Please consider supporting this podcast:
Links
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/first-presidency-naacp-shared-vision
https://medium.com/@Ch_JesusChrist/locking-arms-for-racial-harmony-in-america-2f62180abf37
Joseph Letter to Oliver Cowdery
Joseph Smith statement to Elder Hyde
Joseph Smith presidential platform
John Taylor, August 28, 1881, Journal of Discourses vol 22 pg 304
Brigham Young response about Enoch Lewis: Turner, John G. Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet. 2012. Harvard University Press. Pg. 222
Jan 23, 1852 Brigham Young speech
Feb 5th. 1852 Brigham Young Speech
Joseph Fielding Smith 1860 quote: “The Present Status of the Lamanites
Question: “The question I have is concerning the present status of the Lamanites. I know that Laman and Lemuel and their families were cursed, but to what extent is this curse carried today? Was the darker skin all or just part of the curse? Will this curse be completely forgotten and taken away by the Lord on the basis of repentance and complete acceptance of the gospel?”
Answer: The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so that they could be distinguished from the Nephites and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark skin was the sign of the curse. The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord and the Lamanites becoming a “loathsome and filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.” (I Nephi 12:23.) The Lord commanded the Nephites not to intermarry with them, for if they did they would partake of the curse.
At the time of the Savior’s visit to the Nephites all of the people became united, and the curse and the dark skin which was its sign were removed. “The two peoples became one and lived in full harmony and peace for about two hundred years.
There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God. (IV Nephi, verse 17.)
EVIL BROUGHT RETURN OF DARK SKIN
After the people again forgot the Lord and dissensions arose, some of them took upon themselves the name Lamanites and the dark skin returned. When the Lamanites fully repent and sincerely receive the gospel, the Lord has promised to remove the dark skin. The Lord declared by revelation that, “before the great day of the Lord shall come, Jacob shall flourish in the wilderness, and the Lamanites shall blossom as the rose.” (D. & C. 49:24.)
The dark skin of those who have come into the Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the curse. Many of these converts are delightsome and have the Spirit of the Lord. Perhaps there are some Lamanites today who are losing the dark pigment. Many of the members of the Church among the Catawba Indians of the South could readily pass as of the white race; also in other parts of the South.”
Transcript
[00:00:00] Welcome to 132 Problems revisiting Mormon polygamy, where we explore the scriptural and theological case for plural marriage. I want to start by again thanking all of those who have subscribed to this channel and who click the like button on these videos, and especially any of you who have donated. Anyone who hasn’t yet subscribed, if you would take a second and go ahead and do that, it would be great, and also the links are below for anyone else who would like to donate. I very much appreciate your support. This is episode 64, which is going to be the first in our series of either 2 or 3 episodes, depending on who I come I hear back from, on the priesthood ban. So today we’re going to go over some of the history and the justifications and the theology behind that, and kind of talk about it in relation to polygamy. And I hope that it will be useful to you. Next week will be an incredibly important episode, in my opinion. I’ll be talking to Marvin Perkins. I’m going to link His videos below so that you can watch them in preparation. I’ll, I’ll link them next week as well. You don’t have to watch his videos first, but I think that he has done some of the best work on this topic that there is. So I hope that you will enjoy these episodes and thank you for joining me as we take the deep dive into the murky waters of the priesthood ban. Along with polygamy, the other issue that has continually given the church the biggest black eye is our complex history with race. Polygamy and racism seem to go together. They really were the twin relics of barbarism, right? Polygamy and slavery and Attitudes that have carried on in the church far longer than they should have. I think both were handed down as traditions that were obscured by time. And both of them really go together. Polygamists continue to believe the racist doctrines that were taught by Brigham Young and subsequent prophets. So everyone that I know of who still supports and believes or lives in polygamy also supports and believes the racist ideas that were taught, which is really fascinating and troubling. both both of those things I think are fascinating and troubling. So today I want to look at This issue of race in the church and the doctrines that we have been that were taught for so many years. I want to kind of break it down and see where we are now, what the history is, where we came from, and then. Apply it to help us learn what we can learn from it, to, you know, liken it to all of the other false traditions, because I think understanding this one issue gives us insight into other issues and helps us to know hopefully how to do better, how to not be so susceptible to false traditions. So I do have to say I am. So thankful to be living in this day and age. It is a wonderful time where we have access to so much knowledge and information. The historical work that is being done, the, um, transparency that is, we are just giving, being given access to things in, in a profound and remarkable way that I find to be so Soon. It’s much easier to fight false traditions when we have actual information, right? When we can document the truth. And so, um, we’re gonna, that’s what we’re going to go into. I want to start by talking about where we are now, and I do hope that you’ll watch next week my interview with Marvin Perkins, because he will go into these things with a lot more insight and, you know, be able to speak to these issues in ways, um, that I think are very helpful for all of us to hear. But For, for now, we’re just gonna start by talking about the 2013 essay on race and the priesthood, right? The Gospel Topics essays that started to come out in 2013. They have one on race and the priesthood. It’s a little bit
[00:03:50] You know, I have a little bit of a love-hate relationship with the gospel topics essays for various reasons. I really kind of tend to have more of a hate relationship with the polygamy ones, but even the race one is tough for me. It just, it’s a little bit frustrating. First of all, I understand the difficult spot that the church is in wanting to not rock the boat for people who are happily, you know, like ignorance is bliss, right? If people don’t aren’t troubled by these things, why trouble them by these with these things? I understand that, but at the same time, I, I think that the essay was released in 2013 and in 2016, a survey was done and over 60% of actively attending members still believed the the idea that race was a curse and that the ban was from God. And so the essays didn’t have nearly the reach that they could have or would have had if they had been, you know, talked about, say, in our curriculum or in our lessons or any anything like that, but aside from that, just not being publicized, they’re kind of hard to find. Another thing that’s a little bit frustrating to me is they feel still um like they’re minimizing kind of hiding things, you know, we’ll go into it a little bit more. They’re not as transparent as it feels like, as it would just be so wonderful for them to be, you know. There’s, I, I know that when, um, you know, when you’ve been hurt by somebody, what you really want is for them to just say, I’m so sorry I hurt you, right? And acknowledge it and and let you feel heard and seen. It’s really hard when when it’s kind of like, it wasn’t that bad. Oh come on, you know, when they Minimize what they did rather than that, that really is a barrier to healing and to repair. And so I think that it’s just a good policy to be like this is what was done. We are very sad about it and this is what we would like to do going forward. That’s the feeling I wish I could have from this essay, and it’s not quite what I get. So there isn’t, there isn’t to me, I didn’t sense, um, an an expression of genuine remorse in the essay, which I would I like to have, you know, I, I think it would be really nice to recognize the harm, express the remorse, and then like state how we’re going to do all we can to not repeat those mistakes. But um, so I, I don’t think that these that this essay does that well. I’m going to link it below. I won’t read it in this episode, we’ll just talk about it a little bit. I am very thankful that it includes these words. 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 unrighteous actions in the pre-mortal life. That, oh, that mixed race marriages are a sin or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to any one else. So I’m glad that it like states that so bluntly.
[00:06:37] I also Find it kind of appalling that in 2013 still that had to be stated that we had to say we don’t hold racist views, they’re all disavowed. I mean, it’s, it’s kind of like that wasn’t officially stated. It wasn’t disavowed until 2013 is shocking to me, but I’m so thankful that it was done. It is a big statement and it directly contradicts and disavows so many previous teachings by previous leaders. That’s one of the challenges, right? That’s the, the really Yucky place we get ourselves into with some of our false ideas, they all kind of build on each other to where we’re trapped in, you know, like I’ve said before, when you tell one lie, it leads to another, and we get stuck in this pretzel where we can’t be honest because we have to support these false traditions. And so I’m very glad that they were willing to do that. Um, it also says church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present in any form. So I’m very thankful for that. I will say. The sense that I get from this and some other more recent events that we’re going to talk about, I kind of get the sense that our church leaders feel like, or, yeah, I mean, I again, I am sympathetic to the tricky spot there and I just happen to believe that the best Like in any kind of relationship, including a church relationship or a congregation, the best policy is to, like I said, like recognize the harm, express remorse, be completely open and honest, don’t minimize, don’t hide, don’t, you know, and And instead it’s kind of like if we condemn racism, then we can be on the right side without having to actually express remorse or acknowledge that we ever weren’t on the right side, right? And um I I I know this this statement by Elder Oaks, and I, I know that people get uncomfortable if I’m critical of church leaders. That’s not my intention, but I am trying to look at the situation and sometimes we need to look at it, right? So this statement by Elder Oaks, it has been interesting. In a Tribune story that we published on Tuesday, Elder Oaks, you were quoted as saying that the church doesn’t seek apologies and we don’t give them. And of course this sparked a whole storm on social media about those who wonder how this view comports with Christian theology again wanted to give you an opportunity to respond to that. I’m not aware that the word apology appears anywhere in the scriptures, Bible or Book of Mormon. Uh, the word apology contains a lot of connotations in it and a lot of significance. And so I don’t know what you all think of that, but to me it’s like apologies are part of relationships, right? Sincere, sincere genuine, it’s, it’s more an expression of remorse, like I’m so sorry I hurt you or we are very sad that these things were done and, you know, for the pain that they have caused and we want to go forward and You, you know, if we want, uh, anyway, that’s what that’s what I think many of us kind of would feel so good and healing and helpful.
