For those of you who listened to the Sunday morning session of General Conference, you might remember that it was a very international session. Church leaders from countries all over the world spoke to us. In a day and age when everyone wants to show how inclusive and diverse their organizations are, this weekend the church showed the rest of the world how it really should be done. Few diversity programs even try to be inclusive on a global scale. In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood or to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents continued these restrictions. On June 8, 1978, Church President Spencer W. Kimball, announced that “all brethren who are worthy could now receive the priesthood.” We will discuss how those actions might be explained and understood.
email to scottrfrazer@gmail.com
Website scottrfrazer.com
S1E25 – A Church of Diversity and Inclusivity
This is the podcast Science and Scriptures, Season 1, Episode 24, or “A Church of Diversity and Inclusivity”
Hello again. This Scott Frazer of the podcast Science and Scriptures. I missed a few weeks in the past two months due to certain distractions of life, but I should be more consistent now. Also, a few of you may have caught a recording error I made on the episode “The Destructive Effects of Fear”. I believe I have an improved quality control procedure in place now. So, let us begin on the topic of today.
For those of you who listened to the Sunday morning session of General Conference, you might remember that it was a very international session. Church leaders from countries all over the world spoke to us. In a day and age when everyone wants to show how inclusive and diverse their organizations are, this weekend the church showed the rest of the world how it really should be done.
If you have ever noticed, most all of the programs and organizations in our country that are organized to promote inclusivity of different races and ethnicities into their programs seek to do so, but include only those people who live in the United States. Few diversity programs try to be inclusive on a global scale. Few such inclusivity-promoting organizations send money or other resources to help members of their race or ethnicity group who live in distressed nations.
On the other hand, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been sending tithing funds, most of which came from the United States, to foreign countries for decades. We have financed missions, built church buildings, and sent out welfare missionaries. During natural disasters, we routinely send out food and supplies. If you study church history at all, you know that the LDS church started sending missionaries to foreign countries when it had barely attained its foothold in the United States. While still in its infancy, the church welcomed immigrant converts and helped to finance and arrange for their passage here. The church has been an inclusive religious force for many years and has demonstrated to the world that inclusivity of diversity should not end at the borders of our country.
The Sunday morning session of general conference was designed to show that the church has been welcoming diverse peoples for almost two centuries.Talks, prayers, and music focused on the meaning of Easter and Jesus Christ. The program included speakers and choirs from Australia, Brazil, Fiji, Hong Kong (China), Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Philippines, Portugal, South Korea, the United States, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
According to President Dallin H. Oaks, who conducted the session, “President Nelson expressed a great desire to have speakers from throughout the world preach the gospel of Jesus Christ on Easter morning.”
We wouldn’t have had those speakers or choirs had the Church not been sending missionaries to those countries for many years. We wouldn’t have had them if the Church had not invested tithing funds to build church infrastructure there. It is important to the Lord that the Gospel be preached to all people of Earth. In three of the first 8 verses of the first section of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord commands that the voice of warning, as well as the commandments and tidings of the Doctrine and Covenants go to all inhabitants of the earth. And I quote…
“(verse 4) And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days.”
“(verse 6) Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants, and my preface unto the book of my commandments, which I have given them to publish unto you, O inhabitants of the earth.”
“(verse 8) And verily I say unto you, that they who go forth, bearing these tidings unto the inhabitants of the earth, to them is power given to seal both on earth and in heaven, the unbelieving and rebellious;”
There are many more such verses I could quote for you. In none of them does the Lord say the Church can limit its efforts to the United States or to the state of Utah, though that would certainly be more convenient for us. We have been commanded to be a worldwide church – and we are a worldwide church. We have become accustomed to hearing Elder Dieter Uchdorf’s German accent, Elder Gerrit W. Gong’s slight Chinese accent, and Elder Ulysses Soares Brazilian accent in talks by the Quorum of Apostles.
Despite the fact that the Church has chapels, temples and other facilities all across the globe, for years we have been publicly cast as a racially biased church. This is a very delicate topic, but with my declaration that the church us diverse and inclusive, it needs to be addressed. We members of the LDS church have lived with the accusations that we are biased for years due to our having denied the Priesthood to African blacks.
In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood or to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents continued these restrictions. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today, or was ever accepted, as the official doctrine of the Church.
