President Oaks Fibbing For The Lord Again – Prompt and Public Disavowal of Racism?

The church celebrates its own decision to stop the racially discriminatory practice of banning the priesthood from anyone of African descent in 1978. To show that they are not racist, they wanted to point out that it has now been 40 years since they stopped being racist. There was a big self-congratulatory spectacle planned for June 2018 entitled “Be One: A Celebration of the Revelation on the Priesthood.”

During the event, Dallin H Oaks gave an address. He claimed that the church changed in 1978, and promptly and publicly disavowed the racist doctrines and practices once it finally allowed every male to hold the priesthood. This is not reality. The church didn’t disavow this until 2014, just 4 years prior to the talk. They didn’t do this publicly either, it is a statement found in the quietly published Gospel Topics Essay titled Race and the Priesthood. This was the first time the church disavowed the racist past, and still today the leaders gaslight members about the church history of racism. They distract members with commands to “look forward” and not concern ourselves with speculation and frustration.

To concern ourselves with what has not been revealed or with past explanations by those who were operating with limited understanding can only result in speculation and frustration. To all who have such concerns, we extend our love and this special invitation. Let us all look forward in the unity of our faith…

Church News: President Oaks’ full remarks from the LDS Church’s ‘Be One’ celebration, June 1, 2018
https://www.thechurchnews.com/2018/6/2/23221509/president-oaks-full-remarks-from-the-lds-churchs-be-one-celebration/

Blacks Invisible Problem For Utah

Oaks’ message opened the “celebration” with some confessions as well as some fibs. He does state that growing up in Utah, this “restriction on the ordination and temple blessings of persons of African ancestry” was “almost invisible” to him. He barely had a thought or a care for the ban until he was brave enough to risk living in the “mission field” of Chicago and Washington D.C. This is the story of many many Mormons who were raised in Utah and rarely if ever saw a person of color with their own eyes in their community, let alone at church. Why would that be?

The restriction on the ordination and temple blessings of persons of African ancestry — almost invisible to me as I grew up in Utah — was a frequent subject of my conversations in my life in Chicago and Washington, D.C.

President Oaks’ full remarks from the LDS Church’s ‘Be One’ celebration, LDS Church News, 1 June 2018
https://www.thechurchnews.com/2018/6/2/23221509/president-oaks-full-remarks-from-the-lds-churchs-be-one-celebration/

Well, the population demographics of Utah have changed over the years, but not a whole lot as far as African American percentages. In 1860, the African American percentage of the population was 0.15%, or 59 people. It slowly increases, but only just, in 1950 the percentage jumps to 0.40%. It’s almost as if barely any African Americans wanted to live in a state that was predominantly Mormon and controlled by the racist religion! Even today, the population hasn’t changed a whole lot, we see the census demographics for the state show that not until 2010 did the state reach a 1.06% African American population. A 2009 Pew Forum study shows that about 3% of the members of the church in the US are African American. This is over 30 years after the ban was lifted! In a nation that is reportedly 12.2% African American. Again, no surprise here since the priesthood ban was lifted, but the doctrines and scriptures of the church are still blatantly racist.

The Church Reacted Swiftly?

Dallin H. Oaks praises this memorable moment in 1978 when the church lifted the priesthood ban. He claims that the church reacted swiftly to this revelation. They may have reacted once they claimed revelation in ordaining blacks and issuing temple recommends, but swiftly is hardly the proper word choice for the revelation. Which they would pin on the Lord being slow and us mere mortals being ineligible to question the Lord’s timing. But consider for an instant that the priesthood ban was never revelation in the first place. Consider they were simply racist men of their times, and speaking as men. Afterall every single explanation for this ban is apparently dismissed as folklore and speculation even though at the moment it was taught as prophetic doctrine. The church wants to say that the ban was revealed by God, but nothing that any prophet or leader said or published about it before 1978 was from God.

They are praising that 15 elderly white men pondered for over a decade after the civil rights movement and the civil rights act was passed and finally came to the conclusion that the church shouldn’t be as racist anymore. They pled with God to change his mind on having His church discriminate against blacks? And he listened to them? After decades? Then they call this realization a God-sent revelation. The delivery seems a bit slow. Even though the Official Declaration is not technically deemed a revelation itself, it is only the public statement regarding the revelation, they let racist doctrines and policies sit for 126 years untouched. Then they use language like “swift” and “prompt” to describe it.

