Will the Mormon Church apologize to blacks?
Posted September 14, 2006
The American church has an embarrassing track record on race. Our largest Protestant denomination (the Southern Baptist Convention) formed as a pro-slavery body in the mid-nineteenth century. Well into the 1950s and 1960s, many churches defended American Apartheid -- segregation, separate-but-equal, second-class citizenship for blacks and Jim Crow laws.
But few religious organizations fought the civil rights tide longer or more vigorously than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Blacks were barred from the Mormon priesthood until June 1978 -- nearly a quarter-century after Brown v. Board of Education.
Even in the late 1960s, Mormon theologians sounded more like George Wallace than Martin Luther King.
Check out this 1966 quote from Bruce R. McConkie -- a top church authority who eventually joined the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. It is cited by leading anti-Mormon critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner in several of their books and articles.
"Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abra. 1:20-27.) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them... negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom, but this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of Spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate." (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 527-528)
The Southern Baptist Convention recently apologized for its ugly record on racism. Will the Mormon church follow suit? During my visit to Salt Lake, that was the top question on my list. Unfortunately, the top LDS official who addressed the Religion Newswriters Association did not field questions, so I left town with my question unanswered.
If Mitt Romney (Governor of Massachusetts and a Mormon) runs for president, look for questions about the church's track record on race to surface during the campaign. LDS officials will have three choices.
1.) They can ignore the questions. That's a risky PR strategy, but it could work (especially if Romney's campaign fizzles.)
2. They can focus on their current teachings. They can stress their rapid growth around the globe and the fact that they are now an international church that welcomes people of all races. They can note that many Christian bodies had policies which excluded blacks. (My guess is, this will the most attractive option for officials in Salt Lake.)
3. They can address their record on race head-on. I can't imagine that church spokesmen would stand up and say that the church was right to exclude blacks until 1978. The other option is to say that the policy was wrong -- but that opens another can of worms. It would undermine the church's authority to say that a key (and late-twentieth-century) Mormon teaching had been wrong.
For my Mormon readers, which option is the church most likely to choose? What -- if anything -- would you like to see the church say about its past record on race?
Archived Comments
I see not one whit of need for an apology. The lord resticted the priesthood to the tribe of Levi and the others were not entitled to an apology. The Lord is the one who can confer or with hold. A new Church, looking for members, would have been probaly happy to take members where ever they could find them, particularly with the record of the LDS Church had being against slavery. If it were simply a man made organization that is what would probably would have happened. I have always found it interesting that although the Blacks could not hold the priesthood at that time, they could join the Church and many did. But unlike other Churches, we never required them to meet in different buildings or at different times. We never had segregated congregations!
Posted by:
Bob Dunn |
September 14, 2006 at 05:52 PM
Frank, you ask a very good question but you don’t understand the reasoning behind our position. Let me ask you a question. If you had been born when Moses was leading the children of Israel out of Egypt, who would you have been mad at. You see, Moses declared that only those male members of the tribe of Levi could hold the priesthood. So if you were of the tribe of Benjamin, you would never have the opportunity to stand in the most sacred part of the tabernacle and pray for and in behalf of the people you love. The question I have for you is would you be mad at Moses for excluding you from this opportunity, you being a good and worthy man in every way, or would you be mad at God for giving Moses this exclusionary revelation. A revelation that excludes not only every other tribe of Israel, but also everyone else on the face of the earth from holding the priesthood.
Another illustration. If you had approached Peter with you being a gentile, before he had the revelation to include all people into the church, you could have taken that quote from Bruce R. McKonkie and just plugged in gentile where it says Negro and Peter might have said something very close to the same thing about you. Your born condition would have excluded you from not just leadership, but membership in the church Jesus organized himself, just because you were born just a little too early.
