My review of the essay, "Race and the Priesthood"

11/21/17

           The Church’s Essay, Race and the Priesthood. And my evaluation of it with special attention to the sources referenced. I will also admit that I will take the liberty to add quotes from previous church leaders as I feel it might be necessary to show the changing attitude of both the church, and God I guess, since the prophets do speak for him.

            OK, the original essay (found here on the churches website) will be copied here for reference. I will leave it exactly as it stands (so there are a few links within it as well) literally copied and pasted from the website. My response and interjections will be inserted into the text, but will be distinguished by the color green. I will ensure to check each source for what it claims to add as support for their statement. In most cases, I will likely only paraphrase the scripture or other reference to save space, but will have it linked so that you can go and ensure that I am not trying to skew too much.

            Here we go!

In theology and practice, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the universal human family. Latter-day Saint scripture and teachings affirm that God loves all of His children and makes salvation available to all. God created the many diverse races and ethnicities and esteems them all equally. As the Book of Mormon puts it, “all are alike unto God.”¹

OK, I can’t even get a whole paragraph into this without finding something that early church leaders statements would state almost the exact opposite of the statement, “makes salvation available to all.” This was TOTALLY not believed or taught by early church leaders.

From Brigham Young, “How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol7, pp.290)

This quote from the prophet George Smith is probably the most damning evidence that the church is full of crap with this particular line as well, “The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fullness of glory in the celestial kingdom. What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight.” (George Albert Smith, General Conference, April 1939)

With these two quotes (and hundreds more I am going to exclude for the sake of saving space) pretty much destroy the introductory paragraph for this essay. I could probably stop here, if they can’t even start with something solidly built from the beginnings of the church, there really isn’t much more they can say. But, I will go ahead and do my due diligence and look at the sources that they list in the essay: 2 Nephi 26:33. See also Acts 10:34-35; 17:26; Romans 2:11; 10:12; Galatians 3:28.

OK, 2 Nephi 26:33: God invites all the children of men to partake of his goodness, denieth none that come to him, black/white, bond/free, male/female, Jew/Gentile.

Acts 10:34-35; 17:26: God is no respecter of persons, everyone is of one blood only in different places where we make our habitations.

Romans 2:11; 10:12: “for there is no respect of persons with God. No difference between Jew and Greek.

Galatians 3:28: Everyone is one in Christ.

The structure and organization of the Church encourage racial integration. Latter-day Saints attend Church services according to the geographical boundaries of their local ward, or congregation. By definition, this means that the racial, economic, and demographic composition of Mormon congregations generally mirrors that of the wider local community.² The Church’s lay ministry also tends to facilitate integration: a black bishop may preside over a mostly white congregation; a Hispanic woman may be paired with an Asian woman to visit the homes of a racially diverse membership. Church members of different races and ethnicities regularly minister in one another’s homes and serve alongside one another as teachers, as youth leaders, and in myriad other assignments in their local congregations. Such practices make The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a thoroughly integrated faith.

“Racial, economic, and demographic composition of Mormon congregations generally mirrors that of the wider local community.” So whatever racial divides already exist in the community, the church will show those as well then.

Footnote #2- “To facilitate involvement of Church members who do not speak the dominant language of the area in which they live, some congregations are organized among speakers of the same language (such as Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, or Tongan). In such cases, members can choose which congregation to attend.” This bit is nice, but hasn’t always been around. If there is a big enough population that speaks another language in the larger community, they are sometimes able to provide a congregation that will operate in that language entirely.

OK, I’m going to make a stink right here. This statement, “The Church’s lay ministry” is not a blanket statement. As we have learned in recent years, this is not the case throughout the church. While the local leaders are not paid, those higher up the food chain sure are, and well above the national average. Here is an article that was published in the Deseret News. This was the churches response to leaked information about the general authorities receiving a “record of payroll or allowance.” The church basically admits that they do indeed pay the “general authorities,” thus negating the claim of having a “lay clergy.”

I think I might have jumped in a bit deep again, so I will just let the rest of the paragraph stand.

Despite this modern reality, for much of its history—from the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.

