mormonism racist?

[Autodidact]

Call for references.

The Brigham Young party that arrived in the Salt Lake Valley in July 1847 included three African Americans - Green Flake, Oscar Crosby, and Hark Lay. These men were slaves of southern Mormons who sent them ahead to help prepare for the arrival of the Mormon caravans that were to follow. By 1850 there were approximately sixty blacks residing in the Utah Territory. The majority were slaves living in Salt Lake, Davis, and Utah counties. Although slavery was not sanctioned by law until 1852, the religiously homogeneous community accepted the servile status of the majority of black residents. Slavery officially ended in 1862 when the United States Congress abolished slavery in the territories.

Utah History Encyclopedia

Although the practice was never widespread, some Utah pioneers held African-American slaves until 1862 when Congress abolished slavery in the territories. Three slaves, Green Flake, Hark Lay, and Oscar Crosby, came west with the first pioneer company in 1847, and their names appear on a plaque on the Brigham Young Monument in downtown Salt Lake City. The Census of 1850 reported 26 Negro slaves in Utah and the 1860 Census 29; some have questioned those figures.
Slavery was legal in Utah as a result of the Compromise of 1850, which brought California into the Union as a free state while allowing Utah and New Mexico territories the option of deciding the issue by "popular sovereignty." Some Mormon pioneers from the South had brought African-American slaves with them when they migrated west. Some freed their slaves in Utah; others who went on to California had to emancipate them there.
The Mormon church had no official doctrine for or against slaveholding, and leaders were ambivalent. In 1836 Joseph Smith wrote that masters should treat slaves humanely and that slaves owed their owners obedience. During his presidential campaign in 1844, however, he came out for abolition. Brigham Young tacitly supported slaveholding, declaring that although Utah was not suited for slavery the practice was ordained by God. In 1851 Apostle Orson Hyde said the church would not interfere in relations between master and slave.

Utah History to Go

Honestly, that took me about 60 seconds on Google. Has someone been telling you different?

 

[Apex]

Utah History Encyclopedia


Utah History to Go

Honestly, that took me about 60 seconds on Google. Has someone been telling you different?

I simply wanted to know the actual references. And I was more interested in the comment you have attributed to Joseph Smith. Simply saying "Smith writing in 1836" does not tell me where to look if I wanted to read it personally.

 

[keithnurse]

You know, I don't really agree. But I can see why you would say that. There have been some leaders that have said some things that sound pretty racist. But I am not sure there is explicit racism in our scriptures anywhere. I also don't think it is in our teachings anywhere. But hey, I'm Mormon, so what do you expect?

Have you read 2 Nephi 5:21? It talks about dark skin being a sign of Gods curse on a people. Have your read 3 Nephi 2:15 God removed a curse and those peoples skin turned lighter in color. Saying these statements are not racist is like someone saying "you are a jerk, oh but don't take that as a putdown or a criticism". I know you are going to say something about "context" and I'm taking it out of context. What possible context could make it not racist to say God put a curse on them by making their skin dark?

 

[Autodidact]

I simply wanted to know the actual references.

Why?

And I was more interested in the comment you have attributed to Joseph Smith. Simply saying "Smith writing in 1836" does not tell me where to look if I wanted to read it personally.

The first of those policies was a plan for the gradual elimination of slavery. Indeed, only a few years earlier, in 1835, Smith had published a revelation in the Doctrines and Covenants that implies a very hands-off approach to the slavery issue. It read: ". . . but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them, contrary to the will and wish of their masters, not to meddle with, or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men: such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude." (D & C 102:12) However, by the time of the 1844 campaign, although still not an abolitionist, Smith embraced an anti-slavery platform. Towards the beginning of his "Views," Smith remarked that: "My cogitations ... have for a long time troubled me, when I viewed the condition of men throughout the world, and more especially in this boasted realm, where the Declaration of Independence 'holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' but at the same time some two or three millions of people are held as slaves for life, because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours. . . ."30 However Smith was quick to renounce the abolitionist stance advocating the immediate termination of slavery. Reflecting Mormonism's long-standing suspicion of a professional, ordained clergy, Smith saw abolitionism as a form of sectional aggression engineered by the entrenched religious interests of the north. "A hireling psuedo-priesthood," argued Smith, "will plausibly push abolition doctrines and doings and 'human rights' into Congress, and into every other place where conquest smells of fame, or opposition swells to popularity."31

from here.

 

[Autodidact]

As I have been saying, it's complicated. It inaccurate to say just either, "Smith was a racist," or "Smith was an abolitionist." Both and neither are true. Smith was a man of his time and place, both racist and sometimes seeking to abolish slavery, sometimes not. It was the gay-marriage issue of the day, with a complicated panoply of political options.

btw, Brigham Young was less complicated, more of a pure pro-slavery racist.

 

[Watchmen]

Have you read 2 Nephi 5:21? It talks about dark skin being a sign of Gods curse on a people. Have your read 3 Nephi 2:15 God removed a curse and those peoples skin turned lighter in color. Saying these statements are not racist is like someone saying "you are a jerk, oh but don't take that as a putdown or a criticism". I know you are going to say something about "context" and I'm taking it out of context. What possible context could make it not racist to say God put a curse on them by making their skin dark?

have you seen Katzpur's thread on the topic? It explains it well.

 

[Watchmen]

If you like. My point is not that Smith was racist, of course he was; he was a white, 19th century American. He did express anti-slavery sentiments, as well as pro-slavery sentiments. Some Mormons were abolitionists sometimes, others were not. You don't think quoting the actual person is a good way to determine their views? How would you do it?

My point is that a battle of the quotes would not help the debate because, as you've pointed out, he expressed both views. We'd simply be going back and forth without any meaningful progress.

Why did Missouri run the Mormons out of there? Well, I don't have huge level of expertise in the subject, but I think it was a battle for political control, fear of living under a theocratic, foreign religion, and plain old prejudice and xenophobia. I'd say the leading reason was that the people then living there did not want to live in a new Mormon Deseret. This was confirmed in their minds when the Mormons started defending themselves with arms.

I don't claim to be an expert, but the number one reason based on my readings is because of Mormon abolitionist leanings.

 

[Katzpur]

Have you read 2 Nephi 5:21?

Yes, I believe most Mormons have read that verse.

Have your read 3 Nephi 2:15 God removed a curse and those peoples skin turned lighter in color.

I'll be darned! I think most of us have read that one, too! Did you just happen upon them as a part of your in-depth study of the Book of Mormon or were you by chance directed there by one of the myriad of anti-Mormon sites out on the web?

Saying these statements are not racist is like someone saying "you are a jerk, oh but don't take that as a putdown or a criticism". I know you are going to say something about "context" and I'm taking it out of context.

You're not necessarily taking it out of context, but you are wrong in your interpretation.

Consider these verses from the Bible (emphasis mine). Daniel 11:35 says, "And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end..."

And Daniel 12:10 states, "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand."

In both of these examples, the "to make white" clearly means to purify. How are those examples all that different from the ones in the Book of Mormon?

What possible context could make it not racist to say God put a curse on them by making their skin dark?

If that's what God did, it would be reasonable to assume that, but He didn't. He didn't take a group of people who started out looking like they were from Saudi Arabia and curse them by making them look like they were from Bolivia.

 

[keithnurse]

Yes, I believe most Mormons have read that verse.

I'll be darned! I think most of us have read that one, too! Did you just happen upon them as a part of your in-depth study of the Book of Mormon or were you by chance directed there by one of the myriad of anti-Mormon sites out on the web?

You're not necessarily taking it out of context, but you are wrong in your interpretation.

Consider these verses from the Bible (emphasis mine). Daniel 11:35 says, "And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end..."

And Daniel 12:10 states, "Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand."

In both of these examples, the "to make white" clearly means to purify. How are those examples all that different from the ones in the Book of Mormon?

If that's what God did, it would be reasonable to assume that, but He didn't. He didn't take a group of people who started out looking like they were from Saudi Arabia and curse them by making them look like they were from Bolivia.

I found these verses in the OP of this thread. The verses in Daniel don't say anything about skin. The Book of Mormon verses say skin was made dark as a sign of gods curse. If it's spiritual darkness, why mention skin?

 

[Autodidact]

My point is that a battle of the quotes would not help the debate because, as you've pointed out, he expressed both views. We'd simply be going back and forth without any meaningful progress.

We're in agreement then. But was it you who, when asked, said that Smith was an abolutionist. Because if so, you only told half the story--the half favorable to LDS. And here people in this thread are saying the way to get accurate info is to ask an LDS. Looks like it's only half accurate.

I don't claim to be an expert, but the number one reason based on my readings is because of Mormon abolitionist leanings.

Nah. The number one reason was fear of living under a Mormon theocracy, including polygamy. btw, notice you don't cite any sources for your assertion that this was the #1 reason.

