Here's Why The LDS Church Continues To Counsel Young People To Marry Within The Same Racial Background

Although the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long left its Priesthood ban against otherwise worthy black males behind, there's a passage within one of its manuals that has been used as grist for the propaganda mills of anti-Mormons and that progressive Mormons have used to occasionally speak evil of the Lord's anointed. Counsel given in Aaronic Priesthood Manual #3, Lesson 31, makes it appear that the LDS Church opposes interracial marriage. The manual cites a 1976 devotional speech by Spencer W. Kimball, the same President Kimball who received divine authorization to lift the Priesthood ban just two years later:

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question” (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).

A post on Feminist Mormon Housewives by a biracial Mormon validates the wisdom of President Kimball. Kalani, who identifies as half Tongan and half Swedish white, writes of the challenges she's faced in being accepted, particularly by Tongans. Here's the critical excerpts of her post:

I suppose I should start by saying that I am half Tongan and half “palangi,” or “white” (specifically Swedish). In Tongan, they call biracial people “hafekasi” or “half cast,” and can I just say that being biracial is freaking hard?! Author Lani Wendt Young said it best in her novel "Telesa: The Covenant Keeper", when she said that the biracial lead character was “too brown to be white but too white to be brown.” It’s a very strange feeling to be an “insider” and an “outsider” at the same time. All my life, I’ve been told by the Tongan community that I am “too white to be Tongan.” I can honestly say that I’ve never felt uncomfortably different around any group EXCEPT for Tongans. It’s so weird and hard to explain. I feel like I can walk into a room full of people of all ethnicities and feel like I can fit in, but if I walk into a room full of Tongans I’m like a fish out of water. I’m different. And not “different in a good way.” Different in a “look at her...she doesn’t act right” kind of way.

{snip}

And so, when the time came for me to graduate from high school and venture into the big bad world all alone, I was very ill-prepared to deal with the incredible disapproval I received from the Tongan community because I “didn’t know how to act.” Being biracial felt a lot like walking through a mine field where other people knew where the landmines were, but they were not very forthcoming about that knowledge. Amongst Tongans, I’ve often felt “damned if I do, and damned if I don’t.” If I did or said the wrong thing, other Tongans talked about me and my family, and said I wasn’t taught right. If I asked what the right thing to do was, other Tongans talked about me and my family and said I wasn’t taught right because I had to ask. It felt like a lose-lose situation every time.

A commenter weighs in with a similar experience:

anonymous "palangi" says:
July 31, 2014 at 11:51 am

I can say that marrying into the culture I have never felt more inadequate or discriminated against then when I’m with my husband’s Tongan family. Luckily it’s becoming so much more common to be biracial so I’m not too worried about my kids trying to fit it. Plus my half white kids are way beautiful and that cannot always be said about full white or full Tongan kids…

For the record I believe in gender roles to a point, but to each their own.

This is exactly what President Kimball anticipated. And since people still experience this type of discrimination in 2014, it shows the wisdom of the LDS Church in continuing to caution young LDS members against interracial marriage. The intent is not discrimination, but awareness. Marriage and family can be challenging enough as it is without further cluttering it up with racial issues. But most important in the mind of the Church is for members to marry within the faith.

Too many young people find it difficult to distinguish between being in love and being in heat. In the same lesson, President Kimball gave some principles that should guide our selection:

“In selecting a companion for life and for eternity, certainly the most careful planning and thinking and praying and fasting should be done to be sure that, of all the decisions, this one must not be wrong. In true marriage there must be a union of minds as well as of hearts. Emotions must not wholly determine decisions, but the mind and the heart, strengthened by fasting and prayer and serious consideration, will give one a maximum chance of marital happiness” (“Marriage and Divorce,” p. 144).

In the final analysis, seek the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit, and let that Spirit be your guide.

LDS Church Publishes New Essay On "Race And The Priesthood", Effectively Summarizes The History And Origin Of The Priesthood Ban

Just when we thought the issue of the Priesthood ban had been put to bed, it has been awakened once again. Both Buzzfeed and Politix reported that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has published a new essay entitled "Race And The Priesthood". While it is undated, it appears during the same time frame as the official LDS statement of condolences upon the death of former South Africa President Nelson Mandela.