Well, they admitted to it, so that is nice. But the wording used here does bother me, “despite this modern reality.” They just tried to wash away 150ish years away with this WEAK statement. They honestly hoped that this little blip would be enough to say, “Yeah, we were a bunch of racist bigots.” This is weak, these individuals deserve a real, true apology. I’ve said it before, I was basically forced to lie on my mission. What I was told and taught about this subject has now been swept under the rug and has been disavowed.

The Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in the United States. At the time, many people of African descent lived in slavery, and racial distinctions and prejudice were not just common but customary among white Americans. Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion. Many Christian churches of that era, for instance, were segregated along racial lines. From the beginnings of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity could be baptized and received as members. Toward the end of his life, Church founder Joseph Smith openly opposed slavery. There has never been a Churchwide policy of segregated congregations.³

I really take offence to this paragraph. Just because everyone else is being racists, we can be too. If God really is no “respecter of persons” then shouldn’t he ensure that his church followed the same? The second to last line brings up something too, why it has to specify that it was “toward the end of his life?” Does that mean that prior to that he was all for slavery? That’s surely what it sounds like to me.

I do have to agree, there has never been a “Churchwide policy of segregated congregations.” But again, all they would have to do is draw the ward boundaries at the right line to follow the already segregated cities, and then bam, separate congregations.

Even so, while the congregations were not segregated, the leadership still took measures to ensure that those of African descent knew that they were not fully welcome.

“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol.7, pp.282-291)

“The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God… Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man's mortal existence, extending back to man's preexistent state. (Pres. David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner. Letter of the First Presidency Clarifies Church’s Position on the Negro – Dec. 15, 1969. Printed in The Improvement Era, Feb. 1970, p.70-71)

Again, I could place quote after quote here. If you want to see a larger list, feel free to jump over to my topic of African descent and the Church.

So, I need to get to the footnote #3: “At some periods of time, reflecting local customs and laws, there were instances of segregated congregations in areas such as South Africa and the U.S. South.” This is interesting information. But again, the way they present it. In the body of the essay they try and say it was limited, but they do allude to it happening. This is a fair bit of information that they relegate to only the footnote.

During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Abel, also participated in temple ceremonies in Kirtland, Ohio, and was later baptized as proxy for deceased relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. In a private Church council three years after Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young praised Q. Walker Lewis, a black man who had been ordained to the priesthood, saying, “We have one of the best Elders, an African.”⁴

Let’s start with the footnote this time. 4: “Historian’s Office General Church Minutes, Mar. 26, 1847, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, spelling and punctuation modernized.” So this is a private church council as stated in the essay. So private in fact, that there does not appear to be any record of it open to the public. Interesting.

Let’s look a bit more into these men. First up, Elijah Abel. There is plenty of evidence to show that he was indeed ordained an elder, and then a member of the seventy. He was ordained to the 3^rd quorum of the seventy (a missionary quorum, not a general authority quorum as now constituted). Once in Utah, he asked Brigham Young to receive his endowment, but was denied. So he did have the priesthood, but was not able to go through the temple. There is one last thing that I want to bring up with Abel, his patriarchal blessing. “Thou shalt be made equal to thy brethren and thy soul be white in eternity and thy robes glittering.” This sounds beyond racist, I know that’s not the point, yes he had the priesthood, but this is just crazy racist stuff. Why can’t he still have dark skin in the eternities? They teach that we will be our perfected selves in heaven, not one hair lost, blah blah blah. Why can’t you have dark skin in heaven? I usually have a decent tan from working and playing outside, it’s basically part of who I am at this point in my life, am I going to be missing that in heaven? Do we really have to be white?

Now for Q. Walker Lewis. He was baptized by Parley Pratt in 1843, and then ordained and “Elder (priest)” by Joseph Smith’s uncle John Smith. John Smith was also a patriarch of the Church, and it was listed in his patriarchal blessing that Lewis was of the tribe of Canaan. Between you and me, I don’t remember this tribe when we list the 12 tribes of Israel, but that could just be me. Anyway, Lewis went with the saints to Utah, but did not stay long. Records show that he moved back east and fell out of activity in the church. Why did he not stay with the saints, my guess is that it all centered on Brigham Young. Back to the essay.

