Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Blacks and the Priesthood

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Response to MormonThink page "Blacks and the Priesthood"

Polygamy

A FAIR Analysis of: MormonThink A work by author: Anonymous

Conflicts with Science

FAIRMORMON'S VIEW OF THE CRITICS' CONCLUSIONS

The positions that the MormonThink article "Blacks and the Priesthood" appears to take are the following:

The positions that this MormonThink article appears to take are the following:

• Even though the Church has refuted explanations for the priesthood ban, such as not being valiant in the pre-existence, critics are bothered that these explanations are no longer acknowledged.
• Some wish to assert that President Kimball did not actually receive a revelation ending the ban, despite his clear statement that he did.
• Some believe that prophets should be "forward thinkers." Therefore, they take the position that the fact that prophets are influenced by the society and culture that they live in indicates that they cannot actually be prophets.

FAIRMORMON'S RESPONSE AND SUPPORTING DATA

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The leaders of the church up through the 1970s made it very clear why blacks were denied the priesthood....Mike Wallace: From 1830 to 1978, blacks could not become priests in the Mormon church. Right? Gordon B. Hinckley: That's correct. Mike Wallace: Why? Gordon B. Hinckley: Because the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way. Critic's Comment: Hinckley has worked for the Church since 1930. He has been a General Authority since 1951. He was in Quorum of the Twelve meetings when the priesthood ban was discussed, for at least three decades. He was an Apostle during at least 27 years of the priesthood ban. If any Church official would be qualified to answer this question it would be GBH. To not give a complete, truthful answer to these questions is dishonest.

FairMormon commentary

• How is stating "Because the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way" supposed to be dishonest? They did interpret the doctrine that way, and came up with reasons for the ban. The modern Church no longer accepts those explanations as valid.
• The critics make several claims that are factually untrue. President Hinckley was appointed as a General Authority in 1958, not 1951. He certainly had not been an Apostle for 27 years at the time of the 1978 lifting of the ban. He was ordained an apostle of the church in 1961. MormonThink is off by almost a decade.
• We are not sure where the "Hinckley has worked for the Church since 1930" claim comes from.

Additional information

• Understanding pre-1978 statements by members and leaders of the Church—Critics frequently parade justifications for the ban by past General Authorities that are considered quite racist by today's standards. While these have not been officially renounced, there is no obligation for current members to accept such sentiments as the "word of the Lord," and they most certainly do not reflect the Church's current position and teachings. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
2 Nephi 30: 6 "...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people." NOTE: THE TERM 'WHITE' WAS CHANGED TO 'PURE' IN 1981.

FairMormon commentary

• This change was originally made in the 1840 edition but went unnoticed until the preparation of the 1981 edition. The change is not (as the critics want to portray it) a "recent" change designed to remove a "racist" original.

Additional information

• "white" changed to "pure" in 2 Nephi 30:6—The phrase "white and delightsome" was changed to "pure and delightsome" in the Book of Mormon. Critics accuse the Church of attempting to hide a racially offensive statement. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
McKeever and Johnson: Although the Mormon Church will not make available the handwritten manuscript of the Book of Mormon, the R.L.D.S. Church has the handwritten printer's copy, which was given to the printer to set the type for the first printing. It too, agrees with the 1830 Edition. It reads "white". So, someone originally wrote "white" (1830) and then someone changed it to "pure" (1840) and then back to "white" (after 1840) and then finally to "pure" (1981).

FairMormon commentary

• This must be pretty old information, because a critical text of all of the Book of Mormon manuscripts (extant portions of the original, and the entire printer's manuscript) have been published by Royal Skousen. Skousen obviously was able to gain access to all of the handwritten manuscripts.

Additional information

• "white" changed to "pure" in 2 Nephi 30:6—The phrase "white and delightsome" was changed to "pure and delightsome" in the Book of Mormon. Critics accuse the Church of attempting to hide a racially offensive statement. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
"Slaves were bought and sold in Utah Territory with the approval of Brigham Young. "By 1850 there were approximately sixty blacks residing in the Utah Territory. The majority were slaves living in Salt Lake, Davis, and Utah counties."

