Main Page: Latter-day Saint Racial History
Previous: The Church of Jesus Christ and Black People 1947
Previous: The Church of Jesus Christ and Black People 1947
The Church of Jesus Christ and Black People 1948-1954
In 1949, South African Mission President Evan P. Wright reported to the First Presidency, "In the South African Mission we are doing a lot of genealogical research, at the present time so that more men may be ordained to the Priesthood and they in turn will be able to take places of leadership in our various branches. I have six missionaries spending much of their time doing genealogical work both instructing our members in connection with this work and assisting in family research."
First Presidency Statement
There were further inquiries from within the LDS Church about the priesthood ban, particularly as more black people moved into Utah following World War II and many Mormons learned about it for the first time. Within a couple years the First Presidency began sending out a consistent statement in response. It was largely based on Joseph Fielding Smith's book The Way to Perfection but was more vague and speculative in its presentation of such ideas. It was the first official statement on this subject in the Church's history but was never presented to the entire general membership and remained so obscure that for many years it was mistakenly dated to 1951.
"August 17, 1949
"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: 'Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.' President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: 'The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.'
"The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality 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 the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.
[The remaining text is omitted from most sources, but can be found in the historical supplement to Mormonism and the Negro.]
"Why the Negro was denied the Priesthood from the days of Adam to our day is not known. The few known facts about our pre-earth life and our entrance into mortality must be taken into account in any attempt at an explanation. 1. Not all intelligences reached the same degree of attainment in the pre-earth life. 'And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all. The Lord thy God sent his angel to deliver thee from the hands of the priest of Elkenah. I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to deliver unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thou hast seen.
'Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; and God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born... And we will prove them herewith to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; and they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads forever and ever.'
"2. Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgression. (2nd Article of Faith.) If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or alloted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain's transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world. 3. All spirits are born innocent into this world. 'Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God.' 4. The Negro was a follower of Jehovah in the pre-earth life. (There were no neutrals.)
"The First Presidency"
Notably, there was no mention of interracial marriage. Also notably, the ideas touched on were not set forth as doctrine, but as possibilities ("may be understood", "attempt at an explanation", "it would imply"). Similar ambiguity had been included in the 1909 First Presidency statement "The Origin of Man", which seemed anti-evolution in tone but set forth no doctrinal stance on the subject. That statement was reissued in 1925 during the Scopes trial, with the ambiguous wording removed. Similarly, this letter was replaced twenty years later during a period of great external pressure, by a much longer one that emphasized more the prospect of change and omitted the speculation.
"August 17, 1949
"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: 'Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.' President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: 'The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.'
"The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality 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 the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.
[The remaining text is omitted from most sources, but can be found in the historical supplement to Mormonism and the Negro.]
"Why the Negro was denied the Priesthood from the days of Adam to our day is not known. The few known facts about our pre-earth life and our entrance into mortality must be taken into account in any attempt at an explanation. 1. Not all intelligences reached the same degree of attainment in the pre-earth life. 'And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all. The Lord thy God sent his angel to deliver thee from the hands of the priest of Elkenah. I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to deliver unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thou hast seen.
'Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; and God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born... And we will prove them herewith to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; and they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads forever and ever.'
"2. Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam's transgression. (2nd Article of Faith.) If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or alloted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain's transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world. 3. All spirits are born innocent into this world. 'Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God.' 4. The Negro was a follower of Jehovah in the pre-earth life. (There were no neutrals.)
"The First Presidency"
Notably, there was no mention of interracial marriage. Also notably, the ideas touched on were not set forth as doctrine, but as possibilities ("may be understood", "attempt at an explanation", "it would imply"). Similar ambiguity had been included in the 1909 First Presidency statement "The Origin of Man", which seemed anti-evolution in tone but set forth no doctrinal stance on the subject. That statement was reissued in 1925 during the Scopes trial, with the ambiguous wording removed. Similarly, this letter was replaced twenty years later during a period of great external pressure, by a much longer one that emphasized more the prospect of change and omitted the speculation.
David O. McKay Becomes the Prophet
|
On April 4, 1951, President George Albert Smith died of systemic lupus erythematosus, an autoimmune disease. Elder David O. McKay was called to succeed him and ordained on April 9. Though President McKay shared some of his contemporaries' prejudice toward black people in the secular realm and was opposed to the civil rights movement, he took an unprecedented interest in extending priesthood and temple blessings to them. This open-mindedness was due in large part to his worldwide mission tour in 1920-21 where he met John L. Pea, a Hawaiian member who could not be ordained to the priesthood because of partial African ancestry, and perhaps also his encounters on his mission decades earlier with the Fiske Jubilee Singers, a black musical group that made a lasting impression on him with their song about Christian words and behavior.
|
|
President McKay had been told by President Heber J. Grant in 1921 that the priesthood ban could not be changed without a revelation, and he shared this conviction. Nonetheless, he recognized like few others that the theological underpinnings of the ban were not doctrines of the Church and that the practice would be changed someday. In the meantime, he took some administrative steps during his tenure to decrease the scope of the ban and extend priesthood blessings to as many worthy men as possible. At some point he even began actively pleading to the Lord for the necessary revelation, but without success. Elder Paul H. Dunn of the Seventy later told Gregory Prince in an interview: "If there was ever a person, in terms of social justice in our society, for fairness, it would have been David O. McKay. Had it been up to him, alone, he would have given the Black the priesthood that quick!"
Abner Howell Visits the South
|
After the reminiscence about President Grant, Abner Howell's letter to Kate B. Carter continued: "I spent most of the forties with organized labor being a member of the city federation board of labor. Later I was on the executive board of the Salt Lake Boy Scouts council. I also served two years on the community chest, and was on the welfare board. I served two years on the State Senate door. About this time I wanted to see some of the East and South so I went to [Presiding] Bishop LeGrand Richards and had a talk. He had told me if I ever decided to go, to come in and talk with him. The following is the letter he gave me:
'June 20, 1951. To whom it may concern: This will introduce you to Brother and Sister Abner L. Howell (colored) who are good members of our church, being members of the Evergreen Ward here in Salt Lake City. Brother and Sister Howell have been faithful throughout the years and are now enjoying what they have looked forward to for a long time; namely a trip through the Southern and Eastern parts of the United States. We have invited them to call upon our people, the missionaries, and Saints wherever convenient. Any courtesies extended to them will be very much appreciated. Sincerely yours, LeGrand Richards.' |
"We left as soon as we got the letter, for Boston, as Brother Dilworth Young was there at that time and he has been such a good friend to me all his life. At the mission there as we arrived, were missionaries, and there was a homesick girl, who, after hugging my wife and finding that we were from Utah, she was made a happy, well girl. I was happier than her to think a few words could make such a change in anyone. Our next stop was Cincinnati, as this was a special stop to see a colored Brother and his family. Bro. Mark E. Peterson [sic] gave me the address, as he had baptized two members when he was on his mission and thought a lot of the family. On arriving in Cincinnati we had a sadder outlook. We found that society had creeped into religion. Most of the members lived across the river on the Kentucky side and some of them did not want the Negro family to come to church. They could only come to church once a month, on fast Sunday.
"Cincinnati was at that time only a branch. I went Sunday with the colored brother whose name by the way was Len Hope. His family had been receiving missionaries for many years. Bro. Peterson said he had many a meal in the Len Hope home. I went in the gospel doctrine class and as I had already had the lesson they were on, I was able to answer many questions. When Sunday School was out I gave my letter to the bishop to read, and after reading he said 'How long will you be here?' and I said 'two days.' He said, 'Would you like to say a few words at Sacrament tonight?' I said, 'Sure I would.' Then it was that he told me of the feeling of some of the members of the Church about the Negro family. He told me to be easy on the 'haters.' I said, 'I will be so nice they will like me.' He said they all sat on the right side, the leader had long bushy hair.
"When Brother Spencer W. Kimball heard that I was going down South he called me into his office to talk to me. He said, 'I want to tell you something. You have been raised in Utah and you don't know those people. You won't get treated there like you do here. Be very careful, what you say, and where you go. They will always be right and you will be wrong, but say nothing, you will then get along.' That afternoon I asked the Lord to lead me in the right way that night. The bishop had said about ten minutes. Somehow that last verse in the 26th chapter of 2nd Nephi said 'Read me.' I talked a short while on brotherhood. Then I took the Book of Mormon and started to read, but my time was up - I looked at the bishop. He said, 'Go on.' I finished the entire evening by looking at the bishop several times and each time getting the go ahead sign. As I had expected, those people came to shake my hand and greeted me as a good Latter-day Saint. One man said, 'I did not know there were such things in the Book of Mormon.' That Negro family was permitted to come and were made welcome by all the members of the church.
"I went to Atlanta next and had a wonderful time. There were 15 missionaries there, and they all read the letter I had from Bishop Richards. I did not have time to stay long in Atlanta, as I wanted to get to Shreveport where the new mission was being set up. We stayed overnight there. There were no missionaries there. We had an experience that is worth mentioning. I was on the train between Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi when a lady and her grown daughter got on the train. She began to look at me and my wife. I don't know what she thought, but she finally said 'Are you a preacher?' I said, 'No lady - I am a Mormon.' She said 'What is a Mormon?' I told her about the Prophet Joseph. When she got off the train in Meridian, I gave her the only tract I had. It was baptism. The birth of water and spirit by Orson F. Whitney. I did not get her name, but two years later on the [Salt Lake] Temple grounds she tapped me on the back and said, 'I know you.' She told me about the time on the train, then said, 'I'm here for my first conference.'"
"Cincinnati was at that time only a branch. I went Sunday with the colored brother whose name by the way was Len Hope. His family had been receiving missionaries for many years. Bro. Peterson said he had many a meal in the Len Hope home. I went in the gospel doctrine class and as I had already had the lesson they were on, I was able to answer many questions. When Sunday School was out I gave my letter to the bishop to read, and after reading he said 'How long will you be here?' and I said 'two days.' He said, 'Would you like to say a few words at Sacrament tonight?' I said, 'Sure I would.' Then it was that he told me of the feeling of some of the members of the Church about the Negro family. He told me to be easy on the 'haters.' I said, 'I will be so nice they will like me.' He said they all sat on the right side, the leader had long bushy hair.
"When Brother Spencer W. Kimball heard that I was going down South he called me into his office to talk to me. He said, 'I want to tell you something. You have been raised in Utah and you don't know those people. You won't get treated there like you do here. Be very careful, what you say, and where you go. They will always be right and you will be wrong, but say nothing, you will then get along.' That afternoon I asked the Lord to lead me in the right way that night. The bishop had said about ten minutes. Somehow that last verse in the 26th chapter of 2nd Nephi said 'Read me.' I talked a short while on brotherhood. Then I took the Book of Mormon and started to read, but my time was up - I looked at the bishop. He said, 'Go on.' I finished the entire evening by looking at the bishop several times and each time getting the go ahead sign. As I had expected, those people came to shake my hand and greeted me as a good Latter-day Saint. One man said, 'I did not know there were such things in the Book of Mormon.' That Negro family was permitted to come and were made welcome by all the members of the church.
"I went to Atlanta next and had a wonderful time. There were 15 missionaries there, and they all read the letter I had from Bishop Richards. I did not have time to stay long in Atlanta, as I wanted to get to Shreveport where the new mission was being set up. We stayed overnight there. There were no missionaries there. We had an experience that is worth mentioning. I was on the train between Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi when a lady and her grown daughter got on the train. She began to look at me and my wife. I don't know what she thought, but she finally said 'Are you a preacher?' I said, 'No lady - I am a Mormon.' She said 'What is a Mormon?' I told her about the Prophet Joseph. When she got off the train in Meridian, I gave her the only tract I had. It was baptism. The birth of water and spirit by Orson F. Whitney. I did not get her name, but two years later on the [Salt Lake] Temple grounds she tapped me on the back and said, 'I know you.' She told me about the time on the train, then said, 'I'm here for my first conference.'"
South African Conundrum
In April 1952, South African Mission President Evan P. Wright wrote to President McKay, "A very serious problem relating to the South African Mission concerns the problem of the Priesthood. We are doing a lot of genealogical research but many of our people haven't been able to trace their lines out of Africa and therefore are not eligible for ordination to the Priesthood. Other individuals have run into slave lines from three to six or seven generations ago and as a result of this many questions have been raised which will seriously effect [sic] future missionary work in South Africa."
Two months later he wrote, "In the South African Mission we are badly in need of leadership through the priesthood, and I am most anxious to ordain men as fast as we possibly can. If we could have another fifty or hundred priesthood bearers in the mission our work would move forward more rapidly and successfully... Apparently this is the only mission in the Church where it is necessary for a man to trace his genealogy to establish his eligibility for the priesthood. As a result, the members of the Church in this country feel that they are penalized." He later added, "In my time I have had native chiefs and officials ask me to come and baptize two or three thousand of their people. I always try to explain that the priesthood isn't conferred upon Africans and at the present we aren't laboring among them."
Two months later he wrote, "In the South African Mission we are badly in need of leadership through the priesthood, and I am most anxious to ordain men as fast as we possibly can. If we could have another fifty or hundred priesthood bearers in the mission our work would move forward more rapidly and successfully... Apparently this is the only mission in the Church where it is necessary for a man to trace his genealogy to establish his eligibility for the priesthood. As a result, the members of the Church in this country feel that they are penalized." He later added, "In my time I have had native chiefs and officials ask me to come and baptize two or three thousand of their people. I always try to explain that the priesthood isn't conferred upon Africans and at the present we aren't laboring among them."
Mormons and the Negro
After his unsatisfying exchange with the First Presidency over the priesthood restriction, Professor Lowry Nelson had dropped the issue and returned to the University of Minnesota. However, he later wrote, "Then, in 1952, a friend in Salt Lake City, sent me a clipping from the Church section of the Deseret News that set me off again. The story had to do with two missionaries in South Africa who were asked by a woman church member on her deathbed to do her 'work' in the Temple when the boys returned to Salt Lake. Since she lived in that part of the world, the men had to make sure that her blood was not 'tainted' before they proceeded to gratify her dying wish. The story recounts their search for her genealogy and their happy discovery that she was born in Holland. So the lady’s request was granted and photos of the men with their wives appeared with the story, all rejoicing.
