Mormons have long had a problem with race regarding the ban that resulted in blacks being denied priesthood and temple blessings until 1978. Mormons aren’t the only ones with racial problems though. According to Wikipedia,
In May 1845, the Baptist congregations in the United States split over slavery and missions. The Home Mission Society prevented slaveholders from being appointed as missionaries.[33] The split created the Southern Baptist Convention, while the northern congregations formed their own umbrella organization now called the American Baptist Churches USA (ABC-USA).
The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest group, but even they have had problems with regards to race. A resolution in June proposed to condemn the alt-right movement as one that
seeks to reignite social animosities, reverse improvements in race relations, divide our people, and foment hatred, classism, and ethnic cleansing.” It identified this “toxic menace” as white nationalism and the alt-right, and urged the denomination to oppose its “totalitarian impulses, xenophobic biases, and bigoted ideologies that infect the minds and actions of its violent disciples.” It claimed that the origin of white supremacy in Christian communities is a once-popular theory known as the “curse of Ham,” which taught that “God through Noah ordained descendants of Africa to be subservient to Anglos” and was used as justification for slavery and segregation. The resolution called on the denomination to denounce nationalism and “reject the retrograde ideologies, xenophobic biases, and racial bigotries of the so-called ‘alt-right’ that seek to subvert our government, destabilize society, and infect our political system.”
However, the resolution was shot down. Meanwhile, alt-right figure Richard Spencer tweeted his support.“ Baptists Convention *didn’t* denounce the Alt-Right after all. Interesting development! ”
A few days later, a similar resolution did pass when the SBC
wrapped up its annual meeting this week in Phoenix with a nearly unanimous vote to condemn the racist political movement commonly referred to as the “alt-right.”
Among other things, the resolution states that church representatives “denounce and repudiate white supremacy and every form of racial and ethnic hatred as a scheme of the devil intended to bring suffering and division to our society.”
It makes me feel a little better that it isn’t only the Mormon Church that grapples with race issues, although more than one Facebook user noted that the LDS Church didn’t even try to make a similar statement condemning white supremacy. Is that a given, or should the LDS Church put out a forceful statement like the Baptists did? We don’t have a similar convention system like SBC. If the church makes a statement, it can’t come from the members, it has to come from the Brethren. What do you think?
Wheat & Tares 
Perhaps the Church has made a statement by publishing: “Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng
citing Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Need for Greater Kindness,” Ensign or Liahona, May 2006, 58–61.
It could be made with greater publicity and with the Brethren’s names attached, perhaps even with greater specificity as to the “alt-right” or other specific groups, but it is there.
Incidentally, what some critics of the former LDS black/priesthood policy fail to note in comparing it to historical policies of other American (Protestant) churches is the [alleged – need a real historian here] fact that they all (?) had such a policy into the 20th century. The others, not having a “lay priesthood” seem to have simply enforced it by refusing to admit blacks to the seminaries from which graduation was required prior to ordination. Hence the formation of Black Methodist and Black Baptist churches, etc. with their own seminaries, to the extent they chose to require them.
What is more disturbing to me than the lack of specificity in the LDS Church’s current condemnation of racism, is the fact that our Church lagged behind rather than leading the change. Perhaps that is an inevitable result of (a) our gerontocracy and (b) enshrining the teachings of our leaders as the word and will of God — it takes longer to convince subsequent leaders with overlapping tenures and a substantial portion of the membership that earlier leaders were mistaken (or even might be mistaken).
It should be enough to condemn the” belief that one race/culture classification will be elevated above another with supremacy as its ultimate goal”. That would include movements beyond the alt-right who should receive similar condemnation.
Also, the mistake of attributing characteristics of other groups as those of the condemned is often made; especially since there are no established specifics. What causes a person/group to move from Left to Ultra-Left or Right to Ultra-Right?
“…wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”
(2 Nephi 5:21, in the Book of Mormon as currently canonized and published by the LDS Church)
How can Mormons, through their established priesthood leadership, offer a full-throated condemnation of racism, white supremacy in particular, if the above passage remains as part of keystone scripture?
The “Race and the Priesthood” essay JR cites above offers worthy candor with regard to the obvious racism of Brigham Young towards blacks. It is a step in the right direction. But it simultaneously serves as an example of the LDS Church taking a minimal step. Mormon racism, namely the belief that God intentionally darkened skin color to punish sinners and alienate their descendants, remains a clear and unmistakable part of current LDS scripture. Moreover, coming as it does from the Book of Mormon, it demonstrates such racism originating in Joseph Smith’s revelatory output.
How then can the Church honestly and completely disavow “…the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse…”?
(Essay on Race and the Priesthood, https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood)
“How then can the Church honestly and completely disavow “…the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse…”?” Jake, it’s not that hard in my mind. Nephi saw things through his perspective at the time, just as Brigham Young did in his time. They can both be wrong. They can also project their own thoughts into/onto actual revelation and muddy it up.
Obviously there are other ways of interpreting the aforementioned scripture; taking in account the number of Black converts/members.
The LDS Church will only cautiously negotiate the issues around race, not so much because of its history, but more because of its republican leanings.
Aussie: For each example you may have of a racist attitude coming from a republican, I can counter with racism from democrats.
Markag – yes, anyone can be racist. My comment was meant to highlight the philosophical leaning and principles that underpin conservative political parties. And we know for a fact that all Q15 and probably a large percentage of the rest lean that way. That has an effect on the way the “church” engages socio-politically.
Essay ends with:
“The Church proclaims that redemption through Jesus Christ is available to the entire human family on the conditions God has prescribed. It affirms that God is “no respecter of persons” and emphatically declares that anyone who is righteous—regardless of race—is favored of Him. The teachings of the Church in relation to God’s children are epitomized by a verse in the second book of Nephi: “[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.””
The Book of Mormon also promotes this “no respecter of persons” approach. Pulling out one verse doesn’t establish the religion. It does, however…create problems to be wrestled with, and as pointed out in the OP…is not unique to mormonism.
I wish the church history was squeaky clean and stood out above and beyond any other organization in the world as the gold standard for all things perfect to believe in.
It never has, and never will. Bummer. So…what then? Throw out the baby and the bathwater? No…it becomes a personal choice of what is enough to believe in regardless of flaws, or is simply too much of the bad stuff to have faith in it. Each chooses the path.
And that is the plan of salvation here on earth.
“Is that a given, or should the LDS Church put out a forceful statement like the Baptists did? ”
It should never be a given…their calling is to preach truth…and it needs to be said. White Supremacy should be singled out as an evil and clearly against the truth of God. Regardless of past issues…that is clear for today and going forward. It should be stated. It would not be difficult to do.