View source for Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Blacks and the Priesthood

{{Main Page}}  
{{H1
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Blacks and the Priesthood
|H=Response to MormonThink page "Blacks and the Priesthood"
|T=[[../|MormonThink]]
|A=Anonymous
|<=[[../Polygamy|Polygamy]]
|>=[[../The Greek Psalter Incident|The Greek Psalter Incident]]
}}
[[File:Mormonthink.chart.blacks.and.priesthood.png|center|frame]]
<onlyinclude>
{{H2
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Websites/MormonThink/Blacks and the Priesthood
|H=Response to claims made on MormonThink page "Blacks and the Priesthood"
|S=
|L1=Response to claim: "The leaders of the church up through the 1970s made it very clear why blacks were denied the priesthood"
|L2=Response to claim: "The term 'white' was changed to 'pure' in 1981"
|L3=Response to claim: "Slaves were bought and sold in Utah Territory with the approval of Brigham Young"
|L4=Response to claim: "Under President Jimmy Carter, Brigham Young University and possibly the LDS Church itself was in danger of losing their tax exempt status if they continued to discriminate against blacks"
|L5=Response to claim: "The 1978 'revelation' was just prior to the temple opening in Sao Paulo Brazil"
|L6=Response to claim: "some of these people may be taking liberties with the phrase 'voice of God'"
|L7=Response to claim: "Although we don't normally quote from sources who are unwilling to have their name published"
|L8=Response to claim: "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"
|L9=Response to claim: "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'"
|L10=Response to claim: "Isn't what GBH saying is wrong exactly what the Church did?"
|L11=Response to claim: "Many religions in the 1800s believed that the curse put upon Cain in Genesis was black skin"
|L12=Response to claim: "other non-LDS churches did not teach that blacks were less valiant before they came to earth - that was a unique LDS belief"
|L13=Response to claim: "If you accept scientific reasoning then all of Mormonism's teachings about race and skin are complete nonsense"
|L14=Response to claim: "Some members refer to this as the Bigfoot reference"
|L15=Response to claim: "Some members question whether the ban was actual doctrine or just Church policy"
|L16=Response to claim: "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?"
|L17=Response to claim: "He should have stated whether or not the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine correctly or not"
|L18=Response to claim: "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?"
|L19=Response to claim: "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"
|L20=Response to claim: "Perhaps the Church should at least clarify the reasons for the ban"
|L21=Response to claim: "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"
|L22=Response to claim: "One of the following must be racist - Was it Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or God?"
|L23=Response to claim: "Shouldn't we expect more from God's Prophets than to merely reflect the times in which they lived?"
|L24=Response to claim: "The church claims to be God's church, indeed, His kingdom on Earth. As such, they should not 'Course Correct'"
|L25=Response to claim: "Many faithful LDS simply dismiss the LDS racism as Brigham Young's racist attitudes were a reflection of the times in which he lived"
|L26=Response to claim: "But the LDS Church did not change until 1978 - decades after all the other major religions did"
}}
</onlyinclude>

==Response to claim: "The leaders of the church up through the 1970s made it very clear why blacks were denied the priesthood"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=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 almost all of his life. He has been a General Authority since 1958. He was in Quorum of the Twelve meetings when the priesthood ban was discussed, for at least three decades. He was an Apostle for some 17 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 disappointing to say the least. He should have stated whether or not the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine correctly or not - that's what people really want to know.
}}
{{information|The leaders of the church ''did'' interpret the doctrine that way, and came up with reasons for the ban. Since there is no record of an actual revelation on the matter, the modern Church no longer accepts those explanations as valid.
}}
{{:Question: What did Church leaders after Brigham Young think of the priesthood ban?}}

==Response to claim: "The term 'white' was changed to 'pure' in 1981"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=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.<br>....<br>
Although the Mormon Church will not make available the handwritten manuscript of the Book of Mormon, the RLDS 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).
}}
{{information|The change was made by Joseph Smith in 1836; it was not made under the influence of science or DNA.
}}
{{:Question: Why was the phrase "white and delightsome" changed to "pure and delightsome" in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon?}}