[00:09:35] So it’s a little bit hard to understand this tactic, this way of approaching it. Um, it just, it, it, it feels like. It’s not as good as it could be. It’s kind of like they keep saying things to condemn racism without acknowledging the racism in our past. And so it’s like, you know, it’s like not connecting. It’s kind of like that when they have in movies where there’s someone that speaks a different language and so the person speaks to them in English and just yells or speaks louder, you know, it’s like, that’s not the problem. The problem isn’t that you’re not loud, they’re not deaf, they speak a different language. And it’s kind of that same sense. It’s like, it’s not that we need you to condemn racism, it’s that we need, we need to acknowledge our past racism and express remorse about that. That feels like it would be a little bit a better way to do it. So, um, Anyway, let’s, let’s go forward. So starting in May 2018, a series of meetings and collaborations and press conferences were done between the church leaders and the NAACP, that’s the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which that’s a troubling name. There’s a lot of, I mean, um discussion you can find about that online, but Anyway, and then in July of 2019, President Nelson spoke at the NAACP National Convention, and I have to apologize. I’m sorry, I have been sick all week, so I’m just realizing how congested I still sound. I’m, I’ve been doing all of my super garlic immune and herbalmectin and um Oscaloon and I’m all, I mean, I’m, I’m really good at healing stuff just this one has gotten me down so I have to record today and able to I have to record the damn recording. To be able to release it today on Sunday and so I’m sorry if I sound sick, but we’re gonna make it through. So, um, anyway, that the um OK. And then in June 1st of 2020, the height of the BLM protest, President Nelson’s Facebook post, you know, if you remember that post, part of what it said is the creator of us all calls on each of us to abandon attitudes of prejudice against any group of God’s children. Any of us who has prejudice toward another race needs to repent. Now I don’t want to get into the politics of this too much because I think that, you know, it’s fine that we have a broad spectrum of politics in the church. I think that’s good, but it, for me, I’ll just say from my perspective, it was hard to see, again, it’s like, don’t join with a political organization that there are lots of, you know, some people may really oppose for various reasons. I don’t think anyone. Well, at least, you know, it’s so tricky to talk about these things, right?
[00:12:09] Because race gets mixed up in so many different ways, it kind of becomes um politicized in some ways, like, really, the only people that you’re allowed to be um racist against are black conservatives, right? You can call them racist names. Like we’re in this really weird time where race kind of is a political issue, often it’s politicized and so Again, I think I would have much preferred to see just genuine honesty and remorse and apology rather than association with political organizations. And during BLM, I know there are many different opinions. My feeling was that this, I, I, I, I, I think that the more we have focused on racism, the worse things have gotten in our nation, and I think it’s been unfortunate, so it was hard to be. To feel like our leaders were accusing us of being racist rather than acknowledging the past racism in the organization that they have stewardship over, right? That just, that was hard for me. So, um, but, but also there were quite a there were a lot of lovely things done. There were other things in that post that I thought were quite nice and um President Nelson also co-authored a national op ed on building, building bridges and overcoming racism with some of the leaders of the NAACP and I will link that below as well. I, I thought it was quite lovely reading through it again. And so anyway, and then in October 22 at conference, still deep in COVID and riots and everything that was happening, both President Nelson and President Oakes spoke on racism. And so again, that was hard for me at the time because things were so upside down in my life and I was very sensitive, but um. But you know, so it’s just an interesting way to approach it because instead of it felt to me instead of acknowledging and apologizing, I keep saying that it was just preaching to us about what we should do and it’s like, uh, what we should do is apologize. So anyway, um, in President Nelson’s talk, Let God prevail, he said, today I call upon our members everywhere to lead out in abandoning attitudes and actions of prejudice. I plead with you to promote respect for all of God’s children and That felt strange, right, to be kind of it kind of felt like being accused that we’re all racist just like was the issue going on and and you know, maybe there are places for that. I just, I’m not on the anti-racist bandwagon cause I do, I think like my friend said in a discussion like to say all white people are racist is racist, right? So it’s an interesting situation we’re in and then In President Oak’s Love your enemies talk, he said, as citizens and as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we must do better to help root out racism. And those things were repeated at many other appearances. Later that month, President Oakes spoke at BYU. He gave a talk called Racism and Other Challenges, and he quoted extensively from both both talks. And um I will Link all of the talks in in the descriptions. Um, and then in June, June 14th of 2021, another meeting and press conference announcing with the NAACP announcing LDS funded scholarship funds through the,
[00:15:13] oh, I can’t remember the organization, the NAACP and another um organization I should have written down or I should be able to remember if I weren’t so sick. And um he again said in that press conference, I renew my call to abandon prejudice and promote civility, kindness, and mutual respect. We seek to build bridges of cooperation instead of walls of segregation. And so, So you know, we all have our perspectives on it, but I definitely have mine so it it did just feel like how is this the right fix? How does this fix it, you know. So anyway, but at least it’s been progress, right? At least we have officially disavowed and abandoned and condemned racism. I think that that is such a huge step forward and hard for us to do with all of our traditional baggage that we’ve been handed down, right? But unfortunately there was a with all of this forward momentum, there was a huge backstep when the church released the 2020 Come Follow me manual. That was the Book of Mormon. I think that was the first year we did Come Follow Me, and it had this almost unbelievable and tragic oversight, um, despite the clear statements into the 2013 essay. And the fact that the footnotes to several troubling verses in the Book of Mormon have been changed, and I’ll talk about that in just a second. The entry for February 3rd through 9th, which is 2 Nephi 3 through 5, it has a question talking about um 2 Nephi 520 through 21, and the question is what was the curse that came upon the Lamanites and The answer, oh, it’s just unbelievable for me to, I it’s unbelievable that this happened, but it actually quoted from a 1960 booklet by Joseph Fielding Smith called Answers to Gospel Questions and talking about how race was a curse and it it it used ellipses very strategically to take out the worst parts of what it quoted, but it still included the idea that That skin that like complexion is a curse, and I’ll include the full quote in the description box below and so that was very unfortunate. I want to just talk really quickly about this other thing. Um, I didn’t know about this when I talked to Marvin Perkins, that’ll be released next week, so I didn’t get to get into this with him, but he was able to work with church leaders. I believe he was very involved in it, in getting the um footnotes to the scriptures changed in many places. I’m going to link a wonderful article that he wrote about it in the description box as well, that you’re going to have a lot of um reading you can do this week if you want to, but I would recommend looking at the um This article by Marvin Perkins for sure, so you can see the differences in the footnotes in our discussion that I’ll release next week. He did talk a lot about footnotes, and I was quite surprised. I didn’t realize that so many of the footnotes had been changed. That happened in 2011, so that was, that’s actually huge progress, huge progress that the footnotes are so much better. So that’s a really good thing, but it was so sad that this was released in our 2020 manual. It was just, just unbelievable. Thankfully. Action was swift. Um, they unfortunately didn’t change the printed manuals, and it took them a while to change the PDF, and that was very upsetting to some people and hurtful, understandably, but especially since I think that Mormon doctrine, which Bruce Riconki’s book that included, you know, it’s called Mormon doctrine, and it included the doctrine that People of African descent were less valiant in heaven, right,
[00:18:50] and in the pre-existence, and so that was still available through Deseret Book, I think until 2013 when I believe that, uh, um, I, I have always said black and white to describe, but after talking to Marvin Perkins, he really doesn’t like using those terms, and he made such a good case for that. So I’m trying to say people of African descent or African Americans or people of European descent, it’s a little bit more clumsy, but it’s so much more accurate, and he makes a great case for that. So I’m going. to try to do that, forgive me for anyone who has different opinions. It’s so hard to fit it all incorrectly. But anyway, an African American man bought up the rest of all of the rest of the copies to get it off of the shelves, and it’s finally gone out of print. So that’s wonderful. But that only happened, I think in 2013. And then here, and we have the essay and all of this forward movement and then we have this happen in 2020. It’s so tragic. It’s so sad, but they did change it. You can see the new, um, And, and, and like how it is now, the answer was the question was left, but the answer was like they changed the answer completely to a much better answer that includes profits affirm in our day that dark skin is not a sign of divine disfavor or cursing, and then it has a video response from Brother Corbett of the young men general presidency, and I recommend, I do recommend looking up that entire answer and watching that video. It I, I’m like as sad as I am that the error was made, I think that the repair has been a very good attempt and so I’m thankful that it was taken so seriously. So that’s where we’ve been and um I, I am so happy to say. That we just made another huge step forward, I believe. Deseret Book just, and I think it was in the beginning of this month, in the beginning of April, I believe, released a new book in their Let’s Talk About series that is called Let’s Talk About Race and Priesthood, and it was published, like commissioned and published by Deseret Book. They asked Paul Reeve to write it. And he did, and it actually deals honestly with the race issue. It just unequivocally states what we should all inherently know that the priesthood ban was never of God and neither was any form of racism, that it was always a very tragic error of man, and it also makes it clear that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with it. It shows the um like the the the bits of information we have to show where it came from, that it was very much started by Brigham Young and was supported and carried on by many leaders who then started to claim that it was Joseph Smith, that Joseph Smith had started it, right? And they, they, um, and, and that it was commanded by God. So that’s part of what I think is fascinating because My personal opinion is that the same exact thing happened with polygamy. I think that this is not a coincidence, right, that these things go together and have been the biggest mistakes in the church. And so it is to me wonderful to know
