We Must Recognize Our Sins

We Must Feel Sorrow for Our Sins

We Must Forsake Our Sins

We Must Confess Our Sins

We Must Make Restitution

We Must Forgive Others

We Must Keep the Commandments of God

One of the first principles that is taught to members of the Mormon faith is that of Repentance. Repentance is particularly vital to the LDS theology because it is the only way to obtain forgiveness for sin. To a Mormon, the cleansing blood of Christ is afforded only after certain tasks are performed. The Gospel Principles manual lists the following principles in the process of repentance:

To the faithful Mormon, these steps are each considered essential in order to obtain the forgiveness that Christ provides.

“Remember this, that forgiveness can never come without repentance” (Spencer W. Kimball, “The Gospel of Repentance,” Ensign, Oct 1982, p. 4).

“True Repentance”

If you were to examine the thought process, attitude changes, and behavior of someone who sincerely goes through this process, you might have a good picture of a person who has truly undergone a change of heart regarding the target of their repentance. If you were to examine someone who claimed to have repented, but left out any of the above principles of repentance, then you may have reason to doubt the sincerity of their repentance. In 1974 President Spencer W. Kimball wrote of the need for “True Repentance” – a repentance that was more than just lip service:

“There must be a consciousness of guilt. It cannot be brushed aside. It must be acknowledged and not rationalized away. It must be given its full importance. If it is 10,000 talents, it must not be rated at 100 pence; if it is a mile long, it must not be rated a rod or a yard; if it is a ton transgression, it must not be rated a pound.” (Spencer W Kimball “What Is True Repentance?”, May 1974, New Era, lds.org)

Without this unmitigated acknowledgement of the extent and depth of sin, no true repentance can be had.

Insincere Repentance

For example, if you were a Mormon Bishop counseling a member who was struggling with the sin of physical abuse, you would be looking for evidence of the process of repentance in their words and actions. If the member admitted that they had hit their spouse, but rationalized that it didn’t count as abuse because it was common for his neighbors to do the same thing to their spouses – you would have reason to not consider the requirements of repentance to have been met. If the member stated that sins were committed, but then proceeded to blame everyone around him or her and displace responsibility for that sin, you would also be hard pressed to consider the repentance genuine. Even if these members stopped their sins and committed them no more, as a Bishop you would likely counsel them that no forgiveness could come until they were willing to recognize the reality of their sins and humbly confess and forsake them. Until then they still carried the full guilt and accountability of those sins with them.

Seeing the difference

Bishops see many members through the process of repentance and, though I have never been a Bishop, I suspect that their experience in dealing with people who are sincere in their repentance makes them all the more sensitive to detect those who may be less so. The difference between one repenter who takes full responsibility and demonstrates prostrate humility and a commitment to change, and another repenter who diverts responsibility, evades humility, and produces reluctant, incomplete change is brought into stark contrast when compared side by side.

Institutional Repentance

While individuals can undergo a course correction in this manner, institutions also may take erroneous steps which require rectification. Just as a Bishop could compare the fruit of repentance between individuals, we might also be able to compare the fruit of repentance between institutions.

What we would first need is a statement from the institutions which describes the nature of the error and how they accept responsibility – a sort of confession. While individual Mormons are accountable to God, and so confess to the Bishop (God’s agent for this purpose), institutions are generally accountable to their members and so the confession is directed to them and it is up to the members to assess the sincerity of that expression.

I have written previously about issues of past racist policies and doctrines in the Mormon Church. When discussing these issues members will frequently point out that the LDS church is not the only church which had adopted racist policies which were a product of the prevailing social norms of their times. This is very true. Other faiths had also adopted segregation, prohibition on priesthood ordination, scriptural justification of slavery and a number of other reprehensible bigoted policies and teachings.

Just as the LDS church had to undergo a correction, these other churches did so too. This provides us with an opportunity to examine how other churches went through the process of institutional repentance. By contrasting their statements about these embarrassing periods of their history, we can gain insight into the character of their “repentance.”

The SBC Statement on Racism

The Southern Baptist Convention is one such denomination which carries a shameful history on matter of race. It was originally formed from a split with the Northern Baptists over the issue of allowing slave holding men to serve as missionaries. Slavery was given scriptural sanction and slaves were told that they should accept their plight. Congregations were segregated and even predominantly Black churches had to operate under white ministerial supervision. After the civil war, this untenable situation towards black Baptists led to a further schism within the SBC, as Black members left to form their own state conventions. In the civil rights era of the mid 20th century the SBC rejected integration and accepted ideas of white supremacy.

To the modern sensibility of racial equality the track record of the SBC on issues of race is deplorable.

In June of 1989 the SBC issues a statement on racism which acknowledged these troubling aspects of its history. The statement is short and I encourage you to read it in full. The document is in the form of a resolution and makes several remarkable statements. First, the document acknowledges that the Southern Baptists have been at fault in standing for racism and bigotry:

“WHEREAS, Southern Baptists have not always clearly stood for racial justice and equality;”

Note The SBC is a cooperative association of local Baptist churches which retain autonomy – not a strictly vertical hierarchy of authority as in the Mormon Church. As such acknowledging this flaw in “Southern Baptists” is as close to institutional responsibility that the convention can come. The convention itself only exists as a body formed and guided by an executive committee derived from its members – very different from the one-way top-down leadership of the Mormons.

This initial admission of error and acceptance of responsibility is followed by affirmations of the diversity of it’s membership and the scriptural basis of racial equality and the universal need for a saving relationship with God through Christ. The most remarkable aspect of the document then follows:

“Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That we, the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada, June 13-15, 1989, affirm our intention of standing publicly and privately for racial justice and equality. Be it further RESOLVED, That we repent of any past bigotry and pray for those who are still caught in its clutches; and Be it further RESOLVED, That we bear witness to the devastating impact of racism;”

In particular the phrase “we repent of any past bigotry” is remarkable. It implies the humility to accept the reality and responsibility of past actions and the commitment to change.

As institutional admissions of fault go, acknowledging the need to repent and the intention of doing so is very powerful. It demonstrates to the members and to the world that the complaints of the victims of bigotry have been justified. Those people who cried out against the Southern Baptists support of slavery, policies of segregation and obstruction of the civil rights movement are thereby vindicated. Notably, this level of contrition actually starts the process of healing old wounds.

The final two sections of the above quote concede that there are those who may still have bigotry in their heart and acknowledge the devastating impact of racism upon the lives of it’s victims. These statements confront the reality of effecting widespread change in such an organization – it does not all occur at once and many people will take time to come around.

The next quote then follows:

“Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon individual Southern Baptists, as well as our churches, to reach across racial boundaries, establishing fraternal rather than paternal friendships;”

It may be the temptation of an institution undergoing such a change in regard to racial relationships to make certain changes that would appear to reflect the new equality, but in fact only represent shallow gestures that are incomplete in their approach to equality. For example, if the SBC had declared that all men should be treated as equal, but then continued to allow, either overtly or covertly, only white men to hold positions of leadership at the highest levels – then the repentance could not be said to be complete. By calling for fraternal rather than paternal friendships – the members of the SBC are called to truly treat those of other races on equal footing as brothers and sisters, rather than maintain a superior paternalistic attitude which would accompany an incomplete move towards racial equality.

The fact that this extends to the placement of minorities among leadership positions is declared in the following section of the statement:

Be it further RESOLVED, That our agencies and institutions seek diligently to bring about greater racial and ethnic representation at every level of Southern Baptist institutional life;

While this resolution speaks to a remarkable degree of institutional humility in accepting responsibility and calling for change, it is only the beginning of the discussion.

Bumpy road to progress

The actual actions of the SBC in bringing these noble sentiments into reality are the substance of their commitment. History has shown that the record in this regard is spotty. As the document acknowledges, bigotry still lives within the heart of some, and when you have a grass-roots, bottom-up organization rather than a top-down authoritarian hierarchy – then change can come relatively slowly. So while there continue to be problems of racial insensitivity in the churches of the SBC, other significant advances have been made such as the election of Fred Luter, the first black president of the convention.

And so we see the character of institutional repentance that the Southern Baptists have undergone. While the changes have been mixed in their progression – the attitude and humility set forth by the initial repentant statement set a high bar for the organization to aspire to.

In our comparative evaluation, where might we find a parallel statement from the Mormon church?

The Revelation of 1978

In 1978 after decades of controversy over the Mormon church’s institutional ban on black men holding the priesthood, receiving temple ordinances, holding leadership positions or giving blessings of healing in their own homes, a change finally came to pass. It was announced in the September General Conference of 1978 and Official Declaration 2 was subsequently added to the Mormon scripture. It states the following:

“In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.”

(Official Declaration 2, Doctrine and Covenants, lds.org)

As you can see, this reads more like a corporate procedural description. N. Eldon Tanner, 1st counselor in the 1st presidency, then proceeded to read a letter from the 1st presidency which detailed the revelation. The letter contained no acknowledgement of the racist nature of past policies, no statement of the need or desire to repent, and no correction of racist doctrine. Here is the pertinent part:

“He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness. We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.”

(Official Declaration 2, Doctrine and Covenants, lds.org)

The revelation which opened up priesthood ordination of black men is in no way an expression of institutional repentance. It does not admit wrongdoing or guilt – and in fact paints the leadership of the church as innocent magnanimous men who have yearned for racial equality in the church, only to be held back by God’s will. That was actually the official position.

Lets imagine what a spouse abuser who takes the same attitude might tell a bishop. “The Bible taught that women should submit to men and my daddy taught me that the correct way to keep a woman in line was by beating her. I didn’t want to do it, but the Bible and my daddy had taught me that this was the right way.” By taking this attitude the abuser displaces guilt for his actions to a higher authority in an attempt to exonerate himself from guilt. If he was just following what a higher authority said, then you can’t hold him accountable!

Was the ban wrong?

The first step in repentance is to recognize your sin. You have to acknowledge that what was done was wrong. The SBC statement unambiguously acknowledged that it’s had been wrong in it’s positions on race. The LDS declaration did no such thing. This question was posed directly to the Prophet Gordon B Hinkley in an Australian interview in 1997:

RB: Now up until 1978 I understand Blacks were not allowed to be priests in your Church?

Now up until 1978 I understand Blacks were not allowed to be priests in your Church? GBH: That is correct. Although we have Black members of the Church. They felt that they would gain more in this Church than any other with which they were acquainted and they were members of the Church. In 1978 we (the president of the Church) received a revelation under which all worthy men would receive all the blessings of the Church available to them as well as to any others. So across the world now we are teaching the Gospel to Blacks, Whites, everyone else who will listen.

That is correct. Although we have Black members of the Church. They felt that they would gain more in this Church than any other with which they were acquainted and they were members of the Church. In 1978 we (the president of the Church) received a revelation under which all worthy men would receive all the blessings of the Church available to them as well as to any others. So across the world now we are teaching the Gospel to Blacks, Whites, everyone else who will listen. RB: So in retrospect was the Church wrong in that?

So in retrospect GBH: No I don’t think it was wrong. It things, various things happened in different periods. There’s a reason for them.

It things, various things happened in different periods. There’s a reason for them. RB: What was the reason for that?

What was the reason for that? GBH: I don’t know what the reason was. But I know that we’ve rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at that time. (Compass interview with President Gordon B. Hinkley, aired 09 Nov 1997, ABC.net.au)

In this interview the sitting Prophet of the church acknowledges the priesthood ban, but considers it to be justified for some “unknown reason”. Whatever the reason, President Hinkley affirms that the ban itself was not wrong – not a mistake. As such it was not something over which there should be a need for institutional repentance. It was simply God’s plan and way for bringing the blessings of the priesthood to everyone in His own time.

As long as this remains the position of the church, then it is consistent. They did not issue a penitent decree or acknowledge wrongdoing, because there was nothing to repent for. The ban was God’s will and the church leaders were simply acting according to God’s direction.

What would it look like for our spouse abuser to use the same line? “I don’t know why the Bible says that men are placed over women – but I know that it’s not wrong. There is a reason for it, even if we don’t know what that is.” By making this argument, the abuser is defending his actions based on a higher authority, the bible, and then pleading ignorance to why there is a contradiction between his justification and what is commonly held to be right and wrong. This is yet another tactic of evasion that is aimed at deflecting guilt and responsibility. It is not the expression of a penitent or remorseful heart.

Race and the Priesthood – the plot thickens

In December of 2013, in response to concerned members with questions about church doctrine on race, the church released an essay which addressed the priesthood ban and was the first official statement since the 1978 revelation which addressed the reason behind the priesthood ban. Titled “Race and the Priesthood“, the essay further established the unrepentant position of the church regarding it’s record on race relations.

The essay devotes much space to establishing the fact that everybody else in America was racist too in the 1800’s and early 1900’s. This is the institutional equivalent of “everybody else was doing it so it’s no problem that I did it too.” Would an LDS bishop consider a person who states this in an interview to be repentant? Isn’t the church supposed to have a higher standard than society, because of the relation of the Prophet to God?

The truly remarkable statement in the essay is made in the conclusion:

“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”

(“Race and the Priesthood”, lds.org)

The reason this statement is so remarkable is that it absolutely repudiates all of the justifications which have been previously used to rationalize the priesthood ban and declares them to be false. Not only are they false today, but they have always been false. As such, any policy or actions the church had previously taken under those justifications was wrong. The individuals and families who were subject to those actions were victims of doctrinal error made into policy.

This essay admitted that the ban on the priesthood was a mistake, but does not go so far as to indicate that the church and its leaders bear accountability for that error. This is the equivalent of our spouse abuser confessing to the bishop that “mistakes were made, my wife was beaten and it was wrong”, but then not acknowledging that he was the one who did the beating and had a need for repentance!

How does this compare with the standard of True Repentance that President Kimball outlined?

“Many people in their confession give only a skeleton picture and often rationalize and minimize the sins that have been done and often blame the transgression upon others when indeed the individual was largely guilty himself.”

(Spencer W Kimball “What Is True Repentance?”, May 1974, New Era, lds.org)

Deny, Deny, Deny

The church has gone so far as to deny that it ever had any racist aspects. Proof of this attitude is printed in the pages of the Ensign.

“How grateful I am that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has from its beginnings stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations.”

(Seventy Alexander Morrison “No more strangers” Ensign Sept 2000)

Imagine a spouse abuser telling the bishop “I am grateful that I have always stood for equality and kindness and against domestic violence in any of its forms” even while the bruises and broken bones of his wife have yet to heal. Can someone be truly penitent if they do not acknowledge that they are the ones who committed the wrong? Can an institution acknowledge that their leaders have been wrong on a point of doctrine, as was done in the “race and priesthood” essay, and not accept responsibility for the heinous policies which were enacted based upon that error?

Is such a statement honest? How does it compare with the standard the church has set for its repenting members?

“And so a lie to an official of the Church who has a right to delve into our lives is tantamount to a lie to the Lord, and a half-truth to his officials is like a half-truth to the Lord, and rebellion against his leaders is comparable to rebellion against the Lord.”

(Spencer W Kimball “What Is True Repentance?”, May 1974, New Era, lds.org)



Member’s caught in a lie such as that told by Bro. Morrison above would be considered to have rebelled against the Lord. Christ taught that “he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.” This is the nature of the relationship between church leaders and members. Servants are accountable to their masters. When church leaders lie to the members, are they not committing the same rebellion?

Actions are louder than words

Regardless of the apparent lack of penitence that the official statements from the LDS church have conveyed – the revelation did have the effect of changing policy regarding the ban on black men holding the priesthood. That was only one part of the racist character of the church however. Historically the church had also taught against interracial marriage and prevented Black Men from holding positions of authority in either the local or general authority level. Did those aspects of LDS institutional racism disappear as well?

Interracial Marriage

I have written previously about the focus on pure white blood which characterized the Mormon worldview prior to the lifting of the priesthood ban. This was reflected in the leaders advise to young people on how to select a spouse.

“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”

(Spencer W. Kimball, “Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year, p. 144 as quoted in Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3, Lesson 31, lds.org).

After the revelation of 1978 the church continued to teach against interracial marriage. The June 17, 1978 issue of the official Church News which announced the revelation lifting the ban included an articled titled “Interracial Marriage Discouraged” on the very next page. The article included 3 separate excerpts from the speeches of Prophet Spencer W Kimball warning of the dangers of interracial marriages.

