Race and the Priesthood: Disavowing anti-Blackness in Mormonism

Collage featuring the 2014 First Presidency, the 2019 First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the Christus statue at the Roman, Italy temple, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (TM) logo arranged into the Mormon Seal of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

In 2014, 36-yrs after this church’s African Exaltation Ban was rescinded, this church released an essay titled: “Race and the Priesthood” in which they outline their current position on race.

It’s a sort of 4th manifesto in this church’s series on Mormonism and persons indigenous to Africa. 

“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse … or that (black people) 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. (This is) epitomized by a verse in (2nd 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.'”

Yet, 2nd Nephi also says that God cursed the Lamanites with “a skin of blackness” to make them “not enticing.” –– God even went so far as to say that if the white & delightsome Nephites “mix seed” with the black & loathsome Lamanites their children would inherit the same curse. 

2nd Nephi also prophecies that in the last days many Jews “believe in Christ” and thus “become a delightsome people” implying that Jews who practice Judaism are not delightsome –– which sounds like the church continues to teaches that some people are inferior, and that melanin content & religion can be an indicator of inferiority. 

But the authors of this essay avoid these obvious contradictions by focusing solely on the white-supremacist anti-Blackness in this church and wholly ignoring the white-supremacist anti-Indigeneity and antisemitism.

When addressing the legalization of enslavement in Utah by this church (acting as territorial representatives) as the start date of the exaltation restriction, the essay exclusively addresses enslavement of persons descended out of Africa and makes no mention of the Mormon enslavement of Indigenous persons, which was far more common at the time. 

It also coyly states that enslavement “was soon abolished” without saying that it was abolished by, what Utah Mormons then and now would label "government overreach," federal emancipation. Mormons did not choose to end their practice of enslavement (and realistically did not stop enslaving Indigenous persons. There were certainly Indigenous children working unpaid in settler Mormon homes during the Lamanite Placement Program)

Similarly the author/s write that, "President Young" with whom this essay places the origin of the African Salvation Ban, "said that at some future day, black Church members would 'have [all] the privilege and more' enjoyed by other members." 

Thought, they neglect to mention that Brigham Young also said:
"(When) this Church … declare that it is right (that) the black race of Cain... be partakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day and hour…the Priesthood is taken from this Church and Kingdom and God leaves us to our fate."
Essentially saying that the day this church lets Black people have Mormon Priesthood is the day this church will lose their Priesthood.

The author regularly refers to the words of prophets as “theories,” –– but when then-Apostle Oaks was asked whether the ban was doctrine or policy in 1988 he said:
“I don’t know that it’s possible to distinguish between policy and doctrine in a church that believes in continuing revelation and sustains its leader as a prophet.” 

And seven years prior Prophet Benson said:
“The prophet does not have to say 'Thus saith the Lord' to give us scripture.”

But then what’s more Mormon than doublespeak in service of white Christian innocence?

The authors of this essay do an excellent job at seeming to lay it all out on the table and making a simple and direct argument showing that even though this church openly practiced  anti-Black segregation for 126 of their first 148 years, this was a mere tangent from their true course. 

The essay never grapples with any of the scripture emitted from the mouths of dozens their overtly white-supremacist leadership nor does it address any policies or practices put in place to fight the century plus of overt white-supremacy still held in the bodies which fill their congregations. 

If white-supremacy has only been in this church's past for the last 45 years, why are top 15 leaders all white men and one pale Chinese-American?

​If this is truly a world-religion, Indigenous to this continent, why are there no Indigenous leaders and so few persons of the global majority leading it?