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

This paragraph right here, this is the one that does it all. It starts with Brigham Young, in 1852, and it ended in 1978 with Spencer Kimball. Let’s do the math here: 126 years, 11 prophets, before this could be reversed officially with what is now known as, “Official Declaration 2.” This “official declaration” is labeled as a revelation in the heading. This begs the question, why was a revelation needed to reverse this policy or announcement? There seems to be no record, in the church at least, of a revelation via Brigham Young that started these restrictions, so why would it take a revelation to reverse it?

So if nothing is found by way of revelation in the church, what is found outside of it? Brigham addressed the territorial legislature on the subject of “slavery, the curse of Cain, blacks and the priesthood.”

“Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has the African blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of priesthood; Why? Because they are the true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it, men cannot. the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure, and not one particle of power can that posterity of Cain have, until the time comes the says he will have it taken away. That time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more. In the kingdom of God on the earth the Africans cannot hold one particle of power in Government. The subjects, the rightful servants of the residue of the children of Adam, and the residue of the children through the benign influence of the Spirit of the Lord have the privilege of seeing to the posterity of Cain; inasmuch as it is the Lords will they should receive the spirit of God by Baptism; and that is the end of their privilege; and there is not power on earth to give them any more power.”

Before I move on, I want to focus on the last two lines of this paragraph; “Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.” So, when we have prophets teaching something from the podium, how are we to distinguish what is “doctrine” and what is not? Because we have quotes from all eleven of these prophets, and scores more from other members of the Quorum of the Twelve for this 126 year period, all stating that this was the way of God. That it was God who demanded that this group of people not be allowed to have the same blessings until, “the last of the posterity of Able had received the priesthood, until the redemption of the earth.” (Brigham Young, 1852 Feb 5)

The Church in an American Racial Culture

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was restored amidst a highly contentious racial culture in which whites were afforded great privilege. In 1790, the U.S. Congress limited citizenship to “free white person[s].”⁵ Over the next half century, issues of race divided the country—while slave labor was legal in the more agrarian South, it was eventually banned in the more urbanized North. Even so, racial discrimination was widespread in the North as well as the South, and many states implemented laws banning interracial marriage.⁶ In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that blacks possessed “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”⁷ A generation after the Civil War (1861–65) led to the end of slavery in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “separate but equal” facilities for blacks and whites were constitutional, a decision that legalized a host of public color barriers until the Court reversed itself in 1954.⁸ Not until 1967 did the Court strike down laws forbidding interracial marriage.

Not much to say here. All of the sources are listed without links, but they seem to be laws and court cases. The one thing that I will say, slavery was legal in the Utah Territory, and Brigham Young had no problems with it.

5. “An Act to Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization,” 1st Congress, 2nd Sess., Chap. 3 (1790).
6. Elise Lemire, “Miscegenation”: Making Race in America (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002); Peggy Pascoe, What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). Utah outlawed miscegenation between 1888 and 1963. See Patrick Mason, “The Prohibition of Interracial Marriage in Utah, 1888–1963,” Utah Historical Quarterly 76, no. 2 (Spring 2008): 108–131.
7. Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 347.
8. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896); Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

In 1850, the U.S. Congress created Utah Territory, and the U.S. president appointed Brigham Young to the position of territorial governor. Southerners who had converted to the Church and migrated to Utah with their slaves raised the question of slavery’s legal status in the territory. In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.⁹

This source is the same one that I have been showing left and right, it is Brigham Young speaking at the Utah Territorial legislature. So while it may say this line, it then goes on to say that Africans “should receive the spirit of God by Baptism; and that is the end of their privilege; and there is not power on earth to give them any more power.”

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.¹⁰ According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.¹¹ Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.¹² Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.

10. Same speech from Brigham Young at the Utah Territorial legislature. Something that they seem to leave out is the name of that the individual who stated it, the prophet Brigham Young.

11. Book without a link, and I am unable to find a scanned copy. But it should be noted, that this teaching of a curse being dark skin, is also found in the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 5:21. So it’s not really a novel idea from the 1700’s (unless of course Joseph made up the BOM and included these ideas in it too).

Another fantastic source stating this exact thing is Mormon Doctrine. “As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage.”

12. Another Book without a link or online copy that I can find. But if memory serves correctly, Noah cursed Canaan the son of Ham because Ham saw Noah naked after he got drunk and passed out. Sounds like on heck of an Old Testament party.

