I was hoping to get this done before the FAIR Conference this past week, but life got in the way so I’m a little late. It was absolutely lovely to meet so many of you in person! I finally got the chance to meet so many friends I’ve only ever met online before, and that was a real treat for me. I also picked up some new books, including one I’ve cited essays from on multiple occasions, so that makes me happy.

There were some fantastic presentations that I will 100% be citing in the future, and I learned a lot, which is always fun for me. Those of us sitting in the back right corner completely geeked out over a few of the presentations, and I can’t wait for the full transcripts and notes to be available. A friend called it “Nerdfest 2023” and he wasn’t wrong, but it was a great time.

One of the scheduled guests had a medical emergency and couldn’t speak—I hear she’s going to be okay, thankfully—and they filled her slot with an impromptu Book of Mormon panel featuring the amazing Mark Wright, Brant Gardner, and Kerry Hull. It was a real highlight seeing those scholars all together like that, even though I’m also sorry we missed the original presentation.

And lastly, I wanted to offer my sincere congratulations to both Dan Peterson for his lifetime achievement award and to Jennifer Roach for being 2023’s recipient of the John Taylor: Defender of the Faith award. Both are very well-deserved and couldn’t happen to more lovely people.

Anyway, we’re still on the difficult topic of race and the Priesthood. The scholarship surrounding this subject has grown by leaps and bounds since the 1960s and ‘70s, but there are still some big questions we don’t have the answers to yet. Some people—including some of my friends—are pretty comfortable making bold declarations on this topic, but I’m not one of them. I don’t like making definitive statements about what happened when I don’t believe the evidence is clear enough to justify making definitive statements. So, I’ll make those clear, unambiguous statements when I feel like the evidence can corroborate what I’m saying, and I’ll refrain from making them when I feel like the evidence is unclear.

This week, the two sub-headings are on slavery among the Saints, and the Church’s stance on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, two topics that I do feel comfortable making strong statements about.

Obviously, like the rest of you, I think that slavery is an appalling institution, and I really struggle with the fact that there were some members—including some apostles—who owned slaves. I don’t understand how you could read the Book of Mormon and come away with the belief that that’s okay. However, I do also think that the leaders of the Church were in a difficult situation with regard to this issue when they arrived in Utah territory. And as I’ve said, I’m not in a position to judge because I don’t know their hearts and minds, and I didn’t grow up in their society.

Anyone who has studied even a tiny bit of US history can tell you that slavery was the main hot-button political issue between approximately 1820-1870. It was a prominent issue before that as well, but it was the main political focus during the early years of the Church. It’s one of the primary reasons that led the to the trouble in Missouri, as Missourians incorrectly believed the Saints were trying to organize a slave rebellion.

In fact, slavery was such a contentious issue in and around Missouri, Congress had to create a special piece of legislation called the Missouri Compromise before allowing Missouri to join the Union as a state. One of the by-products of that Compromise was that the US government began adding new states in an alternating fashion, one slave state followed by one free state, so as not to tip the balance of power in Congress.

This was an obvious factor in Utah Territory’s government, as they had to consider what it would mean for a future bid for statehood.

Another factor they had to consider was that slave-holders had joined the Church and headed West to join the rest of the Saints. This left an open question of the legality of holding slaves in the new territory. While the numbers of slave-holders and slaves were never large, they were still prominent enough that the question would need to be addressed one way or the other. They couldn’t just ignore the issue and hope it’d go away.

The morality of slavery was already leading to large splits in the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian sects, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was trying to hold itself together after the recent murder of its leader and a forced migration westward. The Church had already just recently fractured twice: once over the Kirtland Safety Society, and once when a minority of members opted to stay behind and leave the Church rather than follow the rest of the Saints to the Rocky Mountains. The Church wasn’t in a position yet where it was strong enough to endure another split over the question of slavery. And, unfortunately, many of the members believed that while the ill treatment of slaves was abhorrent, slavery itself was an institution created by God that they had no right to end without divine decree.

The final major complication was that the Native American tribes in the Utah Territory were engaged in a bustling slave trade into Mexico. There is at least one account of some of these slave traders murdering a young slave child in front of the newly arrived Latter-day Saints after they refused to buy the child from them.

After incidents such as those, local LDS leaders started encouraging the members to buy Native American slaves to save their lives, and also to hold the foreign trade at bay by keeping it local. I don’t fully understand the logic behind the latter policy, but it was something Brigham Young preferred so he could keep an eye on it. Some of the Native slaves were adopted as foster children into the families, while many others unfortunately were used as indentured servants.

Utah is the only state/territory in the Union where Native American slavery was legal, and in fact, it was one of several reasons why statehood was delayed. It can be difficult to understand how they didn’t see anything wrong with this, but they were born and raised in a society where that was unfortunately both typical and justified in popular rhetoric.