While I can’t speak for the church, I can speak my opinion about your question which is, you don’t understand how a church directed by God works. Doctrine is not created or changed by members based on what is popular or progressive. Polygamy was not popular or progress among the Mormons from the very beginning seeing that only about three percent ever practiced it when it was allowed. Unlike other churches we don’t get together in a council with all the best and brightest minds and come up with who we think God is, like Constantine did in Nice. And then if you disagree, you are burned at the stake. We rely on a prophet, just like Moses, at the head of our church who has the authority by God to look around at our condition today and ask God on our behalf what we as a people should do about life, and God answers him for our behalf. No it’s not perfect because Joseph Smith then, and Gordon B. Hinkley now are just men doing the best they can with what they know at the time. I have read in the good book that Moses wasn’t really popular with his “thou shall have no other Gods before me” thing when first presented because he interrupted a pretty good party.
Lastly, I was in the Louisville temple the other day and went through session that was led by a wonderful African American man. There was a point while there when he knelt at the alter in the temple and prayed for my behalf. I was thrilled.
Posted by:
Tom Hatton |
September 14, 2006 at 08:54 PM
I have to say that this one point you have made that there is not one absolute truth in religion is sadly false. If you don't mind.....Our Father in Heaven is the same Today, Yesterday and tommorow...culture may create differences but truth is everlasting....look deeper...knock and ye shall find. Much Love, Kathy
Governor Romney's candidacy is of very little concern to the Church and plays absolutely no role in any "pr strategy." That said, I agree there is nothing to apologize for. The Church has always welcomed members of all races, colors, and creeds. That is not going to change.
How dare you compare God's reward to His faithful, beloved Levi with pure Jim Crow racism!
Moses did not make that law - The Lord Your God did! It was God's way of continuing the covenant he had with Levi who stood in awe of God's name!
What the Moron Church did was just pure "look down your nose" disgust of the Black man. That is capitalized, by the way, when it is used to refer to race.
They still look down on the Black man just like they still lust for multiple wives and would still have it if they wouldn't be thrown in jail.
In reality you are doing Black folks a favor by keeping them out of your "church".
Thank you.
Isn't it odd how blacks and women have been treated in churches. I see why the double doors are at the front of most churches, mans ego is big.
Posted by:
perplexed |
September 15, 2006 at 03:36 PM
Well, God knows that I'm an adherent of the Alice Roosevelt Longworth variation on the Thumper rule, that is, "If you can't say something nice about someone, sit next to me."
And yet, even I have been reluctant to call modern Mormons racists based on doctrines that, in one of their famous (and convenient) revelations from God, they have now rejected.
But I was truly shocked by the posts here suggesting that no apology is necessary and that racism is just a part of God's big plan.
I do chuckle a bit, though, at the Mormons' claiming that God limited the "priesthood" to members of the Tribe of Levi, and then making themselves priests. Something tells me that there weren't many Jews wandering around Utah in the 1800s, and that fewer still of them were members of the Tribe of Levi.
The Jewish faith still teaches that Jewish priests are of the Tribe of Levi, and these people are known as Kohanin. Their last names are usually Cohen, Cohan, or Levi. Recent genetic studies apparently show that they did, indeed, descend from one or a very few ancient ancestors.
But as a doctrine for keeping blacks out of the priesthood, I suppose it works until you realize that under that doctrine, all the non-Jewish Mormons would be excluded, too. Whoops.
it is a small man indeed that points out others' faults to make himself seem high and mighty. do you attempt to cast a negative light on any religion in which you don't agree wholeheartedly?
pssst. God is really a black ,jewish woman. I have inside information on that one
Posted by:
perplexed |
September 15, 2006 at 09:40 PM
Caleb,
Twisting someone else's argument to make your own point can be fun. I realize that. But the point of mentioning priesthood exclusivity among the Levites with regard to the eventual expansion of the priesthood authority to all worthy male members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is merely to provide the historical context in which the LDS view of God's relationship to mankind has evolved. You may certainly choose to reject that view, but to twist and ridicule such as you have done reflects poorly on you. That is shame because your other comments on this site indicate far more thoughtfulness.
