I really want to emphasis that this is 100% my opinion and I do not represent anyone at all when I make this opinion, but as a student of history and an outspoken feminist Mormon I thought I would compile my opinion on the matter... do what you want with it.
It seems there has been a lot to do with the embarrassing history of black members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS for short). A lot of it has been kicked up by The Washington Post article about this topic. A lot of people were up in arms about what Bro. Bott said in this article. I'm not going to address his thoughts, I'm sure it's been addressed elsewhere. I'm going to address the sentiment of the time and perhaps put the whole controversy in context.
In 1830 the LDS church was established in upstate New York. In1804 all the Northern states (states north of the Mason-Dixon line) had passed laws to abolish slavery gradually. Congress in 1807 banned the international slave trade. Slavery faded in the border states and urban areas but expanded in highly profitable cotton states of the Deep South.
So let's think about Joseph Smith's background (the founder of the LDS church). Study into his family will show that they are from the North and were pretty progressive in that day and age. Since slavery had been abolished where Smith lived since before his birth I think it's safe to assume he had a pretty progressive stance on the position of African American's as equal citizens. Those beliefs would explain why he was very comfortable with the idea African Americans having the same privileges in the early LDS church as any other person.
Let's now fast forward a few years. The LDS church has bounced around the United States quite a bit. New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Missouri. For those of you who slept through History class, Missouri wasn't exactly the best place to be... it was a frontier state, which are notoriously rough places to live, and a state caught up in constant and somewhat extreme turmoil. In 1820 the Missouri Compromise was passed. It said that slavery would not exist in any of the new territories except Missouri. So the LDS church went from free state to free state to free state to slave state. The slave state status of Missouri was tempestuous and caused a lot of concern for many people. So now imagine if you will, you are a slave owner living in Missouri and a lot of abolitionists (assumption here, since many LDS at this time are from the North, I think it's a safe one) are moving into your state in the 1830's. You would be very wary of the newcomers. They also have a weird new religion and are quickly bringing in many more people every day to live in the state. Wouldn't you assume they're doing this to overturn the slavery laws? Perhaps you think it's best to drive them out, using any means necessary. Now, imagine you're the leader of this new group. You and your followers have put down roots, you've built homes, stores, places of worship, you believe that Missouri is your promised land, wouldn't you want to do anything to you could to stop the persecution? This is the time frame and scenery when the LDS church stopped ordaining their black members to the Priesthood. Is it correct? No, but at a time where a black person was considered not even human by many, treating them as an equal was a very radical idea.
At this time the early LDS church also made a lot of policies during these times in regards to black people. One was that they would not preach to them. The reasoning for this was also founded in the time. When Mormon men went to preach around the US they encouraged members to join the other Saints in Missouri/ Illinois. How could you tell a slave in the south all about the LDS church doctrine and then ask them to join the saints without asking them to run away? That was illegal, so leaders informed the members to not preach to the black/ slave community in the south.
So now let's fast forward again. Joseph Smith has been killed and Brigham Young is chosen to replace him and lead the LDS people during another time of upheaval. This is still a time where the LDS church is growing rapidly and struggling. A lot of people splinter from the LDS church for a variety of reasons, but the basic is that they feel someone else should led the LDS church. If you're a leader in that setting you want to provide leadership and answers for your flock. Brigham Young joined the LDS church right before it moved to Missouri so for most of his membership he didn't see any black men receive the Priesthood and he was a scriptorium. He knew his scriptures, so I'm sure at this time he made what he thought was a solid connection between the curse of Cain/ Ham, black people, and Priesthood rights. He was not alone in this assumption, it was a pretty common thought preached over many pulpits at the time by all denominations.
So then after a very long time the Civil rights movement occurred in the United States. Black people were finally told, separate wasn't equal (1954) and that segregation will not be allowed (1964). It took the United States a long time to get to this point in history. And change was slow. VERY SLOW. They were slow to understand that equality is for all, that the color of your skin doesn't mean you're any different.
The LDS church was also slow. LDS members are taught that anything the previous prophet has said is from God. The major hiccup here is that at the time of Brigham Young's presidency, pretty much anything he said, either as The President of the LDS church or just as Brigham Young, citizen of the US, was recorded and considered doctrine. So how does a church catch up to the times? It waits until its leader brings about new doctrine. I don't know why this doctrine did not come till 1978, but then I consider the LDS belief about how a person receives revelation. The idea being that members of the LDS church receive inspiration after they have studied it out, come to a decision and prayed to God about it. Now the belief at this time was that a Prophet of God said that black men will not receive the Priesthood in this life. It takes a very confident President of the LDS church to decide to go ponder, make a decision and ask God if you're correct that you should overturn something you have always learned was doctrine. I know I could never be that bold, I am very grateful that Spencer W. Kimball was; as "late" as he was.
I am not trying to defend the actions of the past, I am very happy I live in an equal rights slave free world, but I thought seeing everything through a historical perspective is important to understand why people did what they did.
Many people argue that the LDS church should release a statement saying that Brigham Young was wrong. I truly believe that will never happen. I think it would shake many people. To say that something a President/ Prophet said was wrong is to call into question every single one of his other statements and the authority, most LDS people believe he had. LDS people believe he was the mouthpiece of God. So the LDS church will say that Bro. Bott was wrong, but it will never officially come out and say a prophet was.
So on behalf of me I would like to say sorry. I'm sorry people with different skin tones were (and still are) treated poorly. And I'm personally sorry that the church I belong to wasn't ahead of the curve when it comes to Equal Rights.
Feel free to comment and share differing opinions or insights...
