Why was the Church not in the forefront of the civil rights movement?

[SoCalCoug]

I suppose a necessary premise of this question is that racial discrimination is immoral, or at least unenlightened. At the very least, treating someone as less of a person, simply because their ancestors came from Africa as slaves, is not Christlike behavior.

I know the argument that the Church leaders were products of their time. But why should we accept that? If Christ is at the head of our Church, and we are led by enlightened prophets, why did the Church lag behind the civil rights movement, which most people today would agree was a right and just cause? Should not a Church led by Christ have been enlightened enough to be in the forefront of the civil rights movement, rather than being dragged along at its tail?

[Commando]

What, were your grandparents not racist?

[jay santos]

Good question. Paul was at the forefront of his civil rights movement. Seems like modern prophets should have been.

[Moliere]

Good question. Paul was at the forefront of his civil rights movement. Seems like modern prophets should have been.

I was told on another board that it was because the church membership would not have been ready for it. I think that means either the members were mostly racist or they don't believe in a prophet, at least a prophet in the way we are taught in seminary.

[SoCalCoug]

Were the people ready for Noah? For Lehi? For Jesus? When has that ever been a legitimate reason for not doing the right thing?

[FMCoug]

I was told on another board that it was because the church membership would not have been ready for it. I think that means either the members were mostly racist or they don't believe in a prophet, at least a prophet in the way we are taught in seminary.

Were the people ready for Noah? For Lehi? For Jesus? When has that ever been a legitimate reason for not doing the right thing?

Right. The answer above is a bullshit rationalization.

[Uncle Ted]

I suppose a necessary premise of this question is that racial discrimination is immoral, or at least unenlightened. At the very least, treating someone as less of a person, simply because their ancestors came from Africa as slaves, is not Christlike behavior.

I know the argument that the Church leaders were products of their time. But why should we accept that? If Christ is at the head of our Church, and we are led by enlightened prophets, why did the Church lag behind the civil rights movement, which most people today would agree was a right and just cause? Should not a Church led by Christ have been enlightened enough to be in the forefront of the civil rights movement, rather than being dragged along at its tail?

This can not be said about all the church leaders...

In 1958, Joseph Fielding Smith made the following statement:

“No church or other organization is more insistent than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that the Negroes should receive all the rights and privileges that can possibly be given to any other in the true sense of equality as declared in the Declaration of Independence. They should be equal to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’ They should be equal in the matter of education. They should not be barred from obtaining knowledge and becoming proficient in any field of science, art or mechanical occupation. They should be free to choose any kind of employment, to go into business in any field they may choose and to make their lives as happy as it is possible without interference from white men, labor unions or from any other source. In their defense of these privileges the members of the Church will stand.” (Answers to Gospel Questions 2:185)

“During recent months, both in Salt Lake City and across the nation, considerable interest has been expressed in the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the matter of civil rights. We would like it to be known that there is in this Church no doctrine, belief, or practice that is intended to deny the enjoyment of full civil rights by any person regardless of race, color, or creed.“We say again, as we have said many times before, that we believe that all men are the children of the same God and that it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny any human being the rights to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship, just as it is a moral evil to deny him the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience.

“We have consistently and persistently upheld the Constitution of the United States, and as far as we are concerned this means upholding the constitutional rights of every citizen of the United States.

“We call upon all men everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God’s children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man.”

Hugh B. Brown, New York Times article dated June 7, 1963

"There is no doctrine in this church and there never was a doctrine in this church to the effect that the Negroes are under any kind of a divine curse."

David O. McKay, 1954

Some were more enlightened than others.

[FMCoug]

This can not be said about all the church leaders...






Some were more enlightened that others.

So then the questions becomes at what point did Prophet become a committee of 15 people who have to agree in order to make a change? If Joseph Smith had operated that way we wouldn't have the D&C (or the Church for that matter).

[SoCalCoug]

I would agree that Hugh B. Brown was one of the more enlightened Church leaders of that era. Unfortunately, he was often at odds with Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and others on some of these issues.