On June 8, 1978, Church President Spencer W. Kimball, announced that “all brethren who are worthy could now receive the priesthood.” The revelation rescinded the restriction on priesthood ordination.
On a personal note, I was on my church mission at the time of President Kimball’s announcement. This was in the days before cell phones and the Internet. My companion and I heard about the revelation on Saturday June 10. We didn’t know if this was real or possibly a rumor that had made its way around Mexico City.I couldn’t get ahold of the mission home to verify the announcement. In any case, on Sunday morning the bishop of the ward to which I was assigned gave the priesthood to the father and sons of a faithful black family in the ward.Nearly every member in the ward attended that ordination. Everyone was happy to the point of giddiness. I am sure there were a few complaints by a few Latter-day Saints in the church, but everyone I know in the Church recognizes June 8, 1978 as a wonderful day.
So what happened between 1852 and 1978 to prevent blacks of African descent from receiving the priesthood? We will probably never know, in this life at least. We have little information to go on. 1852 was well before our present-day practice of documenting everything that is said or done by church authorities. We have no video or audio recordings.
But here is what we do know. In 1850, the U.S. Congress created Utah Territory, and the U.S. president appointed Brigham Young to the position of territorial governor. Congress’s Compromise of 1850 allowed the Territories of Utah and New Mexico to choose for themselves whether slavery would be legal in their territories. Southerners who had converted to the Church and migrated to Utah with their slaves raised the question of slavery’s legal status in the territory. A decision had to be made.
So Brigham had a political issue that he had to resolve – and a religious issue that was very much related to it. The Civil War was still 14 years away. Abraham Lincoln was an attorney and upstart politician in Illinois. The law of the United States STILL allowed slavery. Brigham had already had a couple of run-ins with federal officials and he did not want to damage the church’s relationship with the federal government further.
On February 4, 1852, the Utah Territorial legislature passed a bill called “An Act in Relation to Service”. The Act established the concept of “Servitude”, which was considered to be a more humane alternative to slavery. The act had a few unique provisions. Slaves brought into the Utah Territory had to come "of their own free will and choice" and they could not be sold or taken from the Territory against their will. Though a fixed period of servitude was not prescribed, the law provided "that no contract shall bind the heirs of the servant for a longer period than will satisfy the debt due his [master]." The “Servitude” contract could be terminated if the master sexually or otherwise abused a servant. If the master neglected to feed, clothe, shelter, or in any other way otherwise abused the servant, the contract would be terminated. Some schooling was also required for slaves between the ages of six and twenty. The Act was an attempted compromise between slavery and freedom.
Brigham Young believed in the teachings that blacks were under the Curse of Ham. For centuries, Ham's descendants were thought to have populated Africa and adjoining parts of Asia. African’s black skin and uncivilized way of life seemed to affirm this conclusion. Brigham argued that owning slaves was a way to improve the condition of the Africans because it would teach them how to live a useful and civilized life. He argued that service was necessary, honorable, and important for all societies. He urged moderation by not treating Africans as beasts of the field or to elevate them to equality with the whites, which was against God's will
President Young has been demonized for these beliefs, but in this time of history they were actually well-accepted concepts. With the political decision made, Brigham then had to make the decision if Blacks should be able to receive the priesthood. There were many things to consider. For example, I don’t believe there is a time in the Old Testament or New that a slave received the Priesthood. What if the master commanded a slave to do something that was against the precepts of the Gospel? As long as that command didn’t break another civil Law, the slave would be required to do that task. Could the slave be given a church responsibility or be called on a mission? Could he fulfill the duties of a priesthood holder? Hardly. The church discourages people from making covenants that they cannot keep – whether it be a baptismal covenant, a temple covenant, or a priesthood covenant.
So, in the same session in which the territorial legislature passed the act legalizing black servitude, Brigham Young announced the church policy banning African blacks from receiving the priesthood. I think this choice was purposeful. The announcement was NOT made in General Conference or a church meeting. It was made in a government meeting in the building of the territory legislature. It was a church policy that was necessary to accommodate the politics of the time. Slaves could not possibly magnify their priesthood, so they should not be given the responsibilities of the priesthood. As a people, Brigham did not believe the blacks to be educated, civilized, or independently free enough to receive the Priesthood.