FairMormon commentary

• LDS scripture forbade slavery (Alma 27꞉9-10, DC 101꞉79), but Latter-day Saints (like believers in every age) did not always live up to the light given them. Those who practiced slavery during a historical time in which it was legal will have to answer to God's justice and mercy.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The Church has maintained that the 1978 revelation giving blacks the priesthood was not due to any form of public pressure but was simply God's will that blacks should not be given the priesthood until 1978. ..... In early 1978, the U.S. Department of Justice threatens to end the Church's tax-exempt status if it continues to "ban" black Mormons from its temples and priesthood; without such a tax-exempt-status the Church would lose billions of dollars every year. [note:MormonThink can neither confirm nor deny that this event happened but it is mentioned by many critics. This rumor has never been confirmed nor denied by former President Jimmy Carter, who refuses to comment on it according to someone that claims to have written JC numerous times. Also a poster on RFM stated "President Carter referenced his call in his latest book containing the day to day schedule of the President." Again, we at MormonThink cannot confirm or deny this statement.]

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is using an unsupported implication  —The critic wishes to make an implication based upon anonymous sources or heresay.
  Quoting a rumor from critics that cannot be "confirmed or denied" does not constitute data.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The 1978 "revelation" was just prior to the temple opening in Sao Paulo Brazil. They had built an area office, distribution center and temple. The population has intermarried to an extent that it could not be determined if the people have any black lineage. The Church had publicly stated that people could not enter the temple if they "had even a drop of negro blood." Who was going to use the temple in Brazil? This was creating a public image nightmare in Brazil.

FairMormon commentary

• Do the critics think that the Church was not aware of the demographics of the membership in Brazil before they built the temple? They make it seem as if the Church suddenly had an unexpected "public image nightmare."
• Would the Church not have faced the exact same problem in providing priesthood leadership for its wards and stakes in Brazil? A temple is only built in an area when there is sufficient membership to support it. The fact that they built the temple indicates that there was sufficient membership and priesthood leadership present to justify it.

Additional information

• Did social pressure play a role in lifting the ban?—Critics try to raise doubts about the authenticity of the 1978 revelation by claiming that it was dictated by social or governmental pressure. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Bruce McConkie, reports in “The New Revelation on the Priesthood” in Priesthood (Deseret Book, 1981) that “From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet . . . And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord. President Kimball’s prayer was answered and our prayers were answered. He heard the voice and we heard the same voice” (128). He reaffirms, “And when President Kimball finished his prayer, the Lord gave a revelation by the power of the Holy Ghost” (133). However, some of these people may be taking liberties with the phrase "voice of God" as others like Gordon B. Hinckley never claimed to have heard an actual voice. It was more of a feeling that they were doing something right by reversing the ban.

FairMormon commentary

• Bruce R. McConkie clearly states that the revelation was received through the power of the Holy Ghost.
•   the author is applying fundamentalist thinking  —The critic reveals extremely rigid, unrealistic expectations which he or she attributes to "the Church" or "the gospel," and then criticizes the Church or its leaders from being unable to meet this impossible standard.
  This is an absurd argument—The critics are taking the position that the "Voice of God" has to be an actual, audible voice. This is similar to their argument that Moroni couldn't have appeared to Joseph Smith in his room because he would have hit his head on the ceiling.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Although we don't normally quote from unverified sources, we decided to add this account from someone we know that worked in the administrative staff at the MTC during the time of the announcement: We were told, by visiting General Authorities and others from the Church Office Building, that it was not a revelation, but a "negative revelation." That is, the First Presidency and the Twelve decided to tell the Lord that they were going to change the policy regarding blacks and the LDS priesthood "unless He gave them a sign to the contrary."In the absence of any sign, they changed the policy. No one officially coming over from SLC to the MTC at the time denied this story. It was later that I heard the word "revelation" actually used in conjunction with it. But Elder Le Grand Richard's statements in his interview with Chris Vlachos and Wesley P. Walters supports this version of the events. Perhaps many revelations are received this way?

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is using an unsupported implication  —The critic wishes to make an implication based upon anonymous sources or heresay.
  Note that this is the second time that the web page quoted another unverified source.
• FAIR does not attempt to use unverified anecdotal information to influence the reader. If they cannot verify the source, then the only reason for the critics to quote this at all is to negatively influence the reader.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
It seems likely from President Spencer W. Kimball's statement printed in the church's own newspaper that he did not receive any word from God concerning the matter (emphasis added): I asked the Twelve not to go home when the time came. I said, 'Now would you be willing to remain in the temple with us?' And they were. I offered the final prayer and I told the Lord if it wasn't right, if He didn't want this change to come in the Church that I would be true to it all the rest of my life, and I'd fight the world against it if that's what He wanted. "We had this special prayer circle, then I knew that the time had come. I had a great deal to fight, of course, myself largely, because I had grown up with this thought that Negroes should not have the priesthood and I was prepared to go all the rest of my life till my death and fight for it and defend it as it was. But this revelation and assurance came to me so clearly that there was no question about it." (Deseret News, Church Section, January 6, 1979, page 4)It would appear then, that when President Kimball asked the Lord if He had any objections to his changing the doctrine, he received no answer from heaven. Since God did not seem to contest the idea, Kimball felt he had the "assurance" that it must be the Lord's will. This, of course, seems like a very unusual way to obtain a "revelation."