Update December 10th: More background. According to KSL Channel 5, the essay on "Race and the Priesthood" was posted last week, following publication of "First Vision Accounts" and "Are Mormons Christian?". It is part of the improved "Gospel Topics" pages which are found under the "Teachings" tab at the top of LDS.org, and is intended to use scholarship, historical perspectives and outside resources transparently to help parents answer questions children might encounter online. This is part of part of a larger, long-term effort to help families improve personal and family gospel study.

The essay is the most comprehensive and coherent document yet published, including all the pertinent historical milestones attendant to the Priesthood ban. It establishes the beginning of enforcement of the ban in 1852, although it acknowledges no revelatory origin. The essay also paints a portrait of the racial attitudes which prevailed at the time the ban was formalized by Brigham Young, hinting that this might have been influential. The LDS Church also reiterates that the previous theories used to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions have no doctrinal foundation and are strictly considered folklore today. Here are three key paragraphs:

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

This shows that the formalization of the ban can be traced to 1852. The next excerpt shows how the advent of the Sao Paulo Temple in Brazil in 1975 gave renewed urgency to efforts to persuade the Lord to provide an answer to the Church leaders' entreaties to lift the ban:

Brazil in particular presented many challenges. Unlike the United States and South Africa where legal and de facto racism led to deeply segregated societies, Brazil prided itself on its open, integrated, and mixed racial heritage. In 1975, the Church announced that a temple would be built in São Paulo, Brazil. As the temple construction proceeded, 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.

Because the Church had been commanded to go forth and preach the Gospel worldwide, continuing the Priesthood ban against blacks would hinder the spread of the Gospel despite the fact that many Africans had joined the Church even with the ban in place. Their faith needed to be rewarded. Finally, the answer came through in 1978:

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings. In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [Salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation. “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come,” the First Presidency announced on June 8. The First Presidency stated that they were “aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us” that “all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood.” The revelation rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination. It also extended the blessings of the temple to all worthy Latter-day Saints, men and women. The First Presidency statement regarding the revelation was canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 2.

The LDS Church concludes the essay by stating unequivocally that they disavow the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks 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. Of course, there is one remaining official Church manual, Aaronic Priesthood Manual #3, dated 1995, which quotes Spencer W. Kimball as saying in 1976, “We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question”, but there's no implication in this statement that one race is preferable above another. And note that President Kimball stated that marrying within the faith is the most important of all.

The Church's essay effectively summarizes the origin and promulgation of the Priesthood ban under one roof, and promotes understanding about cultural influences upon the Church in earlier times. Some LDS members like Gina Colvin are dissatisfied and think the Church should offer an apology. However, an apology not only might leave the LDS Church open to nuisance litigation, but is clearly unnecessary since there was no evidence of malicious intent. Those who were victimized by the ban have long since left this mortal coil and could not possibly benefit from an apology. And who are we to sit in judgment of people who lived during an earlier time, were subjected to different political and cultural influences, and possessed less knowledge and light than us? Remember the Second Article of Faith:

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression".

While written specifically to rebut the doctrine of infant baptism, this article also infers that we bear no responsibility for historical sin so long as we correct the policies which led to it. It is unfair to hold someone responsible for past actions over which they had no control.

Other LDS Reaction: On Mormon Church History, Jared welcomes the essay, stating "The words 'in any form', as I read them, extend not only to individual racism but institutional. The temple/priesthood ban was racist in that it denied the blessings of the priesthood and temple to black Church members based solely on their racial background. The institution as well as individuals bear responsibility for its perpetuation. The Church has now owned that. Maybe not as explicitly as some may hope, but it has owned it and disavowed it. So can we".

Black History Month: Peter M. Johnson Becomes The First Black LDS Stake President In Alabama History

Screenshot of Johnson

For those of you who care about Black History Month, you might be interested to know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made some black history in Alabama. Peter M. Johnson, an Ernst and Young Fellow and assistant professor of accounting at the Culverhouse School of Accountancy at the University of Alabama, has been called to serve as the President of the Bessemer Alabama Stake and was unanimously sustained on January 13th, 2013. He is the first black stake president in the history of Alabama. The Bessemer Stake covers west Alabama from Bessemer to the Mississippi state line, east to Inverness, north to Cullman, and south to Demopolis. It includes 12 congregations with a combined membership of 3,716.

