It is hard to measure racisim from today.  Growing up I heard WWII veterans vigorously defend the internment of Japanese citizens of the U.S.   The most liberal U.S. Supreme Court justice, William Douglas, signed onto the internment decision.  Yet, today, that decision is widely considered a tragedy.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued the Dred Scott decision before the Civil War, basically dehumanizing the black.  Yet, at the time, a large bloc of Americans considered in the right decision.

Exactly. The institution of the Church managed to be on the wrong side of perhaps the single most critical issue of American civilization. It was a failure similar in nature, if not in degree, to the failure of the German churches to fulfill their moral responsibilities at their own critical moment in the 1930s and ’40s. One “important theological issue” this raises is the question of how much we ought to expect from a church guided by revelation.

I think its more than that. It seems to me that the case can be made from the documents we have that some church leaders consistently argued against civil rights from within what we can recognize as white supremacist ideology that they synthesized with Mormon theology. Granted in many cases it was a kinder gentler white supremacist ideology. So its more than about being embarrassed its about the structure of their thought, and how their ideology may have influenced their views of doctrine and theology. at least that’s how I se it. And there is value in such an analysis for any member because it does raise important theological issues, even if its an uncomfortable thing to do.

This sounds like a smear campaign against a good family oriented church in retaliation for the whole proposition 8 thing in California. I think that the enemies of the Mormon church are trying to equate those important civil rights issues to the current gay rights issue, suggesting that some point in the future we (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) will be sorry we opposed “gay rights”, just like we are now embarrassed by a few of the racist comments made by a few of our previous church leaders.

The difference is that the current issue of gay marriage is nothing to do with racism or people’s personal opinions, but everything to do with the core doctrine of the LDS church, and for most other churches and Christianity as well.

And the priesthood ban has never been proven to be official church doctrine, although church leaders clearly felt it required revelation to change it. It was clearly a policy, but in a church with revelation, policy does not equal doctrine.

In 1949, the First Presidency issued a public statement on race that began:

“The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.”

The ban was obviously doctrine in 1949, as stated by its leaders.

Read my posts above and you’ll see. But, I’m sure you’ll rationalize those quotes because of the cog-dis.

“Advocating the murder of black people is not racist to you? That is the worst kind of racism. To use the weak excuse that we don’t know the intent is ludicrous.”

Did a church leader really advocate the murder of black people? If so, who and when? Do you have a direct quote on that?

Hawkgrrl: I would suspect that definition 2 was added much later than 1933. Probably in the 1960s.

To immutable’s point, the comments were racist by a dictionary definition.

To Jeff’s point, the word “racist” originated in 1933.

(Source: m-w.com)

Advocating the murder of black people is not racist to you? That is the worst kind of racism. To use the weak excuse that we don’t know the intent is ludicrous.

Calling another race inferior is blatant racism. To dehumanize others makes it easier mal-treat them or kill them.

I have no idea whether Brigham Young hated blacks, whether Delbert Stapley hated Blacks. I don’t think that their comments, now considered to be vile and inappropriate, were done in that spirit.

People can have opinions that we don’t agree with, that might represent ideas that we find objectionable. but you can’t just label every type of speech “racist” without really knowing the intent behind it.

The past and the present is replete with societies that do not beleive in the mixing of races, tribes and even various factions of the same religion, does that make them all racist?

I think the term racist has to be accompanyed by the word “hate.” If the hate is not there, then I cannot accept the term racist. it’s way too easy to apply to any situation, regardless of the intent.

There are other possible interpretations than skin color to explain what the BOM says – e.g. city-dwellers vs. rural/agrarian society (i.e. Lamanites were rednecks while Nephites didn’t have a tan). While some early church leaders interpreted it in one way, that doesn’t mean it says that and is not subject to a different interpretation. In any case, the Lamanites were more righteous in part of the BOM, if you recall, so the record is least ambivalent on any correlation with righteousness.

And the priesthood ban has never been proven to be official church doctrine, although church leaders clearly felt it required revelation to change it. It was clearly a policy, but in a church with revelation, policy does not equal doctrine. Quote the chapter and verse if you can where the “doctrine” was “revealed” (Journal of Discourses isn’t official church doctrine, BTW). If not, let’s agree to agree where we can and disagree on this one point.

Brigham Young was clearly leading the members astray by saying, “Shall I tell you the law of God…” There are cases in church history where members acted on this so called “law of God”. Too me this is not only racism but it is clearly advocating murder and the most fiendish vile hatred.

No Brigham wasn’t perfect, he was as far from it as one could be. Anybody defending such heinous practices and beliefs is just as guilty as he was.

Yes, this is no longer official church doctrine. Of course the members don’t hear this stuff from the pulpit like the members did during the time it was spoken.

However, the racist doctrine of the church is still alive and well in the BOM and the BOA.

Thanks for your thoughts, I can respect that. There is no “barbed hook” here.

From an Ensign article of September 2000 by GA Alexander Morrison:

“Unfortunately, racism—the abhorrent and morally destructive theory that claims superiority of one person over another by reason of race, color, ethnicity, or cultural background—remains one of the abiding sins of societies the world over. The cause of much of the strife and conflict in the world, racism is an offense against God and a tool in the devil’s hands. In common with other Christians, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regret the actions and statements of individuals who have been insensitive to the pain suffered by the victims of racism and ask God’s forgiveness for those guilty of this grievous sin. The sin of racism will be eliminated only when every human being treats all others with the dignity and respect each deserves as a beloved child of our Heavenly Father. How grateful I am that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has from its beginnings stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations.”

Let’s see how truthful this statement is?

Joseph Fielding Smith, 10th LDS President
“Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race.”
(The Way to Perfection, pages 101-102.)

Wilford Woodruff, 4th President of the Church

“And if any man mingle his seed with the seed of Cain the only way he could get rid of it or have Salvation would be to come forward and have his head cut off and spill his blood upon the ground- it would also take the life of his children.”
(Wilford Woodruff Journal)

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)

John Taylor, President of the Church

“And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God;…” Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22, page 304

Again let’s look at what the official church magazine states about it’s past with racism.

“How grateful I am that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has from its beginnings stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations.”

The audacity to lie without compunction.

God is perfect; man is not, and if revelation has to be both sent and received, the weaknesses of humans could certainly get in the way. I’m trying not to be critical of church leaders by saying that, just realistic. I’m sure I probably suffer from the lack of wisdom of the younger generation – an overconfidence in my own opinions and a willingness to throw out the wisdom of ages. The upside is that at least in our church, at age 39 I can still claim to be part of the “younger” generation.

I wonder why God waited so long to reveal his position regarding blacks to the prophet of his truest church? Especially where many of his previous church leaders (including prophets) were inspired with such offensive and racist views?

Isn’t it interesting that God revealed his views to Abe Lincoln, Martin L. King Jr., George Romney, and a large portion of secular society (among many others), far before he revealed to his prophet Spencer W. Kimball?

Yes, I suppose I could choose that. I can choose a number of different paths.

But if you read what I said, You could figure out that I said Biology cannot be ruled out nor can it be the exclusive reason.