Bruce R. McConkie emerged from the meeting in which the revelation granting blacks the priesthood was received being very humbled. He humbly admitted that he had been wrong, and had misunderstood the scriptures on that point. His stance in terms of reasons for the Blacks not having the priesthood was never the official stance -- just his personal one. He was one of the most outspoken members of the Twelve Apostles ever on innumerable doctrinal matters, and on some his opinions were wrong. Remember, though, that it was his opinions that were wrong -- none of them were ever made as official statements of the church. Members of the Twelve -- even the first presidency itself -- often make statements of opinion. Members are encouraged to think for themselves. The official stance is now, and has always been, that God has not given a reason for that revelation -- either the exclusion or inclusion part. Plenty of people inside and outside of the church have speculated (including Elder McConkie), but no official statement has ever been given in terms of reason. In short, we believe that God can give -- and withhold -- His priesthood from any person or group of people He sees fit for any reason He sees fit, and he is under no obligation to make reasons for His will known to us. That has always been the pattern with the priesthood, from Adam on down, and likely always will be.
God doesn't give reasons for the vast majority of His commandments. There's a term for someone who demands a reason for every God-given commandment before he/she will observe it -- faithless.
Looking at the Mormon church's historical treatment of Blacks gives a different perspective than the popular one mentioned above. Blacks were allowed to vote in Mormon congregations -- along with women as well -- from the inception of the church in the early 1800's on. Not exactly a popular stance back then. The church has always been against slavery. Blacks -- along with everyone else -- have always been welcomed in the church, and they always will be.
David,
I call 'em like I see 'em. The original question posed by Frank was how the Mormons would deal with the perception among the electorate that, at least until the late '70s, they were racist in their beliefs and practices.
I'm not a Mormon. I don't care what Mormons believe or don't believe. But when they cobble up an argument to exclude blacks from their priesthood that makes no sense either historically or theologically, they shouldn't get offended when someone points that out.
As I understand it, the argument runs this way. The Mormons interpret the Old Testament to limit members of the "priesthood" to the Tribe of Levi. The Jews are in agreement with this interpretation, though they naturally limit its import to members of the Jewish priesthood, called the Kohanim, which exists to this day.
The problem is that the Mormons, being non-Jews, are no more members of the Tribe of Levi than I am. So, to bring them in the tent, they originally developed a doctrine that put white Mormons, but not black ones, into that tribe. I understand that they no longer hold to this doctrine, and that blacks may become Mormon priests now, and one should be glad that the Mormons have reformed their views on this, late as the reformation was.
Their original doctrine was pure racism. If you can invent a doctrine that makes white non-Jewish people Levites, you can invent a doctrine that makes black non-Jewish people Levites, too. We know that's true because they later did just that.
As Frank has put it, the question is not what they believe now, but whether they will apologize to blacks for excluding them for so many years. And if the posts here are any indication, I gather that the answer will be no.
One post says that the LDS Church doesn't much care about the candidacy of Mitt Romney. Well, these posts certainly bear that out, because there's not a twig of an olive branch in any of them. You can invoke the name of the Tribe of Levi and all manner of doctrines in your own temple, but when you're facing the voters with that kind of thing, you're likely to get a far hotter response than anything I might write here. Politics is the great leveller.
Frank,
As I read your quotation of Bruce R. McConkie, there is something you missed...Bruce R. McConkie makes two more statements worth mentioning, "Brigham Young and others have taught that in the future eternity worthy and qualified negroes will receive the priesthood and every gospel blessing available to any man." (page 527)And, "Certainly the negroes as children of God are entitled to equality before the law and to be treated with all the dignity and respect of any member of the human race." (page 528, C.1966).
In response to your blog and the previous comments, I think that a few things need to be remembered by all Christians (whether they be Protestant, Catholic, LDS ("mormon"), or otherwise).
First: Anger and contention are not of God. The adversary is the father of contention. If we want to understand our Father in Heaven and our brothers and sisters here on earth, we must do it with the Holy Spirit. He will not reside in an atmosphere of hatred, contention, or anger.
Second: As a member of the LDS church, I believe in "all God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and all that He may yet reveal" (Article if Faith 1:8). Can revelations occur that change Church policy? Absolutely. Does God explain why? Sometimes...not always.
Third: I am not white. I am not black. I am a mix of minority races. I am female. Because I do not easily fit into a category, I face racism on a daily basis (gratefully, never at church). Sometimes these prejudices are not in place for a good reason. However, I am held accountable for how I respond to them. God is the ultimate judge--not a neighbor, fellow church attendee, or co-worker. Many things in life don't make sense, but if I am caught up in being offended by them, then I never move forward.