Removing the Restriction

Even after 1852, at least two black Mormons continued to hold the priesthood. When one of these men, Elijah Abel, petitioned to receive his temple endowment in 1879, his request was denied. Jane Manning James, a faithful black member who crossed the plains and lived in Salt Lake City until her death in 1908, similarly asked to enter the temple; she was allowed to perform baptisms for the dead for her ancestors but was not allowed to participate in other ordinances.¹³ The curse of Cain was often put forward as justification for the priesthood and temple restrictions. Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings.¹⁴

13. We have already done a quick summary on Elijah Abel, and this source is about Jane Manning James anyway, so let’s look at her for a bit. She has a fantastic pioneer story, walking 800 miles to Nauvoo, shoes wearing out, bloody feet, the whole bit as it were. Once in Nauvoo she ended up living with Joseph and Emma. “The Smiths and Jane forged such a friendship that Brother Joseph and Emma asked Jane if she would like to be sealed to them as a member of their family.” Now, this sealing to Joseph Smith, she wasn’t sealed as a wife, then what was she sealed as? According the Autobiography and Interview of Jane, “Other Mormons were attached to Joseph Smith as wives or children, ensuring their ultimate salvation, while Jane was sealed to him as a servant, guaranteeing her second-class status in the eternities.” So while she was never allowed to be sealed to her husband or family, she was sealed to Joseph Smith, to be his servant for eternity. I don’t know how you can get more racist than that.

14. “Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, for example, wrote in 1907 that the belief was “quite general” among Mormons that “the Negro race has been cursed for taking a neutral position in that great contest.” Yet this belief, he admitted, “is not the official position of the Church, [and is] merely the opinion of men.” Joseph Fielding Smith to Alfred M. Nelson, Jan. 31, 1907, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.” So when Bruce R. McConkie says in Mormon Doctrine, “Those who were less valiant in the pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin...but this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, based on His eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate.” And in the same book we also read, “Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage.”

By the late 1940s and 1950s, racial integration was becoming more common in American life. Church President David O. McKay emphasized that the restriction extended only to men of black African descent. The Church had always allowed Pacific Islanders to hold the priesthood, and President McKay clarified that black Fijians and Australian Aborigines could also be ordained to the priesthood and instituted missionary work among them. In South Africa, President McKay reversed a prior policy that required prospective priesthood holders to trace their lineage out of Africa.¹⁵

Well, it’s good to know that it is just Africans stuck in this boat. As for the source, the link provided is dead, just leads to BYU studies, nothing specific. I was able to find the source here. Interesting article, “Skin color was not the issue – blacks from Polynesia or Australia faced no such limitations. Lineage, or presumed genealogy was the problem.” So goes along well with the paragraph.

Further along in this article there is a bit more information about Elijah Abel. “By Spencer’s day, Church members who were aware of Abel generally believed his ordination did not accurately reflect true doctrine but was either a mistake, an exception, or the result of Joseph Smith’s still imperfect understanding… Thus, when such ordinations errors came to light, the men would be asked to suspend use of their priesthood.” So even though Brother Abel had all the right paperwork, it was a mistake and he was told not to use the priesthood that he was rightly given.

Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.¹⁶

So again, this is just a “policy” but can’t be done away with without a full revelation from God. This source (16) it is the same one we just found for 15 above. It is a 75 page document, there is plenty of info, I just don’t have the time or room for it all.

As the Church grew worldwide, its overarching mission to “go ye therefore, and teach all nations”¹⁷ seemed increasingly incompatible with the priesthood and temple restrictions. The Book of Mormon declared that the gospel message of salvation should go forth to “every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.”¹⁸ While there were no limits on whom the Lord invited to “partake of his goodness” through baptism,¹⁹ the priesthood and temple restrictions created significant barriers, a point made increasingly evident as the Church spread in international locations with diverse and mixed racial heritages.

OK, this is a long essay, plenty of sources listed, and I have enough comments to double the original size already. If you are still reading, congrats, I probably would have at least taken a break by now.

17, 18, and 19 are all standard scriptures, nothing special, so let’s move on.