[00:21:48] that Deseret Book published this book. It makes me very happy. I have Paul Reeves’s other book that I’ve also read. I’m a little bit hesitant to, um, to publicize his books because he has ghosted me and has not returned any of the several emails I have sent him over the past year. So Paul Reeve, if you happen to watch this, I would love to have you come on the podcast and talk to me. And if anyone knows him, tell him to come talk to me. But um anyway, but I do, I’m very, very thankful for this book. I actually really, really appreciated it, so I highly recommend it. So we’re going to talk about some of the history that’s in this book and in Lester Bush’s paper and then um this I’ve, I’ve sourced broadly to get this information and this is a very um Like just oversimplified cursory um explanation of these events. There’s no way that this is such a big topic. This has been weeks of preparation to try to pare this down to what I wanted to talk about. So I know there are so many things I’m going to leave out and maybe someone in the like, please in the comments let me know anything that I left out. I’m sure I’ll be kicking myself afterward, but at least the information will be there. So this is, this is a big topic and there is so much information on it, so, um. I’m going to do my best to just go over it broadly. So the first thing that we know, and this is well documented, we’ll go over some of it. Joseph Smith was actually quite progressive for his time in many ways. I, this isn’t on the racist issue, but he was very progressive in relations with his wife and with women, right? We’ve already talked about how Doctrine Covenants 25, I think the revelation to Emma, how that completely contradicts the New Testament and many other things. And so, Um, he was also very progressive on his for his time in in regard to race. He, um, for the 1st 20 plus years of the church, there were no racial barriers whatsoever. Um, Joseph, through his revelations and his practices, his life, he demonstrated that the gospel was and should be open to all. We’re going to go over some of those scriptures in a few minutes. And so the first African American member I have been able to find was a man named Peter, who was baptized in 1830. So almost from the beginning, um, people, and I, I’m people were welcomed into this church, no matter what complexion they had, right? The church, um, The theology that Jose and the Book of Mormon is very favorable to Native Americans, and Joseph was very welcoming to all races. And so, so it’s interesting where it went from there. So in addition to welcoming African African Americans into both the church and into his home, remember that he welcomed people to stay with him in his home. He really treated people just as they should be treated as people, right? Um, he was also perfectly willing to ordain people of African heritage. I haven’t found anywhere that he stated any distinction between races other than enforcing the sad requirements of the laws like Illinois had a law against interracial marriage. So we have two cases where he, as the mayor or whatever his position was,
[00:24:53] where he fined people for interracial marriages because that was the law required. So. Um, but in, but in both of those cases, he was carrying out his responsibility to write to uh to, as the executive to carry out the laws. He wasn’t acting on his own desires that I can see. So, um, let’s see. Oh, and, and I do have to say, so the ordination of any um African American at that time was a huge deal because now in the church, every 1212 year old boy is automatically ordained. Back then, the majority of members were not ordained with the priesthood. They were only ordained, and they only ordained enough people to fulfill the callings in the words. So most people were not priesthood holders. They would be ordained as elders if they were sent on missions, or they would be, you know, so they were given the priesthood as needed. And so when you have some, some black people ordained when the majority of people of of European descent of white people were not ordained. That’s a really big deal, right? That’s, it’s not just that all of the European, see, I, when I’m saying white and black, please know what I mean is European descent and African descent. There’s really no such thing as black or white as Marvin Parkinson’s. We’re all just different shades of brown, and that’s exactly right. And I think the reason it matters so much is because it is because it causes us to misunderstand scripture when we say black and white and and that’s why, that’s why it really is important. So. Anyway, I’m gonna do my best. But so anyway, that’s, that’s why that was such a big deal. Elijah Abel is the man who we have the best records of his life. He served three missions for the church. I believe his last one was, oh, I, I won’t remember how old he was, maybe 73, 75, maybe older. I don’t know, but his last mission, he actually gave his life for the church as he died as a result of his last mission. He was Old and it was hard and um anyway, this was a good, good, good faithful man his entire life. And so other men of African descent that we know of include um Hug Walker Lewis and we’ll get into more and Brigham Young and the other leaders knew full well that these African American men were ordained to the priesthood. It was, and they saw nothing amiss that that was not a problem, right? And so There is zero indication anywhere during Joseph’s life of any race-based distinction in the church or the kingdom of God of any kind. There’s nothing. Now, to be fair, Joseph did have to grapple with the challenges of the racism of his day, and actually it was, it was racism that led to the some of the earliest persecutions in the church, like Missouri, the issue really was that um the Missourians who it was a slave area, right, and they were so worried about like the
[00:27:45] free people of color that WW Phelps printed and And so, so they were being called abolitionists and called amalgamationists, and we’ll go into a little bit of that a little more later. So Joseph in having to distance himself from that, you know, said wrote some troubling things and so in April 9th of 1836, um, Let’s see, Joseph wrote a letter to Oliver Cowdery to have him publish in the Messenger and Advocate, that was the church newspaper, and it was a clear restatement of many of the popular sentiments of the day. So these weren’t Joseph Smith’s original ideas. He was trying to say, hey, we are not, um, like, like we’re good with you guys, right? You don’t need to be worried about us. But it did it spoke demeaningly of slaves in the South. It claimed that race was a curse and that it was God’s will that certain races be held. Servitude. So that’s kind of sad to read that from Joseph Smith, right? It said that if God did that if God didn’t approve of slavery, the biblical figures would have denounced it since they and since they didn’t, God clearly approved that it wasn’t man’s place to alter God’s will. So these are a lot of the things that were repeated later on in in the Utah territory. The territory of Desired by the early church leaders. But what’s interesting is, these weren’t ideas from Joseph Smith. They were the culture, they were the ideas everywhere that were being bandied about in this era of defending or fighting against slavery, right? And so, so I think it’s easy for me to imagine. I know that I’ve done this as, you know, in my life that you just kind of repeat the things you’ve always heard until you stop and do your own deep research and then, you know, get more revelation and more truth, and then you can um speak more what’s in your heart, and I think that like, like I’ve done with polygamy, right? I was just kind of said this is what polygamy is until I actually learned. And this seems to me to be to be the trajectory of Joseph Smith as well. This early statement, I think, was him just saying what everyone else was saying in order to say, Hey guys, don’t, don’t chase us out of our homes, you know. But then his trajectory was very different. Here’s one quote from that letter. The fact is incontrovertible that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the Holy Bible pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction’s being a verse from the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South in consequence of their of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude. And um, and then going forward, he said, and he said, cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord of Shem and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Jaeth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem and Cana shall be his servant. So this is really unfortunate. It, um, goes on to say. Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfillment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty and in this wonderful and wonderful here would be better defined as astonishing, like if you look up in the 1828 Webster’s dictionary. He doesn’t mean this beautiful,
[00:30:58] like wonderful in all our way, he means like like this hard to imagine, right? This astonishing occurrence is not for me to say, but I can say that the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Cain and neither will it be until it is affected by his great power as caused it to come. And so what I find really interesting here. Is that that’s the exact same argument that’s made for polygamy, right? Like Abraham was a man who was called perfect in his days and walked with God, and if polygamy had been wrong, God would have told him that polygamy was wrong, and here he’s saying the exact same thing about slavery, right? I find it fascinating. First of all, you can make a better case for slavery than you can for polygamy because Abraham wasn’t actually a successful polygamist, right? He had, as I’ve said so many times, it was an attempt at surrogacy, and then Hagar and Ishmael were abandoned, right? It was spousal and child abandonment, so it wasn’t, it’s not a good example of polygamy, but what we do know is he did have slaves, man servants and maidservants, right? And And so that’s really interesting that he made that same case for slavery. I guess what I hope is that since we can all see that that is not a good case for slavery, right? God did God allows us all to be in the culture that we are in and hopefully improves us over time. But that’s not a good defense. We would like we would never now say, hey, Abraham had slaves, and God would have told him not to if it was wrong. Hopefully we all know that slavery is wrong. Hopefully, you know, except people who are still polygamists and still believe polygamist doctrine. And so we can say the same thing about the polygamy, right, that we can’t use the argument that Abraham was a polygamist and walked with God and God didn’t say it was wrong. It just doesn’t, it doesn’t hold. It’s not very, it’s not a good, good argument at all. Interestingly, Joseph Smith did not continue in this mindset at all. So even he disagreed with this later on, and as I said, it was a popular sentiment of the day that he was repeating, not his own views. So, um. So we’re going to go on and talk a little bit more. Um, I do think I, I, I will keep stating that it’s fascinating that these were called the twin relics of barbarism, slavery and polygamy. It’s really true. That is a very accurate title of these two things. Um, and so they’re, they’re both holdovers from ancient Old Testament culture that mankind should have progressed far beyond. Before now, and I mean before, you know, before it did and especially in the church. So I do think, as I was saying that it is fair to not take this as Joseph’s deepest or final views. This was printed less than a week after he signed Elijah Abel’s ministerial license. You can see that right here identifying him as an elder, making it clear that while Joseph did not want to be associated with any abolitionists and was at least sympathetic to the claims of biblical servitude, he did not in any way see race as a barrier to church activity, temple blessings, or priesthood.
[00:33:58] So that was the letter where Elijah was sent as a priesthood as an elder, and Joseph Smith absolutely was involved with that. So. Um, so any statements that Joseph made to support um slavery or racism should be seen through that lens, right? And I think it’s more important to look at the trajectory that he was on, rather than just one statement at one period in his life. So, um, OK, and on March 7, you could, I’m gonna point out a few other things to show Joseph’s changing views. On March 7, 1842, this was a letter to John Bennett before Bennett had been ousted in shame when he was still held in high regard. And it was regarding the writings of abolitionist Charles Dyer, who I believe John Bennett was corresponding with, and Joseph Smith was reading his things, I mean reading those letters and reading his writings, and this is what Joseph wrote to John Bennett. It makes my blood boil within me to reflect upon the injustice, cruelty, and oppression of the rulers of my of the people. When will these things cease to be and the Constitution and the laws bear again bear rule? I fear. For my beloved country, mob violence, injustice, and cruelty appeared to be the darling attributes of Missouri, and no man taketh it to heart. And that was regarding primarily slavery. He was lumping in what the saints were going through as well. But so if you pay attention, that was what, 6 years after he had written that in the Messenger and advocate, he had changed his perspective that much to said it makes his boil, his blood boil within him that slavery was still allowed to be. And so, and it goes on to reveal that he became more and more of an really an abolitionist over time. Um, January 1st, 1843, this is in History of the Church Volume 5, page 217. Elder Hyde inquired about the situation of the Negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically, changed their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any other city and find an educated. Negro who rides in his carriage and you will see a man who was risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than the presidents, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush on. They brush and wait on. And so, um, take the shine off just means like, like the the those people won’t look impressive compared to, you know, you know, they’ll they’ll make them look much less impressive because they have accomplished so much. So you can see, I actually wonder in part if Joseph really regretted writing that to try to appease the Missourians who weren’t appeased anyway and and he really obviously changed his perspective much or repented for having written that. And so, and then when Joseph ran for president, this is one of the things I really liked, um, he recorded also this is in um the history of the church, and I’ll link it below volume 6 chapter 8. Let’s see if I wrote the page, but it’s called Views on the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States. So this is Joseph, um, he included it in his journal that day what his what his um platform was in his presidential um um candidacy, what’s the word I’m looking for. Included in his, oh,
[00:37:10] he included it in that’s where it is in his papers for February 7th, 1844. He says he is troubled when 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 unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But at the same time, some 2 or 3 million of people are held as slaves for life because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours. The wisdom which ought to characterize. The freest, wisest, and most noble nation of the 19th century should should be directed to ameliorate the condition of all black or white, bond and free for the best of, for the best of books says God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the face of the earth. Our common country presents to all men the same advantages, the facilities, the same prospects, the same honors, and the same rewards. And without hypocrisy, the Constitution meant just what it said without reference to color or condition. Ad infinitum, which means on for infinity, on and on forever. Petition your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850 or now and save the abolitionists from reproach and ruin infamy and shame. So by now he was a full abolitionist, saying abolitionists deserve respect, not infamy, and we have to end slavery either now or at the very least by 1850, and that only gave them like 6 years, right? Um, pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenues arising from the sale of public lands and from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress. I love that. He was like, we can sell public lands and we can take money away from the government officials to um it was called um compensated um abolition, which actually isn’t the worst idea, right? If I mean, I know that it can be controversial and seem racist, but he also wanted to help establish ways for the former slaves to be established in the land, so he didn’t want to just leave them helpless, but actually this sounds like a good option compared to the Civil War, which killed more Americans than any other war, every other war combined, right? He goes on to say, break off the shackles from the poor black man and hire him to labor like other human beings. So by that time, by 1844, his views were very strongly in favor of equality, really, and I think that that’s something we need to pay attention to, especially as we go forward. And see what happens. So that was the situation of Joseph Smith’s death. This statement from from 1844 is the last one I can find before because he was killed just a few months later, right? So that was the situation when he died, and I want to point out also that I get really frustrated by the constant claims that Joseph was racist and taught and promoted racist doctrine and that the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price are racist. I Well, and the Doctrine Covenant. I just heard, I think it was John Dehlin a little while ago say that in every single thing Joseph Joseph wrote, it had this racist doctrine. I so strongly disagree with that. So again, I’m going to talk with Marvin Perkins next week to give more insight, but I think that that we’re going to go over a little bit to to show that actually, that’s not the case at all. Every single potentially troubling verse in the Book of Mormon is We’re failing to understand what it’s saying. The Book of Mormon is a profoundly anti-racist book,
[00:40:39] just as it’s a profoundly anti-sexist book, right? The Book of Mormon does not support racism or polygamy. It quite the opposite. The doctrine and Covenants, you can’t even find a verse in there to pretend to misunderstand to claim that it’s racist, like search the doctrine and covenants for black and white and race and all of those words, and there’s nothing. There, which I find to be profoundly interesting. Next week Marvin will talk about the idioms of the Old Testament that were that are the best evidence for the Book of Mormon because it uses those same Old Testament idioms that would have been the time that it was written, and those idioms are not present in the doctrine of covenants because they weren’t still present in Joseph Smith’s time. That’s, that’s fascinating to me and really important, right? And so, um, anyway, so we’re going to go on to just talk about some of these verses quickly that show how much the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine of Covenants do not support this. There are over a dozen um verses in the Doctrine of Covenants. I’ll I’ll quote some of them quickly that talk about that the gospel must go forth to all the world and Um, right, and it says when it it talks about creature, it, it when it says creature, it means as defined by all, all humans, every creation of God, right? And um there’s a couplet or a parallelism in Doctrine Covenants 128 23 that helps us understand creature better. It says let all the sons of God shout for joy and let the eternal Creations declare His name forever and ever. Like the, the creations of God are the creatures that this is talking about. It’s all of the children of God. So I’m just going to read a couple of these quickly. Doctrine and Covenants 1828. And if they desire to take upon them my name with full purpose of heart, they are called to go into all the world to preach my gospel unto every creature. How can you go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature if you only go to Europeans, right, or people of European descent? I’m 5864, for verily the sound must go forth from this place into all the worlds and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. The gospel must be preached unto every creature with signs following them that believe. 68 8. Go ye into all the world, preach the gospel unto every creature, going on to nine, and he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned. It had to do with you, your testimony, your actions, not your race, right? Um, 81. Go ye, go ye into the world and preach the gospel unto every creature that cometh unto the sound of your voice. 8462. Therefore, go ye into all the world and whatsoever and whatsoever place ye, you cannot go ye shall send that the test, the testimony may go from you into all the world and to every creature going on to 64. Every soul who believeth in your words and is baptized by water for the mission of sin shall shall receive the Holy Ghost. And then 11 12:28, this is the last one I’ll read, but purify your hearts before me and then go ye into all the world, preach my gospel unto every creature who has, who has not received it, and he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that. not and is not baptized, shall be damned, right? So that is a pretty strong declaration of what
[00:43:46] the revelation of what God’s will is and what Joseph was bringing forward, right? I, I think that if Joseph had these racist ideas, they would come through in the in his writings, in the revelations that he received and in the Book of Mormon. Um, with the priesthood ban, Brigham Young went directly against all of these things and even personal revelation given directly to him through Joseph Smith and the other 12 that followed him in that path. So this is, this is the one I found the most fascinating. This is section 124 versus vers starting at um 127. I give unto you, my servant Brigham Young to be a president over the 12 traveling council, which 12 hold the keys to open up the authority of my kingdom upon the four corners of the earth, and after that to send my word to every creature. They are Hebrew C. Kimball, Parley P. Pratt, Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde, William Smith, John Taylor, John E. Page, Wilfred Woodruff, Willard Richards, George A. Smith. So every single one of those apostles, the only two, William Smith and John E. Page, were the only two that didn’t come west. Every single one of those apostles had been given this revelation directly by name. To open the the the the keys they were given were actually the authority to open the open his God’s kingdom upon the four corners of the earth and to send word to every creature. So they were given a directive of revelation directly from God that should have told them that there could be no restriction based on based on anything to do with any of the children of God, right? So I find that to be very fast. And then also, let’s read a couple of the Book of Mormon. I just want to, I guess, I hope this isn’t boring to you. It’s important to make, make it clear how strong the case is again in the scriptures that there is no racial ban in God’s eyes or in Joseph Smith’s eyes. So Book of Mormon, um, this is First Nephi 1917. Yeah, and all the earth shall see the salvation of the Lord sayeth the prophet, every nation, kindred tongue and people shall be blessed, right? Um, 15, 0, this is Mosiah 1528. And now I say unto you that the time shall come that the salvation of the Lord shall be declared unto every nation, kindred tongue and people. How can you do that if certain nations and kindreds and peoples are rejected? So, um, 2 Nephi 26:24, he doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world, for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life, that he may draw all men unto. Wherefore he commandeth none that they should not partake of his salvation. Behold, doth he cry unto any saying, depart from me. Behold, I say unto you, nay, but he saith come unto me all the ends of the earthy milk and honey without money, without price. Behold, hath he commanded any that they should depart out of the synagogues or out of the houses of worship. Behold, I say unto you, nay, hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Behold,
[00:46:47] I say unto you, nay, but he hath given of it free for all. Men, and he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance. Behold, hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of His goodness? Behold, I say unto you, nay, but all men are privileged, the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden going forward to 33, for none of these iniquities come of the Lord. I just think this is really important when we consider what the iniquities are that that we have fallen into. For he doeth that which is good among the children of men, and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men, and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness, and he denyeth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female, and he remembereth the heathen, and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. That black and white does not mean I’m convinced what we think it means, and Marvin Perkins will help us understand that next week, but This is so profound because what it is so clearly saying is that if there is anything necessary for any degree of salvation or exaltation, it must be open to all, right, that God is making it so clear that everybody has like privileges. So we have some deep questions that we need to ask ourselves and how we are, um, you know, what, what traditions have been handed down, where the errors are or were. And so, um, that’s, that’s really interesting. Now I, I don’t want to take too much time. I also wanted to go into the book of um the Pearl of Great Price because the book of Moses and Abraham are where the The strongest defenders of the priesthood ban, like as I’ve engaged with polygamist, I have been quoted the Abraham chapter 1 and Moses chapter 7 many times. I’ll go into it really quickly. The thing that is so that needs to be like drummed into all of our heads is that curses have nothing to do with complexion. They have nothing to do with skin color, and the um like the cure for curses has nothing to do with complexion or skin color changing. That’s just ludicrous. It’s about repentance, right? So I’m just going to, I won’t go into all of the problems in these um sections right now. We can maybe do another another one later, it would take too long, but I’m just gonna read a couple of um verses from Moses 7 that should make clear that curses are not complexion. Verse 8. For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat. Verse 10, and the Lord said unto me, Go to this people and say unto them, repent, lest I come out and smite them with a curse, and they die. Verse 15, and there went forth a curse upon all the people that fought against God, and from that time forth there were wars and bloodsheds among them. Verse 20. The Lord said unto Enoch, Zion, have I blessed, but the residue of the people have I cursed. Everyone, the entire residue, everyone left on the earth after Zion was taken was cursed, right? So we all are inheritors of whatever curse there is. It does talk about, well, we’ll go into it a little bit more. The, the,
[00:49:49] um. The defense of these racial ideas and curses are so strange. It’s this kind of really illogical amalgamation of people and scriptures with a lot of creative additions. It’s very similar to polygamy. The scriptural case is weak. It is not sound. John Taylor summed it up well. I’m I’m going to just talk a little bit about it, but this was a quote from. August 28th, 1881 talking about among other things that there must be opposition in all things, he said, after and after the flood, we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Kane was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God. And that man should be a free, should be a free agent to act for himself and that all men might have the opportunity of receiving or rejecting the truth. Just this is so wrong on so many levels and in so many ways. First of all, in the same sentence, he’s saying that people of African descent are the representation of Satan upon the earth. And then in the very next sentence he says that man should be a free agent to act for himself and that all men might have the opportunity of receiving or rejecting the truth. How can you act for yourself and have that opportunity to receive the truth if you are the literal embodiment of Of Satan on the earth, like it’s so bad. There’s so many problems and it just led to all these this confusing of scriptures and twisting of things led to so many bad policies and so much bad rhetoric. So to be really brief, like I’ll go into this maybe a little more or maybe I’ll just cover it here. Um, Brigham Young always attributed the curse to Cain, right, that people of African descent were the the the Africans were the descendants of Cain. Um, Orson Pratt vehemently disagreed with that and said it was ham, right? So other leaders in trying to follow this through were like, OK, this is what it must be. Egyptus, that it’s that it talks about in Abraham one must have been a descendant of Cain, so she was black and she married Ham, and so she kept black on the earth, even though like it’s just it was Ham that was cursed by his father, right, for uncovering his nakedness, which is still no one understands exactly what that means. There’s a lot of interpretation about it. Cain and the Canaanites have nothing to do with each other. There were misspellings, and people thought that they were the same, but they had nothing to do with each other, right? The Canaanites were Ham’s descendants, and they lived in the land of Canaan, and there, there’s no claim anywhere that Egyptus was a descendant of Cain. Like this is all insane. And we know that if, if we want to take this all literally, the descendants of Cain were not supposed to intermarry, right, with Noah, a righteous man, would have not had his son. Marry, from if, if, if, if all of this is literal, you know, I have questions about how, how we’re supposed to understand all of this, but all of these claims are so just created out of thin air and none of them make any sense.