These messages continued to be published and taught by the church after the lifting of the ban on priesthood ordination, but rather than justifying that teaching on the basis of racial purity the leaders taught that interracial marriage was harmful to families and society in the long term:

“When I said you must teach your people to overcome their prejudices and accept the Indians, I did not mean that you would encourage intermarriage. I mean that they should be brothers, to worship together and to work together and to play together; but we must discourage intermarriage, not because it is sin. I would like to make this very emphatic. A couple has not committed sin if an Indian boy and a white girl are married, or vice versa. It isn’t a transgression like the transgressions of which many are guilty. But it is not expedient. Marriage statistics and our general experience convince us that marriage is not easy. It is difficult when all factors are favorable. The divorces increase constantly, even where the spouses have the same general background of race, religion, finances, education, and otherwise. The interrace marriage problem is not one of inferiority or superiority. It may be that your son is better educated and may be superior in his culture, and yet it may be on the other hand that she is superior to him. It is a matter of backgrounds. The difficulties and hazards of marriage are greatly increased where backgrounds are different. For a wealthy person to marry a pauper promises difficulties. For an ignoramus to marry one with a doctor’s degree promises difficulties, heartaches, misunderstandings, and broken marriages. When one considers marriage, it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much selflessness when two people of different races plan marriage. They must be thinking selfishly of themselves. They certainly are not considering the problems that will beset each other and that will beset their children. If your son thinks he loves this girl, he would not want to inflict upon her loneliness and unhappiness; and if he thinks that his affection for her will solve all her problems, he should do some more mature thinking. We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs.”

(The teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982], pg. 303, quoted on byu.edu)

In this way, the church still achieved the same ends of encouraging its members to maintain racial purity; it simply changed the justification to something that was more socially acceptable.

Is this an effective way of turning from racism? If you saw a blatantly racist organizations doing the same thing, that is endorsing things which are inherently racist, yet justifying it on notions of the good of society rather than racial superiority, would you believe them when they claim not to be racist? The Ku Klux Klan is not a religion and I am not equating them to the LDS church, however they have done this exact thing:

“The Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, as now organized, is a patriotic, benevolent, fraternal order, the chief aims of which are to bring the different branches of the Protestant church into a closer relationship, one with another; to inculcate a purer patriotism in its members; to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and the separate states thereof; to maintain, perfect and perpetuate the free public schools and to preserve the United States as a Protestant Christian nation.” “The Klan has no fight to make upon any man because of his race, place of birth, religion or political affiliations.”

(PRINCIPLES and PURPOSES of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, archive.org)

While the KKK still maintained white supremacy, it contended that it’s justification was based not of differences of race, but rather on the good of society. Just as Spencer W. Kimball argued that it is the inherent differences between different races or other cultural aspects which threaten the family and society, the Klan indicated that this was their justification as well:

“The Klan does not cultivate nor deal in hatred or division between the races and religion. It specifically declines any applicant who wishes to join for that reason if his intentions are obvious, from his application. The most that can be said is that it recognizes the facts as to race and religious distinctions which actually exist. Its aim is to offset and decrease influence of such prejudices in American life and to assimilate insofar as they may become assimilated, all who practice and believe in American ideals.”

(KKK – Questions Answered, archive.org)

There are significant differences between post-1978 revelation Mormons and the KKK, please don’t think that I am equating them. Nobody believes for a moment that the KKK is not racist. The things that they teach are infused with the language of racism, even if they disavow it as their primary justification. The main point here is that organizations can still have racist policies that they simply disguise the justification for in order for the stink of racism to be ostensibly avoided.

The fact that the current Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3 (quoted above) published in 1995 still contains a recommendation against interracial marriage demonstrates that the racist teachings persists, regardless of what other justification is provided. You can tell that a teaching is not racist when race is not mentioned at all.

This is the equivalent of our not-so-penitent abuser stating that “I still smack my wife, but not because men are superior to women – it’s because she talks back to me and creates contention in the household threatening our family unity”. Would a Bishop consider such a man to be truly repentant?

Black Mormon men in leadership

Immediately after the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood was lifted, black men began to be ordained. The lifting of the ban was announced on 8 June 1978 and 3 days later on 11 June Joseph Freeman became the first black man to hold the Melchizedek priesthood in the modern era of the church. It would be 12 years later in 1990 that Helvecio Martins became the first black General Authority when he was called to the Second Quorum of the Seventy. Martins was a black descendant of black slaves from South America. It would be 19 years later before another black General Authority would be called. In April 2009, Joseph Sitati became the first black African to become a General Authority when he was called to the First Quorum of the Seventy. In 2013 Edward Dube became the 2nd black African to be called to the First Quorum of the Seventy. No blacks have ever been called to the Quorum of the 12 Apostles or the First Presidency.

More interestingly the first black Stake President called in the U.S. was Ahmad Corbitt, called in 2005. Stake Presidents are the only ones who can excommunicate Melchizedek Priesthood holders. This means that it took over a quarter of a century after the ban was lifted for a black man in the US to be put in a position where he could excommunicate a white priesthood holder.

It might be thought that some of the scarcity of black men in high LDS leadership may be due to the scant number of black members. A 2007 Pew Research Religious Landscape Survey estimates that in the U.S. only 3% of Mormons are black, compared with the U.S. general population average of 11% black, non-hispanics. It turns out, however, that this is not dissimilar to the SBC. A 2002 Survey of Southern Baptist Convention congregations found that only 4% of SBC members are black.

It took 23 years after the SBC’s statement on racism for their organization to see a black man at the highest office. 36 years have passed since the lifting on the priesthood ban in the LDS church and no black men have been called to the second highest or highest levels of authority – which may be explained in part by the fact that Apostles and members of the First Presidency generally serve for life terms. This arrangement tends to diminish turnover and limits the rate of demographic changes in the hierarchy. Since this is an organizational limitation, it is hard to include it in a calculation of institutional repentance, though some may see the slow pace of a change as a problem.

Conclusion

The church holds its members to a high standard of true repentance. It goes so far as to distinguish true repentance from anything less than absolute humble contrition. The Prophet Spencer W Kimball taught this in the May 1974 Ensign:

“What Is True Repentance? Sometimes it is easier to define what something is by telling what it is not. Repentance is not repetition of sin. It is not laughing at sin. It is not justification for sin. Repentance is not the hardening of the spiritual arteries. It is not the minimizing of the seriousness of the error. Repentance is not retirement from activity. It is not the closeting of sin to corrode and overburden the sinner.”

(“What is True Repentance” Ensign, May 1974, lds.org)

When you compare how the Mormon church has managed its institutional transition to the current state of racial equality, an institutional attitude may be ascertained.

Before the 1978 revelation black Mormons were marginalized, locally segregated, denigrated and deprived of the full blessings of the gospel. Many things regarding the curse of cain, pre-mortal actions and racial inferiority were put forth by the highest church authority as doctrine justifying this racist inequality. When the revelation came, the same leaders which previously defended the racist policies depicted themselves as magnanimous kindly men who were simply following God’s lead – deflecting accountability to God for the prior racist policies. No humble apology, admission of wrongdoing or wrong-teaching, or need for repentance was ever expressed. The same demands for conformity that were heaved upon those agitating for racial equality before the ban was lifted was shifted to people who persisted in their racist attitudes after the revelation. No apology was made to those people who risked their standing in the church standing against racism prior to the change. Even now, 35 years after the ban was lifted – when the church finally officially acknowledges that past prophets taught false things about the justification for the ban – no admission of wrongdoing or need for repentance is forthcoming. There is simply no sign of institutional repentance for the Church’s racist past.

Compare the LDS statements on its racist past – which are full of evasion, deflection and denial – with the simple statement released by the Southern Baptist Convention – which actually acknowledges institutional wrongdoing and guilt, acknowledges the “devastating impact” of its racist past, and outright states that it repents of its past bigotry. That statement is closer to the Mormon standards of true repentance than anything the LDS church has ever released on the matter. Sure, the road to full equality and “true repentance” for the SBC has been bumpy, but it started with the humble, contrite attitude that Mormons can only envy when examining the actions and statements of their own leaders.