It seems more likely that this is a social example of generations becoming stuck in their ways and new generations progressively learning and developing. The elderly men who finally repealed this racist policy of banning the priesthood and temple attendance to black members were old men raised in a racist white-driven world. Some of their parents are old enough to experience the American Civil War, which at the root was caused by state disagreements about slavery and race. These men were all Americans and all white, and all from the same Utah that Elder Oaks refers to where this issue is largely an “invisible problem.” They were all raised in a place where there were virtually no blacks. Why would this be anything they cared about until trying to run an increasingly global church?

Kimball for example, was born in 1895, a year before Utah was even admitted as a state into the United States. The First Presidency and Quorum in 1978 when the priesthood ban was lifted were the following:

1. Spencer W. Kimball – Born March 28, 1895 (83 years old in 1978)
2. N. Eldon Tanner – Born May 9, 1898 (80 years old in 1978)
3. Marion G. Romney – Born September 19, 1897 (80 years old in 1978)
4. Ezra Taft Benson – Born August 4, 1899 (78 years old in 1978)
5. Mark E. Petersen – Born November 7, 1900 (77 years old in 1978)
6. Delbert L. Stapley – Born December 11, 1896 (81 years old in 1978)
7. LeGrand Richards – Born February 6, 1886 (92 years old in 1978)
8. Howard W. Hunter – Born November 14, 1907 (70 years old in 1978)
9. Gordon B. Hinckley – Born June 23, 1910 (67 years old in 1978)
10. Thomas S. Monson – Born August 21, 1927 (50 years old in 1978)
11. Boyd K. Packer – Born September 10, 1924 (53 years old in 1978)
12. Marvin J. Ashton – Born May 6, 1915 (63 years old in 1978)
13. Bruce R. McConkie – Born July 29, 1915 (62 years old in 1978)
14. L. Tom Perry – Born August 5, 1922 (55 years old in 1978)
15. David B. Haight – Born September 2, 1906 (71 years old in 1978)

Prompt and Public Disavowal

When we consider what has happened in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and in the lives of its members since 1978, we all have cause for celebration.

Institutionally, the Church reacted swiftly to the revelation on the priesthood.

Ordinations and temple recommends came immediately. The reasons that had been given to try to explain the prior restrictions on members of African ancestry — even those previously voiced by revered Church leaders — were promptly and publicly disavowed. …

President Oaks’ full remarks from the LDS Church’s ‘Be One’ celebration, LDS Church News, 1 June 2018
https://www.thechurchnews.com/2018/6/2/23221509/president-oaks-full-remarks-from-the-lds-churchs-be-one-celebration/

He claims that the church “reacted swiftly” because the “ordinations and temple recommends came immediately,” which is true enough. But then he tries to slip in some historical inaccuracies that are more wishful thinking than honest or true. He’s attempting to rewrite the past here, 1984 style. Repeat the lie enough times and it can become the truth. He claims that “the reasons that had been given to try to explain the prior restrictions” were “promptly and publicly disavowed.” The problem is, these have never been publicly disavowed, and certainly not promptly.

Official Declaration 2

The statement here makes it seem that the Official Declaration 2 in June 1978 may have included a disavowal of past explanations. The Official Declaration says nothing regarding the past though, it only states that this change comes from revelation and “all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color”.

To Whom It May Concern:

On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:

---

June 8, 1978

To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Sincerely yours,
Spencer W. Kimball
N. Eldon Tanner
Marion G. Romney

The First Presidency

Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.

Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.

Doctrine and Covenants: Official Declaration 2
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1978/10/revelation-on-priesthood-accepted-church-officers-sustained

This declaration shares that the church president Spencer W. Kimball, received a revelation to extend priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy (male) members of the church. It states the revelation came after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the temple, was presented to the apostles and they all approved it unanimously. It is the only section of the church scripture that does not contain a revelation, only an announcement of a revelation. The actual text of the revelation is kept from us, and replaced with this “To Whom it may concern” statement and letter. Is that odd that the Lord’s format changed since the other sections of the D&C?

Something missing in this Official Declaration 2 is the prompt and public disavowal Dallin H. Oaks mentions. There is no reference to the doctrine or reasons for the ban. They only state that “the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth” and “people of many nations” have “joined the church”. This growth “inspired” the church leadership “with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.” This explains that the church leaders wanted all members to have the priesthood, and thus prayed about it, and received a revelation that what they wanted was from God.The First Presidency claims that “He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come.”

Gospel Topic Essay

The first instance where the church even states that they are disavowed is the Gospel Topic Essay, which was quietly published in 2014. This was not prompt.

