm a faithful member of the church, but this really bothers me...

[LittleWyvern]

There's also this statement released just today:

The Church issued the following statement today in response to news media requests:

The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 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.

The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form.

For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. 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. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.

That last line almost knocked me out of my chair... I need to sit for a minute and chew on how awesome that is.

EDIT:

If this is coming directly from the Church... How can they possibly say that they do not know WHY, HOW or WHEN the restriction began? Seriously?

That's because... that's accurate. Even current Mormon scholarship has yet to point down exactly when or how the restriction began (and we'll never know why, of course). It's an interesting trip into historical research if you're into that kind of stuff.

Edited February 29, 2012 by LittleWyvern

[skippy740]

If this is coming directly from the Church... How can they possibly say that they do not know WHY, HOW or WHEN the restriction began? Seriously?

One step at a time. The fact that they even MENTIONED that blacks were ordained to the priesthood by Brother Joseph is a HUGE PR step for the Church.

(If you want to know more about this issue, click on the logo in my signature file.)

[clevermoniker]

There's also this statement released just today:

That last line almost knocked me out of my chair... I need to sit for a minute and chew on how awesome that is.

EDIT:

That's because... that's accurate. Even current Mormon scholarship has yet to point down exactly when or how the restriction began (and we'll never know why, of course). It's an interesting trip into historical research if you're into that kind of stuff.

I don't know that I believe it to be accurate. Ok, "Scholars" might not have the answer. But... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints itself does not KNOW? Deciding not to go public with it, I can understand that. But to come out and say that they do not know? I find that really hard to believe...

[HiJolly]

Don't think that this is a spur of the moment response. The Church has researched for decades the reason of the "ban", and hasn't found a shred of evidence that it was due to a revelation. So I think their answer is honestly that we don't know why.

Personally, I think it is because Brigham Young was a racist. But that's not very helpful, is it?

HiJolly

[clevermoniker]

Don't think that this is a spur of the moment response. The Church has researched for decades the reason of the "ban", and hasn't found a shred of evidence that it was due to a revelation. So I think their answer is honestly that we don't know why.

Personally, I think it is because Brigham Young was a racist. But that's not very helpful, is it?

HiJolly

Again, I don't think I believe that "The Church" hasn't found a shred of evidence, as you say. Do you think they'd just volunteer that Brigham Young was just a racist, and nobody bothered to correct him?

I've wondered at times if this were not the real reason... But why did no Prophet after him reverse this? Did none of them bother ask God what he thought of it 'till 1978?

[Dravin]

I don't know that I believe it to be accurate. Ok, "Scholars" might not have the answer. But... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints itself does not KNOW? Deciding not to go public with it, I can understand that. But to come out and say that they do not know? I find that really hard to believe...

What records do you expect the institution and reasoning to have been kept in? And why are you so sure those records are extant? I'm sure the Church could make some suppositions (such as HiJolly has done) but that's different then being able to point to some meeting minutes where Brigham Young said something to the effect of, "We will now institute this policy for the following reasons."

I've wondered at times if this were not the real reason... But why did no Prophet after him reverse this? Did none of them bother ask God what he thought of it 'till 1978?

The contemporaries of the initiator of the policy may have agreed with the reasoning and once you are removed from that point you start getting inertia. I do recall President McKay saying he prayed about it and sadly got a no/not yet in response. The why is anyone's guess. Can't seem to dig up a cite though, maybe someone more in tune with the history will know.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Dravin

[RMGuy]

Personally, I think it is because Brigham Young was a racist.

HiJolly

How do you reconcile that with "The prophet will never lead the church astray"?

-RM

[skippy740]

We have a culture in the church that "The Prophet is always right".

Many saints testimonies may be so fragile that if they learned that a Prophet was wrong that it may turn them away from the church. Better to have a weak, active testimony, than to turn completely away from their activity in the church.

This isn't a doctrine of salvation. This is an area that many people would like more explanation from the church. This Official Statement is ONE STEP towards that direction.

The church has NEVER been keen on answering questions by "popular demand" or to satisfy some "social pressure".

But this is just one more step towards greater explanations and understanding.

EDIT: In addition to this culture, it became increasingly more difficult for successive leaders to make corrective statements about past leader's comments. After all, shouldn't ALL Prophets be right 100% of the time? Sometimes a Prophet isn't always speaking as a Prophet.

Edited February 29, 2012 by skippy740

[skippy740]

How do you reconcile that with "The prophet will never lead the church astray"?