Johnson, who is married with four kids, was quick to note that blacks were becoming more common in leadership positions throughout the Church. He also said, "The family is important. My family is an important part of who I am and who I want to become... strengthening home and family through the teachings of the Savior, Jesus Christ, is a central part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That's one of our primary goals."

Since the LDS Church did not begin extending Priesthood membership to otherwise worthy black men until 1978, it has understandably taken a while for black men to begin percolating their way up into middle and upper level leadership positions. One commenter to the Salt Lake Tribune story decried the lack of diversity at the Church's senior leadership level, noting that there is only one black General Authority, Elder Joseph W. Sitati of Kenya, who is a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, in a worldwide church containing 14 million members.

However, there is a legitimate reason for that so-called "lack of diversity". When the Priesthood ban was revoked in 1978, every black LDS man started at ground zero. First, they had the Aaronic Priesthood conferred upon them, then the Melchizedek Priesthood, after which they were ordained to the office of Elder. But just as people who enlist in the military aren't immediately selected to serve as commanders or member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, so these newly-minted black Priesthood holders couldn't be immediately called as stake presidents or General Authorities. There's a time-tested apprenticeship. First, a two-year full-time mission for many of them. Then there's five to seven years of service in progressively more responsible and demanding callings such as youth advisory positions, ward clerkships, and elders quorum presidencies. After around 10 years, many are then called to be bishops or branch presidents, usually for a five-year term. Then, after a break in which they might serve in other positions, to include the stake high council, some will get called to be stake presidents. That can last for 5-10 years.

So this means a typical man who's ordained an elder will have to serve as long as 20-25 years before even being considered for service as a General Authority. As a matter of fact, Helvecio Martins, called to the First Quorum of the Seventy to become the first black General Authority in 1990, actually advanced faster than most who are eventually called as General Authorities. More typical is the case of Elder Sitati, who was called to the Seventy in 2009, 31 years after the Priesthood ban was lifted. So you can be certain that the senior leadership of the LDS Church is always looking for worthy men of all races for advancement. Those who think otherwise have been manipulated by Satan to sow dissension within LDS ranks and frustrate the work of the Lord. Blacklds.org provides an LDS black history timeline that's of interest.

Alabama has come a long way since that day in August 1963 when then-Gov. George Wallace stood at the door of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama in a symbolic attempt to block two black students, Vivian Malone and James Hood, from enrolling at the school.

Daniel Peterson Attacked By Progressives As Racist For Publishing A Balanced Perspective On Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Daniel Peterson, the longtime Mormon Studies Review editor who was purged by the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship at Brigham Young University in June 2012, is under attack again, this time accused of "racism". The attack was published on Mormon Curtain in a post entitled "Apology For Daniel C. Peterson's Racist Blog Post", in which someone called Everybody Wang Chung presumptively offers an apology to all African Americans on behalf of Daniel C. Peterson because Peterson dared to expound on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s weaknesses as well as his strengths. Using slippery-slope logic, this joker claims that Peterson would have no problem with slavery because slavery can be portrayed to make perfect free market sense.

So let's go to Daniel Peterson's blog post, entitled "A Hasty Note on Martin Luther King Day". And yes, Peterson did allude to the weaknesses and imperfections of the flesh with which Dr. King had to contend:

Martin Luther King was a seriously flawed man. The plagiarism in his doctoral dissertation, the adulteries, the blurring of his Civil Rights mission and his dalliance with various leftist causes in his latter years — these were and are unfortunate. In this respect, he reminds me of the Jaredite king Morianton, in the Book of Mormon: ”And he did do justice unto the people, but not unto himself because of his many whoredoms” (Ether 10:11).

This is hardly new information, although it has been largely suppressed by the elite which control the U.S. behind the scenes and who have imposed their cultural totalitarianism from the top down. Another LDS member, Joel Skousen, also discussed Dr. King's weaknesses and imperfections in even greater detail in his World Affairs Brief in 2002 (scroll down to January 25th).