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous 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.

Gospel Topic Essay: Race and the Priesthood: The Church Today, December 2013
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Stating that the church did something, doesn’t make it true. Church leaders individually dismissed these “old” restrictions and rationalized that they were folklore, but the church never publicly issued a statement or disavowal.

This is the chance for the church to share their public and prompt disavowal of past theories. The problem (for them) is there is none. If there was you can be sure they would be including it here. They have no footnote or quote to back this claim up, they simply state it and hope that the statement itself will be enough to make it true.

The Long Promised Day

This long-promised day they mention in the OD2 and in the Gospel Topic Essay is an apparent reference to a promise from Brigham Young that all would one day receive the priesthood.

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings.

Gospel Topic Essay: Race and the Priesthood: The Church Today, December 2013
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood

What are these promises? Well, the church will denounce all the racist things Brigham Young said, and then pull from the middle of it an obscure reference to some future date when the priesthood will be extended to all who are worthy.

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of anyone of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the “servant of servants;” and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.

Brigham Young, Intelligence, Etc. Journal of Discourses Volume 7, Disource 45. Page 290-291
https://journalofdiscourses.com/7/45

So in the middle of all his racist rhetoric, Brigham Young mentions that the curse will be removed one day. The curse will remain until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood. How can they condemn most of what he says here, but then still think that this promised day is something to hold onto and base their own inquiries and supplications to God on?

Does Almost Disavowed Count

In 1998, as the twentieth anniversary of the policy change approached, there was discussion among some of the mid-level LDS leadership about explicitly how to go about disavowing the doctrine/speculation/folklore which circulated and continued to circulate in the Church to explain or defend or justify the pre-1978 Ban. The story broke in the press (“Mormons May Disavow Old View on Blacks,” Los Angeles Times, May 18, 1998); it was a really big deal and went viral in the media. The next day, Pres. Hinckley publicly repudiated the entire project. As related in a Salt Lake Tribune article the next day (“LDS Leaders Haven’t Discussed Racial Disavowal,” Salt Lake Tribune, May 19, 1998), “the LDS Church’s governing First Presidency, led by President Gordon B. Hinckley, quashed the suggestion [that LDS leaders were discussing a disavowal] later Monday, saying ‘the matter … has not been discussed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.’”

You see what the problem is. If there had been a prior disavowal, the 1998 response to the story would have been, “No need, we already made a clear public disavowal of those now-discredited explanations,” and cited the earlier disavowal. There would have been no need for concerned Mormons or leaders even to discuss a disavowal or how to go about making it if such a disavowal had already been made. It hadn’t. [For a fuller discussion of this entire 1998 episode, see Armand Mauss, “Casting Off the ‘Curse of Cain,’” in Black and Mormon, Newell G. Bringhurst and Darron T. Smith, eds., U. of Illinois Press, 2004).

An even clearer indication that no such clear and public disavowal was made until the Race and Priesthood essay in 2014 was the Bott Affair. In February 2012, Randy Bott, a BYU religion teacher, was interviewed by a Washington Post reporter and quoted in that paper as providing standard but questionable Mormon justifications for the Ban. Again, a media frenzy ensued. The Church immediately released a statement at the Mormon Newsroom repudiating anything Bott said, and basically repudiating anything that anyone ever said about the Ban (“Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine.”). But this statement was never highlighted at LDS.org or in General Conference. It was not directed to the membership of the Church, most of whom were never aware of the statement. Only with the Race and the Priesthood essay, itself very quietly inserted into the LDS.org site, was a statement by the Church made that could be regarded as a clear and public disavowal directed to the members of the Church. In 2014, 36 years after the 1978 policy change.

Dave B, Promptly and Publicly Disavowed, Or Not – Wheat and Tares – June 4, 2018
https://wheatandtares.org/2018/06/04/promptly-and-publicly-disavowed-or-not/

Need for Greater Kindness

This Gospel Topic Essay has a footnote on this paragraph linking to a 2006 General Conference talk by Gordon B. Hinckley “The Need for Greater Kindness,” and while this talk condemns racism, it doesn’t disavow any previous theories, doctrines, or policies that institutionalized racism.

Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

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?

… Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.

