Tim wrote the first paragraph of my post. The rest is mine. The italics got out of control.

Tim writes:

Maybe the fact that they are mostly white males has something to do with the fact that Mormons forbid intermarrying amongst races and until recently shunned all non-white people . . .

How can I say this delicately? Tim, you got your facts wrong. Until 1978, people of African descent were denied the priesthood in the LDS Church. That is true. Now as appalling as that might sound to people, they were never “shunned” by the LDS Church. In fact, there were African American members of the church prior to 1978. (I was in Brazil in 1972 Helvico Martins and his family–all black–were baptised into the church. He was immediately made President of the Stake Sunday School in Rio–so much for shunning.)

In any event, whatever policy the LDS Church had towards those of African descent, the Church certainly did not “shun” other non-white races, a fact attested to by the fact that the LDS Church was sending missionaries to the Polynesian peoples at least as early as around 1900 if not earlier. Moreover, the Church was sending missionaries to the American Indians when Joseph Smith was still alive–thus, prior to 1844. I could go on and recite facts about the size of church membership in Mexico and Latin American relative to thw whole membership or facts about how long the church has been in Japan, etc. But you get my point: We don’t shun non-white people. Our congregations are not and never have been segregated.

Also, about the intermarrying of races thingy. I’m Caucasian, yet I married a woman from Cuba in 1975. In a Mormon Temple. And nobody said a word. Guess they missed the memo.

Haven’t read the article yet, so I won’t comment.

Tim wrote the first paragraph of my post. The rest is mine. The italics got out of control.

Tim writes:

Maybe the fact that they are mostly white males has something to do with the fact that Mormons forbid intermarrying amongst races and until recently shunned all non-white people . . .

How can I say this delicately? Tim, you got your facts wrong. Until 1978, people of African descent were denied the priesthood in the LDS Church. That is true. Now as appalling as that might sound to people, they were never “shunned” by the LDS Church. In fact, there were African American members of the church prior to 1978. (I was in Brazil in 1972 Helvico Martins and his family–all black–were baptised into the church. He was immediately made President of the Stake Sunday School in Rio–so much for shunning.)

In any event, whatever policy the LDS Church had towards those of African descent, the Church certainly did not “shun” other non-white races, a fact attested to by the fact that the LDS Church was sending missionaries to the Polynesian peoples at least as early as around 1900 if not earlier. Moreover, the Church was sending missionaries to the American Indians when Joseph Smith was still alive–thus, prior to 1844. I could go on and recite facts about the size of church membership in Mexico and Latin American relative to thw whole membership or facts about how long the church has been in Japan, etc. But you get my point: We don’t shun non-white people. Our congregations are not and never have been segregated.

Also, about the intermarrying of races thingy. I’m Caucasian, yet I married a woman from Cuba in 1975. In a Mormon Temple. And nobody said a word. Guess they missed the memo.

Haven’t read the article yet, so I won’t comment.