Friday 8 January 2010

40 years ago: Mormons uphold exclusion of Negroes from the priesthood

On January 8, 1970, in a statement distributed to Mormon leaders around the world, the top leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reaffirmed its ban on Negroes in the priesthood. All other Mormon men were expected to join the priesthood at age 12.

However, on June 9, 1978, the 148-year-old policy was revoked. Church President Spencer W. Kimball announced in Salt Lake City that the decision had been based on a revelation that had come to church leaders, saying, "The long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood." The ban had become a source of tension between the church and minority groups, and the change was expected to facilitate the Mormons' active missionary program. Indeed, to look at today's slickly-produced commercials produced by the LDS to promote family life, you'd never know that such a ban had ever existed.

Wasn't it amazing (and convenient) that such a "revelation" just happened to come at a time when the Mormon church was facing increasing criticism for its practices from non-Mormon society? Just as the revelation to the church's leaders to ban polygamy happened to come at a time (1890) when statehood for Mormon-dominated Utah was being denied because of the long-standing practice. Just one question, Chief: How is it that the LDS leaders receive revelations that contradict previous revelations when all of the original LDS theology and practice was supposedly given by God as a restoration of true worship and a correction of the false doctrine and practice that had corrupted Christianity for centuries until 1830?

1 comment:

  1. Yeah, well.. At least our pastors weren't reading from the Bible during lynchings and KKK rallies. Or making scriptural arguments for why Segregation was a good thing.

    That would have been the Protestants.

    And ironically, LDS congregations today are less segregated than Protestant congregations are.

    To each his own I guess.

    ReplyDelete