==Response to claim: "Slaves were bought and sold in Utah Territory with the approval of Brigham Young"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=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."
}}
{{information|Latter-day Saint scripture forbade slavery ({{s||Alma|27|9-10}}, {{s||D&C|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.
}}

==Response to claim: "Under President Jimmy Carter, Brigham Young University and possibly the LDS Church itself was in danger of losing their tax exempt status if they continued to discriminate against blacks"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=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.. ..... Under President Jimmy Carter, Brigham Young University and possibly the LDS Church itself was in danger of losing their tax exempt status if they continued to discriminate against blacks. In early 1978, the Federal Government was threatening to withhold Federal Student Loans to BYU students as long as BYU practiced "discrimination".
A particular complication was the possibility that the Church Educational Institutions could lose their tax-exempt status due to discrimination. This could cost the Church tens of millions of dollars. The Church has always denied that financial considerations have played a role. However, in 1976, the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University was withdrawn revoked retroactively to 1970 because it did not allow blacks. Something similar could very well have happened to BYU if the courts felt the LDS Church practiced description [discrimination].
}}
{{disinformation|Quoting a rumor which circulates among critics of the Church does not constitute data. Where is the data that "Brigham Young University and possibly the LDS Church itself was in danger of losing their tax exempt status" or the "possibility that the Church Educational Institutions could lose their tax-exempt status due to discrimination"? Comparing the situation of BYU to that of Bob Jones University is simply speculation on the part of the critics.
}}
{{:Question: Did President Jimmy Carter threaten the Church's tax-exempt status because of their policy on blacks and the priesthood?}}

==Response to claim: "The 1978 'revelation' was just prior to the temple opening in Sao Paulo Brazil"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=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.
}}
{{information|The Church notes that the dedication of the members to the construction of the temple had an impact: "Church authorities encountered faithful black and mixed-ancestry Mormons who had contributed financially and in other ways to the building of the São Paulo temple, a sanctuary they realized they would not be allowed to enter once it was completed. Their sacrifices, as well as the conversions of thousands of Nigerians and Ghanaians in the 1960s and early 1970s, moved Church leaders."
}}
{{:Source:Gospel Topics:Race and the Priesthood:Church authorities encountered faithful black and mixed-ancestry Mormons who had contributed financially and in other ways to the building of the São Paulo temple}}
{{:Question: Was the priesthood ban lifted as the result of social or government pressure?}}

==Response to claim: "some of these people may be taking liberties with the phrase 'voice of God'"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=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.
}}
{{propaganda|This is a narrow-minded claim&mdash;the critics are taking the position that the "voice of God" has to be an actual, audible voice. This is similar to MormonThink's legendary argument that Moroni couldn't have appeared to Joseph Smith in his room because he would have ''hit his head on the ceiling'': it is an interpretation of spiritual things in the most fundamental, literal manner. In this case, the critics take the position that the "voice of the Lord" ''must'' be an audible voice, or it doesn't count as an actual communication from God. Bruce R. McConkie ''clearly'' states in the quote that the critics use that the revelation was received through the power of the Holy Ghost.
}}

==Response to claim: "Although we don't normally quote from sources who are unwilling to have their name published"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Although we don't normally quote from sources who are unwilling to have their name published, we decided to add this account from someone we know who 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" within the church have been "received" this way?
}}
{{propaganda|Actually, MormonThink has been quite willing to quote sources who are "unwilling to have their name published," including anonymous message board posters. Changing this claim from it's original "unverified source" to "sources who are unwilling to have their name published" is simply another way of saying the same thing: the source is unable to be validated. Youi cannot find it in any published source, and it is little more than an unsubstantiated rumor that the critics wish to turn into "data" on their website.

