4 ms·

Not many religions in the U.S. have tolerance issues with "blacks" or "women", per se. The LDS church was unique in that regard. But to be fair, that aspect see

by wahern 7y ago

Not many religions in the U.S. have tolerance issues with "blacks" or "women", per se. The LDS church was unique in that regard. But to be fair, that aspect seems to have been sincerely discarded. What lingers is the uncomfortable landscape it finds itself in, and given the background racial landscape in the U.S., I'm sure it'll be an especially long journey out of that wilderness.

compiler-guy 7y ago
The LDS church was not unique in that regard at all. They are just ~30 years behind the society around them. For example, they had massive problems fully accepting blacks until the seventies, which was long after most mainstream religions got over their issues. But most mainstream religions (at least the protestand ones) had all kinds of trouble themselves in the forties. The LDS church isn't unique in its problems, it's just decades behind.
- asveikau 7y ago
  I have no data, just a guess based on my understanding of cultural history, but I have to imagine that many churches in the US have been segregated at the local level and often de facto, rather than as a larger thing with formal institutional endorsement. For example, we Americans stereotype Catholicism as reflecting some European immigrant communities like Irish, Italians, Polish... But it's always been ok for an African American to be a Catholic. Probably in prior eras especially some of those communities of white Europeans would not have been terribly welcoming to such a person to say the least. But you couldn't say the international organization with HQ in Rome was against them being members. Or maybe I am wrong.
  - bart_spoon 7y ago
    I think it's probably more to the structure of the denominations themselves. Like Catholicism, central to Mormonism is the central authority of the church, including priesthood authority. Most Protestant denominations, predominant in the US, are not nearly as rigid in their beliefs regarding priesthood authority, centralized authority, or even a set dogma. If your local Baptist/Lutheran/Methodist church isn't tolerant of certain beliefs, or you don't feel comfortable there, it is relatively easier to just start up your own church. In Mormonism (and Catholicism), this doesn't happen, because the centralized authority of the church is a key piece of the doctrine. For Protestant denominations, they largely reject this central authority, so they tend to be more fluid on these topics. In regards to race, this wasn't an issue with the Catholic church, but with other topics (say, celibacy of priests), there aren't "we maintain the legitimacy of the Church in Rome but our priests aren't celibate" type denominations popping up much. I suspect this is why, even though there was much by way of explicit prohibition of races in many churches throughout the US, most churches seemed to have ended up segregated anyways.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that LDS wasn't more than 14 years behind the times.
paulddraper 7y ago
Almost every religion that has been around as long as the LDS Church has the same issues. But if you're comparing it to churches that have been around only 10, 30, or 50 years, sure. --- It used to be that the LDS Church was "too" pro-black by society's standards. That was a large reason for Missouri's infamous Mormon "Extermination Order": > We believed them deluded fanatics, or weak and designing knaves, and that they and their pretensions would soon pass away; but in this we were deceived...In a late number of the Star [the Mormon newspaper], published in Independence by the leaders of the sect, there is an article inviting free Negroes and mulattoes from other states to become "Mormons," and remove and settle among us. This exhibits them in still more odious colors...the introduction of such a caste among us would corrupt our blacks, and instigate them to bloodshed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44 Yes somehow, very few discussions of Missouri immediately turn to its history of racism.
- castlecrasher2 7y ago
  Not to mention Utah was the second state to grant women the right to vote.
  - wahern 7y ago
    That implies that Utah is (or was) a theological state, which is an accusation and stereotype the LDS Church has been fighting since before statehood.
    - paulddraper 7y ago
      Utah was definitely not a theocracy at the time suffrage was obtained. It's actually a fascinating story. Mormons largely supported suffrage, but had to fight the federal government tooth and nail to get it. In 1869, Utah was under territorial rule, and the federally-appointed government was determined to limit the influence of the LDS Church and end polygamy. The legislature even passed female suffrage during their efforts to rid polygamy from the state. But it had exactly the opposite effect; most woman voted in favor of allowing polygamy. Thereafter, some national supporters of women's rights actually became opposed to women's suffrage in Utah because of it was being used to support polygamy. (Enfranchisement all fine and well until someone disagrees with you.) In 1887, Congress redoubled its efforts to end polygamy, and revoked the ability of woman to vote that the legislature had granted earlier. The LDS Church supported the creation of the Utah Women's Suffrage Organization, to try and restore the right to vote. A Utah Territory judge sided with the women's movement, but the Supreme Court rejected it, citing Congress' law. Not until the Church renounced polygamy, Utah obtained statehood, and the women's right to vote was included in the state constitution, were Utahns able to undo the Congress' targeted repeal of suffrage. Utah women then helped secure the Nineteenth Amendment[1]. [1] https://www.utahwomenshistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Image-6-934x689.jpg https://www.utahwomenshistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02... (The man in the picture was Senator Reed Smoot, who was also an Apostle in the LDS Church.)
jjeaff 7y ago
That's laughable. How many black congregants do you think there were in white churches in the south in the 70s? There were no public curfuffles because it's simply not an issue if there are literally zero people of another race in your congregation.
- quindecagon 7y ago
  How many are there today? Churches are one of the last places in american that are mostly segregated. > As many as 87% of Christian churches in the United States are completely made up of only White or African-American parishioners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_of_churches_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_of_churches...