Brazil in particular presented many challenges. Unlike the United States and South Africa where legal and de facto racism led to deeply segregated societies, Brazil prided itself on its open, integrated, and mixed racial heritage. In 1975, the Church announced that a temple would be built in São Paulo, Brazil. As the temple construction proceeded, Church authorities encountered faithful black and mixed-ancestry Mormons who had contributed financially and in other ways to the building of the São Paulo temple, a sanctuary they realized they would not be allowed to enter once it was completed. Their sacrifices, as well as the conversions of thousands of Nigerians and Ghanaians in the 1960s and early 1970s, moved Church leaders.²⁰

20 is a link for a PhD dissertation from Indiana University, and a few books. I’m not going to dig in too deep to find these ones. It was, and still is, a pride of the cultural inclusion of Brazil. So yes, this would likely pose a huge problem that many of these members will have ancestry that will link back up to Africa, thus excluding them from the temple they are building, or helping to pay for the building of.

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings. In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [Salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation. “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,” the First Presidency announced on June 8. The First Presidency stated that they were “aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us” that “all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood.”²¹ The revelation rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination. It also extended the blessings of the temple to all worthy Latter-day Saints, men and women. The First Presidency statement regarding the revelation was canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 2.

21 is a link to Official Declaration 2. Revelation that all worthy males “without regard for race or color” could now be ordained to the priesthood. This came out in 1978. Oh, one thing, I never noticed before, it doesn’t say anything about temple ordinances now being open to all worthy members, interesting. So, just something to keep dates in order; it was presented September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference. It also states that the First Presidency announced the revelation in June earlier that year.

This “revelation on the priesthood,” as it is commonly known in the Church, was a landmark revelation and a historic event. Those who were present at the time described it in reverent terms. Gordon B. Hinckley, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, remembered it this way: “There was a hallowed and sanctified atmosphere in the room. For me, it felt as if a conduit opened between the heavenly throne and the kneeling, pleading prophet of God who was joined by his Brethren. … Every man in that circle, by the power of the Holy Ghost, knew the same thing. … Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same.”²²

OK, this sounds cool, sounds like something that would have been an amazing experience for anyone involved. The source here is an article from the 1988 Ensign where Gordon Hinckley talks about the experience he and others had in relation to this revelation.

Reaction worldwide was overwhelmingly positive among Church members of all races. Many Latter-day Saints wept for joy at the news. Some reported feeling a collective weight lifted from their shoulders. The Church began priesthood ordinations for men of African descent immediately, and black men and women entered temples throughout the world. Soon after the revelation, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle, spoke of new “light and knowledge” that had erased previously “limited understanding.”²³

I’m getting a bit bugged by how they are listing these references. This one just takes you to a main page for BYU speeches. Lucky enough, this one was rather easy to find after a short search.

So this is a talk given in August of 1978 by Bruce McConkie. The revelation came out in June, and was presented to the church as a whole the end of September. So this is just a bit before conference. Something interesting that he says in this talk, beyond what they are quoting in the essay. He brings up some of those things said by earlier prophets. “Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation… It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978.”

Not exactly throwing them under the bus, but negating everything said prior to that point. So even if Brigham Young said that it would “never happen,” now we have to forget that in light of new revelation.

The Church Today

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.²⁴

Here is where I am stuck, the first line here; “disavows the theories advanced in the past.” They were not all presented as only “theories.” These were things taught from the pulpit, by Prophets and apostles of the church. Yes it is easy for leaders now to say that they condemn all racism both today and in the past. But the fact of the matter stands, those things were said by men who claim to be the mouthpiece of God. Anyway, source 24 is a talk by Hinckley about being kind and not being racist.

Since that day in 1978, the Church has looked to the future, as membership among Africans, African Americans and others of African descent has continued to grow rapidly. While Church records for individual members do not indicate an individual’s race or ethnicity, the number of Church members of African descent is now in the hundreds of thousands.

The Church proclaims that redemption through Jesus Christ is available to the entire human family on the conditions God has prescribed. It affirms that God is “no respecter of persons”²⁵ and emphatically declares that anyone who is righteous—regardless of race—is favored of Him. The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: “[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”²⁶

OK, 25 and 26 at links to scriptures in Acts and 2 Nephi respectively.

As for 26, I feel like I am beating a dead horse here. While the scripture says that, it is not what the church taught for 120+ years. Both in everyone being alike, and bond and free. It just isn’t the case.