Racism and Priesthood: Inspired or Uninspired

Armand L. Mauss wrote an excellent article published by FAIR, whcih presents a credible opinion to explain the historical LDS policy of race and priesthood. The paper begins with a quote by Elder McConkie in August of 1978 who says, "Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." This quote confessed that Elder McConkie's previous arguments to biblically defend the church's policy which denied priesthood to the blacks, was wrong.

Before the 1978 revelation, Elder McConkie and others tried to support the church racial policy with the Bible. Their assumption was that Brigham Young was inspired to institute the policy. So, they interpreted the Bible to explain why such a racist policy would be heavenly justified. That lead them to racially interpret passages of scriptures which spoke of the "noble and great" in the pre-existence. McConkie and others were of the opinion that God must have denied the black race the priesthood because the blacks were spirits who were less righteous in the pre-existence. This argument is shocking to the 21st-century ear. However, Mauss cuts McConkie some slack by saying that he was faithfully, yet blindly, trying to justify an uninspired racist policy. However, after the revelation in 1978, McConkie immediately realized God's mind and will and that his previous rationalizations to defend the policy were wrong.

It is doubtful that the policy to deny the priesthood to blacks originated with Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith himself confirred the priesthood upon his friend Elijah Able. The article says that the later church policy was not inspired by God but was a product of widespread 19th-century racism and concessions by Brigham Young during his battles with the national government for statehood. The Mormon's were the most politically radical group in the nation. Mormon's opposed slavery, practiced polygamy, and were governed by a theocracy. In an attempt to gain acceptance by the political mainstream, Brigham Young relaxed or reversed some of these policies. Mauss seems to say that Brigham Young may have instituted this policy because the national goverment feared the abolishionist mormons would start preaching and converting all the slaves and encouraging them to escape to the west (not a bad idea).

Mauss argues that all christian churches were racist at that day. All the main-stream christian denominations supported slavery, denied blacks the priesthood and/or had a policy of racial segregation. These racist policies only began to change during the civil rights movement in the 1960's. However, if all the other christian chuches had begun to change their racist policies, why did the LDS church wait until 1978? No other christian churches get flack for having a racist past. Had Mormons changed with everyone else in the 1960's, we would have gotten the same pass as all the other churches. So, why did the church wait intil 1978? LDS believe that it is because it wasn't until 1978 that God finally revealed his will on the matter to Spencer W. Kimball, who was President and Prophet of the LDS church.

However, Mauss goes on to argue that the evidence supports the conclusion that the LDS church policy was not inspired but a consquence of wide-spread 19th-century racism. I'm not sure I agree with Mauss' conclusoin. I do agree that the LDS church didn't change it's race policy during the 1960's civil rights movement with everyone else because the church does not do anything that important until it receives revelation from God to do it. However, it does't make sense to me to believe the church policy is uninspired on one hand but require inspiration to revoke it on the other. Also, I don't think the Brigham Young's arguments to defend the policy are evidence for against the policy being inspired.

Brigham Young looked to the Bible to defend the policy to deny Blacks the priesthood just as he did all the doctrines and policies of the church. Many of the arguments used by McConkie and others using the doctrine of the pre-existence or the lineage of Cain, Ham etc. go back to Brigham Young. However, just because Brigham Young tried to find justification for the race policy doesn't say, one way or the other, whether the policy was inspired or not. Brigham Young would have sought to find biblical justification for the policy either way. Therefore, Elder McConkie's confession of misunderstanding in his defense of the policy cannot used as evidence that the policy itself wasn't inspired.


I disagree with Armand L. Mauss, and give as my opinion that Brigham Young would not have instituted such an important policy without first seeking and obtaining inspiration. The policy of the church was racist, but that does not necessarily mean that it couldn't also have been temporalily necessary. Just because Elder McConkie admitted after 1978 that their pevious arguments were in error, doesn't mean that the original policy wasn't given by inspiration. See my previous post for a possible argument which assumes the race policy was inspired and temporarily necessary.


That said, I am glad the priesthood is now available to all and that the church of Jesus Christ is no longer under condemnation for living briefly under a possibly preparatory and lesser-law. The Church has experienced such a great outpouring of blessings since 1978.