Even as he was announcing the policy, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members. It appears that Brigham realized that blacks would someday develop as a people and escape the Curse of Ham. It was apparent that slavery was becoming more unpopular in the United States. One day, it seems, Brigham thought that the slaves would be liberated, establish their own homes, become educated, and learn the ways of a civilized society. Then the blacks could receive the Priesthood. These were the circumstances under which this policy were initiated.
As mentioned, following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents continued these restrictions. On-going efforts were made to understand the ban and what might be done to change it. Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to change the policy.
Over the years, some clarifications of the policy were made. Church President David O. McKay emphasized that the restriction extended only to men of black African descent. The Church had always allowed Pacific Islanders to hold the priesthood, and President McKay clarified that black Fijians and Australian Aborigines could also be ordained to the priesthood. After praying for guidance, however, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the restriction on black African men.
In trying to understand what happened over these years, we should note that The Lord (and /or the Church) has always been reluctant to change church policy. Church leaders want to ascertain the Lord’s will on all doctrine. For example, polygamy was only reversed when church leaders had been jailed, others had fled to Mexico, and church buildings were being seized. The very existence of the Church was threatened.
In 1909, the First Presidency of Joseph F. Smith first published an official statement regarding evolution, basically denying it. In 1930, Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, then a junior member of the Quorum of the Twelve and B. H. Roberts, a senior president of the Seventy, had a publicized debate about what church doctrine was concerning evolution. Under pressure from this disagreement, President Heber J. Grant made the decision that the church would remain neutral on the evolution vs. creationism debate, which is still in effect today.
One last example. In September of 2012, Mitt Romney was running for president of the United States and a special television report on Mormonism was broadcast. In it, a church member declared that Mormons could not drink caffeinated soft drinks. A few days later, the church posted a statement on its website saying it "does not prohibit the use of caffeine." After decades of the church not making a declaration about caffeinated soft drinks, the church finally publicized its ruling on the subject. For someone like me, whose favorite beverage is Dr. Pepper, the declaration ended debates I had had with other church members for years. It appears that the church only made the ruling due to the pressure of having incorrect doctrine declared in a nationwide television broadcast.
Following this same policy of reluctance to change, the policy of blacks not being able to receive the priesthood continued for years. The Lord did not take the initiative Himself to change the doctrine. President Spencer W. Kimball decided to take the issue before the Lord. From later comments, it appears that President Kimball may have followed the lead of the persistent widow in the Parable of the Unjust Judge. I think that President Kimball approached the Lord several times regarding giving the priesthood to worthy black men. In June of 1978, the Lord approved the change and the Brother Kimball announced it to the world. The Church celebrated the change to a policy that we shall probably never fully understand.
The policy of withholding the priesthood from the blacks may be based on religious laws that we don’t understand, or it could have been a historical mistake that took a long time to correct. In either case, it is over. The policy ended almost 43 years ago. Nonetheless, church critics continue to repeat the accusation of racial bigotry over and over again. In the past years, church leadership has gone to great lengths to publicly support organizations that promote racial equality. Whatever the reasons behind withholding the priesthood from the blacks, the church is now working to make up for the negative effects of the policy.
Diversity is Divisive
One more aspect of Diversity needs to be discussed now. Diversity has been a problem for the church of Jesus Christ since the days of the New Testament. Cultural diversity was high and problematic in wards organized by Peter, Paul, and the other apostles. Jewish, Gentile, Greek, and Roman converts brought some of their own beliefs and traditions into the Church with them. Paul’s letters in the New Testament pled with church members to get along with one another. Remember that in those days Rome had defeated, occupied, and ruled Israel. Yet Romans and Jews were brought together in congregations to worship together. Jews had never gotten along with their Gentile neighbors, but they were also being thrown into wards together. Obviously, there were problems. There is no getting around the fact that the words diversity and divisive come from the same Latin root. The goal was to get ward members to accept the Gospel of Jesus so they could be united in their beliefs. We still try to do that today.
So, in that respect, we are trying to reduce diversity, something that offends many people. The church wants members to believe the same doctrines, sing the same hymns, and conduct meetings in prescribed ways. When one joins a church, one should expect to be indoctrinated into that church.
