I am excited for blacks in the church and wish I could see more faces in the Tabernacle Choir...But that is something that is necessary for individuals to pursue. I was excited and relieved in 1978 having worked with blacks in Compton, California. Some have never lived, worked or associated with blacks, which makes it a new experience for them. Seeing blacks in the temple is also an exhilerating, exciting experience. Working with blacks in the temple even more so.

So many times it seems that people outside the church and even it would seem inside the church - forget that the Prophet is not someone whom we can get to change their mind on things on running this church. They are the "spoke persons" for God. God runs the church. Does that mean that I believe that God likes whites better then blacks - or that we should think we are better then blacks NO !!!!! But, we should be very careful in putting down the prophets also, I doubt that God in happy about that at all. Why this happened I do not know. God said His ways are not our ways. He commands - we hopefully follow and obey. I know that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were both propets of God and did what God would have them do. Do I love my black brothers and sisters - Yes! I cried with joy when the Priesthood was given to the black people. But, I also support the mouth piece of God.Personally, I believe that it has to do with the 2nd great commandment. God is going to judge us concering how we keep it.

When we speak of prophets being the "mouthpiece" of God, does that mean that they are the ones God uses to transmit his word directly to the earth on the occasions (which may be rare) he finds it necessary to do so -- or does it mean that every word that proceeds out of a Church president's mouth is the revealed word of God?

I would say that most Mormons, if they gave it much thought, would agree with the former.

if I remember correctly, that a prophet was only a prophet when he was acting as such. At other times, I assume, he could be human and make mistakes. The question is "how do we know the difference?"
When I was first converted to the LDS Church in the late 1950's, the issue of blacks and the priesthood was the only problem I had with anything about the church. I grew up in an activist family, descending from a great-grandfather who ran a station on the underground railway and with southern Quaker ancestory. A very wise Sunday School teacher advised me to take my concerns to the Lord. I did so, and he simply told me it was in his hands and he would take care of it. I acted on faith, but I may have been one of the happiest people in the church when that revelation came.
I was in a stake Relief Society work meeting in our cultural hall and the seminary teacher's wife heard it on the radio, came into the room, and without know why, came and told me the news first--BEFORE she told the stake Relief Society president!
I have joyed ever since!

Whitaker's reasoning is circular and flawed. Yes, the existence of Genesis means that the church is "dealing with racism" as in that it is confronting it and working against it.

It does not mean that the church is racist, or even that there are racist members of the church. While I must admit that the latter is clearly true, and that media portrayals which too often focus negative publicity on African-Americans do not help the situation, the theory is incorect.

Actually, after thinging a bit more, Genesis might have to exist in a non-racist world. The background and culture of African Americans is unique. For the church to reach every man in his "own language" we need to present the message of the gospel to people in ways that take into account their cultural background.

To try to turn the continued presence of Genesis into a negative is to totally ignore the reality of cultural existence.

One more thing, I am not saying that all African Americans have one culture. Nor am I arguing that all people of African ancestry are part of the culture. Culture is not race, but there is a culture of African Americans.

What manifestations of "racism" was the scholar from California referring to? Neither Utah schools nor Mormon wards had racial segregation, and there were black families in my Salt Lake ward back in the 1950s. Any scholar writing on this question has to reconcile his theories with the fact that the LDS Church has sought out, baptized and ordained Polynesians, American Indians, and Asians for 100 to 150 years. The Hawaii temple, serving the (often dark skinned) multi-racial Mormons of the Pacific, was built in 1910. There are hundreds of thousands of Polynesian Mormons, about a million Asians, and several millions in Mexico, Brazil and Latin America, along with the 250,000 in Africa. Many of the pre-1978 LDS in Brazil and other nations have African ancestry. The Mormons have much larger non-white membership percentages than does the USA. Two-thirds of living Mormons came into the Church AFTER the 1978 change. On what grounds can you call them "racist", or the people who converted them, especially since they include people of 160 nations? Allegations of Mormon "racism" are used to rally religious bigotry against Mormons among the ignorant who don't understand that we Mormons (including Japan-born me) are multi-racial.

I promise this will be the last comment I write before I finnish the article.

First off I do not think Whitaker gets it at all. To speak of the "color" or church leadership in the 21st century is to apply American racial doctrine to a worldwide church.

What he should look at is the changing ethnic and national origins of the leaders of the church. The fact that two of the seven presidents of the seventy are from Latin America is a major difference from the past.

It is true there are no General Authorities of African descent. However there are at least five African General authorities from Africa and at least one (but quite possibly more) African-descended general authorities from Brazil.