Speaking of Joseph Fielding Smith, he's kind of one of the ones I have trouble with - for instance, he also said this: "That negro race, for instance, have been placed under restrictions because of their attitude in the world of spirits, few will doubt. It cannot be looked upon as just that they should be deprived of the power of the Priesthood without it being a punishment for some act, or acts, performed before they were born." Interestingly, the book that quote came from, The Way to Perfection, was most recently published by Deseret Book in 1984.

I agree completely that some were more enlightened than others. But why should that be, if they were all prophets of God, and if Christ is at the head of the Church?

Again, why was the Church as an entity, as the true Church of Christ on the earth, not in the forefront of the civil rights movement? It was in a position to right a lot of great wrongs that were being done to a whole group of people, and it held onto racial discrimination within itself long after the civil rights movement had prevailed.

Why does a church that claims active, continuous divine revelation fail to recognize and work to end the pernicious practice of racial discrmination, even within itself?

[ERCougar]

Great question, and it's the one that really brought down the house of cards for me. I can't think of a more important moral issue (and by that, I mean one where real leadership was needed--everyone knows that killing or hurting people was wrong) of the 20th century in our country and we completely missed the boat. I don't care if the membership wasn't ready. I don't care if these men were products of their times. If those are the justifications (and I really can't think of any others that are at all palatable), then ok, this church is the equivalent of a Lions club--a nice organization to do service, but I'll forgo all of the other nonsense.

You know, I can sort of go with the idea that the church is a man made organization and is, just like us, in the process of perfecting itself. The problem with this idea is that the church won't cop to this. There used to be room for the Hugh B Browns to pontificate. Now, it's become so rigid in its hierarchical control (except in the conservative direction) that it's going to break under the pressure, absent some significant change. Or if not, become increasingly irrelevant, as it's cut itself off from growth.

[Indy Coug]

I don't buy "the membership wasn't ready" as a correct explanation for anything in the church. The historical record is replete with examples of God requiring things from His church individually and collectively that members weren't ready for. As a result some fell away and some stepped up and met the challenge.

[CardiacCoug]

I suppose a necessary premise of this question is that racial discrimination is immoral, or at least unenlightened. At the very least, treating someone as less of a person, simply because their ancestors came from Africa as slaves, is not Christlike behavior.

I know the argument that the Church leaders were products of their time. But why should we accept that? If Christ is at the head of our Church, and we are led by enlightened prophets, why did the Church lag behind the civil rights movement, which most people today would agree was a right and just cause? Should not a Church led by Christ have been enlightened enough to be in the forefront of the civil rights movement, rather than being dragged along at its tail?

This is one of those questions where the answer is just too obvious but I guess it should be stated for the record:

Because Church leaders didn't receive any inspiration on this issue, just like history will judge that they currently aren't being inspired regarding homosexuality and gender issues.

To be fair, that doesn't mean they aren't inspired about other things. Honestly I think it's the unfortunate outcome of the Church's gerontocratic system.

[Uncle Ted]

This is one of those questions where the answer is just too obvious but I guess it should be stated for the record:

Because Church leaders didn't receive any inspiration on this issue, just like history will judge that they currently aren't being inspired regarding homosexuality and gender issues.

To be fair, that doesn't mean they aren't inspired about other things. Honestly I think it's the unfortunate outcome of the Church's gerontocratic system.

So did the church leaders receive inspiration to begin the priesthood ban? When I say "begin" I mean after Elijah Abel and a few others.

[CardiacCoug]

So did the church leaders receive inspiration to begin the priesthood ban? When I say "begin" I mean after Elijah Abel and a few others.

Nope, I tend to think the only people who were ever receiving inspiration were people who knew the Priesthood ban should be ended.

[Solon]

I don't buy "the membership wasn't ready" as a correct explanation for anything in the church. The historical record is replete with examples of God requiring things from His church individually and collectively that members weren't ready for. As a result some fell away and some stepped up and met the challenge.

This post made me think of what Abraham's face must have looked like when Jehovah first explained circumcision.

Talk about "not being ready" for a commandment . . .