FairMormon commentary

• Note that MormonThink just quoted an "unverified source" that a "negative revelation" is the "absence of any sign." Yet, right after quoting President Kimball as stating, "But this revelation and assurance came to me so clearly that there was no question about it," MormonThink concludes "that when President Kimball asked the Lord if He had any objections to his changing the doctrine, he received no answer from heaven." This contradicts their own definition of a "negative revelation."
• Again, when President Kimball said "this revelation and assurance came to me so clearly that there was no question about it," how is this interpreted as "God did not seem to contest the idea?" According to MormonThink's own definition, if God simply did not "contest the idea," President Kimball would have received an "absence of any sign."

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Church leaders act as if racism did not exist in the Church....From an Ensign article of September 2000 by GA Alexander Morrison ...."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."

FairMormon commentary

• The origin and reason for the priesthood ban are not known. What we do know is that the ban did not exist during the time of Joseph Smith.

Quotes to consider
Alexander Morrison, "No More Strangers," Ensign, September 2000

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. President Spencer W. Kimball stated the Church’s position well: “We do wish that there would be no racial prejudice. … Racial prejudice is of the devil. … There is no place for it in the gospel of Jesus Christ” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [1982], 236–37). The Prophet Joseph Smith, who experienced more than his share of intolerance and prejudice, understood the importance of caring for, respecting, and helping others, even those we don’t agree with. Speaking of the need to provide temporal assistance to others, the Prophet explained that a member of the Church “is to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all, wherever he finds them” (Times and Seasons, 15 Mar. 1842, 732).

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Church leaders act as if racism did not exist in the Church....From an Ensign article of September 2000 by GA Alexander Morrison ....Gordon B. Hinckley: Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible? The Need for Greater Kindness April 2006 Priesthood Session

FairMormon commentary

• President Hinckley is not "acting as if racism did not exist in the Church"—He is speaking as if is does exist in the Church and that it needs to be corrected! That's what the "I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us" phrase is all about.
• We assume that MormonThink does not disagree with President Hinckley's words. What are they looking for then? Some sort of discussion in General Conference about how racist Brigham Young or Mark E. Petersen's remarks were?

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Many religions in the 1800s believed that the curse put upon Cain in Genesis was black skin. However they did not believe that blacks were less valiant before they came to earth.

FairMormon commentary

• That's because other churches don't believe in a pre-existence. Mormons simply added a new facet to the "curse" based upon their unique beliefs.

Additional information

• The "curse of Cain" and "curse of Ham"—We often hear that Latter-day Saints believe and teach that blacks are descendents of Cain, and that they are cursed. In fact, on some occasions prior to 1978, blacks were denied access to temple open houses because they carried the “mark of Cain.” What critics never point out, however, is that the "curse of Cain" is a Protestant invention that was created in order to justify slavery in the 1800's. One would get the impression listening to critics that the Latter-day Saints originated the idea of the curse, and they point to the priesthood ban as evidence of such, while ignoring that fact of segregated congregations in Protestant churches of that era. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
If you accept scientific reasoning then all of Mormonism's teachings about race and skin are complete nonsense.

FairMormon commentary

• If you accept scientific reasoning then all teachings from any source which lead to racism are complete nonsense.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
There is a discussion of Cain, including a passage from some early LDS member in Spencer W. Kimball's book The Miracle of Forgiveness. Some members refer to this as the Bigfoot reference.

FairMormon commentary

• Nowhere in scripture, ancient or modern, is it declared that Cain would or did live beyond his mortal years. No mention is made of his death, but we do read of Lamech, Cain’s great-great-great-grandson, who made the same covenant with Satan that Cain did. This covenant is described as being had “from [or since] the days of Cain,” which seems to indicate that Cain was dead by this time. (See Moses 5꞉51.)
• In any case, the scripture is ambiguous, and so the door is left open for all kinds of speculation about what happened to the man from the land of Nod. And hence began a Mormon urban legend.

