Are Mormons Racists?


Thanks to a misunderstanding between my car and three 18-wheelers, I’ve missed most of what has been going on in the world over the last week or so.  But apparently while I was staring at ceiling tiles in a hospital room, some boneheaded professor at Brigham Young University graciously decided to provide me with some blog fodder by speculating about the reasons for the LDS Church’s exclusion of blacks from the Priesthood until 1978.  As of the last report I’ve read, he is still gnawing vigorously at his own foot.

We’ll talk about the issue of the priesthood in a moment, but the current controversy touches upon the broader question of whether Mormons are racist.  To me, this is a particularly interesting question, both historically and personally. 

Historically, it is yet another example of the perpetual no-win situation forced upon Mormons by our critics.  One of the primary complaints about Joseph Smith while he was alive was that non-Mormons believed he was “soft” on slavery, and might have been an abolitionist.  In 1830’s Missouri, which was the center of the storm in the slavery debate, being perceived as an abolitionist meant drawing both political fire and, frequently, gunfire.  So it is curious that the same church that was targeted for being too accommodating of blacks 180 years ago now is criticized for being racist.  Can’t win for losing.

Personally, my views about race changed significantly as a young man as a direct result of my service as a full-time missionary for the Church.  Prior to my mission, my interaction with people of other cultures was minimal, and my mindset reflected the ignorance that comes from such a lack of experience.  But on my mission, I went door-to-door on the South Side of Chicago, walking in a new world for me and discovering the kindness and goodness of people from many different races and culture.  More importantly, my closest friendship on my mission was with a black missionary from Trinidad and Tobago, and that friendship changed my attitude forever.  Neither my marriage to a Mexican-American girl nor my eventual career as a civil rights attorney likely would have happened but for my mission.

So why does the LDS Church get labeled as racist?  In my mind, there are two reasons.  The first is the issue of the exclusion of blacks from the Priesthood until 1978.  The second, if I am being completely honest, is the stark reality that the LDS Church, like every other organization, has some members who “get it” with respect to race and some who don’t.

The controversy over blacks and the priesthood is an awkward one for Mormons to talk about, and for good reason.  As the most recent statement from the Church on this issue points out, we aren’t really sure how the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood got started, or why.  There is some decent evidence that Joseph Smith ordained at least a few African-Americans to the priesthood during his lifetime.  But at some point, that stopped.  Because there was no “official” reason ever stated for this, anyone trying to explain the position necessarily was speculating.  Much of that speculation was goofy (or worse), and those explanations are often quoted by critics of the Church in order to demonstrate how racist Mormons are. 

Personally, it is my belief that the inability to articulate a reason for the exclusion is the reason that Spencer W. Kimball, who became President of the Church in 1973, spent so much time inquiring of the Lord about this issue and seeking direction on what was to be done.  We  believe that in 1978 he received a divine revelation opening the priesthood to all worthy males.  That revelation was accepted as official doctrine of the Church in October 1978.

Now, it is important to understand the way the LDS Church operates.  We believe that once the Lord speaks on a subject, anything that anyone has said to the contrary prior to that time is irrelevant.  It was said without the light of additional revelation.  This precise point was made by Bruce R. McConkie, one of the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (which, along with the First Presidency, directs the global affairs of the Church), at the time the revelation was announced.  He made clear that anything that had been said about blacks and the Priesthood prior to the revelation was essentially moot.  This was a significant statement, because much of what was said came from McConkie himself.

The long and the short of it is that the priesthood has been open to all worthy males for nearly 40 years, and there isn’t much sense in trying to defend a prior policy that never was officially explained anyway.  And let’s be completely honest:  Most Christian churches that pre-date the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. share a similar problem on the issue of race.  After all, it was upstanding Christians who permitted the practice of slavery in the U.S. in the first place.  All Christians suffer from the same uncomfortable reality that our attitudes in years past have been affected by the prevailing social views of the times. 

The second reason for the “racism” label is more practical.  There are some 14 million people on the records of the Church, and some of these folks are the most loving, open-hearted people you will ever meet.  Some others need a good whack upside the head.  I’m not going to pretend that there aren’t Mormons with racist views, because I have  seen it.  In my opinion, any racism is too much, and by that definition we have too much.  That’s true of a lot of things.  We’re imperfect people striving to do better.

But that does not change the fact that this is a worldwide Church that is committed to the welfare of all of God’s children.  In my view, racism cannot survive the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Church leadership has been clear on that issue, and I have found that the culture of the Church increasingly has come in line with that counsel.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Are Mormons Racists?”


  1. 1 tonybrigmon March 4, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    Once again, Rob uses his unique ability to disarm with humor and then arm with truth (facts). These kinds of articles lead to better understanding and less prejudice and bigotry – exactly what the world needs now. Well done, Rob. Thanks.

  2. 2 Jeff April 18, 2012 at 10:03 pm

    I love your posts, Rob, but I’m not sure I can totally get behind this one in particular. I guess perhaps knowing your audience, you were trying to keep it extremely simple, but a simplistic treatment of this particular issue generally takes people from one level of misunderstanding to another, instead of helping them understand, full stop.

    The point I’m making is that the Church’s policy restricting certain individuals from Priesthood callings was never about “blacks,” and was always meant to be temporary. So, a few clarifications:

    • Many “black” people were not restricted from the Priesthood. Elijah Abel (ordained 1836) is, of course, the first example, but there are many, many others (including Elijah’s son Enoch, who was probably ordained during the Young administration).

    • Many “white,” “yellow,” “red,” etc., people *were* restricted from the Priesthood, as they were also members of the restricted lineage.

    • Many prophets—even Brigham Young, who may have instituted the policy—stated that the policy was only temporary, that those so restricted would eventually receive the Priesthood; but it would come in the Lord’s time, not man’s.

    • Many prophets and Apostles—at least as early as David O. McKay, but likely earlier—prayed for decades, that the policy would be changed. In fact, under President McKay, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve actually voted unanimously in favor of changing the policy, but were forced to table the measure when revelatory confirmation never came.

    • President McKay also clarified that the policy did not apply to people adopted out of the specified lineage, i.e. Canaanite children adopted by Israelite parents.

    Anyway, perhaps you knew all this and left it out in the interest of brevity, but I just wanted to make sure it was clear to all your readers. Thanks again for an awesome blog!

    • 3 R.S. "Rob" Ghio April 19, 2012 at 7:18 am

      Thanks, Jeff. There were a couple of things there I didn’t know and that I found interesting.

      Just so you understand how I approach these posts, I try to keep them right around 1000 words, with the idea being that I want to give enough information to answer the question, but not so much that I overwhelm anyone. That’s why you won’t see a bunch of scriptural citations, general conference addresses, etc. I try to approach these as if someone is asking me the question at a dinner party, and provide an answer that other people can use in a similar environment. My hope eventually is to add a “If You Really Want to Know More” section that can be more substantive. I’ll work on that in my spare time…between 2 and 4 in the morning. Fortunately, there are folks like you who are willing to flesh things out a bit, and that is great.

      I appreciate the kind words and look forward to hearing from you again!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 554 other followers


%d bloggers like this: