Michelle Quist: LDS Church has a ways to go in acknowledging past racism

This Friday The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is holding a celebration to honor the 40-year anniversary of the June 8, 1978, revelation that extended the priesthood to black church members.

The church has titled its celebration, “Be One,” and plans to not only celebrate the history of black Mormon pioneers, but also “a renewal of our collective commitment to pursue oneness in our relationships with each other and with heaven.”

It is a lofty, and praiseworthy, goal.

Earlier this month the church published an essay titled “Healing the Wounds of Racism,” written by Darius Gray, the founding member of Genesis, which is a group formed to serve the needs of black members. The essay recognized the pain “of being considered ‘the other’ or ‘the lesser.’”

Speaking of racism, Gray wrote, “We cannot fix that which we overlook or deny.”

Gray’s essay suggested four ways to help heal the divide, including acknowledging the problem, recognizing it in ourselves, learning a new approach and listening to those who have been marginalized.

I would argue that as a church we have begun to acknowledge the problem, develop a new approach and listen, but we are still failing to recognize the racism in ourselves, individually, and as an institution.

In 2013 the church began to acknowledge the problem when it published an essay titled “Race and the Priesthood” where it disavowed as church doctrine any belief that black skin is a curse or a reflection of premortal unrighteousness.

But even in the most recent issue of the church magazine The Ensign, an unknown author stated that, “No known records exist that explain the origin of the [priesthood ban].” This claim is false. We know that Brigham Young first decided to restrict the priesthood authority Joseph Smith gave based on a false belief that black people were descendants of Cain and/or Ham who could not receive the priesthood blessings.

To fully acknowledge the problem, the church needs to stop romanticizing Young’s role in it.

The church has also started to develop new approaches to include minority members. At our last general conference we sustained Gerrit W. Gong, an Asian-American, and Ulisses Soares, who is from Brazil, as members of the Quorum of the Twelve.

The church has made improvements in listening to members who have felt excluded, including women. It implemented changes to cultural practices and policies affecting the order of speakers in sacrament meetings and prayer in general conferences.

At a stake conference I recently attended the conducting presidency member referred to the Relief Society President as President Smith (not her real name), instead of Sister Smith. This simple thing made such a difference to me. I felt included.

But the church as an institution has yet to fully appreciate or admit its own contribution to its pernicious racism, the second prong of Gray’s healing prescription.

For example, the church’s essay on race and religion frequently points to the racial divisions that existed in the United States at the time.

We can’t fully acknowledge the problem or our part in it without clearly stating that such practices were wrong, even if everyone else was doing it, too.

Earlier this month a former church member published a letter on a website that looked deceptively like the church’s website, but was not. The letter appeared to apologize for the church’s history of racial discrimination.

For a few hours that morning, church members rejoiced in their new oneness with church history. Some black members wept, likely from the release of decades of anger and shame. Some white members also wept, happy to finally see expressed their sorrow and regret for the church’s early discrimination.

It turned out, though, that the apology was a hoax. The shock and disappointment members experienced after finding out about the deception was unnecessarily cruel and hurtful. Ironically, the hoaxer has since apologized for his fake apology.

But the joy and rejoicing at the idea of such an apology was full and complete.

The fact is that many black members have remained faithful despite the church’s racist history. They don’t necessarily need an apology. And many white members have recognized a need to make amends, and they have reached out individually on their own.

But the church as an institution could have a more legitimate role in the space of equality and oneness if it would recognize its own guilt, and make amends.

Yes, the church has said before that it does not seek, or issue, apologies.

But as we’ll celebrate on Friday, things change. Often for the better.

Michelle Quist is an appellate attorney, political insider and regular contributor to The Salt Lake Tribune.