Weird Al asked Donny Osmond to be in his parody music video ‘White and Nerdy’ because he said, “he was the whitest guy I could think of.” Now raise your hands if you think that had a thinly veiled Mormon reference in there. All of this is meant to be taken tongue in cheek of course, Latter-day Saints have a great sense of self deprecating humor and we all laugh… but in todays multi-ethnic world culture, it’s not a complement and it is a rather racist remark. Luckily Weird Al is white, so it’s OK for him to say it.
Lee Siegel, culture critic for the New York Times wrote during the Obama/Romney presidential race that Mitt Romney was “the whitest white man to run for president in recent memory.” This not so subtle insult is due to the fact that Mitt Romney is a Latter-day Saint, and Latter-day Saints have been branded uber homogeneous. As shocking as that is to us Latter-day Saints, why does the general public have the perception that Latter-day Saints are the “whitest people” in the world and that we’re racist?
It’s approaching 200 years since the restoration of the church and according to Joseph Smith’s prophecy, it has spread from New York to “fill North and South America—it [has] fill[ed] the world. (Wilford Woodruff, in Conference Report, Apr. 1898)” We have young men, young women and retired couples from all over the world, serving missions all over the world and learning every conceivable language to seek out and invite people to join the church from every socio-economic walk of life, every religion and every race. We have churches and temples all over the world. Let’s face it, there are some strange false perceptions about us, but in the 21st century, “white and racist” is one of those prejudices that is demonstrably false. So why do so many people perceive us like that? It’s because there was a priesthood ban imposed in the 19th century for anyone of African descent… and it wasn’t lifted until 1978. Yeah, I’m thinking that might do it.
But wasn’t the whole world racist back then? And when the restoration began in the United States, there were similar bans on African Americans in other popular religions as well. The Baptists split into two factions over the race issue, that’s why we have the American Baptist Convention and Southern Baptist Convention. The Methodists spit into northern and southern methodists over slavery, but nobody remembers that either. The world we live in today grew out of a very different world that you and I wouldn’t recognize or tolerate today. Antagonists to the restored church would have you focus on this as evidence that the claims of the church must be false.
This ban, for me personally, is probably the most embarrassing mistake in the history of the Church. You’ll note that I called it a mistake and I’m going to explain the history of that mistake in a way that most Latter-day Saints may not have ever heard. I’m going to bring things up that we have forgotten as a people over many generations. And if you are of the belief that the priesthood ban was not an error, but that it was a divine mandate that changed over time… this is very much intended for you because the Church has officially refuted all of those speculative theories as false, they’re rubbish. You must never, ever, believe, teach or let be taught in this church that there was ever a divine racial priesthood ban, ever, in the history of the world. We only have evidence that the doctrines of exaltation have ever been taught as the gospel of Christ, and no repentant man or woman is ever barred from it, and priesthood and temple ordinances are essential to obtain that exaltation.
But Shane, this is The Church of Jesus Christ, established by Christ himself, through revelation. I know! But mistakes like this cannot occur! Oh really, what’s your proof of that? All the scriptures we have tell a story of imperfect men, called to be God’s prophets or apostles, to lead an imperfect people on a path to perfection from imperfection and the Lord allows us to muff it up along the way and through out the generations. Some call this the ‘Samuel Principle’ where the Lord allows us to err if we insist. It’s called the Samuel principal, because of the story of the children of Israel who did not want the Lord God to be their king. They wanted a powerful monarch to sit on a spectacular throne like all the other nations who had great kings. Samuel was upset , but the Lord said “they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me.” —1 Samuel 8:7
In Genesis, Moses tells the story of the patriarchal fathers before him, full of bizarre imperfections and cultural oddities that we cringe at and anti-Christians gloat over. Moses himself was forbidden to enter the promised land because of his imperfections and disobedience. The story of the children of Israel, God’s chosen people span centuries of triumphs and failures in doing the will of God. Paul’s epistles to the churches, who had already been established in the truth, testify that the Saints struggled with the difficulty of letting go of traditions, that they misunderstood established doctrines and that they suffered from cultural conflicts of every kind.
The Doctrine and Covenants records the wrestle with the Lord and his people during the restoration to shake off their culture and tradition that was in opposition to the true doctrine and commandments of God. The word of wisdom was introduced several times before it became a standard. The law of consecration is something that was practiced a few times in the early church and something we do not live in its fulness today, but will be practiced in its fulness at a future date.
All of our scriptures, ancient and modern, testify of this imperfection among the people of God, despite the fact that they had prophets and revelation. We continue to plug along refining each generation until we as a people get it right.
As we dive into the last 200 years of church and US History to understand what happened, there is something you need to know that most of you are not going to believe. The stereotype of church being “white and racist” today, is the exact polar opposite of what antagonists accused the church of for nearly the first 100 years.
As many of you already know, the term “Mormon” began as a derogatory term given to us. But did you know that it had developed racial connotations? Did you know that outsiders spoke of “Mormons” as a race? And the race of Mormons were considered race traders by white America.