 

[Katzpur]

As I have been saying, it's complicated. It inaccurate to say just either, "Smith was a racist," or "Smith was an abolitionist." Both and neither are true. Smith was a man of his time and place, both racist and sometimes seeking to abolish slavery, sometimes not. It was the gay-marriage issue of the day, with a complicated panoply of political options.

btw, Brigham Young was less complicated, more of a pure pro-slavery racist.

The following is from a paper presented at the FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) Conference in Salt Lake City several years ago (I'm thinking it was in 2006, but it could have been a year or so earlier). It was by a Black member of the Church. His presentation was excellent.

When the Church was restored in 1830, slavery was an institution in the United States. The restored Gospel taught of our living with God as His spirit children. Our Heavenly Father presented a plan of salvation to which Jehovah agreed to fulfill. Lucifer then came and presented a plan in which he would come down and take away the agency of man, making them all do what was right so that they might all return to Father. This plan was rejected. Agency would be one of the greatest gifts of man, one through which the Lord would be able to see who would willingly be obedient to His commandments. Slavery robbed man of that precious gift of agency. He was not free to do as he wished, but instead, was subject to the will of men. Unfortunately, many of the Saints maintained their slaves after they joined the church. In 1833, the Prophet Joseph Smith received a direct revelation (D&C 101:79) letting the Saints know that slavery was not to be. Still they continued in the practice and even would make Utah the only slave territory in the West. Slavery would only end in Utah with the passing of the 13th Amendment.

D&C 101:79 – Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

Yet when the Saints entered the Salt Lake Valley, there were three slaves in the company. This is a fact that Church members and leaders gloss over by describing them in terms that don’t reveal that they were actually slaves, in bondage to other men.

• 1847 -- Hark Kay, Green Flake and Oscar Crosby, all slaves, were a part of the first Pioneer company to enter Utah.

• 1852 – Slavery was made legal in Utah, despite the commandment in D&C 101:79.

• 1860 – According to the Utah census, there were 59 Blacks in the state, 29 of whom were slaves.

• 1985 – The 13th Amendment passed, which ended slavery in the United States.

Here we see that those who were persecuted and driven in search of religious freedom were still willing to deny freedom to their dark-skinned brothers, which brings a couple of scriptural passes to mind:

D&C 38:26 For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou closed in rags and sit thou there – and looketh upon his sons and saith ‘I am just’?

Matthew 28:23-35 describes a servant being freed from his debt only to take away the freedom of one who owed him.

I think it's truly unfortunate that racism has existed in the Church. The message I'd like to get across was that this was not LDS doctrine. As a matter of fact, the practice of slavery contradicted LDS doctrine. People simply do not always behave in the way their doctrines teach that they should. This is not unique to Mormonism.

 

[Katzpur]

I found these verses in the OP of this thread.

Indeed you did. My apologies. I probably should have posed my question to the author of the OP, not simply to someone who quoted him.

 

[Watchmen]

We're in agreement then. But was it you who, when asked, said that Smith was an abolutionist. Because if so, you only told half the story--the half favorable to LDS. And here people in this thread are saying the way to get accurate info is to ask an LDS. Looks like it's only half accurate.

I stand by what I said.

Nah. The number one reason was fear of living under a Mormon theocracy, including polygamy. btw, notice you don't cite any sources for your assertion that this was the #1 reason.

Source: Under the Banner of Heaven by John Krakauer

 

[Autodidact]

I stand by what I said.

Well, O.K. We'll just bear in mind when reading your information about the Mormon Church that it's so one-sided as to inaccurate, then.

Source: Under the Banner of Heaven by John Krakauer

Hmmm. I read it. Loved it, of course. Don't remember that. Can you be more specific?

You find Krakauer a credible source then?

A horror of miscegenation is something Mormon Fundamentalists have in common with their Mormon brethren:

(331, note) Your Church leaders disagree with you.

This book is not history, and Krakauer is no historian.

LDS response to the book.

 

[Watchmen]

I wonder why you haven't responded to Katzpur. Am I just an easy target?

Well, O.K. We'll just bear in mind when reading your information about the Mormon Church that it's so one-sided as to inaccurate, then.

That's your opinion - not the communities. Also, before you start calling people "one-sided," better look in the mirror, dear.

Hmmm. I read it. Loved it, of course. Don't remember that. Can you be more specific?

I don't have the book on me. I borrowed it from a friend.

You find Krakauer a credible source then?

(331, note) Your Church leaders disagree with you.

LDS response to the book.