What this person has ignored is the presence of temples in the Domincan Republic and in Nigeria and Ghana would have been impossible before the revelation.

I have on multiple occasions been to the temple and seen men of African descent officiting there. The first person endowed in the Detroit Temple was of African ancestry.

There are undoutably members who still harbor racism, and we could have more black leaders, but things have changed.

Brother Swenson,

You make some very valid points. The Hawaiian Temple was not dedicated until 1919, after that friend of Hawaii, Joseph F. Smith, died.

However that friend of Japan, Heber J. Grant was there and also went back to Hawaii on multiple occasions. On one of these President Grant organized a Japanese Mission in Hawaii. As a result of this such men as Sam K. Shimabukuro and Adney Y. Komatsu and such women as Chieko N. Okazaki were baptized.

This also illustrates part of the reasons why Whitaker's statments about the "color" of the church leaders not changing much has some validity. With Adney Y. Komatsu and Yoshihiko Kikuchi having been general authorities in 1978, it is not a big change that three Asians currently serve as General Authorities (Elder Kikuchi, Elder Teh and Elder Ko).

However the fact that two members of the high council in my stake are African Americans does represent a major change. Anothr observation is that half the men who were sustained to be ordained to the Melchezedek priesthood at our last stake priesthood meeting were African American. Another was the Polish descended husband of an African American.

opinion, the church needs to do away with Spanish, Tongan, Samoan wards etc etc. They need to attend the wards where they reside....

I know is my neighbor down the street from me is John and I don't care if he is black or Hispanic etc....We are all Human Beings......aren't we?

There are few black leaders in the church for the same reason there are so few black executives in Major League Baseball.

The Church is not racist, but unfortunately there are some member who still act this way, they are not the majority. I hope for their repentance as a brazilian and part-black part-white church member.

The growth of the LDS church in non-white areas both internationally and nationally is well documented. Those presenting this based on Utah ignore the rest of the world.

Leadership from among the non-white membership is growing, although not as fast as some would like. I have no doubt the time is coming that there will be a large diversity in the leaders both local and general in the future. I also don't think laying condemnation against the present leaders helps any.

The only way the LDS Church can grow in non-white areas is if they HIDE their racist history from the people they are trying to convert.

That only sets people up for disappointment later on. When they learn the truth about the Church's 100 year history of gross racism, and all the Doctrines about the Curse of Cain taught by prophets and apostles, they realize they have been lied to.

I know. I am one. I will never forgive the Church and the missionaries for lying to me! I can only thank God I found out the truth before I sacrificed another 5 years to the LDS cult.

critics of the church and problemsolvers of society think that race in all leaderships of a church is politically correct. wrong, the mormon church is a church of jesus christ not of men. all revelation is of christ not of men. get over it

One of my many friends in the Church is Black and I meet him back when he could not have the Pristhood and I asked him about it and he said that he knows the the LDS church is true and that it is run by Gods wourd and that he knows that someday God will allow him the Pristhood. Two years later he was blesed with the pristhood. So I ask you who exsersied the most fath?

Shawn,

Yeah, like you had so many better alternatives in Harlem!

I'm with you guys...we need more diversity in leadership, choirs, panels, etc. I think it takes time, but should be around the corner. 30 years is really not that long considering the way blacks have been held back by the general society for 200 years.

If I read another "my friend is black" post I'm gonna lose it. How bout "My friend is WHITE" and he's actually glad that everyone can have the priesthood!

I have a black friend who joined the Church and lived for 2 years as an active, true blue LDS person with the priesthood before he even found out about the 100 year restriction on blacks and the priesthood. Once he found out, he was so angry that he had been lied to, he immediately left the Church (sent the required letter to Church Headquarters requesting his name be removed from the records) and returned to his previous Church. We stay in touch. He is doing great. He helps out with the pastor and teaches others about the lies Mormons tell about blacks and other things.

Unless the Church can overcome its racist history (and making excuses like "but everyone else was racist during that time, too" doesn't cut it), it will NEVER see significant growth among black communities.

Black communities the world over have seen significant growth. The anecdotal experience of your friend doesn't make a trend for the world.

I am Ukrainian member since 1991. Why the full responsibility of Church membership was not given to me before? Why one man was born before the other, or in the different place? Why preaching the Gospel to Juda is postponed? Why black Americans was generally not given the priesthood before 1978? Were they deprived from eternal blessings? NO. It is just matter of time in time-scale prospective of the Lord not the man short-eye-distance. The first were the last, then the last will be the first. Sorry for my broken English but from the heart...