-RM

The prophet will never lead the church astray from the teachings and doctrines of salvation and towards faith in Jesus Christ.

[RMGuy]

The prophet will never lead the church astray from the teachings and doctrines of salvation and towards faith in Jesus Christ.

Thanks. I'm still working on the low bars....the complex gymnastics still throw me.

-RM

[pam]

There is a reason why the Church put this statement out today.

[clevermoniker]

The prophet will never lead the church astray from the teachings and doctrines of salvation and towards faith in Jesus Christ.

A prophet's personal racism stopping an entire group of people from receiving the priesthood.... sounds an awful lot like leading the the church astray.

[pam]

The church put the statement out today in response to actions of a BYU professor:

LDS Church condemns past racism 'inside and outside the church' | Deseret News

[skippy740]

Prophets have never been perfect. Those who think that all Prophets are perfect have never read and understood the scriptures.

(This is a general statement, not a statement made at any poster in this thread.)

Just one example in modern scripture:

D&C 93:47

47 And now, verily I say unto Joseph Smith, Jun.—You have not kept the commandments, and must needs stand rebuked before the Lord;

[RMGuy]

There is a reason why the Church put this statement out today.

Yes indeed there is Pam. Likely in direct response to a member of the church who has said the same types of things at a church sponsored university for 20+ years without being told he is in error. He even had the words of past prophets and apostles to back him up. Then when it comes out in the media that this is what some members believe, in fact, that this is what some members were TAUGHT to believe, it doesn't look so good and the church enters damage control mode.

In some ways I feel sorry for him.

-RM

[cwald]

A prophet's personal racism stopping an entire group of people from receiving the priesthood.... sounds an awful lot like leading the the church astray.

I agree. I don't see how one can say otherwise.

Sure ---- it's all fine and dandy if you are a white guy or gal. But what about the black folks during the first 150 years of the restoration?

[cwald]

We have a culture in the church that "The Prophet is always right". ...

Yeah, we do. And it is the church leadership fault for promoting false doctrines like the 14 Fundamentals of the Prophet, and allowing these type of teachings to filter down to the membership.

[LDSCubsFan]

"For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. 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. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding."

If this is coming directly from the Church... How can they possibly say that they do not know WHY, HOW or WHEN the restriction began? Seriously?

I'm a faithful member of the church, but this really bothers me...

It bothers me too. But, I just have to keep reminding myself that no matter what church I belonged to or what religion I believed in, there would be things about it that bother me. You gotta believe in something.

[skippy740]

It's only today that we have the current definition of "racism". We are looking at the past with the standards of today. Back then, no one thought it was even wrong to be "racist".

Remember that the church was founded by CONVERTS. The church has had to grow and develop line by line, precept by precept. If the church was restored exactly as it is today, the church would not have survived.

[RMGuy]

Prophets have never been perfect. Those who think that all Prophets are perfect have never read and understood the scriptures.

(This is a general statement, not a statement made at any poster in this thread.)

Just one example in modern scripture:

D&C 93:47

I agree with you Skippy. What things do you think we were told at the last general conference that weren't the will of the Lord? How about the one before that?

I think the hard part is we have things like the 14 fundamentals of following a prophet and members are not encouraged to question the council of a prophet. In our stake a YW can't even go to girls camp if she has more than 1 pair of earrings. Even if she doesn't believe it is the will of the Lord. Then, we have something like this that is blatantly off base, and we use the schtick that prophets aren't perfect.

We can't have a cake and eat it too. Either they, and by extension the church, is held accountable for what they taught OR they are fallible and prone to questioning...including the current group.

-RM

[cwald]

It's only today that we have the current definition of "racism". We are looking at the past with the standards of today. Back then, no one thought it was even wrong to be "racist".

Remember that the church was founded by CONVERTS. The church has had to grow and develop line by line, precept by precept. If the church was restored exactly as it is today, the church would not have survived.

Yeah, I guess that excuses it.

Everybody was racists at thetime, so why not the restored "one true" church and the Prophet of God as well?

[pam]

I am starting to not like the tone of this thread.

[LDSCubsFan]

I am starting to not like the tone of this thread.

Sorry, but I have heard many times from fellow LDS, including some raised in the church and including one that is now a bishop, that the reason blacks used to not be allowed to obtain priesthood had to do with the Nephite/Laminite thing. Now that the issue has generated much publicity lately, the LDS church is suddenly saying it doesn't know what the reason is for this? One can't help but to wonder what "revelation" the living prophet will get next.