4 ms·

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 accep

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.

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.