Fourth: I am LDS. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe that the president of our Church is a living prophet. Sometimes church policy is not politically savy. Whatever the Church leaders do, they must do it under the guidance of the Lord. So--we really can't predict what they will do about these issues. The First Presidency will not endorse a particular political candidate. The LDS Church leaders encourage its members to be politically involved and active, but they do not dictate its members' views. Will official statements be released regarding past church policy? Possibly. Many statements have already been released regarding past doctrine. Will that stop reporters, opposing candidates, or other antagonists from dredging up controversial topics? Of course not. So would an official apology, if/when it is released (if it has not already been done), make a large difference? I don't think so. The question is, do people believe that this man will make a good president? If every president had to answer for the past of his/her religious affiliation, then each one might as well become atheist. I don't think that's the best way to go, do you?
Fifth, and finally: The comments posted here are opinions of people. They are not official statements of any church. If you want to know what a church actually teaches, go and find out. Understanding and empathy are teachings that any christian should be familiar with. I cannot explain deep church doctrines to you, until we have a foundation of understanding. I have spent my life learning about other religions, as well as my own, in order to better understand my fellow neighbors.
May God bless you, and may we all learn a little more about each other before we are offended by the other's beliefs.
Caleb,
The problem with what you're seeing is that your sights are out of focus! ;) You're assuming that just because the priesthood (and levitical priesthood at that) was limited to the Levites that we should think it it limited to them now. That is not the case, nor was it the reason behind David pointing that out. David is simply showing that God can limit the priesthood to whomever He pleases and that is it His to control. It is not something that you earn by attending divinity school or anything else. While the Levites had the priesthood and it was limited to them during Moses time and, as you say is still somewhat limited to them among the Jews, it would be wrong to say that ancient prophets such as Adam, Abraham, Melchezidek, Noah and others did not have the priesthood, even though they were not part of the tribe of Levi. So, we're not saying on Levites can hold the priesthood and since we're not saying that, you can't assume that "white Mormons" can't hold it either because you're rebutting an argument that doesn't exist. Get it?
David, I wouldn't say that your or my sights were out of focus, just that we're focusing on different things.
You and the other loyal LDS members who have posted here want to be right about the theology of your church. That's a noble thing to do, and more power to you. But that's not my point. My point is not to evaluate whether any position is correct theologically, but whether it will sell on the campaign trail.
And frankly the positions expressed here won't sell in the mainstream of american politics. The question posed by Frank was whether the Mormon church would apologize to blacks for excluding them from the priesthood for so many years. I don't know the answer to that question, but gather, based on posts here, that there is not much support for an apology.
That's fine, but you'll have to live with the result. Right or wrong, the perception of the Mormon church among many non-Mormons is that it practiced racial exclusion long after segregation had ceased to be practiced anywhere else.
Many of the posts here by Mormons essentially say, in some detail, that there was a perfectly legitimate theological reason for the exclusion of blacks from the Mormon priesthood, and if I've misunderstood the theology behind that, I apologize. But my understanding of the theology is irrelevant, because my point is that the average non-Mormon american voter today will not accept ANY theological explanation responsible for racial exclusion into the late '70s.
The only politically defensible position (and I think it's quite defensible) is to just apologize, and point out many of the things many of the posts here have noted, such as the number of black church members today and their apparent happiness in the church.
I don't know whether this will come up if Mitt Romney runs for president or not. But I do know that at some point there will be a viable Mormon candidate for national office, and that person, whoever it may be, will have to face the music on this. The church would be doing that person a favor by beginning the process now.
Posted by:
Caleb Powers |
September 19, 2006 at 06:23 PM
Caleb,
Fair enough. The only response I have to you is that I will be very disappointed (and I'm sure it won't happen) if our church leaders apologized for what happened in the past simply to get a Mormon elected president. It's not a legimate reason. It isn't a matter of pride either. Like I said before, if we truly believe that our church is led by prophets then what would we really be saying by the apology, just to get Mitt elected? I would be very disappointed in Mitt if he ever requested that apology just to get elected. To me it's a matter of following God or wanting political fame. That's a no brainer to me. If "Brother" Romney can't get elected because of a past position of our church, then so be it. I would hope that he feels the same way.