Additional information

• Cain as Bigfoot?—It is claimed that Cain—son of Adam and Eve and the first murderer—still walks the earth today. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Some members question whether the ban was actual doctrine or just Church policy....In 1949, The First Presidency issued the following statement: "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 First Presidency on the Negro Question, 17 Aug. 1949)

FairMormon commentary

• You will note that the First Presidency in 1949 believed that the ban was instituted by revelation from God, yet there is no written evidence of such a revelation. Later First Presidencies believed that the ban was a policy.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
By listening to the Church's official spokesmen for 150 years it seems clear that the reason for the ban had to do with blacks being cursed by God because they were less valiant in the pre-existence and were therefore born under the curse of Cain, who was the first Negro. To say otherwise, and go against scores of teachings and sermons and even First Presidency messages by the highest leaders of the Church, would put into serious question whether these men are really inspired men that receive revelation from God.

FairMormon commentary

• The idea that anyone who came to earth was "neutral" in the premortal existence is not a doctrine of the Church. Early Church leaders had a variety of opinions regarding the status of blacks in the pre-existence, and some of these were expressed in an attempt to explain the priesthood ban.
• The scriptures, however, do not explicitly state that the status or family into which we were born on earth had anything to do with our "degree of valiance" in our pre-mortal life.

Additional information

• Less valiant or neutral in the pre-existence during the "war in heaven"—Some claim that LDS scripture states that those with lighter skin color "are favored because of what they did as spirits in a pre-earth life." Critics note that some Church leaders taught that people who were born with dark skin were "neutral" in the pre-existence. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
We were all clearly taught this in Church for decades before the ban. If the leaders of the church could make such a serious error, then how can we really ever put our 100% trust in what they say? How is the LDS church more true than the hundreds of protestant churches that did not teach, up through 1978, that blacks are black because they were cursed from God for being less valiant before they came to earth?

FairMormon commentary

• Actually, we were taught this in Church for decades before the ban was lifted.
• The idea that we are supposed to "put our 100% trust" in what Church leaders say is incorrect, and is simply another way of saying that we should practice "blind obedience." We are supposed to listen to Church leaders' counsel and pray to receive confirmation of what we should do.
• The comparison to other churches is odd, considering that the "Curse of Cain" theory was created by Protestants well before the restoration as a way to justify slavery. It was, in essence, a way for religious people to continue to feel good about themselves while supporting slavery. Latter-day Saints inherited the same attitudes about the "Curse of Cain," and added the additional "explanation" that it had to do with behavior in the pre-existence (a uniquely Latter-day Saint concept). How, then, does any of this relate to the amount of "truth" that one church has relative to another? It does not.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
In public interviews, Gordon B. Hinckley has said that he doesn't know the reasons for the ban. He seems understandably uncomfortable answering the question. It is strange that until the ban, the reasons were plainly taught to the members but now no one wants to say what the reasons are anymore or confirm whether what was taught in the past is true or not.

FairMormon commentary

• President Hinckley did not know the reason for the ban—nobody does. During the period of the ban, Church leaders came up with reasons (we would call this "bad apologetics"), such as the argument about not being valiant in the pre-existence. However, there is no revelation which gives these reasons. President Hinckley is correct: there exist no record which confirms when or why the ban was instituted.

Additional information

• Origin of the priesthood ban?—The origin of the priesthood ban is one of the most difficult questions to answer. Its origins are not clear, and this affected both how members and leaders have seen the ban, and the steps necessary to rescind it. The Church has never provided an official reason for the ban. (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
One apologist told me in confidence that he personally thought that blacks were 'fence-sitters' in the pre-existence and were indeed cursed from Cain and that the prophets were correct about the doctrine and the reasons for it. They don't talk about it for the obvious public image problems that it would cause for the church in modern times. Perhaps that's true - we'll never really know. But this is further evidence that the church needs to make a more official statement on the reasons for the ban.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is using an unsupported implication  —The critic wishes to make an implication based upon anonymous sources or heresay.
  MormonThink is simply trying to assert that Church members still believe this secretly, despite clear evidence that it has been rejected by the Church. The only people demanding a statement of reasons for a ban which was lifted over 30 years ago are ex-Mormons and critics.
• What some unnamed "apologist" is alleged to have said is not "further evidence" of anything, other than to confirm that some people used to believe in the "neutral in the pre-existence" idea as an explanation for the ban. The modern Church does not accept or believe that this explanation is valid.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
If Brigham Young instituted the priesthood ban on blacks without being directed to from God, then this is just too serious to ignore. And if all the prophets since Brigham Young until Spencer W. Kimball let it go unchallenged, then how can anyone say these men are truly prophets of God? It's ironic that all the other Christian churches, that do not claim to have prophets, allowed blacks the same rights as whites long before the prophet-led LDS church did. If the LDS prophets made this big of an error then why should they be believed on other matters?