But Peterson also acknowledged Dr. King's strengths, in particular highlighting his eloquence:

That said, he was also a man of remarkable bravery, and he paid for it with his life at the hands of a much lesser human being (possibly but not certainly James Earl Ray). And he was stunningly eloquent, delivering powerful, biblically-cadenced speeches that moved millions, and that still move me. (Barack Obama’s vaunted oratorical skills pale into insignificance alongside Dr. King’s, and, unlike Dr. King’s, the content of Mr. Obama’s speeches, when not confused, is very often vacuous.)

Absolutely correct. Just as the Prophet Joseph Smith sealed his testimony with his blood at Carthage Jail, so Dr. King also sealed his testimony with his blood.

Because Daniel Peterson is, by his own definition, a quasi-libertarian, he believes in freedom of association. To be consistent, he believes people should be free to do business with whoever they want, even if it results in racial discrimination. But Peterson also thinks it was obscene and immoral for government to support forced segregation and the associated Jim Crow laws and is glad those laws were overturned; he supports freedom of association, freedom of economic transaction, and free exchange.

But progressives do not believe in free speech or freedom of association, and brook no criticism of their holy secular icons. The same progressives who think nothing of savaging respected LDS Church leaders like Elaine Dalton cannot tolerate any criticism of Dr. King or any of their other holy icons. While they spent eight years bashing George W. Bush, they characterize anyone who criticizes their Obamessiah as disloyal and seditious. Progressives tend to follow the model prescribed by Saul Alinsky, which is basically to attack, attack, attack. By the way, I don't consider "progressive" and "liberal" to be interchangeable; while classical liberals like Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) are honorable and responsible, progressives are hard-left extremist insurgents who know no respect.

In response to questions directed to Peterson as to whether he would consider publishing a similar "balanced perspective" on Joseph Smith, Peterson wrote the following:

No. And here’s why: The claim that Joseph Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon is, along with the claim that he was an adulterer, a very disputed and controversial one that tends to be part of the standard anti-Mormon attack on him. I would not formulate the argument that, though he invented polygamy to satisfy his lusts and plagiarized Solomon Spalding in order to create a phony scripture that would dupe the yokels, Joseph was still a great prophet. Such an argument would be, in my view, incoherent.

The situation is different with Martin Luther King. His plagiarism and his adulteries are, so far as I’m aware, undenied by any serious student of his life. And there’s no particular controversy about them. No “Kingite” sect is claiming that his dissertation is actually revealed scripture or that his adulteries occurred by divine command. More importantly, it’s entirely coherent to argue that, despite his personal failings, Martin Luther King was a very great moral voice on one of the greatest issues in American history. That is, in fact, the argument I was making — and for which I’m being attacked.

To his credit, Daniel Peterson hasn't backed down and issued a craven apology like so many others who "sin" against political correctness do. He models himself after Sarah Palin, who has said in the past that when you're taking flak, it merely means you're over the target. The way to deal with progressives is simple. When they sow the wind, we make sure they reap the whirlwind. When they chastise us with whips, we chastise them with scorpions. There can be no dialogue, fellowship, or reconciliation with those who practice the politics of personal destruction.

Senator Harry Reid Disregards Gordon Hinckley's Counsel Againt Racism, Engages In Inflammatory Race-Baiting Against Whites On Senate Floor

An image from the infamous Un-Fair campaign in Duluth

During the Saturday evening Priesthood Session of the 176th Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in April 2006, then-President Gordon B. Hinckley made a strong statement about racism within LDS ranks. In part, President Hinckley said "I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple 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 full address is entitled "The Need for Greater Kindness".

Apparently Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), a member of the LDS Church, either didn't get that memo or, in the heat of rhetorical battle, temporarily forgot about it, because on July 16th, 2012, he delivered some anti-White race-baiting comments on the floor of the U.S. Senate. During a floor speech in which he was denouncing the flood of outside money in politics after the Citizens United SCOTUS decision and defending Democratic-backed campaign-finance legislation known as the DISCLOSE Act, Sen. Reid made his inflammatory remark, recorded by NPR:

"Perhaps Republicans want to shield a handful of billionaires willing to contribute nine figures to sway a close presidential election. ... If this flood of outside money continues, the day after the election 17 angry old white men will wake up and realize they just bought the country. That's a sad commentary.