Just because a book or author may be inaccurate in some respects does not mean it/he is inaccurate in all respects. Besides, you "loved it," which I'll take to mean you find Krakauer credible. And, since you take him credible, you can take his word (not mine) that it was the Mormon's abolitionist stance that led to conflict with Missouri.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Of course, one can cherry-pick the writings of science, rife with the drivel of social Darwinism, or the letters of Abraham Lincoln, or ...

You, on the other hand, cherry-pick religious text solely to reinforce your presuppositions and anger. It's intellectually dishonest and more than a little adolescent.

But social Darwinism has been widely and explicitly rejected by biologists as bad science, bad ethics, racist, and so on. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, remains central to Mormonism and the racist passages are not explicitly rejected as racist (please correct me if I am wrong).

The liability of refusing to call a spade a spade--that is, refusing to explicitly reject the racism inherent in those passages and many others--is clear when one reads the words of past Mormon Presidents, and when one considers the fact that the LDS Church was officially racist decades after Brown v. Board of Education, and many years after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think it's truly unfortunate that racism has existed in the Church. The message I'd like to get across was that this was not LDS doctrine. As a matter of fact, the practice of slavery contradicted LDS doctrine. People simply do not always behave in the way their doctrines teach that they should. This is not unique to Mormonism.

Well said, Katz. My post above ^ is therefore not entirely accurate (near the part "correct me if I'm wrong").

 

[Katzpur]

I wonder why you haven't responded to Katzpur. Am I just an easy target?

The less Auto and I have to communicate, the better, Watchmen.

 

[Katzpur]

Well said, Katz. My post above ^ is therefore not entirely accurate (near the part "correct me if I'm wrong").

Of course the Book of Mormon remains central to Mormonism. The Church would not exist without it. For someone who believes that it is a fictional work written by a nineteenth-century author or authors, it's easy enough to suggest that certain passages to either "rejected" or that the book be edited to remove them entirely. How could we possibly do either? We believe the book to be a sacred text written by people who lived hundreds of years ago. We don't believe Joseph Smith or any other nineteenth-century man or men wrote it. The "racist" passages are not removed or rejected as "racist" because we do not interpret them to be racist. There was a time when many of our members did. Some probably still do today.

The Book of Mormon contains thousands of footnotes. While many of them have been there for who knows how many years, new ones are occasionally added. Many of these cross-reference to other passages (both in the Book of Mormon and in the Bible) which, when studied with a sincere desire to understand the message of the book, clarify the meaning of words or phrases that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. The 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon added a number of new footnotes to help people understand these so-called "racist" passages better. How many people who are critical of the Book of Mormon do you think bother to use the tools that have been provided for them to help them understand its message?

There are, in probably every holy text in the world, passages which the people who believe that text use to justify their negative behaviors. For many years, the Latter-day Saints did read the so-called "racist" passages in the Book of Mormon as you are reading them now. Like the majority of the people in the United States, many Mormons looked down on people with darker skin. It would be ridiculous to deny this. What I'm saying is that we used our scriptures to help make us feel that this was okay. It wasn't that the scriptures were racist. We were the ones who were racist. Our leaders are making a conscious effort to help us realize that God does not promote racism. He hates racism. We have come a long, long way, just like everybody else. We still have a ways to go.

 

[Autodidact]

I wonder why you haven't responded to Katzpur. Am I just an easy target?

About what?

That's your opinion - not the communities.

Of course I speak for myself. However, the fact remains that your answer gave only half the story.

Also, before you start calling people "one-sided," better look in the mirror, dear.

Read my posts again. I said repeatedly that it's complicated, more complicated than what you said, that Smith was both racist and anti-racist, abolitionist and anti-abolitionist, and, in addition, that mainstream Christianity has at least as much pro-slavery material in its holy book as LDS.

I don't have the book on me. I borrowed it from a friend.

Well, what do you think he said about Smith, early Mormon history, abolition, and Missouri?

Just because a book or author may be inaccurate in some respects does not mean it/he is inaccurate in all respects. Besides, you "loved it," which I'll take to mean you find Krakauer credible. And, since you take him credible, you can take his word (not mine) that it was the Mormon's abolitionist stance that led to conflict with Missouri.

I have less expertise than Krakauer, so am in no position to judge his credibility. I love books that combine true crime with religion, two of my favorite subjects. I vaguely recall him accusing a prominent Mormon of stirring up trouble in Missouri by trying to kill the governor, or someone? And some accusations about--was it counterfeiting, or forgery? That angered the local populace. Honestly I'd have to go back and re-read it, it was years ago.