[00:52:50] So, uh, I’ll try to go into a little bit of it really quick, as I said, there’s no mention of Aegyptus being a descendant of Cain and that language was actually changed the. Originally when it was printed in 1835, it spoke of Zepta and Aegypti. That was a mother and a daughter that it talks about as aegyptus, right? That they were changed later on. And so no one even knows if they’re talking about the mother or the daughter. It’s all confused. Um, and, and it was ham that was cursed, not like the curse of Cana came through ham, not through Aegyptus. Right? They just ignore that. And then, um, even if we did want to make it a race about race, Egyptians had the same complexion as Israelites. They both Egypt and the the land of Canaan both border the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea, right? You have to get much further south to get into really dark complexions of the more um equatorial continent. And so that doesn’t make any sense in any way. And then it ignores the idioms, right, that we’re going to talk about next week that are really, really important though because they tell us the actual meanings of the words and the symbols that are used. And above all, it completely fails to realize that all people includes all races and taking the gospel to every creature in the four corners of the earth would mean people of all races, of all skin colors. So it completely disregards the Book of Mormon and the revelations that they were. Directly given. So again, it takes these much more obscure things, twists them to mean something they never meant, and leaves completely disregards their own revelation and the cornerstone of our religion. I think that’s a really hard, a big problem. If there are seeming contradictions in scripture, what do we prioritize, right? Ideally, we prioritize what is most directly of God, which I think is often anyway, and, and we prioritize love and inclusiveness, always, that’s what we do. So I just, these are such bad false claims and they cannot be supported anywhere. So during during Joseph’s life and after his death, well, well, I will say this, I’ll go into it a little bit more, but like I said, Brigham Young said it was Kane, Orson Pratt said it was ham. They, they both agreed that there was a curse, but they disagreed very much on the origin of it and the reason for it. And so they had heated debates on it and then since then everyone else kind of amalgamated it together to try to make sense like we just heard John Taylor do and then as it was passed down, it just kind of became like people didn’t have to think about it anymore cause they were raised on it, so they stopped looking at it with any kind of a critical eye trying to understand it. They just were like, oh, it’s the curse of Ham and Kane. It just kind of went together and that’s that’s how it seemed to happen to me. It’s really Interesting to watch these false um traditions get embedded and see how that happens. So, um, Brigham Young absolutely knew after Joseph’s death, he absolutely knew of the inclusion, the inclusiveness of the church and that African Americans were in the gospel and were ordained and so, but it seems my impression,
[00:55:54] and you know this is me. I think that as he grew in power and in confidence, he became more free to express his own views and to make make it his own way, you know, I think that’s kind of what happened with polygamy. Someone asked in um a group why. Why Brigham didn’t reveal polygamy until 1852 and why he did and why he did at that time. And I kind of think it was like he was getting more and more confident, more and more used to authoritarian power, right? I think that maybe a similar thing was happening with race because he also revealed the race doctrine in 1852, not a very good year for the church. So, um, we’re going to look at maybe how with some of the things that might have been involved in that transformation. So two important names to know are William McKerry and William Appleby. So, and, and it’s possible. I don’t know whether Brigham Young already had these attitudes kind of under, but didn’t have the, you know, he wasn’t in charge so we couldn’t say them or if different things happened that shifted his views like I think might have happened with Joseph Smith, maybe the same thing happened with Brigham Young. The important thing to recognize is the trajectory. Joseph Smith started out here, went here, right? Brigham Young started out here and when like his trajectory was the opposite of Joseph’s. It’s really interesting to see what happens, so. OK, the first one, William McCarry was a bizarre guy. He, he was a former slave who joined the church in 1846, and he was married to a woman of European descent, Lucy Stanton, who was married to a white woman. And um not that Brigham and none of the other apostles expressed any disapproval of that and um he, William Mcerry, he claimed to be Adam and his proof that he was that he was missing a rib, so he was, he was a performer and you know, he just seems like quite a character. Um, he was an entertainer and a preacher and a performer and a musician who would like have people feel his missing rib to see that he was Adam. And so, but the important thing is that in March of 1847, so this was only a few weeks, I think Brigham left on his first trip to the Great Basin to to Salt Lake in. Um, like April, so I think it was just a week or a couple of weeks later that this was right before Brigham Brigham left with that first vanguard to um go to Salt Lake. He met with William McKerry and his wife, right? William McKerry also claimed to be a Lamanite to, um, rather than black, to try to defer some of the racism. He he’s an interesting. But they had this meeting. It was with 8 apostles and William McKerry and his wife, and it included Brigham Young and several other leaders. And it was a long meeting. The topics included William McKerry’s prophetic gifts as well as, as well as race. He, um, William McKerry insisted that they examine his missing rib. And then, but the thing that I find most important, he complained of the racism that he experienced that that he and his wife experienced as an interracial couple and as him as a black man, which made, and that’s why he claimed to be a Native American. And so, um, so anyway,
[00:59:01] in response to his claims, to his complaints of racism, Brigham sounded very similar to Joseph before his death and what he said. This is um what was written in the notes, the quote of Brigham Young. It’s nothing to do with the blood, for of one blood has God made all all flesh. So just like Joseph Smith, he quotes Acts, that’s Acts 17:26. But then Brigham You claimed that the saints did not discriminate in anything, including priesthood authority. To make his case, he talked about Q Walker Lewis in the Lowell, Massachusetts branch. He said, this is a quote of Brigham Young again. We have one of the best elders, an African in Lowell, a barber. Q. Walker Lewis lived in Lowell, Massachusetts and was a barber and was a black elder, right? And so, um, Who was highly respected and beloved, so he, Brigham Young, we have him on record saying there’s nothing to do with race. You’re not discriminated because of race. In fact, we have one of our best elders is a black man in Lowell, Massachusetts who’s a barber talking about Qgh Walker Lewis. So we have Brigham on record knowing this and approving of it right before he came to Salt Lake. That is fascinating. So Um, let’s see, he said, we don’t care. Brigham insisted, we don’t care about the color. William asked, Do I hear that from all, meaning all of the apostles, and they all answered and affirmed I. William said, if anyone molests me, I will come to Brother Brigham. So we have that on record. Isn’t that fast? That’s so important to know. It is just the clearest evidence possible that Brigham Man absolutely knew that Joseph um instituted no priesthood ban and that the gospel is revealed by Joseph, the gospel from God as revealed by Joseph was meant to be universal and open to all. So that um then Brigham Young went to Utah. And less than I guess 4 years after that, 5 years after that, we had a full throttle racial band. So one other important thing that happened just as Brigham You came back um was let’s see, well, let me say, Willie McHarry may I I don’t know if he. Something to do with shaping the opinions of people. I know that Parley Pratt said some pretty troubling things that became a part of the dialogue. So William McKerry ended up leaving and trying to take members with him. He became a polygamist, I believe, I’m pretty sure he did, and tried to get people to follow him. So this is partly Pratt when he was um upset that people were not following the 12, he said, Ye who want to scatter, go and scatter to the four winds, for the Lord can do without you and the church can do without you, for we want the pure in heart to go with us over the mountains. He says something about James Strang, then he says, if they want to follow this black man who has got the blood of Ham in him, which lineage which Curtz. Regard to the priesthood, that that was also their choice. So he’s he’s also quoting the blood of Hamphe, but remember that was not from the church, that was the common sentiment being argued in defense of of slavery. That wasn’t from the, does that make sense? I hope that makes sense.
[01:01:51] That wasn’t a unique doctrine. He was just quoting. The zeitgeist of the time. So, um, so it was already there. So, um, OK, anyway, so that happened, but then a few months later, William Appleby, who was from New Jersey and who had been sent to check on branches in the east, um, he wrote a letter to Brigham Young that’s quite troubling. So William Appleby went to the east and in Massachusetts he Met Hugh Walker Lewis and his son Enoch, Enoch Lewis, who was married to a white woman, and, um, Appleby wrote Brigham Young, this is what he said. Now, dear brother, I wish to know if this is the order of God or tolerated in this church. That is, to ordain Negroes to the priesthood and allow amalgamation. If it is, I desire to know it as I have yet got to learn it. So that was fascinating to read. William Appleby was incensed. Amalgamation, we’ll get into this a little more, was the word that they used for interracial marriage and having children, and it was kind of like the worst thing possible in in this mindset. So, um, after being in Enoch and Mary Webster’s home, so Enoch Lewis’s wife was Mary Webster. Um, he wrote this in his journal. I just found it so find it so sad. He said, in looking for a brother in the church, I called it a house, a colored man resided there. I set myself down for a few moments. Presently in came quite a good looking white woman, about 22 years old, I should think, with blushing cheeks, and was introduced to me. As the negro’s wife, an infant in the cradle nearby, bore evidence to the fact, O woman, thought I, where is thy shame? Respect for thy family, thyself, for thy offspring, and above all, the law of God. For indeed I felt ashamed, and not only ashamed but disgusted when I was informed that they were both members of our church. So that’s what I was saying, the horror of amalgamation, uh, it’s just frustrating because I have to wonder if these people expressed the same horror of slave masters who had sexual access to their enslaved, um, their females that, you know, they’re they’re, it’s just I find it to be really troubling, really upsetting, especially when you consider that section 132 allows concubines, which is exactly that slave women that you have sexual access to, right? And And so it’s hard to know what his real, um, anyway, I just, uh, it’s hard to read that and what I wish like if Joseph Smith had gotten that letter, I like to imagine that he would have responded with a loving um but firm rebuke, right?