"About 60 percent, or more, of these outside dollars are coming from these 17 people ..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICi6pHlzQFo



Senator Reid also denounced Mitt Romney for not releasing his taxes and said Romney's penchant for secrecy make Americans wonder what’s he hiding. Of course, Harry Reid has never publicly asked why Barack Obama initially attached such secrecy to his birth certificate.

Since there is no evidence that race is pertinent to the discussion about the flood of outside money in politics or the proposed DISCLOSE Act, Senator Reid's remarks about "17 angry old white men" can only be interpreted as race-baiting. The effect will be to exacerbate the growing racial tensions within the United States and to empower irresponsible black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton at the expense of responsible black leaders like Congressman Allen West. It seems like President Hinckley's denunciation of racism would cover race-baiting as well. Reid's worthiness has previously been called into question on the LDS Freedom Forum.

Unfortunately, anti-White race-baiting is part and parcel of the Democratic strategy. Fueled by the false doctrine of "white privilege", the elite in Duluth, Minnesota launched an anti-racist campaign called the "Un-fair Campaign", which targets only Whites with anti-racist propaganda. They presume that only Whites can ever be guilty of racism; they give non-Whites a free pass. The campaign became so divisive and unpopular that the University of Minnesota-Duluth, one of the original partners, pulled out of the campaign, saying that "its focus on white privilege are divisive and have alienated some UMD alumni, supporters and others in the broader community". Some Mormon feminists also use the same divisive tactics in promoting feminism, employing artificial constructs such as "male privilege" and "male gaze".

LDS members who serve in elective political office are not expected to be microphones or rubber stamps for the LDS Church; one can be both a good Mormon AND a Democrat (Utah Congressman Jim Matheson is proof). However, their rhetoric and actions should not flagrantly contravene LDS values. By spewing inflammatory racial rhetoric, Sen. Reid is clearly contravening President Hinckley's counsel on race. While it may not necessarily detract from his Church worthiness, which is between him and his bishop, it certainly detracts from his worthiness to serve in elective office.

BYU Professor Randy Bott Responds To LDS Church Statement Disavowing Bott's Remarks About Race

BYU Professor Randy Bott has now responded to the official statement by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints disavowing remarks about race attributed to Bott in the Washington Post. BYU University Communications also released a statement on February 29th, in which Dean of Religious Education Terry Ball said “The comments attributed to Professor Bott do not reflect the teachings in the classroom at Brigham Young University”, and BYU Spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said Bott’s discussion of this topic is being handled as an internal matter. See previous post for more details on the Church's statement and the fallout.

The BYU Daily Universe reports that although Professor Bott told them he was not available for comment, he later released a statement saying he fully endorsed the Church’s statement regarding the article in the Washington Post. Furthermore, his students said he discussed the interview in class and said he felt he was misrepresented. “He said they had a nice long interview, like two hours long,” said Quinn Rice, a freshman in Bott’s mission prep course. “He said that he was misquoted, and misrepresented. He’s such a great and spiritual professor. He wouldn’t go against the Church’s principles.”

Meanwhile Carri Jenkins, who also explained that BYU's media policy is that they ask members of their campus community not to speak for the university or the Church, added that Jason Horowitz, the author of the Washington Post article, made no attempt to contact the University Communications office when he arrived on campus. “We were aware when [Horowitz] came. He did not make any contact through our office,” Jenkins said. “He did not contact us before he came. We were made aware through members of our campus community, but he did not work through our office. I know that in some cases he simply appeared in people’s offices.” The fact that Horowitz did not contact the Communications office has triggered speculation that he was hoping to portray the LDS Church as racist by entrapping BYU people into giving unfiltered statements.

One Black student reacted in a mature fashion. Camlyn Giddins said she found little to worry about in it, saying “It’s just an opinion, so why should I get mad". However, a group of BYU students from the Provo Peace Forum plan a two-hour protest on March 2nd. From 10:30 A.M. until 12:30 P.M., they plan to distribute fliers on BYU’s campus. The students are careful to emphasize that they are not protesting Professor Bott or his comments directly, but rather that their goal is to assist generally in eliminating racism from the modern Mormon narrative.