In order to understand this, we need a bit of U.S. historical context that we don’t really have today. You need to know a few peripheral things if you really want to understand. If you don’t really want to understand, may I suggest a plethora of Anti-Mormon channels that like to just spout twisted facts and bigotry… or these cute cat videos. Adorable!
If you would like to understand the genesis of our current reputation in contrast to the first 100 years of our reputation, we need to go back to the church in Kirtland Ohio and Jackson County Missouri in the 1830’s. You have the Book of Mormon hot off the press and to fulfill an ancient promise and prophecy in the Book of Mormon, the Lord is going to provide a sign to the Lamanites and all the house of Israel that will mark the commencement of the much prophesied second and final gathering of Israel. After his resurrection, the Lord says in 3 Nephi:
“And verily I say unto you, I give unto you a sign, that ye may know the time when these things shall be about to take place—“ What things? “… that I shall gather in, from their long dispersion, my people, O house of Israel, and shall establish again among them my Zion; And behold, this is the thing which I will give unto you for a sign—for verily I say unto you that when these things which I declare unto you [now]… shall come forth of the Father… unto you[r posterity]… (BOM) And when these things come to pass that thy seed [the descendants of the people Christ is talking to at the moment] shall begin to know these things—it shall be a sign unto them, that they may know that the work of the Father hath already commenced unto the fulfilling of the covenant which he hath made unto the people who are of the house of Israel.” —3 Nephi 21: 1-7
And the Lord told Joseph Smith in 1828,“And for this very purpose are these plates preserved, which contain these records—that the promises of the Lord might be fulfilled, which he made to his people… And that the Lamanites might come to the knowledge of their fathers, and that they might know the promises of the Lord, and that they may believe the gospel and rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ.” —Doctrine & Covenants 3:19-20
Only a few months after the church was officially established and the Book of Mormon is finally printed for the world to read, Oliver Cowdry, Peter Whitmer, Parley P. Pratt and Ziba Peterson are called on a mission directly to the Lamanites. They begin at an Indian reservation in New York but their ultimate destination is the western border of Missouri where the exiled Lamanites were gathered just outside the current United States border. After arduously fulfilling prophecy and taking the Book of Mormon to the Lamanites, the prophet Joseph Smith was told in a revelation that the New Jerusalem or the capital city of Zion, for the gathering of Israel would be built in Jackson County Missouri. Fulfilling the prophecies of Christ in the Book of Mormon by providing the sign.
As the Saints began to gather in Jackson county and buy up land, it is discovered by the Missourians that the Saints hold the Native Americans in high esteem and invite them to join with them in the church. This was preposterous to the Missourians at the time, and let’s not just pick on the Missourians because it was the sentiment of the rest of the United States. The Indian Removal Act is soon to be ratified and thousands of Native Americans will die on a forced winter march famously known as the trail of tears, where nearly 60,000 Native Americans were forced out of what was then the United States into the western territories.
In order to keep this short and sweet as possible we’ll just cut to the most essential and relevant points. Things were not going well for the Saints in Missouri, or in Kirtland Ohio where the church headquarters were. As the struggling Saints in Kirtland broke ground for the first temple, the non-Latter-day Saint citizens of Missouri threatened the Saints with a five point declaration that was unanimously adopted by the four to five hundred gentlemen recorded to be in attendance at the meeting. The following unbelievable points were to be strictly observed by the Latter-day Saints, or else severe consequences would follow.
No more Mormons will be allowed to move into the county… The Mormons who have moved into the county over the last couple of years, must pack it up and say goodbye to their homes, farms and businesses.
The Evening and Morning Star news paper will shut down and all Mormon businesses will close and immediately cease to conduct business. (Reminds me a bit of Crystal Night in Nazi Germany – look it up)
The Mormon leaders will keep others from moving in, and get the ones already in the county to move out.
Those who fail to comply… [should] be referred to those of their brethren who have the gifts of divination… to inform them of the lot that awaits them.’
After the exact wording of the threats were agreed upon, a committee of 12 men was formed to take the ultimatum to Bishop Partridge. Two hours later, they returned, and the meeting resumed.
“…the committee of twelve reported that they had called on Mr. Phelps, the editor of the Star; Edward Partridge, the Bishop of the sect; and Mr. Gilbert, the keeper of the Lord’s store house; and some others; and that they declined giving any direct answer to the requisitions made of them, and wished an unreasonable time for consultation…” Because time to consult was what was unreasonable here… Not their request.
Do you understand? These people who had lived in the county for years, who had bought land, built homes, farms and businesses were simply told to get out. And this committee returned shocked, that the Saints were shocked at this outrageous request. And because the Satins did not agree, right there and then, to comply with their demands, this is what was recorded as their response.
“…it was unanimously resolved by the meeting, that the Star printing office should be razed to the ground (that means Edward Partridge’s home slash printing office would be cut to the ground), the type and press secured (in this case it meant destroyed). Which resolution was, with the utmost order, and the least noise and disturbance possible, forthwith carried into execution, as also some other steps of a similar tendency; but no blood was spilled, nor any blows inflicted. The meeting then adjourned…”
Though they recorded that there was no bloodshed or blows inflicted, there are those of you that are familiar with some of the events that happened when this resolution was executed. Through tremendous violence, the Partridge home and printing office was pulled down and utterly destroyed. Edward Partridge and W. W. Phelps were ruthlessly beaten, stripped of their clothing and burned when they were tarred and feathered. You may recall that the first printing of the Doctrine & Covenants was being printed at this time and it was through the heroic efforts of two young women named Caroline and Mary Elizabeth Rollins who collected as many of the printed pages as they could, and saved the book at great physical risk.
By the end of the Missouri period, the violence against the Saints escalated to a state sanctioned extermination order granted by the dishonorable Governor of Missouri, Lilburn W. Boggs. I will not go into the death and atrocities that took place under executive order 44, but it was enough for Governor Christopher Bond to formally remove the extermination order from the state’s books in 1976 during the United States bicentennial celebration, and apologize for the atrocities on behalf of the state.
So if the subject is racism, why are we talking about this history that very few Americans know about? Well, you should be asking yourself, “why?” Why would this society go to such extremes as genocide? Well, once again, there was a public meeting about it and they unabashedly wrote it down in what they called “The Manifesto” and even published it in the news paper so that future generations would not have to guess why they did it. They start by explaining why they had to destroy the LDS news paper.
“…there is an article inviting free negroes… from other states to become “Mormons,” and remove and settle among us [in Jackson county]. This exhibits [the Mormons] in still more odious colors (no pun intended I’m sure). It manifests a desire on the part of their society, to inflict on our society an injury that they know would be to us entirely insupportable, and one of the surest means of driving us from the country (Remember, all of this because the Saints invited free negros to join them in the county); for it would require none of the supernatural gifts that they pretend to, to see that the introduction of such a caste amongst us would corrupt our blacks, and instigate them to bloodshed.” (Which is probably true. If the slaves saw other black people being treated with more respect and dignity than they’ve ever seen, it would probably stir things up for the slave owners.)
…we believe it a duty we owe to ourselves, our wives, and children, to the cause of public morals (ah, playing the morality card… for slavery and genocide), to remove them from among us, as we are not prepared to give up our pleasant places and goodly possessions to them or to receive into the bosom of our families, as fit companions for our wives and daughters, the degraded and corrupted free negroes… that are now invited to settle among us.
“Under such a state of things, even our beautiful county would cease to be a desirable residence, and our situation intolerable. … [if] they refuse to leave us in peace, as they found us–we agree to use such means as may be sufficient to remove them, and to that end we each pledge to each other our bodily powers, our lives, fortunes and sacred honors.”
One week later the meeting resumed and they emphasized again their justification as to why they had no choice but to do what they did.
“[We] deem it proper to lay before the public an expose of our peculiar situation, in regard to this singular sect of pretended Christians; and a solemn declaration of our unalterable determination to amend it.”
“The evil is one that no one could have foreseen, and is therefore unprovided for by the laws… little more than two years ago, some two or three of these people made their appearance on the Upper Missouri, and they now number some twelve hundred souls in this county; and each successive autumn and spring pours forth its swarms among us, with a gradual falling of the character of those who compose them; until it seems that those communities from which they come, were flooding us with the very dregs of their composition. Elevated, as they mostly are, but little above the condition of our blacks, either in regard to property or education; they have become a subject of much anxiety on that part, serious and well grounded complaints having been already made of their corrupting influence on our slaves…”
“One of the means resorted to by them, in order to drive us to emigrate, is an indirect invitation to the free brethren of color in Illinois, to come up like the rest… The article alluded to, contained an extract from our laws, and all necessary directions and cautions to be observed by colored brethren, to enable them upon their arrival here, to claim and exercise the rights of citizenship. Contemporaneous with the appearance of this article, was the expectation among the brethren here, that a considerable number of this degraded caste (free negros) were only awaiting this information before they should set out on their journey.”
“With the corrupting influence of these on our slaves, and the stench, both physical and moral, that their introduction would set afloat in our social atmosphere, and the vexation that would attend the civil rule of these fanatics, it would require neither a visit from the destroying angel, nor the judgments of an offended God, to render our situation here insupportable.”
As you can see, inviting black Saints to join them in Missouri was the key component that they claimed made the situation “untenable,” and though they confess their resolution to this problem was “unprovided for by the laws,” they did murder men and children, tortured women, stole their food and property, and drove them out of their homes in the middle of winter and out of the state of Missouri, into Quincy Illinois as refugees.
In the spring of 1839, they purchased some swamp land in Illinois and called it Nauvoo, where they congregated closer together. Here they were able to build up a city that was essentially their own, but it wasn’t long before the same problems arose. Now from here on out I’m going to be quoting a lot from an excellent book entitled, “Religion of a Different Color” by Paul W. Reeve. His research on the subject of race in church and US history has been mind-blowing and very uncomfortable to read. This is where we will see a history of the Latter-day Saints that very few people know. I’m only going to be touching upon the highlights of this subject, so if you want the tons of evidence and research and greater detail you’re just going to have to read the book and the other books he quotes, and I wouldn’t blame you if you just wanted to watch these cute cat videos, studying racism is a drag.
What Paul Reeves brings to light is that in its earliest history, the growing church began to be racialized by outsiders. This would never dawn on us today because America was mostly made up of white European immigrants and the church at the time was mostly white Americans and European immigrants. The Native Americans and black African slaves were definitely not part of American society at the time, and when those early Saints began to accept the savage Indians and free blacks into their society beginning in the 1830’s, this was radically liberal thinking.
“Edward Strutt Abdy, a British official on tour of the United States in 1833 and 1834, pointed to this very openness as one potential source of tension between the Mormons and broader society. He noted that the Mormons lived in common and honored the principles of “equality and harmony” in their interactions with each other, including with Indians and blacks. Abdy specifically pointed to the Book of Mormon’s lofty ideal that “all are alike unto God,” including black and white, bound and free, male and female, and heathen, Jew, and Gentile (2 Nephi 26:33). With such an expansive vision articulated in the Mormons’ new book of scripture, it was no wonder that they were persecuted, Abdy wrote. The perception that they were too inclusive earned them fear and scorn in a national culture that favored exclusion, segregation, and even the extermination of undesirable “races.”” —Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
In order to prejudice people towards the gospel message the Saints began sharing with the world, they branded the Mormons of the 1830’s and 1840’s as “non-white.” This the exact opposite prejudice that outsiders use to insult us today.
“Joseph Smith surrounded himself with “thieves adulterers, fornicators, pic-pockets, cut throats, knaves and Murders.” They were a disparate and unseemly gathering of hangers-on, people of “all nations and colours such as could not stay any where else.” “The population of the holy city [of Nauvoo] … is rather of a mixed kind.” “The general gathering of the saints has… brought together men of all classes and characters. The great majority of them are uneducated and unpolished people… A great proportion of them consist of converts from the English manufacturing districts… As outsiders perceived it, then, Mormons were far too inclusive in the creation of their religious kingdom. They accepted “all nations and colours,” they welcomed “all classes and characters,” they included “aliens by birth” and people from “different parts of the world” as members of God’s earthly family.” -Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
Sounds like what Christ was accused of when he walked the streets of Jerusalem.
“W.W. Phelps wrote in 1835 that “all the families of the earth … should get redemption … in Christ Jesus,” regardless of “whether they are descendants of Shem, Ham, or Japheth.” Another publication declared that all people were “one in Christ Jesus … whether it was in Africa, Asia, or Europe.” Apostle Parley P. Pratt similarly professed his intent to preach “to all people, kindred, tongues, and nations without any exception” and included “India’s and Afric’s sultry plains” in a poetic expression of his global dream for [the gospel]. Even one outside observer noted that Ohio Saints honored “the natural equality of mankind, without [excluding] the native Indians or the African race.” It was an open attitude that may have gone too far for its time and place. That same observer noted that the Mormon stance toward Indians and blacks was at least partially responsible for “the cruel persecution by which they have suffered.” In his mind the Book of Mormon ideal that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white,” made it unlikely that the Saints would “remain unmolested in the State of Missouri.” —Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
It is in this context that you must understand the evolution of the priesthood ban. These people have family members and loved ones that were killed and buried in Missouri, Nauvoo and the frozen western plains, where hundreds and hundreds of Saints lost their lives as they escaped this persecution in the United States.
And you must understand the rumor mill back then wasn’t just the pain and suffering resulting from a reputation being ruined. These particular rumors and stories were designed to destroy the Saints in the most literal sense. And you would think that once they left America and went to the Rocky Mountains that they would be safe.
But, “In 1857, just ten years following the arrival of the Mormons as religious refugees in the Great Basin, they gained a profound understanding of the depth of suspicions then percolating in Washington, DC, about them. In what would come to be called the “Utah War,” the most extensive and expensive military expedition between the US-Mexican War and the Civil War, President James Buchanan ordered a 2,500-man army to Utah…” —Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
This massive army was sent to quell a rumored Mormon military rebellion against the United States and to remove Brigham Young as the territorial governor.
“Though Brigham Young had properly been installed as governor of the territory, he had been given no notice of the coming of the troops. Not knowing what to expect, the Mormon leaders made preparation. They determined that no other group, armed or otherwise, would again inhabit the homes which they had built. They concluded that if it became necessary they would make Utah the desert it had been before their arrival.” -Truth Restored – Gordon B. Hinkley
42. Colonel Thomas L. Kane who actually knew the Latter-day Saints, petitioned the President to let him go to Utah and find out what was really going on. Through his efforts, the President was persuaded to send a “peace commission” to Utah the next year, in 1858. Brigham Young agreed that the army could pass through the city, but not camp with in it.
“When the soldiers entered the valley they found the city desolate and deserted except for a few watchful men armed with flint and steel and sharp axes. The homes and barns were filled with straw ready to be [set on fire] in case of violation, and axes were ready to destroy the orchards. -Truth Restored – Gordon B. Hinkley
Not trusting why the soldiers were there and having been lied to and deceived before by government leaders, the people had moved south, leaving their new homes to be burned and their orchards to be destroyed… essentially saying to this army, you’ve taken our homes and farms in Kirtland, you took them in Missouri and you burned our temple and took our city of Nauvoo… if you take Salt Lake City, this time, you’ll be inheriting ashes.
Some of the army officers and men were deeply affected as they marched through the silent streets, realizing what their coming had meant. Colonel Philip St. George Cooke, who had led the Mormon Battalion years earlier who
“knew of the wrongs previously inflicted on these people, bared his head in reverent respect.” -Truth Restored – Gordon B. Hinkley
There was no fray, the army found no sign of the rumored rebellion agains the United States and passed through the city. Now, what on earth does this history have to do with the subject of the priesthood ban? It’s important that you understand that the Saints never ceased trying to defend themselves against the most egregious accusations possible. Accusations that today would be considered ridiculous, but back then led to everything from slandering their reputations, to murdering them.
You see, this new open attitude with other races led to one of the biggest racial fears of the 19th century, “amalgamation.” The term comes from metallurgy and it simply means to mix different kinds of metals. But amalgamation of races was extremely taboo in 19th century America, even among avid abolitionists. In fact, there were laws strictly forbidding marriage between races with severe punishments, you could loose your life. So as the Saints began to fraternize openly with what outsiders called “degraded casts or classes,” they began to forfeit their claim as white Americans.
This new attitude of equality lead to the Latter-day Saints accepting interracial marriages. You see, we do have surviving documents that records Church leaders encouraging men to marry Native American women for example. But outsiders accused Mormons of causing racial decline. We also have some black Saints marrying white women, what do you think the newspapers had to say when they found that out?
You see, in the beginning, there are records of black members and black men holding the priesthood. Elijah Ables received his priesthood in 1836 and was ordained a seventy the same year and he ended up serving 3 missions for the church and he baptized converts into the church. In fact, he went through the Kirtland temple and received his washing and anointing ordinance, and he even participated in baptisms for the dead in Nauvoo, all of these missions and ordinances require the priesthood. Walker Lewis received the priesthood in 1844, he’s one who marries a white woman. In the words of brother Oz Call, brother Green Flake (a black elder) earned a reputation in Idaho Falls as “the best damn missionary we have,” it was different time and place. Other black men were also ordained to the priesthood, but check this out. Even after the supposed ban, Elijah Ables’ son Enoch Ables, also receives the priesthood… in 1900. And Enoch Ables’ son Elijah receives the priesthood in 1935! And these are all verified in church history.
This unprecedented interracial acceptance in the 1830’s and 1840’s led to unprecedented persecution of the Saints and led them down a path that stripped them of the high honor of “White Americans” and placed them with the black slaves as a degraded race.
“As early as the 1840s, some cultural observers began to speak of a “Mormon race” but always in terms of racial regression, never racial progress…Their appearance was distinct enough “that one acquainted with them could tell a Mormon when he met him by the look upon his face almost as well as if he had been of a different color.” —Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
The New York Herald reported that “excitement” against the Mormons was “increasing very fast” in the vicinity of Nauvoo…, “The conduct of Jo. Smith and the other leaders, is such as no community of white men can tolerate.” —Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
In 1842, John C. Bennett wrote an exposé and “expressed a growing sentiment designed to racialize the Mormons and call their whiteness into question. He told his readers of the Mormons’ plan to one day return to Jackson County, Missouri, where “in that delightful and healthy country they expect to find their Eden, and build the New Jerusalem.” This religious vision was too much for the embittered Bennett to stomach. “Joe had better take another look through his peep-stone,” Bennett wrote, because the Lord intended that “white folks, and not Mormons, shall possess that goodly land.” —Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
Even as, “Illinois Governor Thomas Ford recounted his version of events surrounding the murder of the Smith brothers, he recalled the heightened desire among the most rabid outsiders “for the extermination of the Mormon race.” A History of Illinois – Thomas Ford
What made the situation for the Saints even worse, was when they began to openly practice polygamy, which caused the rumor mill to work overtime. Many perceived polygamy as a massive step backwards into barbarism and and feared it would spill over into amalgamation, which it did. The Saints fled Nauvoo and the United States and found safety in the Rocky Mountains where they could live for a few short years in relative peace, but popular imagination ran wild with stories about the Mormons out west.
But these weren’t some run of the mill gossip columns getting people to believe wholeheartedly that “Mormons” have horns, which people actually believed. No, medical doctors and scientists began publishing in news papers and medical journals all over the world about this new degraded “Mormon Race” that was resulting from this racially open church that practiced polygamy and amalgamation. The next 50 years can be distilled in this cartoon printed in Life Magazine in 1904. “Mormon Elder-Berry – Out with his six year olds, who take after their mothers.”
Now this heterogeneous impression is not how the media sees the church membership today, remember, they want people today to believe the opposite, that we’re a white church and racist. But this racially diverse family is how the world saw the Saints as late as 1904 when racial diversity was not popular! Aside from the polygamy and the traditional clothing, this is how we Latter-day Saints see the church today, growing in diversity. But this wasn’t meant as a complement to the Saints in 1904, this is the culmination of decades of racial criticism, we were race traders in 1904 and this is what anti-mormons wanted white America and Europe to see, so that we would be despised by the world. Today, the anti-mormon wants you to see us as the complete opposite, white and racist, so that we will be despised by the world. This cartoon was,
“intended as a lingering critique, a holdover from the nineteenth century when politicians, Protestant ministers, journalist, news editors, overland migrants, dime novelists, graphic artists, and others contributed to the construction of mythic mixed-race Mormon families…” —Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
Mormons were by no means willing to leave the definition of their identity to others. The Mormon body, thus, became a battleground on which the LDS hierarchy and the federal government grappled to inscribe very different values, laws, and morality signifying either racial ascendancy or racial deterioration.
Outsiders suggested that Mormons were physically different and racially more similar to marginalized groups than they were to white people. Mormons responded with aspirations toward whiteness… Mormons in the nineteenth century recognized their suspect racial position. One leader complained that Mormons were treated as if they were “some savage tribe, or some colored race of foreigners” while another acknowledged that the Saints were not “considered suitable to live among ‘white folks.’” —Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
The battle over the Mormon race went back and forth in the newspapers and tabloids for decades. This period of church history is during a time that the Saints were making every effort to be Americans. They had to leave America for their safety but they struggled for years to obtain Statehood and recognition as American citizens.
And just so you can understand how destructive the bigotry and rumors were, I’m going to introduce another element that is crucial to understand. Articles in national and international news papers said that the women of Utah are treated like slaves and suffer worse than the black plantation slaves in the old south. I need to point out also that there are endless records of people being shocked and disappointed that the Mormons they finally encountered, didn’t actually look any different nor did they have horns, which goes to show the ludicrous extent of peoples gullibility about us.
“It is marvelous what foolish, preposterous things are spread about the state of things in Utah,” one missionary in England wrote to Brigham Young in 1861. He could not imagine “the absurdities believed.” He was particularly pleased that he had brought his wife with him on his mission, simply because it allowed him to refute the charge of white slavery so prevalent in England. “There are such ludicrous and ridiculous stories afloat here and in print about the cruelty to women in Utah, that they are all slaves, dare not write, are whipped, sold, … and none ever get away or return to England,” he wrote. Fortunately, his wife offered “living refutation to such base fabrications.” He noted that “many strangers, men and women, have called on purpose to see her and converse, in order that they may give the lie to such foul reports.” —Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
Because of the slanders spread about the condition of LDS women, Utah politicians eagerly passed legislation that would give women their own voice and granted Utah women the right to vote. In February 1869, the first woman in America voted in a municipal election Utah. Anti-Mormon politicians supported the idea of Mormon women voting in hopes that it would give them the power to end Mormon tyranny and polygamy. When the women of Utah overwhelmingly supported the supposed despot political leaders, congress took away women’s right to vote. It wasn’t until the Saints ended polygamy and Utah finally gained statehood in 1896, that congress allowed the women the right to vote in Utah… again.
But who remembers that Latter-day Saint women were the first women to freely vote in the United States? Who remembers when the rest of the United States followed like 37 years later? The first canton in Switzerland didn’t allowed their women the right to vote until 1971. It wasn’t until 1991, when the last canton made it possible that all Swiss women could vote, but nobody picks on Switzerland for that today.
In1843, while mainstream society was debating whether the degraded black slaves even had souls, nobody remembers that Joseph Smith was radically teaching,
“they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability.” Joseph Smith Papers volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843]
Nobody remembers that and I guarantee that nobody remembers this.
I’m sure you’ve all heard of the Broadway play “The Book of Mormon.” It is a big musical hit in New York City that satirically pokes fun of white missionaries from Salt Lake City that serve in Uganda. This thinly veiled poke at the Saints racial contrast isn’t the first though. As we go back again in time, we find the satirical poke at the Saints is at the the complete opposite end of the spectrum. Between the 1880’s and the 1920’s there was a musical genre called “Coon songs.” For those you outside of the United States, “Coon” is a derogatory name given to African Americans, so don’t use that word. And and for about four decades “Coon songs” were very popular in the US and even the UK.
