Ethnic Composition of Mormonism

Well, I am not going to get into a huge debate about Mormon theology, but considering that the official LDS teaching on the spiritual “worthiness” of black folk is that Dear Ol’ God woke up one fine and funky day in 1978 and suddenly changed his mind about Race and Righteousness, and has now decreed that all Good Mormon Negroes can now go to the Ultimate Penthouse Suite In The Sky, whereas ALL the black people THROUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY (before this new edict) were unworthy by birthright of such an honor, makes me a bit suspect.

For those unfamiliar, the Mormon teaching is that there are many different degrees of heaven (Celestial Kingdom being the Top Of The Mark) and until 1978, NO black person was eligible for the highest level of exaltation, no matter how devoutly they lived their Earthly life.

One thing of note is that the Mormon church used to (and, as far as I know, still does) frown upon interracial marriage, and recommends marrying inside your own “racial group”. I’m not sure exactly how they define that.

e.g. See here
Lesson 31: Choosing an Eternal Companion,” Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3 (lds.org)

On that page they quote a statement by former church president Spencer W. Kimball:

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question” (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).

They certainly used to frown on interracial marriage. Brigham Young taught that if a Mormon man mixes his “seed” with the “seed of Cain”, then the penalty under the law of God was death on the spot. He further proposed to the Utah legislature that the man, woman, and children all ought to be killed to atone for the sin.

But that certainly isn’t taught today. Note that your cite is pre-1978. I’ve heard a rumor that the first time a black person was married in the temple, it was to a white spouse. The “Revelation” allowing blacks to receive the priesthood and temple ordinances didn’t specifically allow interracial marriage, but that seems to have been the interpretation.

I’ve known plenty of racist Mormons. And now that I’m out of Utah, I know plenty of racist non-Mormons. I agree with Kimstu that it’s hard to say whether that’s a Mormon thing or a white American thing. I was surprised when I was a kid in Louisiana to see that a Mormon friend had put David Duke campaign stickers all over his locker. Until then, it had never occurred to me that a Mormon might be as racist as a non-Mormon. Little did I know.

And I can talk about the dozen plus wards I have been a member of in Alabama, Colorado, and Utah. And in none of them did I ever meet a black member. The only time I knew black members was when I was on my mission in Brazil. And even then members where mostly white, even in mostly black neighborhoods. But as they say the plural of anecdote isn’t data. Neither of our anecdotes is terribly convincing.

I don’t think anyone disagrees that the LDS church has non-white members. The tough part is figuring out how many. The church doesn’t release any demographic information. The only data I could easily parse was the leadership data. And it isn’t encouraging.

I am very well aware of how the leadership operates. The problem is that by and large the local leadership is not going to local leaders. Here for example is the presidency of the Asia area of the church: Anthony D. Perkins, Kent D. Watson, Carl B. Pratt. This is in a region of the world where membership has been flat for decades. Your 20 year lag time provides a nice excuse in places like the South America South area which had to import two of its of presidency from Utah. The third is from South America but is also a longtime Utah resident and graduate of BYU. But the Pacific has had large and stable solid bases of membership for well over a century. Why is the Pacific area presidency from Ohio, California and Idaho?

Either we accept that there is a glass ceiling in the LDS church where non-white non-Americans are under-represented in the leadership, or the membership is a lot more white and American that the church wants its members to believe. My guess is ,as Grampa Simpson once said, it’s a little from column A and a little from column B.

Well, they look to me kind of plastic-like. Like puffy, tasteless, artificial frosting. Whether that’s “attractive” is an individual call.

Obviously they’ve accomplished a lot with missionary work. I know that they sponsor people from those countries to come to Utah. And every Tongan I ever met is Mormon. However, my question is this: Are the non-white people they missionize afforded the same status in the church as whites? I mean in practical terms, not just dogma.

Okay, but regardless, don’t they think that non-whites descend from a spiritually tainted race? Isn’t that part and parcel of their doctrine? So wouldn’t it be impossible for racial parity in the church no matter how the hierarchy pans out?

It certainly used to be. And one can still hear it from time to time in the various meeting houses. But it seems like the current leadership is trying to quietly sweep it under the rug. They would very much like for the world to forget that the church was ever that openly racist. But I don’t think it’ll ever go away completely. Certainly the current leadership has never explicitly disavowed their past statements like the following. It is still official doctrine.

“The position of the LDS Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes…”

“Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam’s transgression. If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or alloted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain’s transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world.”

  • Official statement of the LDS Church First Presidency issued on August 17, 1951

I could also point out that Utah and it’s typically 90% active Mormon State/Federal elected officials was dead-set against recognizing a Federal holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (and when they finally relented, they initially insisted calling it “Human Rights Day” until eventually re-naming it for King a few years later) and that Arizona (with a substantial percentage of Mormon residents) and it’s Mormon Governor at the time, Evan Mecham, was also staunchly against the holiday, and was one of the last couple of holdout states against the day, along with South Carolina.

Probably just coincidence, though…

What exactly are you saying about South Carolina? We have black people here, you know. Unlike some places I might mention. :slight_smile:

The cite is pre-1978, but isn’t the page I linked to showing a current priest manual? They cite the comment without mentioning that it’s wrong.
A wikipedia article says the following:

It’s a fair observation—Whenever I travel out of state, I have to remind myself not to point and stare…:smiley:

Seriously though, most Mormons are as decent, tolerant and open-minded as your average American, (for whatever that’s worth) but there is still a deep undercurrent in the hierarchy of the LDS “Old-Boy” leadership that still holds that blacks and other minorities are somehow lesser beings than your typical blonde, blue-eyed Nordic types…

All the feel good TV commercials and Mormon PR ploys in the world can’t erase history, especially history that is still fresh in millions of people’s memories.