Caleb,
You’re confusing me when in one post you say, “When [Mormons] cobble up an argument to exclude blacks from their priesthood that makes no sense either historically or theologically, they shouldn't get offended when someone points that out” then proceed to point out what you see as the flaws, and then in another post say something like, “My point is not to evaluate whether any position is correct theologically, but whether it will sell on the campaign trail.” You seem to be flopping around. That’s fine, but for other readers it can leave unanswered questions. So, the remainder of my comment isn’t so much to you as it is to others who read your posts and are left with questions that may or may not have been answered in this blog.
If we’re not responding to Mr. Lockwood’s initial question, it’s because his question is based on a popular straw man interpretation of the church’s stance on blacks in the priesthood as put forth by Mr. Lockwood (though I commend Mr. Lockwood for not falling into the same old Mormon-bashing stereotypes on several of his other blogs on Mormonism). The reason we’re not likely to apologize is because we don’t see what happened as “pure racism,” as you say. Although many comments made here could be interpreted as defensive, the defensiveness is an understandable response by a Mormon when so many people, looking at the Mormon situation through their lenses, don’t pause to find out what lenses a church member views this issue through and proceed to level charges of racism. I think that the responses here are mainly trying to educate. So when you say “you call them as you see them,” that’s exactly the problem. You – and countless others – don’t pause to find out how the Mormons see it, and in so doing your accusation of bigotry rests more fully on you. May I suggest a humble approach to finding out how Mormons see this issue; namely, that revelation from God guided the exclusion and inclusion of Blacks in the priesthood. We don’t see it as us “inventing a doctrine,” as you say. For us to apologize for what you perceive as racist treatment of Blacks would, by me at least (a Mormon), be seen as apologizing for believing that our church is led by God’s revelation – something I’m not going to do. You can certainly not believe our claim to revelation, and claim that we “invented a doctrine,” but you can’t fairly use your beliefs as the appropriate lens through which to critique our beliefs. The fair thing for you to say would seem to be something like, “I think Mormons are racist, but I can see that since they truly believe that God revealed that doctrine, their actions in terms of Blacks in the priesthood would be interpreted by them as faithfully following God.”
We – like most Christians, I’d like to presume – aren’t interested in picking stances that “sell,” as you (probably correctly) suggest we should if we want to get ahead politically. I, along with David (and most Mormons, I’d imagine) would view it as the ultimate sell-out if we abandoned God in favor of politics.
On a different note, I don’t think this issue will be that big if Romney runs for president. It will surface now and again, but, if handled right, beating him to death with it over and over may be seen by many as bigoted in and of itself. Plenty of religions have doctrines that seem strange to outsiders (transubstantiation, for example).
I hope this post isn’t read as having a vitriolic tone. It isn’t meant to be.
One dirty little secret of many churches is how much unchristian-like Mormon-bashing goes on within their walls. A participant in this bashing may be lulled into thinking that the rest of the nation would have just as much fun doing the same thing. I think that, in many instances, the media will paint these people as bigots in and of themselves. Here’s a perfect example of this already happening:
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/15594211.htm
In that regard, Romney’s religious beliefs could play to his advantage. It will highlight some people’s bigotry towards Mormons, and may even contribute to the eradication of that bigotry. In this day and age, I think that most voters cringe when someone blatantly attacks someone’s personal religious beliefs.
I think honesty is always the best policy.
I think the LDS Church should just say that they made a mistake, that their church was founded at a time when racism was the rule of the day, and slavery the law of the land. At that time, many other churches in the country had racially exclusive rules, too.
They should say that their church, as all churches are, was governed and managed by people, and that those people made mistakes. Religious belief is an evolving thing; no denomination believes today what it believed a hundred years ago.
The problem with declaring that you have absolute truth is that, when you're demonstrably wrong in your teachings, as the Mormons were here, it's awfully hard to own up to it, because then people want to ask nasty little questions like, "If you were wrong about blacks then, how do you know you're not wrong about other things today?"
Which is, in my view, always a good question to ask, and why I don't believe that anyone, be it the Mormons, the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, or me, have absolute truth.