“In coon songs blacks were stereotyped as “ignorant and indolent,” “devoid of honesty or personal honor, given to drunkenness and gambling, utterly without ambition, sensuous, libidinous, even lascivious.” The songs additionally served to reinforce white ideas about the necessity for segregation… the most important barrier of all—the boundary separating ‘us’ from ‘them.’” Race and sex were at the heart of the threats whites projected onto blacks in the coon songs, especially the lurking suspicions about “their sensuous nature and the unrestrained quality of their sexuality.” All of these elements came together when Broadway performer Elphye Snowden took to the stage for a concert at the New York Theater on Sunday, 29 January 1905 and performed “The Mormon Coon”. The Music Trade Review called “The Mormon Coon” a “great coon novelty hit” published by New York music executive Sol Bloom.” —Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
The 1905 hit song “The Mormon Coon” goes a little like this,
“I’ve got a big brunette. And a blonde to pet, I’ve got ‘em short, fat, thin and tall … I’ve got a Cuban gal, And a Zulu pal. They come in bunches when I call: And that’s not all—I’ve got ‘em pretty too, Got a homely few, I’ve got ‘em black to octoroon. I can spare six or eight. Shall I ship ‘em by freight? For I am the Mormon coon.” —The Mormon Coon
“Rather than an anomaly, “The Mormon Coon” fit into a broad, complex, and changing pattern of racialization that focused intently upon Mormons and constructed them as physically—not just religiously—different.” —Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
An African American news paper, the New York Age suggested in 1891, “The Mormon and Negro questions are alike.” The consequences would be dire if those two undesirable groups merged: “The days of the white race are numbered in this country,” one news account predicted. “North America will be another African continent inside of two centuries.” At the crux of this fearful deterioration was the “American of the future”— “a black Mormon.” —Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
“Mormons, like other marginalized groups, experienced pressure to perform whiteness, to abandon the aspects of their culture—and in this case, their religion—that marked them too easily black. For Mormons this meant abandoning polygamy and all of the perceived racial violations it embodied, but it also meant claiming whiteness. In Jim Crow [or segregated] America whiteness as a function of citizenship was “measured in distance from blackness.” —Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
And unfortunately, to fight this perception of being a degenerate and deformed race, and to become acceptable Americans again, the fight for acceptance led down an unfortunate path that would distance themselves from blackness, which included their black brothers and sisters.
It’s important to remember that in the 1850’s the Saints were struggling for survival in the Rocky Mountains, they were struggling for recognition as American citizens, they were struggling to be accepted as normal people and to live their religion in safety and peace amid decades of radical persecution and the grossest slander. It was during this time as new temples were being built that black members began to be denied ordinances and the priesthood as kind of a return to the status quo for freed slaves. But as time went on the question was now being asked, why is a ban being introduced now?
When ever we ask why, we search for reasons and at the time, there weren’t any. Some began to say that Joseph Smith had set the ban in place. But you have the family line of Elijah Ables that held the priesthood from father to son to grandson up to 1935. Was there a priesthood ban or wasn’t there? No new black members could hold the priesthood but history tells us that black men did hold the priesthood. Was that a mistake?
As the ban became a policy of the church, again the question of “why” begins to produce theories. The most prominent was one that had been around long before the restoration of the church began. It simply stated, using the Bible as its source, that black people were descendants of Cain, the first murderer, and that Cain’s descendants were cursed for this and would be “servants of servants.” They claimed that black skin marked Cain’s descendants and they were destined to pay for the blood of Able throughout the generations. When slavery of Africans began to be practiced by European Christians, it was made easier to stomach when this story straight from the Bible itself was used to justify slavery. And you can’t argue with the word of God.
Although the restoration of church doctrine clearly refuted this long held Biblical interpretation, this unfounded doctrine was accepted by many as the explanation of the plight of the African slaves. Latter-day Saint speculation took it one step further back to theorize that perhaps the black race were spiritual fence sitters when it came time to support and accept Heavenly Father’s plan of salvation or rebel with Lucifer in his attempted coup.
This doctrinal theory was completely shot down by Brigham Young himself, and had been refuted by the first presidency many times over the decades. As adamant as the prophets of the church have been on this doctrinal subject, it is a pesky theory that won’t seem to die a needed permanent death.
As time goes on through American history, the race issue finally comes to a head in the 1960’s. It was a period of social strain in America like non other. Decades of imposed segregation and institutional racism had finally met its match with a society that wanted change. But by now, the question of blacks and the priesthood was a firm policy that went back as far as anyone alive could remember.
In 1969 the First Presidency again affirmed civil rights for blacks: “We believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have full Constitutional privileges as members of society.” Yet priesthood restriction, as a religious matter, “has no bearing on matters of civil rights” and could not change without a revelation from God: “Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation.” —Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
“At the same time, Hugh B. Brown, a counselor in the First Presidency, pressed to have the priesthood ban rescinded. Brown viewed the restriction as an administrative policy that did not begin with revelation and was therefore subject to modification with no revelation necessary. In contrast, McKay, as president, believed divine intervention necessary regardless of the restriction’s origin, something he reportedly sought but did not receive.”
