The early Church was racist. Its leaders were racist. Its scripture was racist. Its discourses were racist. Its policies were racist.
This is not my opinion.
The Church was built on a foundation of racism.
Though Joseph Smith did not support a priesthood ban against black members, his hands were not necessarily clean.
He repeatedly spoke against the integration of blacks into his state and religion.
“…Our intention was not only to stop free people of color from emigrating to this state, but to prevent them from being admitted as member of the Church…. We often lament the situation of our sister states in the south, and we fear, lest, as has been the case, the black should rise and spill innocent blood, for they are ignorant, and a little may lead them to disturb the peace of society. To be short, we are opposed to having free people of color admitted into the state; and we say, that none will be admitted into the Church.” [1]
In answer to the question, “Are Mormons abolitionists?” Joseph said:
“No, unless delivering the people from priestcraft, and the priests from the power of Satan, should be considered abolition. But we do not believe in setting the negroes free.” [2]
The history is unequivocal. The church was built on a foundation of racism.
Yes, it, and its leaders were a product of their time. But, we are also supposed to believe that it is not a Church of the world, but in the world, and worldly policies and ideas should have no effect on a Church run by the Lord Himself.
In other words, it seems only fair to expect a Church which claims to be the Lord’s, whose leaders claim to have seen the Lord, to be a little better than the world around it. What’s the point of modern revelation if it can’t be trusted to correct something as evil as racism?
The modern Church is not keen on exposing its racist history. Much has been said by modern leaders attempting to prove that the Church was, in fact, not racist. This all comes at naught, though. There has never been a single, direct disavowing of any of the racist actions of Church leaders. The Church has never acknowledged its racist past, nor has it ever apologized for it. It has not even come close.
In the September 2000 Ensign, Elder Alexander Morrison of the Seventy said:
“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.” [3]
The Prophet David O. McKay denied the reality that the priesthood ban on black Latter-day Saints was rooted in any sort of racism, claiming it instead came from God:
“The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….” [4]
In answer to the question, “What is the Church’s stance on racism?,” the Church published the following statement:
“Modern prophets and apostles have condemned racism in the strongest possible terms.” [5]
There is no mention of past racism. No condemnation of past racism. No acknowledgment of past racism. It is as if the Church was not and has never been racist. This is a lie, told to convince members of the divinity of the current Church.
In 1947, LDS sociologist Dr. Lowry Nelson took issue with a statement made by a Church leader regarding the Church’s stance on race and equality. He took his issue to the top of the Church: the First Presidency, consisting of George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and David O. McKay. Lowry specifically asked if the “less-than” status of black members of the Church was doctrinal, or if it was merely a social policy which the Church had adopted. In response, the First Presidency responded in the affirmative. Church racism was no mere policy. It was doctrine.
“From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been a doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.
Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous. Modern Israel has been similarly directed.
We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.” [6]
The doctrine was clear: members of African descent were less than the whites. Inter-marriage was forbidden. This was not policy. It was doctrine.
Worse, the blame was not taken by the racist writers of the letter. The First Presidency shrugged the guilt from their shoulders and tossed it to God. To Joseph. To Jesus.
There was no priesthood ban until Joseph died. There was no priesthood ban when Jesus walked. The priesthood ban and all of its consequences rests solely on those leaders.
It is dishonest for one to assign blame to some exalted figure so as to avoid any connotation that the blame rests with oneself. It is the same as a priest in a local Catholic church blaming the Pope for a crime which the priest committed in that local church.
Accountability must be taken. These leaders have long since died, but accountability still has yet to be taken by any leader, past or present.
[1] Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 1, pp. 378-9
[2] Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 3, p. 29
[3] Alexander Morrison, Ensign, Sept. 2000
[4] David O. Mckay, “Statement of the LDS First Presidency David O McKay, Hugh B Brown, and N Eldon Tanner,” December 15, 1969
[5] “What is the Church’s Stance on Racism?,” New Era, Mar. 2020
[6] “Letter from First Presidency to Lowry Nelson,” July 17, 1947
