As with many religions, "tolerance" is a sensitive issue: blacks, women, LGBT.
But yes, there is the stereotype of a humble/reserved successful Mormon businessman. (E.g. I'd put Mitt Romney in that category too)
But yes, there is the stereotype of a humble/reserved successful Mormon businessman. (E.g. I'd put Mitt Romney in that category too)
LGBT acceptance will be a much, much tougher slog for them, given the central and critical importance that eternal families play in its doctrine and view of spiritual progression.
For example, they had massive problems fully accepting blacks until the seventies, which was long after most mainstream religions got over their issues. But most mainstream religions (at least the protestand ones) had all kinds of trouble themselves in the forties.
The LDS church isn't unique in its problems, it's just decades behind.
For example, we Americans stereotype Catholicism as reflecting some European immigrant communities like Irish, Italians, Polish... But it's always been ok for an African American to be a Catholic. Probably in prior eras especially some of those communities of white Europeans would not have been terribly welcoming to such a person to say the least. But you couldn't say the international organization with HQ in Rome was against them being members. Or maybe I am wrong.
I suspect this is why, even though there was much by way of explicit prohibition of races in many churches throughout the US, most churches seemed to have ended up segregated anyways.
But if you're comparing it to churches that have been around only 10, 30, or 50 years, sure.
---
It used to be that the LDS Church was "too" pro-black by society's standards.
That was a large reason for Missouri's infamous Mormon "Extermination Order":
> We believed them deluded fanatics, or weak and designing knaves, and that they and their pretensions would soon pass away; but in this we were deceived...In a late number of the Star [the Mormon newspaper], published in Independence by the leaders of the sect, there is an article inviting free Negroes and mulattoes from other states to become "Mormons," and remove and settle among us. This exhibits them in still more odious colors...the introduction of such a caste among us would corrupt our blacks, and instigate them to bloodshed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Executive_Order_44
Yes somehow, very few discussions of Missouri immediately turn to its history of racism.
It's actually a fascinating story. Mormons largely supported suffrage, but had to fight the federal government tooth and nail to get it.
In 1869, Utah was under territorial rule, and the federally-appointed government was determined to limit the influence of the LDS Church and end polygamy. The legislature even passed female suffrage during their efforts to rid polygamy from the state.
But it had exactly the opposite effect; most woman voted in favor of allowing polygamy. Thereafter, some national supporters of women's rights actually became opposed to women's suffrage in Utah because of it was being used to support polygamy. (Enfranchisement all fine and well until someone disagrees with you.)
In 1887, Congress redoubled its efforts to end polygamy, and revoked the ability of woman to vote that the legislature had granted earlier.
The LDS Church supported the creation of the Utah Women's Suffrage Organization, to try and restore the right to vote. A Utah Territory judge sided with the women's movement, but the Supreme Court rejected it, citing Congress' law.
Not until the Church renounced polygamy, Utah obtained statehood, and the women's right to vote was included in the state constitution, were Utahns able to undo the Congress' targeted repeal of suffrage.
Utah women then helped secure the Nineteenth Amendment[1].
[1] https://www.utahwomenshistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02... (The man in the picture was Senator Reed Smoot, who was also an Apostle in the LDS Church.)
AFAIU, in the LDS Church all men are ordained priests. So whatever their stance regarding African-Americans in the social and political sphere, institutionally the church was very unique, even in the modern era. And that was the original point.
Contrast that with the Catholic Church at least formally having no trouble ordaining LGBT people[1], notwithstanding the male-female clerical role dichotomy[2], but does institutionally (and doctrinally) oppose many forms of practiced sexuality. (Notably, all clerics and monastics are celibate in Roman Catholicism, which they often used as a rhetorical shield.) This distinction matters because doctrinally Catholicism distinguishes behaviors from "what you are", and with the exception of male-female sex roles there has never been any classification system that treated people differently based on their inherent characteristics. This is true more generally in Christianity, although various denominations, especially in the South during the American slave period, flirted with such theological distinctions. Again, the LDS Church stood out from a theological perspective.
Churches are more than doctrine, of course. They're communities. And some communities deviate from the letter and spirit of their doctrine more than others. The more authoritarian (top-down) the church, the less likely such deviations occur, at least facially. Again the LDS Church stood out for a governance structured similarly to the Catholic Church, but with a racial system that resembled that taken up by niche, Protestant sects of the period.
Anyhow, things aren't the same today. And without trying to sound cynical, religions have wonderful ways of carefully papering over past sins and moving on. Ways that the secular world would do well to better appreciate and even, on occasion, mimic. This history of the LDS Church doesn't need to be denied or excused because the church has its own theological devices for setting things straight without prejudicing objective facts. The LDS Church seems a very beautiful religion with many devoted members who deserve respect and admiration.
[1] Indeed, likely for the entire period of the modern distinction of homosexuality the Catholic Church knowingly accepted gay men and women into religious orders. This has been used by conservatives, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who conflate homosexuality with sexual perversion, to argue such knowing ordinations as being causative of child molestation. And, FWIW, seemingly by some liberals whose arguments effectively seem to say that that a celibate priesthood inviting homosexuals had the effect of providing an enticing shelter to pedophiles, because of the supposed of dynamics of sexual repression. It's a weird argument and just goes to show that the line which we use to label and distinguish conservative and liberal seems to wrap around at the edges.
[2] Technically, many if not most Catholic clerics are careful to avoid arguing that women could never become priests or that being female is incompatible with the role of a priest. Certainly most Vatican leaders are careful to walk this line. Women are barred as a matter of church law, justified by tradition, but there's no fundamental theological basis for it except that as a general rule deviations from tradition (e.g. the Apostles all being male) require strong positive justification. A failure to deviate isn't an affirmation or disaffirmation of anything. It's an exceedingly tenuous position, especially in the modern era, but it's worth pointing out. And if you listen to Catholic officials make their arguments, especially in prepared statements, you can see these distinctions very clearly.
A. Celibate clergy.
B. Official policy of no homosexual priests (despite the fact they are celibate anyway) [1]
C. All-male clergy, and the excommunication of any violators [2]
D. Complete ban on contraceptives
E. Political and moral opposition to same-sex marriage
The Catholic Church's stances on sexuality go far past those of the LDS Church.
I will grant that the Catholic Church is more racially diverse; it's one of the consequences of its vast colonial legacy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_Concerning_the_Cri...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women_and_the_Ca...
A: Celibacy as a nominal choice is part of the emerging asexual ‘sexual norm’ found mostly in Asia but spreading to the west.
B: This point is usually a confusion of terms. Men who are attracted to men but are celibate are currently priests in many parts of the world.
C: True
D: The Catholic Church has no power to ban anything.
E: Also a confusion of terms between secular and religious groups. It’s analogous to arguing about whether everyone can physically become pregnant, because the religious definition of what they call ‘holy matrimony’ involves more than just feelings.
1/5 objective truth points :)
> As many as 87% of Christian churches in the United States are completely made up of only White or African-American parishioners.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_of_churches...