Thanks for your comment, Deborah, we try to include that information in most of our articles on Blacks in the Church. For those who want to know more, a great website is http://blacklds.org

I like this comment, John. I think it’s my clumsy writing that is to blame. I think the members of the Church had to be ready to receive Black members not only as part of their membership, but as their leaders, and the civil rights movement helped all citizens in that direction. Remember that Joseph Smith wanted to make Missouri a haven for Blacks who fled slavery, and free Blacks. That’s a little bit better than being anti-slavery but not pro-civil rights. He was highly progressive for his day. Part of the historical problem is that try as they might, the brethren have not been able to locate records showing the true reasons for the ban against Blacks holding the priesthood, so we don’t know whether the ban came from God or man from this current perspective.

The article also offers a strange logic that although God didn’t ban Blacks from the priesthood, he didn’t command it be given to them either. This statement implies that the Church only acts on direct commands from God and cannot make decisions based upon the free agency and sense of morality God has given its members. If God did not ban Blacks from the priesthood, why not make the priesthood available to Blacks, particularly if the Church felt such a moral outrage about unequal treatment for Blacks? The logic is just a bit too tortured.

The article gives the impression that it was due to President Kimball’s “pleading” with the Lord that God finally commanded that Blacks be allowed the priesthood. But this would imply that our all-loving Heavenly Father required pleading to have all his children in the church treated equally. This implies that President Kimball had a greater benevolence and sense of righteousness than the Heavenly Father with whom he needed to plead. I have a bit higher regard for the moral, ethical and benevolent inclinations of our Heavenly Father it was necessary to plead with him to achieve equality for Blacks.

The article goes on to say that the Mormon church is not racist and never “officially” professed racist ideas. But it is not necessary to “officially” express racist ideas to be racist. All that is necessary is to have policies and precepts that treat a certain racial group differently.

I applaud that the church now may have policies and precepts that counter racism. But that certainly was not its history. I think the church loses rather than gains credibility and respect by these efforts to rationalize or blame God for the Church’s prior discriminatory practices. Such efforts do an injustice to the church, people of black descent, and most of all, our Heavenly Father. The church would gain greater credibility and respect by acknowledging that it previously had discriminatory practices and that it has since realized the error of its ways, repented from them, and has made a commitment to equality for all regardless of racial background. Let’s not blame our Heavenly Father for our own shortcomings. Remember, we’re human and prone to err, but it is our Heavenly Father who is divine.