FairMormon never uses unverified anecdotal information, especially if the source is "unwilling to have their name published," to influence the reader. If the critics cannot verify the source, or cite it in some sort of publication, then the only reason for the them to quote this at all is to negatively influence the reader. Source's who are "unwilling to have their name published" can literally claim anything that they want to ''without consequence'', and it is irresponsible to quote such a source.
}}

==Response to claim: "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"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=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."
}}
{{propaganda|MormonThink just quoted a source who was "unwilling to have their name published" that concluded 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."
}}

==Response to claim: "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'"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Church leaders act as if racism did not exist in the Church....From an Ensign article of September 2000 by General Authority 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."
}}
{{propaganda|Morrison is not acting as if racism did not exist in the Church: he is stating that the Church has stood strongly against racism. This does not mean that individuals in the Church did not have racist views. Here is more of the quote from Alexander Morrison, "No More Strangers," ''Ensign'', September 2000
<blockquote>
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.<br><br>
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).
</blockquote>
}}

==Response to claim: "Isn't what GBH saying is wrong exactly what the Church did?"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=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? Critic's point: Isn't what GBH saying is wrong exactly what the Church did? The Church assumed blacks were not eligible for the priesthood regardless of how righteous they were and they did this for 150 years.
The Need for Greater Kindness
April 2006 Priesthood Session
}}
{{disinformation|President Hinckley is not "acting as if racism did not exist in the Church"&mdash;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's or Mark E. Petersen's remarks were?
}}
{{:Source:Gospel Topics:Race and the Priesthood:2013:Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor}}
{{:Question: If a doctrine is repudiated, does that mean that it was false when it was being taught?}}

==Response to claim: "Many religions in the 1800s believed that the curse put upon Cain in Genesis was black skin"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Many religions in the 1800s believed that the curse put upon Cain in Genesis was black skin. It wasn't just the Mormons. The Catholics did not believe this though. 
}}
{{information|Correct. The notion originated in Protestant churches.
}}
{{:Source:Gospel Topics:Race and the Priesthood:2013:Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor}}
{{:Source:Gospel Topics:Race and the Priesthood:Even after 1852, at least two black Mormons continued to hold the priesthood}}
{{:Question: What are the "curse of Cain" and the "curse of Ham"}}
{{:Question: When did a biblical curse become associated with the "Hamites?"}}
{{:Question: When did the "mark of Cain" become associated with black skin?}}
{{:Question: How did the "curse of Ham" or "curse of Cain" become associated with Mormonism?}}

==Response to claim: "other non-LDS churches did not teach that blacks were less valiant before they came to earth - that was a unique LDS belief"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=However, the other non-LDS churches did not teach that blacks were less valiant before they came to earth - that was a unique LDS belief.<br>....<br>
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.<br>....<br>
One apologist (a personal good friend of mine) 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.
}}
{{information|True. That's because the notion of a "pre-existence" is a unique LDS belief.
}}
{{:Question: Did the Church refute the "neutral in the pre-existence" teaching only to preserve their public image?}}
{{:Question: Was the idea that Blacks were neutral in the "war in heaven" ever official doctrine?}}
{{:Question: Did Church leaders ever teach that Blacks were neutral in the "war in heaven?"}}
{{:Question: Did the Church repudiate the idea of neutrality in the "war in heaven?"}}
{{:Source:Gospel Topics:Race and the Priesthood:2013:Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor}}

==Response to claim: "If you accept scientific reasoning then all of Mormonism's teachings about race and skin are complete nonsense"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim= If you accept scientific reasoning then all of Mormonism's teachings about race and skin are complete nonsense.
}}
{{propaganda|If you accept scientific reasoning then ''all'' teachings from ''any'' source which lead to racism are complete nonsense.
}}

==Response to claim: "Some members refer to this as the Bigfoot reference"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=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.
}}
{{information|This is basically a Mormon "urban legend." There is no official doctrine that states that Cain is Bigfoot.
}}
{{:Question: Does Cain still roam the earth, and does this account for stories about "Bigfoot"?}}

==Response to claim: "Some members question whether the ban was actual doctrine or just Church policy"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Some members question whether the ban was actual doctrine or just Church policy. The First Presidency issued the following official statements signed by all three members. (emphasis added):
1947 the First Presidency (supreme council) of the Church issued an Official Statement:
"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel." (Statement of The First Presidency on the Negro Question, July 17, 1947, quoted in Mormonism and the Negro, pp.46-7)
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)
Official Statement of First Presidency issued on August 17, 1951, reads:
"The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.....
"Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgression. If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or allotted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain's transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world."
}}
{{information|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.
}}