Slavery in Utah was a different animal than slavery in the South was. There were two laws governing slavery in the territory, one for African-American slaves, and one for Native American slaves.

There were some differences between the two laws, but they were both designed to eventually eliminate slavery altogether. Slaves had to come into the territory willingly and couldn’t be sold or forced to move out of the territory if they didn’t want to leave. Education was required for all slaves. If masters slept with their slaves, even if it was consensual, or they neglected to feed, clothe, or shelter them, or if they abused the slaves, the contracts were null and void and the slaves were to be freed. There were also fines and potential prison sentences for masters if they violated their contracts in any way. There were legal recourses for the slaves and term limits on the slavery imposed, which was very different from Southern slavery. It was more akin to indentured servitude.

Unfortunately, some people did abuse these laws and looked for loopholes, and some of the slaves were treated very badly. The intent, however, was to be better than those in the South and to eventually eliminate the practice entirely.

So, with all of that background in mind, let’s look at what the LFMW has to say about slavery among the Saints:

7. Slavery 

Seeing California as an abundant supply source for Utah, in 1851, President Brigham Young sent a company of 437 saints, lead by Apostles Amasa M. Lyman and Charles C. Rich, to settle in Rancho San Bernardino, California. This company included a large number of slaves. 

“As respects [to] slavery in the territory, we were assured that there was little of it there, yet it is there. Some slaves had been liberated by their owners since they were taken to Utah; others still remain slaves. But the most of those who take slaves there pass over with them in a little while to San Bernardino, a Mormon settlement in California … How many slaves are now held there they could not say, but the number relatively was by no means small. A single person had taken between forty and fifty, and many had gone in with smaller numbers.” (The Latter Day Saints’ Millennial Star, 1855, vol.17, p.63)

This is indeed what the report says. While slavery was illegal in California under the Compromise of 1850, the residents of San Bernardino tended to ignore that law. Latter-day Saints were among those who continued to hold slaves in the area.

Again, this is a difficult mindset to understand. Civil disobedience certainly has its place in society, but to engage in it in favor of slavery is just incomprehensible to us living in our day and age. I’m glad I don’t have to be the one to judge, because I don’t personally know how to weigh those attitudes against the good someone does.

8. Civil Rights 

In February of 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination according to race, religion, or sex. Four years later, Rev. Martin Luther King was martyred for his role as a leader in the movement. After his death, black preachers continued to call for full integration of blacks into white restrooms, buses, schools, jobs, and neighborhoods. 

As a church claiming to be led by Jesus Christ himself, I would expect it to be on the front line in the fight for equal rights for all people.

Now, this is an interesting statement, and I’d want to ask Thomas Faulk why he’d expect that.

One of the reasons the Children of Israel didn’t all recognize the Savior for who He was is because He wasn’t fighting for the civil rights of the Jewish people. He wasn’t leading a military revolt against the Romans to free His people, or anything of the kind. Instead, He taught them to render under Caesar that which is Caesar’s and render unto God that which is God’s, making a clear delineation between the kingdom of men and the kingdom of God. He taught them to turn the other cheek and ignore offenses made against them. He even continued a form of segregation, refusing to teach the Gospel or even to heal people from other communities, instead only preaching to the Jews. It wasn’t until after His death and resurrection that He allowed spreading the Gospel to the rest of the world.

For all of my critics, no, I’m not saying that I think segregation is a good thing. I’m very much in favor of civil rights for all people. What I’m saying is that we need to stop assigning our own thoughts and beliefs to the Savior. This is a big problem in our society today, and we need to be careful that we’re not putting words in His mouth.

While of course the Savior expects us to treat all people with love and charity, He did not push openly to change secular law. And, as difficult as it may be, treating all people with love and charity also means treating people with intolerant views of others with that same love and charity.

I don’t personally blame our prior leaders for not wanting to draw the attention of the federal government, because that had never gone well for them in the past. Our leaders were continuing the same approach they’d held since the 1800s: focusing on building up the kingdom of God and leaving civil matters to local and federal authorities. They were rendering unto Caesar that which was Caesar’s.

Eventually, they realized that by not speaking up, they were giving people the wrong idea and decided to reassess their strategy.

Instead the Church did nothing; in fact, they actually tried to prevent it.

Not exactly. Some members of the Church did nothing, and other members tried to prevent the passage of the Civil Rights Act. But actions of individual members, even those high up in the leadership of the Church, are not the actions of the Church itself. The Church issued a statement in General Conference in 1963, read by Hugh B. Brown, supporting civil rights for all citizens.

In January 1964, member of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles, Delbert L. Stapley, wrote to LDS Michigan Governor, George Romney. Governor Romney would later campaign to be President of the United States, as did his son, Mit Romeny [sic]. In his letter, Elder Stapley urged Governor Romney not to support the Civil Rights Act as it would bring the integration of blacks into society.

Yes, he did. You can read the full letter here. However, this is a personal letter written by an individual. He even says in the letter that he wasn’t writing it in his official capacity as an apostle:

After listening to your talk on Civil Rights, I am very much concerned. Several others have expressed the same concern to me. It does not altogether harmonize with my own understandings regarding this subject; therefore, I thought to drop you a note—not in my official Church position, but as a personal friend. Only President McKay can speak for the Church.

This was one friend writing a letter to another, and he took pains to clearly say that he was speaking as an individual, not as a Church leader.

Faulk then quotes another portion of Stapley’s letter:

“I am sure you know that the Prophet Joseph Smith, in connection with the Negro problem of this country, proposed to Congress that they sell public lands and buy up the Negro slaves and transport them back to Africa from whence they came. I am sure the Prophet, with his vision and understanding, foresaw the problems we are faced with today with this race, which caused him to promote this program. 

When I reflect upon the Prophet’s statements and remember what happened to three of our nation’s presidents who were very active in the Negro cause, I am sobered by their demise. They went contrary to the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith unwittingly, no doubt, but nevertheless, the prophecy of Joseph Smith, “those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel,” has and will continue to be fulfilled.” (Delbert L. Stapley, Letter to Gov. George Romney, January 23, 1964. https://archive.org/stream/DelbertStapleyLetter/delbert_stapley_Letter#page/n0/mode/2up) 

In this letter Elder Stapley warned Governor Romney that support for civil rights was against the will of the Lord as revealed through Joseph Smith. Stapley further cautioned that punishments are in store for those who seek equality in such ways. As evidence for such dire warnings, Stapley wrote that three U. S. Presidents who had fought for equality and civil rights met an untimely death – Lincoln and Kennedy by assassination and Grant by cancer.

Yes, he did. It’s not a good letter, but it also wasn’t written on behalf of the Quorum of the Twelve. This is not the official Church position on the legislation; it is one man’s opinion.

I don’t personally know much about Elder Stapley or his personal views beyond this one letter, so I’m not going to comment on any of that. I’ll just say that I disagree with his views on this matter, and I don’t believe that any of the current leadership of the Church would have any problem with me saying so.

President Ezra Taft Benson gave a talk in general conference after the passing of the Civil Rights Act and before the Church changed its stance on the issue:

Nope. The Church had already publicly announced that it supported civil rights for all citizens four years before this conference address was given.

“There is no doubt that the so-called civil rights movement as it exists today is used as a Communist program for revolution in America. (President Ezra Taft Benson, Trust Not in the Arm of Flesh, General Conference, Ensign, October 1967)

Anyone who knows anything about our latter-day prophets knows that back in the 1960s President Benson was very outspoken on his views against Communism. It is well-known that while he was not a member of the John Birch Society (JBS), he was close friends with its founder and aligned closely with many of their beliefs. Among other things, the JBS spread the view that the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Communist who was working to agitate racial tension in order to fracture American society.

There is some good counsel in this talk, but there’s also a lot of over-the-top rhetoric that would not fly in General Conference today. There’s a reason we’re counseled against hyper-partisanship and extreme political opinions these days.

Again, President Benson was allowed his personal political opinions, even if many of us today would raise our eyebrows at those opinions. This was not the official position of the Church. In fact, in January of 1963, the Church had issued a statement distancing itself from the John Birch Society. 

That is two statements in 1963 alone refuting these claims of Thomas Faulk.

He continues:

The Civil Rights Act brought equal treatment for all people in this country and ended legal segregation. To refer to it as “the so-called civil rights movement” is to belittle its great significance.

I agree, but I also acknowledge that other people are allowed to hold different opinions on that matter.

Remember, this was at the height of the Cold War between the U.S. and Russia and to refer to someone or something as communist during this time was a very derogatory statement.

It wasn’t just a derogatory statement, it was in effect a charge of crimes against the United States government. And it wasn’t just President Benson who believed this. The FBI had a file on Reverend King over this same issue, as Benson may well have known as a member of President Eisenhower’s cabinet.

President Benson does not sound like the Lord’s prophet bringing a message of love.

He wasn’t “the Lord’s prophet” at the time, and wouldn’t be for another 18 years. People can grow and change. It’s the entire point of the Atonement, to effect a mighty change of heart and become better, more godly people. I wouldn’t deny anyone the right to utilize the Atonement, let alone an apostle of God.

It seems that the basis of these prejudice doctrines may have began with the culture of racism held by early general authorities and perpetuated by the following leaders until the direction the nation was moving forced the hand of the Church.

