LDS Church disavows the old racist doctrine that it once followed.

[Zioneer]

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

It's a long article, so I'll just sum it up: Up until now, the LDS Church had been saying that black men were denied the priesthood for varying reasons (Brigham Young said they were cursed, other prophets said they were neutral in the war in heaven (pre-earth life), or not suited for the priesthood, and the up-until-now-current reason was just "unknown"), but now they're saying that despite many previous prophets saying it was doctrine, the priesthood ban was never doctrine, and that it was simply a product of the racist times the old prophets lived in.

This is a huge change; not only has the LDS Church said "no, that was racist and there was no reason for the ban", but it's also basically saying that even when a prophet says something is doctrine, he may be speaking as a man and not a prophet. That's a seismic level of change; to contrast, one of our previous sayings was "the prophet will never lead you astray".

[RedSLC]

Good to hear that they've finally decided to face up to this and disavow it. I'm honestly kind of surprised that they hadn't done this until know, though.

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

Were Mormon prophets ever seriously considered to be infallible in everything they said and did?  If they were, then this doctrinal change could seriously undermine the credibility of the Church for some of the hardliners.

[Zioneer]

Were Mormon prophets ever seriously considered to be infallible in everything they said and did?  If they were, then this doctrinal change could seriously undermine the credibility of the Church for some of the hardliners.

Well, they weren't considered infallible, but church members have long had the bad habit of assuming that everything that a prophet (or an apostle, or the prophet when he was an apostle) is 100% doctrine and close to holy scripture. At the same time, Mormons realize that the prophets are not God, and that sometimes we change doctrine in changing circumstances (like the priesthood ban, polygamy, and the quasi-socialist United Order). Think of it like a super-charged papal infallibility, plus the prophet being considered a kind of rock star.

It won't undermine the credibility of the church among the hardliners; the real crazy hardliners are with Warren Jeffs and his ilk. The most theologically conservative types will rationalize it as they did the original removal of the priesthood ban. This'll just open the church up to a little bit more internal criticism of past leaders and acknowledgement of past ideas. Still, a huge change from the "never criticize or second-guess past prophets" stance.

[Zioneer]

An interesting point about the LDS priesthood; there was at least three black men (Elijah Abel and his son and grandson) given or holding the priesthood during the ban.

And the ban did not apply to other ethnicities, like Hispanics and Polynesians. Just black men.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

So how is different from what it stated in 1978?

[Zioneer]

So how is different from what it stated in 1978?

In 1978, they removed the ban and stated that the restoration of the priesthood to black men was because of divine revelation, but did not explain further or contradict anything past prophets had said about race. Essentially, they kept in place the cultural belief that the ban on black men holding the priesthood was divinely inspired.

This new announcement is significant, because it (rightfully, IMO) says that while the ban was treated as doctrine by past Mormons, it was never actually doctrine, should not be considered so, and was a product of the racist times the early Mormons lived in, and specifically points out Brigham Young as the man behind the ban. It opens up past prophets to criticism by pointing out that despite those prophets saying the priesthood ban was divinely inspired, it was not divinely inspired.

Currently, things the LDS prophets and apostles say is treated with a lot of reverence by Mormons. Even teachings by past prophets are given respect nearly equal with scripture. This announcement changes that automatic reverence for the teachings of past prophets. Up until now, the routine was to either embrace what a Prophet said, or to steadfastly ignore it and hope no one notices. Some of Brigham Young's weirder teachings (like the Lost Ten Tribes being at the North Pole) have gotten the ignore treatment. But this is the first time the Church has said "yeah, early Mormons (which includes Brigham Young) might have been racist".