Black segregation in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a part of the religion for over a century. The LDS church discouraged social interaction or marriage with Black people and encouraged racial segregation. The practice began with church founder Joseph Smith who stated, “I would confine them [Black people] by strict law to their own species”.[1]: 1843 Until 1963, many church leaders supported legalized racial segregation.[2]
I’m hearing your argument as this: “The LDS church is essentially fine because the core doctrines are good. The bad things are merely policy, and it’s okay for mere policy to change over time. That doesn’t disprove the core doctrines.”
I disagree. If the church’s founder and high leaders advocate for legal racial segregation, using the church’s authority as backing, then it does not matter whether we are talking about doctrine vs. policy or divinity vs. human fallibility. Whatever it is, it’s a negative effect caused by the church as a whole.
And from a skeptic’s perspective, this makes it impossible to have any faith in the LDS church. If the founder can be wrong about something so harmful, and if core doctrines can later be rejected as mere “policy”, then really I should always be engaging my critical thinking. And if the human leaders can be wrong, then I have no way to be sure that they’re right about any of the doctrine.
Whereas I believe gay marriage has majority support among typical Americans.
What are we supposed to make of this?
God comes down from Heaven and inspires prophets to build and run His church, but when His prophets are wrong about policy, wrong in a way that hurts marginalized people like Black people and gay people, God just lets that happen? In His name?
Religion should be an excuse to be good, not an excuse to be wrong.
If you draw a line around the LDS church and ask what goes in and out of that boundary, I see a highly-political entity that collects a lot of money and exerts control over people in ways that a good church would not do. I don’t see innocent doctrine.
Religion should be an excuse to be good, not an excuse to be wrong.
I couldn’t agree more. The church absolutely has bad history in regards to black segregation and current issues with LGBTQ+ peoples. One of the big parts of our doctrine is that everyone here on earth is flawed, no one here is perfect. This very much includes the prophets and apostles (they have said so themselves), and - if one is in a good ward/congregation that understands the doctrine - we look into these past atrocities and try to be better. We teach church history and encourage members to look through archived documents and research materials.
If the founder can be wrong about something so harmful, and if core doctrines can later be rejected as mere “policy”, then really I should always be engaging my critical thinking.
Critical thinking is great, and definitely encouraged! Joseph Smith did his best to follow the doctrine and lead the church according to how he interpreted the scriptures, but at the end of the day he was just a human like you and I and subject to his own biases.
I do try and make a distinction between policy (how leaders understand doctrine and apply it to church functions. Current policy can be found in the General Handbook) and doctrine (what’s actually written in the scriptures, and often interpreted differently by different people). As far as I’m aware, church doctrine has never supported not giving blacks the priesthood. Church policy on the other hand was dictated by the times at the hands of men, and men decided that blacks could no longer receive the priesthood, and we can and do all agree that it was a Bad Thing to do and is a blemish on the church’s history.
How do you feel about the fact that Joseph Smith claimed to be the first person in the world able to translate hieroglyphics, with no training or understanding of languages or translation?
The Kinderhook plates are a fun one to bring up. As are the Books of Abraham and Moses, which are literally scripture to Mormons, but deeply embarrassing in their origin story.
What about the fact that if the Book of Mormon was translated from Egyptian written 2500 years ago, it would not have the translation Christ, because that comes from the Greek translation and instead would have Messiah, making it anachronistic?
Hey there. I don’t know this history by heart, so I’ll assume this Wikipedia article is fairly accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_segregation_and_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
I’m hearing your argument as this: “The LDS church is essentially fine because the core doctrines are good. The bad things are merely policy, and it’s okay for mere policy to change over time. That doesn’t disprove the core doctrines.”
I disagree. If the church’s founder and high leaders advocate for legal racial segregation, using the church’s authority as backing, then it does not matter whether we are talking about doctrine vs. policy or divinity vs. human fallibility. Whatever it is, it’s a negative effect caused by the church as a whole.
And from a skeptic’s perspective, this makes it impossible to have any faith in the LDS church. If the founder can be wrong about something so harmful, and if core doctrines can later be rejected as mere “policy”, then really I should always be engaging my critical thinking. And if the human leaders can be wrong, then I have no way to be sure that they’re right about any of the doctrine.
It sounds like the church still has a pretty strong stance against same-sex marriage and homosexuality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_and_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Homosexuality
Whereas I believe gay marriage has majority support among typical Americans.
What are we supposed to make of this?
God comes down from Heaven and inspires prophets to build and run His church, but when His prophets are wrong about policy, wrong in a way that hurts marginalized people like Black people and gay people, God just lets that happen? In His name?
Religion should be an excuse to be good, not an excuse to be wrong.
If you draw a line around the LDS church and ask what goes in and out of that boundary, I see a highly-political entity that collects a lot of money and exerts control over people in ways that a good church would not do. I don’t see innocent doctrine.
I couldn’t agree more. The church absolutely has bad history in regards to black segregation and current issues with LGBTQ+ peoples. One of the big parts of our doctrine is that everyone here on earth is flawed, no one here is perfect. This very much includes the prophets and apostles (they have said so themselves), and - if one is in a good ward/congregation that understands the doctrine - we look into these past atrocities and try to be better. We teach church history and encourage members to look through archived documents and research materials.
Critical thinking is great, and definitely encouraged! Joseph Smith did his best to follow the doctrine and lead the church according to how he interpreted the scriptures, but at the end of the day he was just a human like you and I and subject to his own biases.
I do try and make a distinction between policy (how leaders understand doctrine and apply it to church functions. Current policy can be found in the General Handbook) and doctrine (what’s actually written in the scriptures, and often interpreted differently by different people). As far as I’m aware, church doctrine has never supported not giving blacks the priesthood. Church policy on the other hand was dictated by the times at the hands of men, and men decided that blacks could no longer receive the priesthood, and we can and do all agree that it was a Bad Thing to do and is a blemish on the church’s history.
How do you feel about the fact that Joseph Smith claimed to be the first person in the world able to translate hieroglyphics, with no training or understanding of languages or translation?
[Cricket chirp sound intensifies]
Anybody else just see a tumbleweed roll through here?
The Kinderhook plates are a fun one to bring up. As are the Books of Abraham and Moses, which are literally scripture to Mormons, but deeply embarrassing in their origin story.
What about the fact that if the Book of Mormon was translated from Egyptian written 2500 years ago, it would not have the translation Christ, because that comes from the Greek translation and instead would have Messiah, making it anachronistic?