By 1963, the apostle Spencer Kimble had an open attitude but also felt divine intervention was necessary for such a fundamental change:
“The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory,” Kimball acknowledged, “I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation.” —Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
You see by this time there were several attempts to trace the ban back to its authoritative source, to no avail.
“The possibility for changing the policy increased subtly as scholarly efforts to trace the restriction to its source showed no certain beginnings and shaky reasoning in support of the practice… Armand L. Mauss pointed out the speculative nature of the explanations based on premortal conduct and the “curse of Cain.” He concluded that the policy rested on tradition, not on scriptural mandate.” —Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
Here we have a solid policy that has been in place as long as anyone can remember, but no one knows the source. Spencer W. Kimball was an apostle for many years as these things were being discussed and the possibility that it came about by “error” was realized. And this gave rise to a new theory.
“… change in the policy perhaps depended on LDS members’ willingness to accept black men and women in true fellowship. Lowell Bennion, charismatic Institute of Religion teacher at the University of Utah, felt that members could properly pray for change. In 1963, he pointed out: “God’s revelations . . . depend upon our minds, our eagerness, upon our search, upon our questions, upon our moral disturbances, if you will, upon our needs. . . . It may be that the Lord can’t get through to us sometimes on things. Therefore we ought to be thinking and searching and praying even over this… problem.” —Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
As willing as many were to lift the ban, making a decision like this without divine authorization seemed presumptuous to President Kimball. Many close to Prersident Kimbal worried about him, as he seemed to be struggling with a very heavy burden.
Elder Packer, concerned at President Kimball’s inability to let the matter rest, said, “Why don’t you forget this?” Then Elder Packer answered his own question, “Because you can’t. The Lord won’t let you.” —Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
President Kimball said,
“Revelations will probably never come unless they are desired. I think few people receive revelations while lounging on the couch or while playing cards or while relaxing. I believe most revelations would come when a man is on his tip toes, reaching as high as he can for something which he knows he needs, and then there bursts upon him the answer to his problems.” Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on the Priesthood – Edward L. Kimball
It was in 1978, when Elder Kimball was now the President of the church, that the divine intervention was approvingly given. But what about this forgiveness for the error that Elder Kimble so prophetically spoke of 17 years earlier? Well, I don’t think I would survive a month in 19th century society before my big mouth would get me killed, but I try not to judge historic societies through my social lens. We are all products of our time periods and societies to one degree or another. All generations have to struggle out of their social wrongs. What was tolerable to one society will get you thrown in jail in another. What was acceptable to previous generations is unacceptable today. And I assure you, in two hundred years, todays society will be plenty ashamed of the things that we struggle with today, and hopefully our posterity will not look back at us with a severely critical eye because it takes time to change society. The social struggles of the nineteenth and twentieth century have allows us to enjoy a better twenty first century society.
“I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation.”
That forgiveness came in June 1978 with Kimball at the helm. He stunned Mormons and outsiders alike when he announced a revelation reversing the priesthood ban… The true redemption Kimball ushered in was for the church he led and its mission to share a universal gospel message. It was a mission he guided back from a 130-year detour toward whiteness. Kimball’s revelation returned Mormonism to its universalistic roots and ushered in dramatic transformations.” —Religion of a Different Color – Paul W. Reeve
I have to admit, I had a pretty strong opinion about this issue before writing this episode. Doctrinally, I think it is very clear that a divine racial priesthood ban could never happen, it is counter to the plan of salvation. I believe the priesthood ban was brought about by unimaginable racism, social pressure and life threatening persecution. I believe it was an error, but perhaps it was an error that matched the world’s problems at the time. And the Lord’s church, a bit ahead of its time with its doctrine that “all are alike,” had to work through it just like the rest of the world. The scriptures teach that in the beginning there was one people, and that those people divided, and as if to isolate us from each other to the extreme, even the lands became divided. And as this strange plan of God is drawing to a close, all of us divided people are to work at coming back together, even as the lands are prophesied to come back together, that we can all be one again. Because the Lord said, “if Ye are not one, Ye are not mine.” —Doctrine & Covenants 38:27
If you are interested I’ll leave a link to a short paper titled “Spencer W. Kimball and the revelation on the priesthood.” It filled in a lot of important gaps that changed my perspective and took the edge off my severe judgment of generations past. And I would like to point out that we’ve been focusing on 19th century racism in caucasian Europe and America, but it’s important to understand that racism is a global issue that has its diabolical grip on all races. I say this for my American friends who might think that racism is only in America… you need to get out more.
Now go be anxiously engaged in a good cause.
Follow the link below to a great short document about the revelation to remove the priesthood ban in 1978.
Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on the Priesthood Ban by Edward L. Kimball