A comment posted by Eric to the BYU Student Review story records reaction from Ryan Bott, identified as a son of Randy Bott:

“As many of you know, my dad (Randy) has been in the news… The explanation is simple… yes, he did grant an interview to Washington Post to discuss 'Mitt Romney'. The reporter told him that he had cleared the interview with BYU and the Dean of Religion – which he found out this morning was a lie. The reporter misquoted and misrepresented the majority of the interview. My dad has been asked by BYU and the church to remain silent, but I feel his side should be told.

Some have noticed that we have deactivated the Know Your Religion Blog [Ed. Note: webcache available HERE]… This was not done as an admittance of guilt, but was done at the request of BYU until things settle down.

Any of you who personally know my father, know that he is definitely NOT a racist, as the media would have you believe. It amazes me that no one at BYU or the church seem to care to give him the benefit of the doubt, investigate what was really said; instead it seems easier to just believe a liberal Washington Post Reporter, go on 'hear-say', and throw my dad under the bus.

Here’s hoping that people will take the time, and reflect on their experiences with my dad and judge him according to his works, rather than lies that a reporter makes up to stir the pot during an election season.

Just thought you should know the truth behind the story…"

LDS Church Rigorously Condemns Statements On Race Made By BYU Professor Randy Bott, Reiterate Their Absolute Opposition To Racism

On February 29th, 2012, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints found it necessary to publicly reiterate their absolute opposition to racism. This was manifested in the form of two official statements. The first one, undated and entitled "The Church and Race: All Are Alike Unto God", sets forth the Church's current doctrine on race. The second one, entitled "Church Statement Regarding 'Washington Post' Article on Race and the Church", was issued as a rebuttal to remarks about race attributed to BYU Professor Randy Bott in a Washington Post article entitled "The Genesis of a church’s stand on race". Utah media stories published by the Deseret News, the Salt Lake Tribune, and KSL Channel 5.

In the Post article, Bott made remarks about race that are no longer considered doctrinal and are relegated to the historical folklore category. Based upon his interpretation of scripture, Bott believes that Cain is the common ancestor of all Black people because he interprets the mark of Cain as black pigmentation. He also believes that Ham's wife Egyptus brought the seed of Cain through the Great Flood. He cites the Book of Abraham as suggesting that all of the descendants of Ham and Egyptus were thus black and barred from the priesthood.

Professor Bott also pointed out that God has always been discriminatory when it comes to whom he grants the authority of the priesthood; the fact that the Old Testament Israelites only allowed members of the tribe of Levi to hold the priesthood is proof. But then Bott makes a comparison which does sound a bit insulting, comparing Blacks who wanted the priesthood before the 1978 revelation ending the ban with a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her father’s car. One can understand why adult Blacks would resent being compared with children.

Professor Bott then concluded by saying that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on Earth — although not in the afterlife — protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers. This statement is a bit misleading -- only sons of perdition go to the "lowest rungs of hell", and one must commit the unpardonable sin of denying the Holy Ghost once one has had a personal manifestation of it and entering into full-blown apostasy to be adjudged a son of perdition. Professor Bott suggests that, in reality, the Blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.

Since the Washington Post failed to ask for comment from the LDS Church before publishing the story, the Church hastened to make the following statement:

The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. BYU faculty members do not speak for the Church. It is unfortunate that the Church was not given a chance to respond to what others said.

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.

The tone of the statement indicates that the LDS Church considers Professor Bott's remarks an honest mistake, and so it is unlikely that he will face any ecclesiastical sanctions upon his Church membership. It is hoped that his job at BYU is not jeopardized, either; he doesn't deserve to be witch-hunted. While malevolence is a sin, honest ignorance should never be considered a sin. One sign of fallout: Bott's personal blog has now been removed (Joanna Brooks identified the link as going to Bott's personal blog).

Unfortunately, none of the parties bothered to address the question as to why our Heavenly Father waited for around 130 years before issuing the revelation ending the priesthood ban. In fact, when President David O. McKay repeatedly importuned the Lord for permission to end it during the 1960s, the Lord basically told him to shut up and quit troubling Him on the matter. This does not mean that our Heavenly Father agreed with the ban, but it indicates that for reasons unknown to us, He chose to allow it to continue. It is not given to us to know all the mysteries of the kingdom in this life; if it were, we could not remain in the flesh thereafter.