Gordon B. Hincley, The Need for Greater Kindness, April 2006, General Conference
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2006/04/the-need-for-greater-kindness?lang=eng&id=p7-p11#p7

Not surprising that a church leader in 2006 can speak out against racism, but this doesn’t reconcile all the past rasism in the church. They apparently take the same stance today in which they don’t want to talk about the past, only look to the future. They hope to receive a pass on what was done in the past without haveing to address it since they state today that racism is bad. They want others to do the work, and ignore the issues while simply looking ahead at the future non-racist things the church will do and say, and the donations the church presidents will make to the NAACP for example, as proof that it is not racist. Disregard all the racist things the namesake of the church university said and preached as the word of God, the church today says they have changed, and have changed, why would they need to specifically renounce specific leaders statements if they can get away with a blanket statement to absolve the whole organization of every racist infraction. They hope no one knows what he said, and how he said it. They hope to get away with some more misleading statements, in order to save face, and in order to keep members in a faithful state.

Likewise, the Institute lesson manual on the Doctrine and Covenantes includes a lesson on the priesthood change in 1978 and the Official Declaration 2. It states that the

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine” (“Race and the Church: All Are Alike Unto God,” Feb. 29, 2012, mormonnewsroom.org). “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous 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” (“Race and the Priesthood,” Gospel Topics Essays, topics.lds.org).

Institute Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual: Chapter 56, Official Declaration 2
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual-2017/chapter-56-official-declaration-2

The Church Unequivocally Condemns Racism

The link provided in the institute manual above is broken, but should go to this official statement where the church states it unequivocally condemns racism. They clarify further that this includes any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the church:

People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning. In fact, by the end of his life in 1844 Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, opposed slavery. During this time some black males were ordained to the priesthood. At some point the Church stopped ordaining male members of African descent, although there were a few exceptions. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended. Church leaders sought divine guidance regarding the issue and more than three decades ago extended the priesthood to all worthy male members. The Church immediately began ordaining members to priesthood offices wherever they attended throughout the world. (See also: Race and the Priesthood)

The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared 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. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.”

Race and the Church: All Are Alike Unto God: 29 February 2012 – Salt Lake City Official Statement
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/race-church

Here is the first time the church issued such a strong statement and “unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.” They condemn racism here by individuals in the present and past, which is commendable. But they say nothing about any racism on account of the church itself. They don’t even acknowledge that the discriminatory church doctrines, policies, and practices were racist. They only officially state here that they don’t agree with any individuals of the past. These individuals remain unnamed, of course, and they don’t mention that they include church hero Brigham Young or anyone else. How do they stand by the racist priesthood ban on blacks from Brigham Young, yet condemn his accompanying racist statements and explanations (which he explained as doctrine of the church he was the prophet over).

Something the church has never even claimed to have done is apologize for the racism inherent in the church and in church history. They do not apologize and thus, have not even pretended to have done so.

Sometime between 2014 and 2015, the LDS Church, published an essay titled “Race and the Priesthood”. As part of that essay, the church officially stated that the reasons for the previous racial restrictions were unknown, and officially disavowed the racist explanations for the policy, but did not disavow the restrictions themselves. As part of the 40th anniversary celebration of the revelation Dallin H. Oaks said that, “the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants,” but acknowledged the hurt that the restrictions caused before they were rescinded, and encouraged all church members to move past those feelings and focus on the future. As of 2019 the LDS Church has not apologized for its race-based policies and former teachings.

Wikipedia: 1978 Revelation on Priesthood, Modern disavowal of previously given reasons for restrictions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Revelation_on_Priesthood

So Dallin H. Oaks, tells members that there were hurt people and everyone should move past those feelings and focus on the future.

Reasons Voiced By Revered Church Leaders

Credit to Oaks, he does mention that these were even reasons “previously voiced by revered church leaders,” which is true, as there are many many many examples of top church leaders giving reasons for this ban. These specific revered church leaders are not mentioned here by name because Oaks is hoping members will not know the extent of these “reasons that had been given to try to explain the prior restrictions on members of African ancestry.” Reasons which these previous leaders claimed to be revelations and doctrines of the church, and of God. These explanations were not sparse either, they were consistent and complete from the time the ban began in 1852 with Brigham Young, who also explained at the time in detail why the ban was in place, that this was the doctrine of the church. This all continued into the 1970s when church leaders defended this ban and the institutionalized racism in the church. Here’s a list of such leaders: Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, David O. McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, and Spencer W. Kimball. That’s 11 of the 17 church presidents.