[01:04:22] But that doesn’t seem to be what Brigham did. So, um, I will say that amalgamation was the boogeyman like. If you wanted to really discredit people, like kind of like calling people Nazis now, right? You would call them amalgamationists like they tried to say that the abolitionists weren’t really for ending slavery, they were for amalgamation. They wanted black men to marry your white daughters. Ah, scary, scary thing, right? And so, so it was um very hotly contested in this day and age, and even Joseph seemed to not be for amalgamation. You know, it was, it was really the biggest slur they could use, but, um, and, and also all of the states, well, all but 9 had felony anti miscegenation laws, misogynation laws is that how you say it, they would like it was illegal, it was a felony to have an interracial marriage. So it was a big deal in that day and age, but still. Ah, you wish that, you know, that it would have been handled differently. And so we have records of Brigham. Oh, we do have records of Brigham Young performing interracial marriages where one spouse was either Native American or partly African, um, marrying, we have him marrying a Native American man to a to a white European wife and a black man to a European wife. So that’s interesting. So his views really um changed, you know. But his views, I mean they, they, they changed quite dramatically. So when Appleby returned to winter quarters from his assignment in December 1847, so this is that same year he met with. William McKerry in March, then went to the Great Base and came back and met with William Appleby in um December, and William Appleby was still incensed. He met with several members of the 12 who were back from the Salt Lake Valley. They’d just gotten back. The meeting lasted 6.5 hours until 1 o’clock in the morning. Very few notes were recorded, but the few lines make it clear that racial mixing was the main theme of the meeting. Um, Appleby was appalled and disgusted that a black man had been ordained and that a black man had married a white woman and had a child. And so, um, uh, you know, it’s sad who, whose viewpoint was agreed with and so Brigham Young’s response is it was not good. This is um what he wrote in his letter back to William Appleby. I believe this was said before the meeting, it said. If they were far away from the Gentiles, they would all have to be killed when they mingle seed. When they mingle seed, it is death to all. If a black man and a white woman come to you and demand baptism, can you deny them? The law is their seed shall not be amalgamated, and I don’t know where they get that law. They say the, I mean, I, I assume they have to talk about the law of land. They claim it’s the law of God. Someone can tell me in the scriptures where that is, because I certainly can’t find it, um, other than if you’re saying that. The seat of, you know, like,
[01:07:09] uh, anyway, I, I haven’t found where God commanded that. Then he goes on to say mulattos are like mules, they can’t have children, but if they will be eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, they may have a place in the temple. That was another belief that was taught was that, um, you know, if you combined the races, then all of the children would be infertile and be sterile like mules. It’s just like, like there was an actual different um genus and species between different races, right? We’re not all human. And so I think that that this was the first intimation I’ve seen of Blood atonement that they would all have to be killed when they mingle seed, it is death to all. And so that’s really troubling that you can be found in. John Turner’s Brigham Young prophet pioneer in 2012. I’ll put a link below. Um, so I want to point out it’s like some people accuse us of presentism when we have problems with these quotes, but it’s false to claim that it was because of their time and culture because obviously not all people of the 1800s were racist. There were many, many. ist s right, including Joseph Smith and um and what Brigham was saying was was worse than anywhere else, like even in the most severe states, like the most severe laws had the death penalty for a black man who raped a white woman. That was the most like some of the southern states had that, but that wasn’t universal. There were only a few, a minority of states that had that law, and that was for rape. And that was only like Brigham Young was was basically saying the man and the woman and the children would all have to be killed if they, if there was interracial marriage. That’s extreme. It’s, it’s more extreme than any other rhetoric I’ve seen of the day. So anyway, so that’s the change that happened that quickly and then just 4 years later, I don’t, I haven’t seen a lot of records in between that interim, but The legislature met in Utah, well, it was Deseret at the time, in January and February of 1852, and that’s when the priesthood ban seemed to be fully in place and as often occurred, Brigham Young and Orson Pratt were at odds, right? Brigham, every territory had to decide whether it was slave or free, right? That was part of the problem they had in Missouri and they were having to deal with that issue here. Orson Pratt was determined that they could not have the evil of slavery come into Deseret. Brigham Young took the opposite side and um and you know also as usual, it seemed that the rhetoric ramped up in the face of disagreement. I don’t think that Brigham Young liked it very much when people opposed him and so his rhetoric got pretty intense. So these are the speeches from January 23rd and then February 5, 1852, and some people have described them as the worst, the worst speeches in. LDS history. What I find a little bit frustrating, this is, these are the speeches I was talking about that um the race, the gospel topic essay on race and the priesthood quotes from one of these talks, but only quotes this one really positive snippet that makes it sound like a good thing and it ignores all the rest and it just doesn’t feel, it feels disingenuous and um. And also anyway, another point I’m going to make, I’ll make it now instead of after.
[01:10:22] I was going to say it after, but one thing I find interesting is that while these are such abhorrent talks, and they are, I find it fascinating that pretty much everything that is said about black people is also said about women, and we don’t have the same outrage about that, and I think that’s something we should think about, right? So. So, um, anyway, here we go. Not let, let, I’m just going to read a few snippets from both of these talks. This is from January 23rd, 1852. Inasmuch as we believe the Bible, inasmuch as we believe in the ordinances of God, in the priesthood and orders and decrees of God, we must believe in slavery. Is that fascinating compared to what Joseph Smith said and what the scriptures say? This colored race have been subjected to severe curses which they have in their families and in their classes and in their various capacities brought upon themselves, and until the curse is removed by him who placed it upon them, they must suffer under its consequences. I am not authorized to move it. I am a firm believer. And slavery. He goes on to say the African enjoys the right of receiving the first principles of the gospel. This liberty is held out to all these servants, so he’s saying they can be baptized, confirmed, live righteously and enjoy the spirit of the Lord, spirit of the Lord. And interestingly, that later was changed because it, as the decades went on in the mid 1900s, they were intentionally not proseliing to um people of African descent. But they cannot share in the priesthood. They cannot bear rule in any place until the curse is removed from them. They are a servant of servants. Now suppose that we should have a servant, and he should be a negro. Is that all right? It is perfectly reasonable and strictly according to the holy priesthood. I loathe the abuses to which the slave in great many instances is exposed. So, um, he goes on to talk about how the slaves in America are better off than the poor in England, that’s worse than slavery. And, you know, if you read like books like Road to Wig and Pier, he has a point that things were not good in a lot of places in the world, but you should never say they’re doing it worse, so what we’re doing is fine. That’s a horrible excuse, especially from someone that is a you know, a prophet of God. Um, so it’s, um, anyway, he that that he goes on to say that, and then he says people contend about it, about slavery to know what it is. We know it exists, and such a thing shall and will exist until the Lord shall remove it. Until then it will and ought to exist. I know it is right, and there should be a law made to have slaves serve their masters because they are not capable of ruling themselves. So that was a troubling one. I think that it’s interesting that he says he knows slavery is right. This was just an ironic thing. um, Doctrine and Covenants 101. So you’ve recalled that the original section on marriage was section 101 and the original doctrine and Covenants that was removed when 132 was added. Our current section 101, which I’m glad that it wasn’t removed with this um. Him supporting slavery. 101 77 and through 79 says, According to the laws and constitutions of the people which I have suffered to be established and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh according to just and holy principles, that every man may act according to the moral agency which I have given unto him,
[01:13:34] that every man may be accountable for his own sins of the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. So it clearly says in the scriptures that slavery is wrong, right? And yet here here he is saying, I know it is right. So, um, anyway, isn’t that interesting section like section 101, that’s a good number. So anyway, he goes on to say. When the Lord God cursed old Cain, he said, until the last drop of Abel’s blood receives the priesthood and enjoys the blessings of the same, Cain shall bear the curse. Again, I would like anyone to show me where in the scriptures that is. Then Cain is calculated to have his share next, and not until then. Consequently, I am firm in the belief that they should, that they ought not, that they ought to dwell in servitude. Um, I would like masters to behave well to their servants and to see that every person in this territory is well used. When a master has a negro and uses him well, he is much better off than if he is free. As for masters knocking them down and whipping them and breaking their limbs and breaking the limbs of their servants, I have as little opinion of that as any person can have. But good wholesome servitude, I know there is nothing better than that. So that’s a tough one, right? Like, not only is he for the priesthood band, but he’s firmly saying slavery, not only is it like politically expedient, it’s good, it’s it’s how things should be. There’s nothing better than good old servitude. And so then March, I mean February 5th, his next talk gets more intense. It’s a longer talk. I’m not gonna read, uh, maybe I’m quoting too much of it, but I think it’s important. So here we go. If this is too long, you can take it in segments. He starts out by saying that Adam and Eve were cursed and were slaves, and that was the beginning of slavery when they ate the fruit. And then he talks about Cain and Abel. He admits he doesn’t know which one was older. That’s pretty basic Bible knowledge. Brigham really didn’t have much use for the scriptures. He said, God, put a mark upon Cain, and then I’ll start quoting now. What is that mark? You will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of or face of the earth or ever will see. He repeats that God said Cain’s posterity would not receive the priesthood until the last posterity of of Abel received the priesthood. Again, what, what does that even mean? When does the last, when is Abel’s posterity done and, and where is that written? If they’re quoting again, if there never was a prophet or apostle of Jesus Christ, um, say it before I tell you this people that this people that are commonly called Negroes are the children of old Cain. So right there he’s acknowledging that no apostle or a prophet or apostle has said it before. So he’s acknowledging it didn’t come from Joseph. He knew it didn’t come from Joseph. I know they are. I know they cannot bear rule in the priesthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them until the residue of the posterity of Michael and his wife received their blessings that he’s talking about Adam and Eve. Now that in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has African blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of the priesthood. Why? Because they are the true eternal principles of the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it?
