I embrace wholeheartedly the doctrines and principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I testify of the divine calling and mission of the modern prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., and I believe the church is still graced by the leadership of an authorized prophet who brings inspired guidance to the institution and its members. However, there is at least one item in the church’s history that I find problematic—an example of mortal ignorance and attitudes being advanced as a divine mandate. Men of African descent were not ordained to the priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for nearly 150 years. This was not doctrinal declaration—during the ministry of Joseph Smith, at least two black men were ordained to the Priesthood (Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis), and there were likely many more than them. The Church was one of the first fully racially integrated churches in America—where full membership was extended regardless of skin color, and all meetings were open to all persons. Due to religious and legal conflicts with neighbors, the early church eventually found itself relocated to Missouri, which was a pro-slavery territory. While in Missouri, Joseph Smith enforced the local laws, but he was absolutely an abolitionist. It was not until several years after Joseph’s martyrdom the Brigham Young proclaimed that Blacks would not be ordained due to them being the descendants of Cain (as in Cain and Abel). In an address to the Utah territorial legislature in 1852, he said “any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it. (Interestingly, this would seem to conflict with a statement made by Young in 1847 about a black man recently ordained an Elder: “We have one of the best Elders, an African.”) I believe that confirmation bias among contemporary members of the church gave credence to the idea that there was some spiritual, eternal difference between blacks and whites that justified it. Brigham Young was recognized as the spiritual authority of the time, so his declaration had to be correct, didn’t it? For over 100 years, eminent Mormon theologians, desiring to confirm their bias that the decisions and policies of the early church were divinely inspired, came up with an ongoing rationale to withhold the priesthood from Blacks. As a result, the church completely missed the Civil Rights train, waiting until 1978 to rescind the policy. One of the most prominent theologians, and member of the Quorum of 12 Apostles, Bruce R. McKonkie, was particularly vocal in his rationale of the policy—a rationale that he completely refuted after 1978, acknowledging (to his credit) that he had been 100% wrong. But in the meantime, the blessings of Priesthood service were withheld from thousands and thousands of men, and many more people were deprived of the blessing of the possible service of those men. Entities adversarial to the church can rightly or not accuse the institution of racism, and how many people have declined to learn of the restored Gospel as a result of a questionable history on racial attitudes? But what if Brigham Young was just racist? It’s not as if that would have made him an odd man out in his time. Or perhaps he had a very negative experience with African American folks that led him to his position? It’s discomfiting to acknowledge that someone you sustain as a “prophet of God” can make mistakes or mistake a personal attitude for an eternal doctrine, but I guarantee those very same men we sustain as “prophets” would be the first in line to acknowledge their fallibility and human failings. Some have theorized that Young’s adversarial attitude toward Blacks may have been inspired or exacerbated by the painful experience in Winter Quarters, Nebraska, in 1847: a freed slave and convert named William McCary apostasized in a particularly sensational manner, claiming to be the next prophet, instituting plural marriage, and attracting many Mormon followers. At any rate, Young proclaimed a policy, and those who trusted his judgment and acknowledged his authority began finding justifications for it. The integration of the Church and the abolitionism of its founder were deliberately muted while living in the very hostile environment of Missouri, and this allowed ardent racists to be rather comfortable in full membership (again—not a rare thing; the VAST MAJORITY of whites in America at that time would be considered vile racists by today’s standards). Young’s pronouncements a decade later would not have raised any eyebrows, and likely would have been met with “okay…makes sense I guess.” But the compulsion to justify and confirm that bias—both the racial bias, and the assumption of divine inspiration of Brigham Young—over the next century and more did real harm to real people, and allowed racists to feel comfortable in the church far longer than should have been—and in fact there are probably still some lingerers. Attitudes were allowed to fester, and were even encouraged, that condemned mixed-race marriages and established a spiritual hierarchy arguably based on pre-mortal actions or actions of ancestors, and discussed skin color as a “curse.” I believe it is a justified stain on our institution that it took us so long to repudiate the policy. The Church has acknowledged that the practice derived from mortal attitudes and not divine direction: 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. This statement is interesting in that it appears to be an explicit acknowledgment that Brigham Young’s assertion “in the name of Jesus Christ” was false and misguided. And there should be nothing controversial about that. Truth sets you free and brings you closer to Christ. If you believe a false narrative to be true, then you are truncating your own freedom and spiritual progression. One false narrative is that church leadership is infallible, and their pronouncements are universally doctrinally authoritative. Is it inconceivable that Brigham Young was motivated by some racist animus, one that Joseph Smith would not have tolerated? Of course it is. Ezra Taft Benson, while a member of the Twelve, wrote some startlingly offensive things about pretty much anybody who was not American. Bruce R. McKonkie published his opus “Mormon Doctrine” and had to rewrite portions of it because some of his theological assertions turned out to be the doctrines of men mingled with scripture. Joseph Smith poured gasoline on the already smoldering persecution in Illinois by having the Nauvoo militia seize and destroy the private property of a newspaper that was publishing libelous scandals about the church, and Joseph in particular. These are all instances wherein honest, earnest, diligent leaders trying to fulfill their callings arguably made mistakes or exercised poor judgment. In the case of blacks and the Priesthood, the Church should have been on the pointy end of the stick when it came to dealing with the evils of racism. But because of attempts to justify and rationalize statements of previous church leaders, we were closer to the tail end of the spear. I want to emphasize that I’m not condemning early church leaders or leadership over the years. I’m acknowledging their fallibility. Pretending that this is not in our history, or refusing to discuss it frankly, does not build faith or encourage progression. The Gospel is true. The Church is the only true and living church on the planet, directed by revelation. But it is comprised and administered by people—and people make mistakes. The prophet and founder, Joseph Smith, was virulently opposed to slavery and racism and personally endorsed the ordination of African men to the priesthood. Brigham Young, his successor, apparently developed different views, and appears to have sought to endorse those views as doctrine. Current church leadership has asserted that President Young’s ban was based on a fraudulent theory. President Young’s views may have been completely mainstream in his time, but modern awareness and sensibilities are sufficient to acknowledge that those views are worthy of condemnation. This does not invalidate his ministry or his leadership or his accomplishments—it’s just something else that is true. And I don’t think truth is ever something to be feared or avoided or obfuscated.
Posted on: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 09:06:01 +0000