• Racist Brigham Young
• Mormon Leadership Dismisses Racist Doctrines as Folklore
• The Lowry Nelson Letters and Racist Mormon Doctrine
• Apostles Discuss Reasons For Lifting the Priesthood Ban

Some Continued Attitudes of Racism

In contrast, changes in the hearts and practices of individual members did not come suddenly and universally. Some accepted the effects of the revelation immediately and gracefully. Some accepted gradually. But some, in their personal lives, continued the attitudes of racism that have been painful to so many throughout the world, including the past 40 years. Others have wanted to look back, concentrating attention on re-examining the past, including seeking reasons for the now-outdated restrictions…

To concern ourselves with what has not been revealed or with past explanations by those who were operating with limited understanding can only result in speculation and frustration. To all who have such concerns, we extend our love and this special invitation. Let us all look forward…

Our determination in this program is to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the revelation on the priesthood by looking forward…

President Oaks’ full remarks from the LDS Church’s ‘Be One’ celebration, LDS Church News, 1 June 2018
https://www.thechurchnews.com/2018/6/2/23221509/president-oaks-full-remarks-from-the-lds-churchs-be-one-celebration/

Oaks does honestly represent many of the church members when they announced the official declaration lifting the priesthood ban. He says “in contrast” to the “swift,” “prompt,” and “public” discontinuation of racist practice (which is debatable – see above), the “changes in the hearts and practices of individuals did not come suddenly.” Some “continued the attitudes of racism that have been painful to so many throughout the world. It is commendable that he realizes that these racist practices and attitudes have been painful. He even states that this includes the past 40 years (since the priesthood ban was lifted), so we have to assume this also includes the previous 124 years when the ban was in place. He points to these “some” as if they are in the minority, and perhaps they are now, but how can a whole church membership flip a 180 instantly after being taught racist lessons by their church for their whole lives and for generations? These “some” certainly include every single church president or prophet until 1978 and the vast majority of the latter-day apostles throughout that time. There are still today, 40 years later some members of the church who continue to believe these racist teachings (which the church quietly disavows) and spread them as “deep doctrine” or “meat.”

Colonialist Church

Is the church doing too little too late to declare itself a non-racist institution? Will they reword more of the Book of Mormon to remove the racist statements about dark skin color being a curse? Will they work to repair the colonization they have wrought upon natives and dark-skinned folk across the world? This refers to Native Americans, First Nations, Central and South Americans, and Pacific Islanders as far away as New Zealand. All these cultures have been taught that they are descendants of Lamanites and have inherited a curse by a church that also teaches we are not guilty for our parent’s trangressions. We are not guilty for what Adam and Eve did in the garden.

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

Article of Faith 2
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng&id=p2#p2

This article of faith emphasizes the belief in individual accountability for one’s own actions and sins, rather than being held responsible for the sins of Adam or any other ancestor. It reflects the doctrine of agency and the importance of personal responsibility in the plan of salvation. Apparently, the white-skinned folk don’t have curses and have to deal with original sin, while dark-skinned folk do. They have to deal with their parent’s curses which is the reason for their skin color.

Too bad the church does nothing to recognize the dissenters who spoke up and helped catalyze these events. Such as Byron Marchant in 1977, a believing member publicly opposing racist policies. At that time the church continued to defend the racist policies and sustaining leaders as being led by God. Now though, just one year later than this excommunication, they claim to have “promptly and publicly disavowed” all the “reasons that had been given to try to explain the prior restrictions on members of African ancestry.” The church is still gaslighting members and everyone to suggest they are innocent and some even push that they have been on the right side of the race question, from its beginnings.

Either the prophets speak to God and for and on behalf of God, or they don’t. If they do, there is little room for mistakes. These same leaders have even claimed that God wouldn’t allow them to lead the church astray – which would require many mistakes. But if the church leaders don’t speak for God, what would that look like? We would see exactly what we are seeing leading the church. Lies, gaslighting, coverups, fear-mongering, circular logic and misleading statements. All this is meant to retain authority, save face, and save the waning faith the membership has in the church. This faith persists, not because of the leadership, but despite them.

• https://www.thechurchnews.com/2018/6/2/23221509/president-oaks-full-remarks-from-the-lds-churchs-be-one-celebration/
• https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/broadcasts/watch/be-one-celebration-event/2018/06?lang=eng&vid=5792640443001
• https://www.neilsberg.com/insights/utah-population-by-race/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_African_Americans_in_Utah
• https://gardner.utah.edu/blog/blog-utahs-black-population/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/1bdoii0/dallin_oaks_lied_the_church_didnt_promptly/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_teachings_on_skin_color
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Revelation_on_Priesthood
• https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-may-18-mn-51047-story.html