[01:16:36] Men cannot. The angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off. In the kingdom of God on the earth, the Africans cannot hold one particle of power in government. They should receive the Spirit of God by baptism, and that is the end of their privilege, and there is not power on earth to give them any more power. Then he goes on, he repeats himself quite a bit, making the same, he tends to do that generally in his talks, but um I, I’m skipping around a little bit in this. I mean I’m I’m cutting parts out. Let me, let my seed mingle with the seed of Cain. That brings the curse upon me and upon my generations. We will reap the same reward with Cain. If a man in an unguarded moment should commit such a transgression, if he would walk up and if he would walk up and say, cut off my head and kill man, woman, and child, it would do a great deal toward atoning for the sins. Would this be a curse to them? It would be a blessing to them. It would do them good that they might be saved with their brethren. A man would shudder should they hear us talk of killing folk, but it is one of the greatest blessings to some to kill them, although the true principles of it are not understood. So he goes on more in depth to spell spell out the first clear, um, expression of blood atonement. Um, I, I think I might do another episode on blood atonement cause it’s important, but it’s interesting to me that it grew out of racism, right? It grew out of this. Yeah, this, it was first spoken in his letter, his response to William Appleby, and then it’s much, much more explicitly said here. So it’s interesting how the father of lies, right, like Lucifer loves to get us believing of lies and one bad lie, one bad idea begets another and That sure seemed to happen here. So he repeats several times, goes on to say, Let this church declare that it is right to mingle our seed with the black race of Cain, that they should come in with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us on that very day and hour we should do so. The priesthood is taken from this church and kingdom, and God leaves us to our fate. So that would mean, according to Brigham Young, the church has no more um power, right? All of the all of the blessings are gone from us because we have allowed. African people of African descent to come in and be partakers of all of the blessings of the kingdom. The moment we consent to mingle the seed of Cain, the church must go to destruction. Therefore, I will not consent for one moment to have an African dictate me or any brethren with regard to church or state government. He knows, um, he talks about that others may disagree with him, but he knows more than any of the others do. Here’s quoting again, If the Africans cannot bear rule in the Church of God, what business have they to bear rule in state and government affairs in this territory or others? This is on the topic of if they should be allowed to vote. If we suffer the the devil to rule over us, we shall not accomplish any good. I will not consent for a moment to have the children of Cain rule me nor my brethren. No, it is not right. No man can vote for me or my brethren in this territory who has not the privilege of acting in church affairs. And then this is the last paragraph I’ll read from it. Every man and woman and child in this territory are citizens. The Indians are citizens, the Africans are citizens, and the Jews that come from Asia that are almost entirely of the blood of Cain. He’s already talked about how they have
[01:19:46] lost their privilege because they intermarried. It is our duty to take, take of them and administer to them in all the acts of humanity and kindness that they shall have the rights of citizenship, but shall not have the right to dictate in the church and state matters. It is for men who understand the knowledge of government affairs to hold such offices and on the other make provisions and on the other, the other people make provisions for them to plow and to reap and to joy all enjoy all that human beings can all that human beings can enjoy and. We protect them in it. Not one soul of them would know how to vote for a government officer. They therefore ought not in the first thing to have anything to do in government affairs. What we are trying to do this day is to make the negro equal with us in all our privileges. My voice shall be against it all the day long. I shall not consent for one moment. I will call a council, I say. I will not consent for one moment for you to lay a plan to bring a curse upon this people. It shall not be while I am here. And that’s the end of his speech, and so, um. It’s bad, right? It’s a bad speech. It quotes one part of this in the Gospel topics essay where he says the day will come when the seat of Cain will have more blessings, like all of the blessings plus more than we have now, and that’s the one part he quotes, but it’s sandwiched in between two other awful statements and all of this. It’s so interesting that they quote from this speech at all and yet don’t acknowledge how any, don’t even begin to acknowledge what it really was. And so, um, one thing that I do again want to point out is why we are so appalled by this speech and rightfully so, we should realize that nothing was said about blacks that in one way or another wasn’t also said about women. That last paragraph that I read, it lumps in every man and woman and child in this territory or citizens, so it talks about women. In the same context as children and in the same context as all of the people that they are racist against. And remember, just as he said, I will not have them dictate to me, he says exactly the same things about women, right, that women will not dictate, women will not talk together, women will not have any affairs in this government. I don’t need counsel from women, and so, so it’s interesting um to see should we accept that kind of language about women any more than we accept it based on race and and I I don’t think we should. So, um, so anyway, that is kind of the low point. I think that that is a hideous, hideous, those are hideous speeches. Um, and so one thing that is also positive, just talking about polygamy and this racism. There’s no there was at least no revelation hidden in Brigham’s desk, you know, that appeared to um to threaten people with destruction if they didn’t submit to the to to what was required of them because of their race. That’s what happened with 132 with polygamy, right? And so, um, so I think that we should instead of listening to all of these awful things that were said by our church leaders, just pay attention to what the Book of Mormons says on both of these topics, right? That’s, that’s where I think we should take our, what we should prioritize over the teachings of our original leaders, which they got things wrong. They absolutely got things wrong. So, um, OK, I’m going to go ahead and go on. So from there,
[01:23:05] from this beginning with Brigham Young, so you can see very clearly where it started, where it came from, it went on, went on to become the priesthood ban and these racist ideas went on to become much more firmly entrenched over the years. Well, I guess not much more. They just became part of the milieu, right? There was, as I said, no consistency in scriptural and theological reasoning and defense and so similar to polygamy, it’s so clear to see. They were not going to the scriptures to try to find what the scriptures said to determine their actions. They had a strong idea and went to the scriptures in order to rest them and twist them and take things out of context to try to defend the policy that they wanted. They did that with both polygamy and with race and um. And so it was, it’s, it’s, it’s very, it’s very clear how that happened and, and we need to be careful about that when we’re reading Jacob chapter 2 verse 30, right, and these other scriptures that would support these bad bad ideas. And um they knew they were not following Joseph, but they seemed to have no compunction, not only drastically breaking from Joseph and his practices and teachings. And at first claiming that Joseph was wrong when they couldn’t um the issue came about Elijah Abel asking for his temple blessings and they couldn’t deny the certificate and ordination of Elijah Abel. So John Taylor and Joseph F. Smith, I believe, came to the conclusion that Joseph Smith had, he, he like it’s the ongoing restitution, right? And so Joseph Smith was made a mistake. He was wrong. He didn’t know yet is the kind of the claim they made. But then they went on to actually bear false witness against Joseph and claim it started with him, and they were merely carrying on what he had revealed. So again, does that sound familiar with polygamy, right? If we can show so clearly how it happened with the priesthood ban, why should it be so hard to believe it about polygamy? And so, um, Brigham Young admitted in in February 1852 that he was the first to reveal it, but it didn’t take long for these false claims to emerge to emerge. So there have been many, many more awful quotes on this doctrine, more than I could ever scratch the surface of. So I’m not going to dig into all of those terrible things that were said and taught. Instead, I’m just going to look at a few snippets of the official first presidency statements that were um. That were given. So I’ll look at this one from August 17, 1949. So, um, I, I have my personal opinion is that by this point the leaders actually believed what they were saying. I think they, at this point actually believed that it had been God and Joseph Smith that had done this, right? And so, so I want to give them at least that credit. So they say the attitude of the church with reference to Negroes. It remains as it always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy, but of direct commandment from the Lord on which has founded the doctrine of the church from the days of its organization. So right from the very beginning of the church, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the church, but they they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. Um,
[01:26:07] it explains that the principle ends ends with, oh, it oh, it goes on to explain the principle, right, defend why why God wants it this way, and then this is what it says at the end. Spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of body they are to secure. And that among and and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy immortality, the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume. In order that they might come to earth. Under this principle, there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to holding the priesthood by the Negroes. So in that first presidency statement, being of African descent is a handicap, that you are willing that that it’s such great privilege to be born that you’re willing to take a body with that handicap. It’s, it’s awful, it’s awful. So and then. This was um the let’s see, oh, this is December 15th, 1869, and I want to with all of these statements like I think that first one was George Albert Smith, Jay Rubin Clark, and David O McKay. And when I looked up George Albert Smith, actually, like all of these leaders did such amazing things. George Albert Smith struggled horribly with his health. He gave his whole life to um serve to church service. He was the one that organized as the president of the church, the um Humanitarian aid to Europe after World War II, so like the candy bomber, my kids got to meet the candy bomber before he died and um and you know, that was George Albert Smith that did that as well, and he did so many things. He established the welfare program of the like a lot of wonderful things, so I don’t want to just view them in this negative light. These were like bad ideas that they were handed down and that they continued to believe unfortunately. So, you know, we can’t paint them as black or white. And so this was a statement, December 15, 1869, and um it was first issued to general authorities, regional representatives of the 12 state presidents, mission presidents and bishops, but then in December, I mean in January, it was January of 1970 it was released to the entire church. Um, it got it first claims that discrimination, um, the ban is not discrimination since nobody has to join the church and that it should be protected under the Constitution. So it goes on to say from the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common father and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve were not yet to receive the priesthood, for which we for. Which, um, for reasons which we believe are known to God but which he has not made fully known to man. So by this point, it was saying we don’t, that we don’t know why, which we kind of still sometimes say that. I’m, I’m glad that it’s now completely disavowed, we’re not saying that officially anymore, but You’ll note again it was from the beginning of the church, from God and from Joseph Smith, and then it goes on again to defend the ban and then says, Until God reveals His will in this matter to Him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men. We feel nothing but love, compassion,
[01:29:16] and Deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our negro brothers and sisters, we are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the gospel. We have no racially segregated congregations. Were the leaders of the church of an end 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 of the priesthood must await his revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the church is established. So that stated some important things. It is true that we’ve never had racially segregated congregations, which I really appreciate. But if you read through the stories of so many members and the huge amounts of racism that Has been experienced in this church and still to this day, I’m, I called my um sister who she married a black man and her son is is black and she lives in Utah, and I asked, have you experienced anything and and I was so happy to hear that. There have been, there was a statement that was more ignorant than rude, you know, but she has never experienced racism that made me really happy. Her son hasn’t ever and so I think that we’re doing a lot better on the whole, but um, but to claim that like that these people just had nothing but compassion and the deepest appreciation and wanted black people to join the congregations while the priesthood ban was in place and the way that people were treated, um, just it, it’s really hard. It’s really hard to know our history, right? And so, um, I think that one important point that I want to point out here is that this curse doctrine presented a problem since the beginning of the church, right? Because we have article of faith number 2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression. And so how can we say, but, but they’ll be punished for Cain’s transgression or for Han’s transgression, if not for Adams, right? And so that led to the innovation that it must have had something to do with the pre-mortal existence, that’s where we got the. They were not valiant in the war of heaven. They were fence sitters, blah blah blah blah blah. And so what is really stunning to me, I guess, is that nobody has seemed, nobody seemed to recognize that the exact same problem exists for women, right? Like forever they have talked about the curse of Eve that, you know, they always quote that her desire shall be unto her husband and he shall rule over her. How many times in the Journal of Discourses and then the defenses of polygamy was it said that Managed to rule over the woman and she is to be a, you know, all of that and they’ve never recognized that the same exact problem exists and that not only like like woman is under the curse of Eve for eternity, right? We’re we’re to be part of a harem as as exalted beings eternally under the curse of Eve and so. That’s really strange that that’s the exact same problem exists for both things and yet we’ve never really addressed it for women. I find that to be interesting and something worth considering. I know this has been a long episode, but I told you it’s a huge topic, right? So just to finish up, we’re going to do a really overfast summation of how the priesthood band finally ended and kind of where we are now, so. Different factors were all at play through the 60s and the 70s. It is amazing that we didn’t end the actual ban until ’78, but these were some of the
[01:32:42] things that were growing and growing in the church. So first, there was mounting social pressure both from within the church and without. So from within the church, there were um. and the Genesis Group are two examples. I think President Kimball in particular actually really appreciated the Genesis Group. I know that he went to picnics and met with the, um, the founders of that often. I know he took, um, I believe he took Christmas gifts to their home personally. And so he really had a good connection with them. He, he appreciated them, the scholars that were pushing back and insisting that the church change, he had no use for them, whatever. He spoke very scathingly of them and basically was like, Let let us do our job. God will tell us what to do, not you. He really thought that loyalty was important. So that was one of the big things then on the without the church, you know, teams were refusing to play at BYU. There were riots. There were pickets. There was so much bad publicity publicity about the church, so the pressure was really mounting from outside. I believe I’ve heard that there were things dealing with tax issues or something, but I don’t know anything about that, so I can’t claim that. I’ve just heard people say that. So, um, this one really got me though, a stream of letters from people in Ghana and Nigeria who were already converted came into church headquarters begging for missionaries to come and teach them the gospel and establish the church. So that actually is an amazing one. President Kimball in particular, his big vision. In his presidency was missionary work sweeping the earth. That’s one of the things that he was known for in his presidency. So how could that make sense, right? We are going to sweep the earth with missionary work, but we’re refusing to send missionaries to people who are begging for missionaries to come. So I think that caused a really big problem for President Kimball, um, in particular, and, and really pulled at his heartstrings and so then. Also there was the the situation in Brazil. The church membership was rapidly growing in Brazil, and there was a temple there, and they were having to try to figure out like people would be called as a state president or even a general authority and then find out that they had African heritage somewhere or they were trying to decide, are you, you know, trying to do this race issue in countries that had always just had amalgamation, you know. And, and, and so it became this huge problem. The church was growing and they and they were holding back the growth with these issues and the inconsistencies that were everywhere. It was really, really difficult, a difficult situation, particularly in Brazil. And then I happen to think that the main factor. The actor was that the leaders finally learned that the priesthood ban was never of God. This is an amazing story. So Lester Bush wrote just a a very important paper called Morgan Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine. And historical overview. Again, I will include it below.
