Surprisingly honest answers. Yes the church was racist. No the church doesn’t have a good explanation. Yes the church leaders should probably be able to come up with a better explanation.
Was the modern, twentieth-century Church racist?
Yes. For most of the twentieth century, many in Church leadership voiced racist ideas and followed racist practices, specifically towards people of African descent.
Did the ban change because of social pressure?
Yes, it was probably a factor.
Has the Church given an official explanation for why the ban happened?
Sort of.
Isn’t this something the Church should know?
Probably.
The experiences of Black Saints, the decisions of Church leaders, and the prevailing Church culture during the 20th century can be deeply unsettling, especially when interpreted through a 21st-century lens. Why did God's church sideline many of His children through the priesthood restriction? What were the origins of this discrimination, and why did it persist? And what brought about the change in 1978 that led to the lifting of "the ban"?
For a significant portion of the 20th century, Church leaders propagated ideologies that were prejudiced against Black individuals. While some of these sentiments might have mirrored broader American societal views, it does not absolve Church leaders from accountability for their racially biased views and actions towards people of African descent.
Brigham Young was the problem, guy was a terrible racist, among a host of other awful traits. One of the worst things the 'church' has ever done... uphold a vile man's racial prejudices for 134 years. Not that it matters though given the fact that the 'church' is a fraud created by a con-man.
Brigham Young was the problem, guy was a terrible racist, among a host of other awful traits. One of the worst things the 'church' has ever done... uphold a vile man's racial prejudices for 134 years. Not that it matters though given the fact that the 'church' is a fraud created by a con-man.
How would you feel about a new movie celebrating Brigham Young?
drumdude, I am not familiar with MormonR but followed your link. It seems to be fairly standard observations about the matter. It softened the problem by referencing church member attitudes about race in 1996 instead of 1966. But there were people, myself included disturbed by the earlier date. For me at the earlier date it was a sort of what the????. Other problems had to collect with it before I could see it as reason to leave.
I am not sure what you are seeing in the article which throws the church under the bus. I do not think my active siblings would find the article problematic.
drumdude, I am not familiar with MormonR but followed your link. It seems to be fairly standard observations about the matter. It softened the problem by referencing church member attitudes about race in 1996 instead of 1966. But there were people, myself included disturbed by the earlier date. For me at the earlier date it was a sort of what the????. Other problems had to collect with it before I could see it as reason to leave.
I am not sure what you are seeing in the article which throws the church under the bus. I do not think my active siblings would find the article problematic.
Times certainly are changing. However I think if you got up in fast and testimony meeting and declared, as MormonR has just done, that the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is/was racist, you might still risk your temple recommend.
Not that it matters though given the fact that the 'church' is a fraud created by a con-man. 