FairMormon commentary

• Holding up "all other Christian churches" as examples of granting rights to blacks is probably not a very wise thing to do.
• While the priesthood ban was in place, Mormon congregations were not segregated. One cannot say the same for "all other Christian churches."

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
This LDS belief that even faithful blacks were destined to be just servants in the next life was also taught openly at least through the mid 1950s. LDS apostle Mark E. Petersen declared in 1954 in a sermon to BYU students that baptized LDS Blacks would receive only qualified acceptance into Mormonism's highest degree of glory....Our comment: The LDS Church does not teach this now, but for the Church to be wrong about such an important topic for so many years is troubling.

FairMormon commentary

• We believe all of God's children are equal. We do not believe God to be racist. Not only that, but he commands us not to be racist. We do not believe Elder Peterson to have been speaking for God when he said what he did in the 1950s. We think he was ignorant, as many people were in the 1950s. Everyone will have equal chance at getting into heaven - black and white, Jew and Gentile, gay and straight, male and female. Many racist things have been said in the past. We don't accept it as doctrine. Neither does the Church.

Quotes to consider

The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.
—"Race and the Church: All Are Alike Unto God", Newsroom, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Additional information

• Mark E. Peterson claims that Blacks become servants in heaven—Elder Mark E. Peterson said, " If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory." (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Perhaps the Church should at least clarify the reasons for the ban. Many people in the Church believe that blacks are cursed from God as the earlier leaders taught. This puts an awful burden on black members. Many feel that they have to defend themselves against white brothers who still believe this. Many white LDS will continue to believe that the reasons for the ban, were as they were taught growing up, before the ban was lifted UNLESS the Church officially states otherwise. That is unfair to our black brothers.

FairMormon commentary

• The Church does not "clarify the reasons for the ban" because they do not know what the reason was.
• The Church has repudiated all previous explanations for the ban. This was done at the time of the 1978 revelation allowing all worthy male Church members to hold the priesthood.
• There is no revelation associated with the ban. There is no clear historical marker indicating when the ban was implemented. All that we do know is that it was not in place during Joseph Smith's time, and that it was in place by the time the Saints were in Utah.

Quotes to consider

The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form.

For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.
—"Church Statement Regarding 'Washington Post' Article on Race and the Church," LDS Newsroom, Feb. 29, 2012. (emphasis added)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Critic's response. Regarding Bruce R. McConkie's statement "Forget everything I've said in the past" does not absolve the LDS church of its past leaders' racist teachings and policies. McConkie's statements are a good first step but the Church needs to officially put out a similar, yet stronger statement. McConkie can only apologize for his own statements and the current prophet would have to explain the Church's practices for the first 150 years of its existence.

FairMormon commentary

• You can't have it both ways. The Church repudiated past explanations for the priesthood ban. The critics wish to dredge it back up.
• Note that it is not black members of the Church asking for an apology—The only people demanding an apology are ex-Mormons, and the only reason that they want an apology for a ban which ended over 30 years ago is to embarrass the Church.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The LDS Church continually says it was not racist but how else can you explain the doctrine taught for 150 years? One of the following must be racist - Was it Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or God? If it was Joseph Smith or Brigham Young then these men are not really receiving true revelation from God and therefore are not prophets and the modern LDS church cannot be God's one, true church. That leaves the obvious choice to say it was all God's idea. It's easy to blame things on God. People do that all the time. No one can prove or disprove it.

FairMormon commentary

• The critics are looking for someone to blame, and this blame is intended to demonstrate that the Church cannot be "God's one, true church."

Additional information

• Racial statements by Church leaders—Why did past prophets make racist statements? God had already revealed to Peter that he should not call anything "common" that God had cleansed (Acts 10:9-16), yet some modern-day prophets thought that blacks were inferior to whites; why is that? (Link)

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Shouldn't we expect more from God's Prophets than to reflect the times in which they lived? Isn't God the same yesterday, today, and forever? Why then should Mormon doctrine ever just reflect the times in which they lived? Those appointed to act as God's mouth piece should especially be forward thinkers - to reflect God's will for His true followers on earth.