[01:35:38] It’s something like 70 pages. It’s an extensive page paper. It was printed in dialogue, the LDS scholarly magazine, kind of the precursor to Sunstone, you know, it was in that vein that was what Sunstone used to be. And it contained much more, much of the information we’ve covered, plus a lot more. So it, it talked about where the priesthood ban came from, and it was poured over by many church leaders. It had a huge impact on them and was a game changer. I know that he was told, like many of the leaders who had been big supporters of the ban were saying it has to be changed by revelation when they read that they, it really, really moved the dial for them. It really changed their perspective on this. And so, To kind of show what a big deal that was, I want to read some quotes from um President Kimball. I’m going to link below also at this article I’m quoting I already say this if I did, forgive me, but this paper written by Edward Kimball, President Kimball’s son, it’s a wonderful paper. I have so much respect for Edward Kimball. So and So and President Kimball, but these were from letters that President Kimball sent to his son Edward. This was 1963 talking about the pushback from church scholars. These smart members who would force the issue, and there are many of them, cheapen the issue and certainly bring it to contempt the sacred principle of revelation and divine authority. The conferring of priesthood and declining to give the priesthood is not a matter of my choice, nor of President McKay’s. It is the Lord’s program. When the Lord is ready to rely. the restriction. It will come whether there is pressure or not. This is my faith. Until then, I shall try to fight on. I have always prided myself on being about as unprejudiced as as to race as any man. I think my work with the minorities would prove that, but I am so completely convinced that the prophets know what they are doing and that the Lord knows what He is doing, that I am willing to rest it there. So again, he’s saying, I don’t like the priested man, but stop with the pressure. This is about God, not about what anybody wants, and so. That’s, that was what he thought. I, I, I don’t like this ban, but I’m willing to enforce it as long as it, uh, you know, since it’s the Lord’s will. And so um he struggled and sought for revelation for a very long time. This was March of ’63, a few months before the previous letter. He 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 I believe most revelations would come when a man is on his tiptoes reaching as high as he can for something which he knows he needs, and then there bursts upon him the answer to his problems. I love that quote. I just, President Kimball was the prophet of my youth, and I’ve just always had so much love and respect for him. And so that’s a touching quote to read, um. He believed firmly, as had previous leaders, that it was God’s ban from the beginning of the church, and it required a new revelation to reverse it. And so I think as long as he believed that he could never take action on it, right, cause he was begging for God to change
[01:38:36] his policy and wasn’t getting that revelation. And so he says the doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. 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. Isn’t that interesting to see his view. changing a little bit and softening where he’s considering that it was an error and that God could forgive the error. So that’s really interesting. And so there was a respected scholar who became the president of the University of Utah named Chase Peterson. And he wrote a letter to President Kimball. Part of what it said is, perhaps the Lord is waiting for us to be ready, and if we fail to demonstrate our readiness, then there may not be a right time again soon. So he was making the point that maybe the Lord isn’t waiting on, maybe the Lord is needing us. To take action, right, waiting on us to repent for what we have done. And so President Kimball told his told some members of his family that Chase Peterson’s letter was very helpful in thinking about the priesthood question. He also responded in a letter back saying the same thing. And so President Kimball worked slowly and carefully meeting individually with all leaders to test the water and gain consensus. I know that um Lester Bush’s article had a huge impact on him. Huge, but he also wanted to be careful. We talked about what happened with the RLDS Church and how the the huge split happened because the leaders that wanted to just made these drastic changes, and President Kimble did the opposite. He went very slowly, but he made sure he had buy-in. He met individually with all of the 12 and with many other other church leaders to get their feedback and to, you know, to try to move everyone together, um. I know that he, the first female missionaries of African descent, President Kimball told them that God wasn’t waiting on black people to be ready, but that, but God was waiting on the church and church leaders to finally repent. And so that’s important to understand how his perspective changed and what led to this ban. So. When the band finally was lifted in ’78, it was pretty much universally celebrated, right? People were thrilled and relieved. Um, I think within the church, even more than outside of the church. Um, I, I, I’m sure that there were maybe racist holdouts. I don’t know of any who left the church cause they were angry that the band was undone. Maybe that happened, but even if they did, I mean, That’s not a reason to not make the change, right? I’m so glad that they finally made the change instead of continuing in a hateful error. So this is what President Hinckley said about President Kimball, and I think it’s beautiful, he said, Here was a little man filled with love, able to reach out to people. He was not the first to worry about the priesthood question, but he had the compassion to pursue it and a boldness that allowed him to act. So. I really, really admire what President Kimball did, right, and how he was open to change. I really am so thankful for Lester Bush writing that article and for the church leaders being willing to listen to what he was saying and um, you know, and for others that were that were doing that, I guess I hope that in some small way I’m. More in the vein of Lester Bush than, um,
[01:41:57] you know, Sterling McMorran or the other Eugene England or the others that were that President Kimball was so angry at, you know, that I’m more just trying to point out what I see as the history and the scriptures to maybe have more people consider. And so anyway, that’s kind of where we’ve got where we have gotten to, but still we ended the priesthood ban, but we still had the doctrine. And that’s why I mean, the work is still far from done. Marvin Perkins will talk about that next week, and I think it will be very eye opening. I know it has been to me hearing from him and his perspective, so we have so much more work to do. But I think it’s so profound, profoundly hopeful that Deseret Book has finally published an honest account. That is such a hopeful step. It’s not nearly enough, but I only wish they could do as much about polygamy, right? We ended polygamy before we ended the priesthood ban, yet the theology has continued on for a long time. We still believe in it. Officially in the church and I think that just as we’ve disavowed the racist ideas, I think it would be lovely if we could disavow the sexist ideas. So, um, I, I, I’m I. So this let’s talk about series. They have the let’s talk about race and priesthood, which I think is wonderful. I really loved it. They also have let’s talk about polygamy. Not wonderful. I think I’ll do a review of it at some point. It’s really hard to see how I’m not, not like, um, let’s talk about race and priesthood it is. And so I wish that we could get a little closer to honest on in this issue as well. So in light of what we’ve read and the stacks of quotes we didn’t read all of those things that were said in the past by Brigham Young, by the first presidencies and by all of the church leaders. And then considering the 20 2013 essay that says today the church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in the primortal 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 races past and present in any form form, considering that. I mean, considering what was read that directly opposes and disavows and condemns clear clear teachings and doctrines and prophecies, prophetic statements of past prophets. That’s really interesting, right? Brigham Young said if the church ever does this, it will know it will be rejected by God, right? And we’ve done it. And so. I think that it’s important to recognize that doing that didn’t break the church, right? It helped the church. We don’t need to be so afraid of changing errors and disavowing bad things that were said and that were taught, right? So I can’t help but hope that we can move further on the race issue and have it. More, um, loudly and officially and comprehensively disavowed, I would like to see it be in our lessons. I would like to hear it, see it being in all of our manuals. I would like to hear it spoken at conferences, and that would be wonderful. And I, and I really hope that we can move the same direction with polygamy and the sexist teachings that we are, um,
[01:45:19] that we have gone with racist teachings. That’s really what I hope. I think again, I want to just bring up by their fruit, you shall know them, right? Both the racial ban and polygamy have caused so many bad fruits. They have caused so many problems, difficulties, complications everywhere, right? All of the issues in Brazil and with the the members in Africa and with the bad reputation the church has gotten because of these. Obviously awful doctrines, doctrines and policies and practices like, like they have led to really, really bad fruit everywhere. And so I think that like I said, and still in 2016, 60% of members thought that race was a curse from God. That’s a bad fruit, right? We need to get rid of, get rid of that. So that’s how we can really know what racism and sexism, polygamy were. They’re bad fruits, and I think I just want to close with this quote from Drius Gray at the in the preface to let’s talk about race in priesthood, he says. It saddens me that we have yet to rid ourselves of views that have never been from God, and to that I just have to say amen. Exactly. And he said it very well. So that’s the end of this episode. Thank you for sticking with me for this long episode, and I will see you next time.