In the church, we believe in Objective Truth. Objective truth is the belief that there are realities that are true in only one way. Objective truth is commonly found in the sciences. For example, gravity exists and, on earth, accelerates falling objects at the rate of 9.80665 meters / second / second. This is a truth whether you believe it or not. Most of the Gospel is objective truth as well. We announce in testimony meetings that the church is true – meaning that the doctrine we believe is in line with the objective truths of the Gospel.
Subjective truth is based off of a person's perspective, feelings, or opinions. My belief that Utah is a great place to live is a subjective truth for me. Some people will not agree with me. Subjective truth is actually opinion and is only “true” for the person that holds the opinion.
Philosophers and free thinkers like to tell us that all truth is subjective. I have had numerous religious discussions where my opponent told me that a particular belief, despite all evidence against it, was “true for him” or “true for her”. These people obviously believed in subjective truth. So as long as they believed it, then it was true – for them if no one else.
So, how much of the truth in Gospel doctrine is objective truth and how much is subjective truth? This is not a trivial question. If maintaining diversity is our ultimate goal, then we must seek to make all truths subjective. Our church motto would then be, “You believe in whatever you want to believe!”
But our ultimate goal is to understand the Truth of All Things. The Savior talks a lot about the truth – and I am very sure that He means Objective Truth when He does so. There is much more objective truth in the Gospel than subjective truth. Truth is quite narrow if you think about it.Either Jesus is the Savior of the World or He is not. Either we need baptism by immersion and by someone with authority and after the age of eight years old, or we don’t. Please note that in the Judgement, you can’t explain that you didn’t believe baptism by immersion was necessary, so you didn’t bother. Baptism by immersion is an objective truth and it must be done correctly.
Many people feel that objective truths take away their ability to be diverse or different or to truly be themselves. It forces them into grooves of thinking that they find confining. They want to be liberated from such restrictive thinking and be allowed to “do their own thing” and believe how they want to believe. They criticize established religion for being stifling. Trying to accommodate such free thinkers had led some religions to dismiss much of their doctrine, since declaring specific doctrine might drive away members who disagree with it. The sermons of many such religions are kept very vague, repeatedly declaring that the Savior loves us and died for us, but little more.
As teachers of the Gospel, we must understand that most all of the Gospel is objective truth. Truth is truth and we need to preach that truth, with no apologies. Commandments and Doctrine are objective truths.
On the other hand, many of our choices in LIVING the Gospel are subjective. Granted, we must live the commandments. But how we live our lives beyond the restrictions of the commandments is quite subjective. God has given you the freedom to live where you wish to live and be as strange or as straightlaced as you want to be. This may seem obvious, but I have been surprised at the number of people who don’t seem to understand this concept.
For example, the fact that we should dress in our nicest clothes to attend church is an objective truth. Church is a sacred place, and we should recognize that fact in the clothes we wear. However, whether you think your nicest shirt is white or green is a subjective truth.In fact, I often wear colored shirts to church just to break up the monotony of all the white shirts around me.When a bishop asks the Aaronic Priesthood to wear white shirts to pass the Sacrament, then the Young Men should wear white shirts. Because the bishop has the authority to make this request, their wearing a white shirt has become an objective truth, no longer subjective.
Recognizing what aspects of church and the Gospel are objective truths and which are subjective truths is an on-going process.In short, in this age when everyone is preaching diversity of thought, please realize that, in teaching matters of objective truth (like the Gospel), there is nothing wrong with teaching with the goal that everyone recognizes the same truths and agrees upon it. As a church, we will teach the truths of the Gospel and we will try to get everyone to come together in that understanding. Hopefully, we have diversity in skin color, accent, and traits in the members of the church, but we should strive to eliminate “diversity” in our understanding the Gospel. That is why we are commanded to teach one another. Truth is truth. One of my favorite verses may be found in Doctrine & Covenants 121: 45, which poetically describes truth.
“Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.”
So, that is all I have for you today. Thank you for listening. In summary, the church is very inclusive and has dedicated many resources to inviting people into the church from the far ends of the earth. We as members of that church can be proud of those efforts. If you have any suggestions for future topics, please let me know at scottrfrazer@gmail.com. This is Scott Frazer from the podcast “Science and Scriptures”. Have a great week and take care.