==Response to claim: "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?"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=We were all clearly taught this in Church for decades before the ban was lifted. 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?
}}
{{misinformation|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.
}}
{{:Source:Priesthood:Millennial Star 14:38:none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the Priesthood}}
{{:Source:Brigham Young:1862:JD 9:150:I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God}}
{{:Source:Brigham Young:1855:JD 3:43:I do not wish any Latter-day Saint...to be satisfied with anything I do}}

==Response to claim: "He should have stated whether or not the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine correctly or not"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Hinckley has worked for the Church almost all of his life. He has been a General Authority since 1958. He was in Quorum of the Twelve meetings when the priesthood ban was discussed, for at least three decades. He was an Apostle for some 17 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 disappointing to say the least. He should have stated whether or not the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine correctly or not - that's what people really want to know.
}}
{{propaganda|Now the critics are saying what Church leaders ''should'' have done, rather than what they did.
}}
{{:Source:Gospel Topics:Race and the Priesthood:During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood}}
{{:Question: What do we know about the origin of the priesthood ban on Church members of African descent?}}
{{:Question: Did Joseph Smith confer the priesthood on several black men?}}
{{:Question: Why did Brigham Young initiate the priesthood ban?}}
{{:Question: What did Church leaders after Brigham Young think of the priesthood ban?}}

==Response to claim: "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?"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=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?
}}
{{propaganda|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."
}}

==Response to claim: "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"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=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 
}}
{{information|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.
}}
{{:Question: Why did Mark E. Peterson say that blacks would go the the Celestial Kingdom as servants?}}

==Response to claim: "Perhaps the Church should at least clarify the reasons for the ban"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=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.
}}
{{propaganda|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.
<blockquote>
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.
<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.
<br>&mdash;[http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/racial-remarks-in-washington-post-article "Church Statement Regarding 'Washington Post' Article on Race and the Church,"] LDS Newsroom, Feb. 29, 2012. (emphasis added)
</blockquote>
}}

==Response to claim: "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"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=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.
}}
{{propaganda|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&mdash;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.
}}

==Response to claim: "One of the following must be racist - Was it Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or God?"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=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.
}}
{{propaganda|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."
}}

==Response to claim: "Shouldn't we expect more from God's Prophets than to merely reflect the times in which they lived?"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=Shouldn't we expect more from God's Prophets than to merely 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.
}}
{{propaganda|The critics have come up with their own definition of what a prophet ought to be: A "forward thinker."
}}
{{:Question: Are prophets simply "men of their time," without any special ability to guide the Church?}}

==Response to claim: "The church claims to be God's church, indeed, His kingdom on Earth. As such, they should not 'Course Correct'"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=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.
}}
{{propaganda|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.
}}

==Response to claim: "Many faithful LDS simply dismiss the LDS racism as Brigham Young's racist attitudes were a reflection of the times in which he lived"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=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.
}}
{{disinformation|No, actually it only proves that Brigham Young had racist attitudes that reflected the times in which he lived&mdash;it says nothing about whether or not he spoke to God or whether he "listened very carefully".
}}

==Response to claim: "But the LDS Church did not change until 1978 - decades after all the other major religions did"==
{{IndexClaimItemShort
|title=MormonThink
|claim=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. The Catholic Church never adopted the' blacks are cursed from Cain belief' and let blacks be ordained as priests in America in the 1800s. But the LDS Church did not change until 1978 - decades after all the other major religions did.
}}
{{disinformation|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&mdash;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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_African-American_Civil_Rights_Movement Timeline of African-American Civil Rights Movement]:
**1961&mdash;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&mdash;September 9 – Two black churches used by SNCC for voter registration meetings are burned in Sasser, Georgia.
**1963&mdash;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&mdash;April 4 – Dr. Martin Luther King is shot and killed in Memphis, Tennessee by James Earl Ray.
**1971&mdash;The Supreme Court, in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, upholds desegregation busing of students to achieve integration.
**1972&mdash;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&mdash;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&mdash;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.
}}
{{endnotes sources}}