FairMormon commentary

• Prophets have always reflected the times in which they lived—how could they not?
•   The author is "speaking for God"  —The critic, despite not believing in God, presumes to know what God ought to require.
  The critics have come up with their own definition of what a prophet ought to be: A "forward thinker."

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
The church claims to be God's church, indeed, His kingdom on Earth. As such, they should not "Course Correct." Rather, they should be on the right course both before and after 1978.

FairMormon commentary

•   The author is "speaking for God"  —The critic, despite not believing in God, presumes to know what God ought to require.
  There are plenty of instances of "course corrections" in the Bible, such as the flood cleaning the earth of wickedness, or Moses' destruction of the original tablets after seeing the wickedness of the Children of Israel.

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
Many faithful LDS simply dismiss the LDS racism as Brigham Young's racist attitudes were a reflection of the times in which he lived. It only serves as proof that he never spoke to God or at least he never listened very carefully.

FairMormon commentary

•   Non-sequitur  —The critic makes a statement having little or no relevance to what preceded it.
  No, actually it only proves that Brigham Young had racist attitudes that reflected the times in which he lived—it says nothing about whether or not he spoke to God or whether he "listened very carefully".

On their old website, MormonThink claims...
As time went on all the major religions changed their ways and accepted blacks into full participation. Some did it after the Civil War, others closer to the turn of the century and some during the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. But the LDS Church did not change until 1978 - decades after all the other religions did.

FairMormon commentary

•   Trivialization  —Critics take a complex idea and attempt to trivialize it down to a few simple sound bites in order to prove their position.
  The critics have severely trivialized the turmoil of the Civil Rights Movement during the 1960's. Keep in mind that Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated in 1968—only 10 years before the priesthood ban was lifted. The critics wish to make it sound as if these racial issues were all wrapped up by the 1960's and that the Church was the lone organization unwilling to change. Here are a few items from the timeline on Wikipedia Timeline of African-American Civil Rights Movement:
  • 1961—MLK, the Freedom Riders, and congregation of 1,500 at Rev. Ralph Abernathy’s First Baptist Church in Montgomery are besieged by mob of segregationists; Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy sends federal marshals to protect them.
  • 1962—September 9 – Two black churches used by SNCC for voter registration meetings are burned in Sasser, Georgia.
  • 1963—September 15 – 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham kills four young girls. That same day, in response to the killings, James Bevel and Diane Nash begin the Alabama Project, which will later grow into the Selma Voting Rights Movement.
  • 1968—April 4 – Dr. Martin Luther King is shot and killed in Memphis, Tennessee by James Earl Ray.
  • 1971—The Supreme Court, in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, upholds desegregation busing of students to achieve integration.
  • 1972—The infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment ends. Begun in 1932, the U.S. Public Health Service's 40-year experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis has been described as an experiment that "used human beings as laboratory animals in a long and inefficient study of how long it takes syphilis to kill someone."
  • 1975—April 30 – In the pilot episode of Starsky and Hutch, Richard Ward plays an African-American boss of white Americans for the first time on TV.
  • 1978—June 28 – Regents of the University of California v. Bakke bars racial quota systems in college admissions but affirms the constitutionality of affirmative action programs giving equal access to minorities.
• Racial attitudes in the 1960's were far different than they are in the 21st Century. If the critics believe that racist issues were eliminated by the 1960s, then they are quite wrong.

Additional information

• Joseph Fielding Smith's racial reference in LOOK Magazine in 1963—Critics point to a 1963 statement by Joseph Fielding Smith LOOK Magazine in which he used the word "Darkies" as representative of the Church's racism. These critics, however, are applying a double standard to the Church in 1963. Not one article, photo, or ad in a full 154 pages of this colorful oversized magazine interrupts its perky Caucasian landscape by featuring an African-American. They are not to be seen in ads, Catholic schoolrooms, or even on a featured college football team. Looking at this slice of life from the sixties, the only reason one would have to think blacks even lived in the United States is one photo on page 118 where a few blacks are pictured as the recipients of charity. The patronizing hypocrisy of examining one small church's "attitude toward Negroes" in this sort of environment has, of course, not yet settled into the mainstream of American consciousness. (Link)