I stand corrected. lds.org states that the Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3 was published in 1995 and is the official manual for teaching the kids in 2011. So interracial marriage (and dating) is still frowned upon but not forbidden.

Damn. I was trying to defend the official modern LDS position on racism. I promise it won’t happen again.

This site is of upmost interest to anyone curious about the statistics of the Mormon church. Written by an active, devote Mormon, it provides a realistic counterpoint to the widely believed misconceptions of Mormon memberships, including those often quoted claims repeated by lay members and church officials.

One would think that the claim

seemingly should be fairly straightforward, and to some degree it is, but only if one considers the membership as defined by the church and not by the alleged adherents.

The issue is who to claim as a member: those identify as such, those who are born into the church, those who are baptized, or those who attend meetings. The Mormon church claims those baptized and those who are born who have not turned eight (the age of consent in this religion) and are called “children of record.”

While each church can define membership in however they wish, other churches such as the Seventh Day Adventists look at active membership rather than membership on the record.

Why this is important is that there is a tremendous number of converts who are still claimed as members by the church, but who are completely “inactive” and also who do not self-identify as a Mormon. The site estimates the about 75% of Mormons outside of the US and Canada are such, leaving a more realistic number of 25%. It doesn’t really provide the breakdown for the US and Canada, but quotes activity rates of about 40% to 50%. There are an estimated 10% of the membership who are “lost,” with the address unknown to the church. Let’s assume another conservative estimate of the people who no longer self-identify, but are still claimed (such as me, my brother and sisters) of 10%, then we can get a closer picture of the breakdown of adherents.

The current membership is given 14.1 million, with about 45% in the US, and 55% outside. Using a rate of 25% for the overseas and 80% for the US, we get a little over 5 million for the US and less than 2 million for overseas. These numbers are obviously meant to be exact, but shows that the clear majority of people who self-identify themselves as Mormon are Americans.

The site also demonstrates that the self-promoted myths of rapid growth are just those, myths, and that much more so relative to other evangelistic churches. For example, the claim that the church is “rapidly growing in Africa” can be seen in context of these churches which see considerably greater numbers of converts.

The key to understanding the true rate of growth in the Mormon church is to look at the number of newly formed stakes, as they require a given number of priesthood members, rather than paper members. The rate of growth of states is less than the rate of world population growth.

The vast majority, 80%, of missionaries are from the US and Canada, and as the birth rate of US Mormons decline, the number of missionaries, as a percentage of membership has been declining for over 20 years. With the dismal growth outside of the US, more focus is shifted to the US, where two thirds of the missions are located. This will further accent the importance of this country. The trend of diversification may well be reversed back to more people who “look like us.”

The site sees the major challenge faced by the church as retention of converts, but with further declines in the US Mormon birth rate, and hence the growing decline in the number of missionaries, and the growing numbers of “borderline Mormons” who self-identify as cultural members but who do not believe in the tenets, it has yet to see if the current modest growth rates can be sustained.

Damn, yet another reason to not go back. Sorry kids.

I’m sure the LDS church wouldn’t call it racism, but characterize it as one of several general guidelines that help have a long-lasting marriage.

There is a 2009 A Portrait of Mormons in the U.S. - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. There is also a 1995 atlas gives world wide figures but I am guessing that is quite out of date.

Nice. I’ll have to keep that link. So at least for the US our general impressions are correct. 86% white, 3% black, 7% Hispanic, 5% other. Measurably less diverse than the US as a whole.

Make sure to look at the converts vs. lifelong memebers (BIC or born in the covenant).

BIC 91% white, 0% black, 5% Hispanic, 3% other
Convert 72% white, 9% black, 11% Hispanic, 8% other

This would seem to indicate that the church would be growing more, and not less diverse, except for a few factors. First, and most importantly, the low level of retention of converts means that the percentage of minorities will not grow at the same rate as the baptisms.

It also looks like nearly half (48%) of the converts are over 50, and have fewer children.

Same here. One of my great-grandmothers walked across the Plains, and while I was growing up we had a folding round table that was pulled along in one of the wagons.

I wouldn’t know about that, but as far as I can tell Mormons marry interracially more often than the average citizen. An awful lot of my friends and siblings have, anyway, and if I visit my brother’s ward (which is in a more diverse area than mine), nearly half the couples are interracial. Even in my ward–which as I’ve said is in Whiteyville–I can think of several couples, let me think. Two white women in my ward are married to black guys, and one other black guy was married to a white woman for a while but no longer (also he moved). There are a couple of white/Latino couples. Some other couples who have since moved were white/Asian and South Asian.

No one seems to care.
Obviously the LDS Church–like the rest of the world–has had its issues with racism. But we’ve been trying to move past it for a while now, and I think it’s going OK. But again, I live in California, which is always a bit different! (OTOH, come to think of it a bunch of those marriages were formed at BYU.)

If “been trying to move past it for a while now” means "ignore it and pretend it never occurred, then I would agree with that statement.

What it does not mean is a thoughtful consideration or reflection of why this occurred and how to prevent other mistakes in the future. That type of discussion would be impossible within the structure of the church because of the culture where top leadership has essentially claimed infallibility but the leading racists were the prophets and apostles.

As Bartman points out above, the official statement of the church on the subject has never been disavowed.

Maybe a new catchphrase for the church. “Come join our divinely led church, we’re no worse than the rest of the world.”

I don’t suppose you have any data or say an official declaration to go with your anecdote? I’m happy that your experience is such a multi-cultural paradise. My experience is quite different. In the 35 years I was active I never met a single interracial couple in the church in the US.