References:
My own extensive knowledge of LDS history
My own extensive knowledge of US history
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/2012/mormonisms-negro-doctrine-an-historical-overview/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_compromise
It seems there has been a lot to do with the embarrassing history of black members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS for short). A lot of it has been kicked up by The Washington Post article about this topic. A lot of people were up in arms about what Bro. Bott said in this article. I'm not going to address his thoughts, I'm sure it's been addressed elsewhere. I'm going to address the sentiment of the time and perhaps put the whole controversy in context.
In 1830 the LDS church was established in upstate New York. In1804 all the Northern states (states north of the Mason-Dixon line) had passed laws to abolish slavery gradually. Congress in 1807 banned the international slave trade. Slavery faded in the border states and urban areas but expanded in highly profitable cotton states of the Deep South.
So let's think about Joseph Smith's background (the founder of the LDS church). Study into his family will show that they are from the North and were pretty progressive in that day and age. Since slavery had been abolished where Smith lived since before his birth I think it's safe to assume he had a pretty progressive stance on the position of African American's as equal citizens. Those beliefs would explain why he was very comfortable with the idea African Americans having the same privileges in the early LDS church as any other person.
Let's now fast forward a few years. The LDS church has bounced around the United States quite a bit. New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Missouri. For those of you who slept through History class, Missouri wasn't exactly the best place to be... it was a frontier state, which are notoriously rough places to live, and a state caught up in constant and somewhat extreme turmoil. In 1820 the Missouri Compromise was passed. It said that slavery would not exist in any of the new territories except Missouri. So the LDS church went from free state to free state to free state to slave state. The slave state status of Missouri was tempestuous and caused a lot of concern for many people. So now imagine if you will, you are a slave owner living in Missouri and a lot of abolitionists (assumption here, since many LDS at this time are from the North, I think it's a safe one) are moving into your state in the 1830's. You would be very wary of the newcomers. They also have a weird new religion and are quickly bringing in many more people every day to live in the state. Wouldn't you assume they're doing this to overturn the slavery laws? Perhaps you think it's best to drive them out, using any means necessary. Now, imagine you're the leader of this new group. You and your followers have put down roots, you've built homes, stores, places of worship, you believe that Missouri is your promised land, wouldn't you want to do anything to you could to stop the persecution? This is the time frame and scenery when the LDS church stopped ordaining their black members to the Priesthood. Is it correct? No, but at a time where a black person was considered not even human by many, treating them as an equal was a very radical idea.
At this time the early LDS church also made a lot of policies during these times in regards to black people. One was that they would not preach to them. The reasoning for this was also founded in the time. When Mormon men went to preach around the US they encouraged members to join the other Saints in Missouri/ Illinois. How could you tell a slave in the south all about the LDS church doctrine and then ask them to join the saints without asking them to run away? That was illegal, so leaders informed the members to not preach to the black/ slave community in the south.
So now let's fast forward again. Joseph Smith has been killed and Brigham Young is chosen to replace him and lead the LDS people during another time of upheaval. This is still a time where the LDS church is growing rapidly and struggling. A lot of people splinter from the LDS church for a variety of reasons, but the basic is that they feel someone else should led the LDS church. If you're a leader in that setting you want to provide leadership and answers for your flock. Brigham Young joined the LDS church right before it moved to Missouri so for most of his membership he didn't see any black men receive the Priesthood and he was a scriptorium. He knew his scriptures, so I'm sure at this time he made what he thought was a solid connection between the curse of Cain/ Ham, black people, and Priesthood rights. He was not alone in this assumption, it was a pretty common thought preached over many pulpits at the time by all denominations.
So then after a very long time the Civil rights movement occurred in the United States. Black people were finally told, separate wasn't equal (1954) and that segregation will not be allowed (1964). It took the United States a long time to get to this point in history. And change was slow. VERY SLOW. They were slow to understand that equality is for all, that the color of your skin doesn't mean you're any different.
The LDS church was also slow. LDS members are taught that anything the previous prophet has said is from God. The major hiccup here is that at the time of Brigham Young's presidency, pretty much anything he said, either as The President of the LDS church or just as Brigham Young, citizen of the US, was recorded and considered doctrine. So how does a church catch up to the times? It waits until its leader brings about new doctrine. I don't know why this doctrine did not come till 1978, but then I consider the LDS belief about how a person receives revelation. The idea being that members of the LDS church receive inspiration after they have studied it out, come to a decision and prayed to God about it. Now the belief at this time was that a Prophet of God said that black men will not receive the Priesthood in this life. It takes a very confident President of the LDS church to decide to go ponder, make a decision and ask God if you're correct that you should overturn something you have always learned was doctrine. I know I could never be that bold, I am very grateful that Spencer W. Kimball was; as "late" as he was.
I am not trying to defend the actions of the past, I am very happy I live in an equal rights slave free world, but I thought seeing everything through a historical perspective is important to understand why people did what they did.
Many people argue that the LDS church should release a statement saying that Brigham Young was wrong. I truly believe that will never happen. I think it would shake many people. To say that something a President/ Prophet said was wrong is to call into question every single one of his other statements and the authority, most LDS people believe he had. LDS people believe he was the mouthpiece of God. So the LDS church will say that Bro. Bott was wrong, but it will never officially come out and say a prophet was.
So on behalf of me I would like to say sorry. I'm sorry people with different skin tones were (and still are) treated poorly. And I'm personally sorry that the church I belong to wasn't ahead of the curve when it comes to Equal Rights.
Feel free to comment and share differing opinions or insights...
References:
My own extensive knowledge of LDS history
My own extensive knowledge of US history
https://www.dialoguejournal.com/2012/mormonisms-negro-doctrine-an-historical-overview/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_compromise
Comments