by wahern 7y ago

compiler-guy 7y ago

The LDS church was not unique in that regard at all. They are just ~30 years behind the society around them. For example, they had massive problems fully accepting blacks until the seventies, which was long after most mainstream religions got over their issues. But most mainstream religions (at least the protestand ones) had all kinds of trouble themselves in the forties. The LDS church isn't unique in its problems, it's just decades behind.

asveikau 7y ago
I have no data, just a guess based on my understanding of cultural history, but I have to imagine that many churches in the US have been segregated at the local level and often de facto, rather than as a larger thing with formal institutional endorsement. For example, we Americans stereotype Catholicism as reflecting some European immigrant communities like Irish, Italians, Polish... But it's always been ok for an African American to be a Catholic. Probably in prior eras especially some of those communities of white Europeans would not have been terribly welcoming to such a person to say the least. But you couldn't say the international organization with HQ in Rome was against them being members. Or maybe I am wrong.
- bart_spoon 7y ago
  I think it's probably more to the structure of the denominations themselves. Like Catholicism, central to Mormonism is the central authority of the church, including priesthood authority. Most Protestant denominations, predominant in the US, are not nearly as rigid in their beliefs regarding priesthood authority, centralized authority, or even a set dogma. If your local Baptist/Lutheran/Methodist church isn't tolerant of certain beliefs, or you don't feel comfortable there, it is relatively easier to just start up your own church. In Mormonism (and Catholicism), this doesn't happen, because the centralized authority of the church is a key piece of the doctrine. For Protestant denominations, they largely reject this central authority, so they tend to be more fluid on these topics. In regards to race, this wasn't an issue with the Catholic church, but with other topics (say, celibacy of priests), there aren't "we maintain the legitimacy of the Church in Rome but our priests aren't celibate" type denominations popping up much. I suspect this is why, even though there was much by way of explicit prohibition of races in many churches throughout the US, most churches seemed to have ended up segregated anyways.
lonelappde 7y ago
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that LDS wasn't more than 14 years behind the times.

paulddraper 7y ago

Almost every religion that has been around as long as the LDS Church has the same issues. But if you're comparing it to churches that have been around only 10, 30, or 50 years, sure. --- It used to be that the LDS Church was "too" pro-black by society's standards. That was a large reason for Missouri's infamous Mormon "Extermination Order": > We believed them deluded fanatics, or weak and designing knaves, and that they and their pretensions would soon pass away; but in this we were deceived...In a late number of the Star [the Mormon newspaper], published in Independence by the leaders of the sect, there is an article inviting free Negroes and mulattoes from other states to become "Mormons," and remove and settle among us. This exhibits them in still more odious colors...the introduction of such a caste among us would corrupt our blacks, and instigate them to bloodshed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44 Yes somehow, very few discussions of Missouri immediately turn to its history of racism.

castlecrasher2 7y ago
Not to mention Utah was the second state to grant women the right to vote.
- wahern 7y ago
  That implies that Utah is (or was) a theological state, which is an accusation and stereotype the LDS Church has been fighting since before statehood.
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    Utah was definitely not a theocracy at the time suffrage was obtained. It's actually a fascinating story. Mormons largely supported suffrage, but had to fight the federal government tooth and nail to get it. In 1869, Utah was under territorial rule, and the federally-appointed government was determined to limit the influence of the LDS Church and end polygamy. The legislature even passed female suffrage during their efforts to rid polygamy from the state. But it had exactly the opposite effect; most woman voted in favor of allowing polygamy. Thereafter, some national supporters of women's rights actually became opposed to women's suffrage in Utah because of it was being used to support polygamy. (Enfranchisement all fine and well until someone disagrees with you.) In 1887, Congress redoubled its efforts to end polygamy, and revoked the ability of woman to vote that the legislature had granted earlier. The LDS Church supported the creation of the Utah Women's Suffrage Organization, to try and restore the right to vote. A Utah Territory judge sided with the women's movement, but the Supreme Court rejected it, citing Congress' law. Not until the Church renounced polygamy, Utah obtained statehood, and the women's right to vote was included in the state constitution, were Utahns able to undo the Congress' targeted repeal of suffrage. Utah women then helped secure the Nineteenth Amendment[1]. [1] https://www.utahwomenshistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Image-6-934x689.jpg https://www.utahwomenshistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02... (The man in the picture was Senator Reed Smoot, who was also an Apostle in the LDS Church.)

jjeaff 7y ago

That's laughable. How many black congregants do you think there were in white churches in the south in the 70s? There were no public curfuffles because it's simply not an issue if there are literally zero people of another race in your congregation.

quindecagon 7y ago
How many are there today? Churches are one of the last places in american that are mostly segregated. > As many as 87% of Christian churches in the United States are completely made up of only White or African-American parishioners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_of_churches_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_of_churches...