Again, this is inaccurate. These are not “doctrines,” they are opinions held by individuals. And nobody “forced the hand of the Church.”

Under the First Amendment, in the United States churches are mostly allowed to run themselves as they see fit. The government did not force our church to accept civil rights legislation, and neither did outside forces.

While public pressure can sometimes encourage our leaders to reconsider certain public policies, it cannot force them to do so. Revelation does not happen in a vacuum, which means that guidance often comes in answer to questions we ask Heavenly Father. It works the same way for the prophets and apostles, so speaking up can hold a degree of influence in that regard.

But, as we’ve also seen on multiple occasions, the Lord works on His own timetable. If He does not agree that the time is right for a change, no change will be made.

Our church largely stayed away from social issues during the 20^th Century, but as soon as the NAACP requested a meeting with Church leaders and discussed this issue with them, those leaders issued a statement in support of civil rights for all. That was the beginning of a very long working relationship between the NAACP and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which President Nelson is still continuing today.

Distancing Itself From the Past 

Published in 2013 on LDS.org is an article named, Race and the Priesthood. 

“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.” (Race and the Priesthood, December 6, 2013. https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng) 

This latest manifesto is shocking for the rejection of teachings by past prophets as just “theories.”

Only if you don’t believe in modern prophets and on-going revelation, which we do. Also, calling it a “manifesto,” while technically true under the definition of the word, is hyperbolic. It’s a loaded term in today’s society, meant to encourage thoughts of terrorists and criminals.

On matters where God was silent, well-meaning but wrong individuals, including past leaders, came up with explanations that ultimately proved to be incorrect. Those explanations were passed down from one generation to the next in ignorance, with younger generations believing they were the result of revelation when they weren’t.

When more information regarding this came to light, current leaders recognized that it was in fact not due to revelation, but instead due to personal belief and oral tradition. Upon that realization, they stated this information clearly.

That’s a good thing, you guys. It’s not an area for criticism. Correcting past mistakes and outdated teachings is exactly what prophets are supposed to do.

Contained in this quote from the article, the Church blatantly contradicts itself when disavowing:

Again, it’s not a contradiction, it’s a clarification that those teachings were never based on revelation.

1. “…that black skin is a sign of disfavor or curse…” 

“A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessing of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain.” (President Joseph Fielding Smith) 

2. “…that it reflects actions in a premortal life…” 

“The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality.” (President George Albert Smith) 

3. “… that mixed-race marriages are a sin…” 

“If the white man belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot.” (President Brigham Young) 

4. “…that blacks…are inferior in any way to anyone else…” 

“…some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.” (President Brigham Young)

We’ve already discussed each of these quotes in detail in prior installments, so I’m not going to go through them all again.

I will just say that it’s incredibly odd to me that Faulk expects Church leaders to continue allowing untrue beliefs to flourish among the Church membership instead of correcting them. He’s essentially arguing that the Church should never correct past teachings, even when new information comes to light showing that those teachings are not true.

What’s even the point of having modern-day prophets, if they don’t speak to our day and age and instead, just continue repeating teachings of 200 years ago? Why have an open canon, if circumstances don’t change and society never grows? Why pray for personal revelation, if all of the information we need has already been stated before?

What a weird position to take.

With this article, the Church disavows 4 points of doctrine that have been in place for 150 years and invalidates the words of the prophets by calling their teachings just “theories.”

Nope. With that essay, the Church outlined all of the information we have on the subject and explained that prior leaders had passed along what they believed was revelation, but was actually just explanations given in the absence of revelation. Opinion was passed down as fact by people who didn’t know better.

Today, we do know better, and the Church wants to make sure every member knows that.

Teachings by past prophets are valuable when they’re based on revelation and the scriptures. Teachings by past prophets are not valuable when they’re based on hearsay and speculation.

Each of those past prophets and apostles taught many true, important things that we still uphold today. The Gospel Topics Essay doesn’t invalidate their teachings on any of those truths. It simply points out that on this topic, they were wrong.

Why would anyone want to belong to a church that doesn’t correct past mistakes and instead, clings to past teachings even when everyone knows they’re wrong? I sure don’t want to belong to a church like that, and I doubt any of you do, either. 

 

 

Sarah Allen is relatively new in her affiliation with FAIR. By profession, she works in mortgage compliance and is a freelance copyeditor. An avid reader, she loves studying the Gospel and the history of the restored Church. After watching some of her friends lose their testimonies, she became interested in helping others through their faith crises. That’s when she began sharing what she’d learned through her studies. She’s grateful to those at FAIR who have given her the opportunity to share her testimony with a wider audience.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 22: The Early Church – Blacks and the Church [C] appeared first on FAIR.

Continue reading at the original source →