"I was disgusted and sat down and wrote an article entitled “Mormons and the Negro” and sent it to the Nation magazine. It was published in May 1952. For the first time, this policy was out in cold print for the world to see. The Negro press was alerted and the story was widely published. Some of my friends were rather shocked, even disappointed, that I had published it. Their reasoning was typical of Mormon liberals who always try to get things changed from within. But this had never worked out. Only when polygamy became a serious embarrassment to the church did it finally agree to stop the practice. The Church at that time was suffering from what today would be called a tarnished image. It was unable to obtain statehood for Utah because of the practice, although Utah had long since met the usual requirements for this. I figured there would never be any change in the Negro policy until the facts were widely known and pressure could be brought to bear from without as well as within."
He first notified President McKay, and recieved a response from secretary Joseph Anderson on May 23: "Dear Brother Nelson:
"Your letter without date, addressed to President McKay, was duly received, with which you transmitted an article which you say you intend to publish.
"President McKay wishes me to say that obviously you are entirely within your rights to publish any article you wish.
"I should like to add on my own account, however, that when a member of the church sets himself up against doctrines preached by the Prophet Joseph Smith and by those who have succeeded him in the high office which he held, he is moving into a very dangerous position for himself personally.
"Sincerely yours,
Joseph Anderson
Secretary to the First Presidency"
The article, published that month, read as follows: "According to Mormon theology the status of the Negro on earth was determined in the 'pre-existent' state, specifically in the War in Heaven (Revelation 12:4, 7). As everyone knows, Lucifer rebelled and was 'cast down,' taking with him one-third of the hosts of Heaven. These are the sons of perdition. Michael clearly had a majority with him, some more active supporters than others. Although I can find no Scriptural basis for it, I have heard it said that the active pro-Michael group was no more than one-third. The other third 'sat on the fence,' refusing to take sides. The latter, in the Mormon lore of my boyhood days, was identified as the Negro. This places him in a sort of never-never land, a twilight zone between the Satanic hosts and those who were ready to be counted on the side of Michael. Thus the blessings of the Mormon Church cannot be extended to anyone with Negro 'blood.'
"This unfortunate policy of the church is a source of embarrassment and humiliation to thousands of its members (the writer among them) who find no basis for it in the teachings of Jesus, whom all Mormons accept as the Saviour. The issue has become increasingly important as members of the church outside of Utah and adjacent states have increased rapidly in recent years and are brought into direct contact with Negroes, and who see their fellow-Christians engaged in programs to reduce racial prejudice – programs in which they cannot fully participate. Such persons would like to see the policy altered in the interest of peace and simple humanitarianism.
"The doctrine of white-race superiority, so much the vogue in the early nineteenth century when Mormonism had its beginning, has been so thorougly debunked as to catalogue its adherents today as either grossly uninformed or victims of traditional irrational prejudices, or both. Mormons as a group are not ignorant people; they rank high in formal schooling, with an extraordinarily high proportion of college graduates. Many of them naturally find it difficult to reconcile what they learn in college about racial differences and equalities with the stand taken by their church. Curiously the position of the church on the Negro does not carry over to other racial groups. Natives of the South Seas, Mongolians, and American Indians are given a clean bill of health. And Mormons, according to their theology, regard the Jews as their own kin! The docrine, however, does not mean there is no anti-Semitism among Mormons, but that is another problem.
"The basic question remains as to whether the church will modify its present stand on this matter. Perhaps a more important question is, can it change? Theoretically the church has a means by which its doctrines may be modified. It was founded upon the idea of 'progressive revelation,' that as God spoke to the people in Bible days, so He continues to do today through the head of the church. An announcement ex cathedra on this question would be accepted by the body of the church; joyfully by some although, no doubt, reluctantly by others. It is recognized, of course, that it is very difficult for a religion based upon revelation to modify its doctrines, but few other denominations have the procedures for change that the Mormon church has. The leaders of this church are men of good will. It is difficult to believe that deep in their own hearts they are not troubled by the ethical problem which this bit of dogma presents.
"A very real difficulty is the fact that those who disapprove the church's attitude have no way of expressing their point of view. It is safe to say that most of the one million members give passive assent to the present policy. For most of those living in Utah and adjacent states the Negro question is academic; they hardly ever see Negroes, much less live in the same community with them. In any case, they would find comfortable agreement with the white-supremacy idea because of latent historical prejudices which they share with so many other white people. However, my knowledge of the deep humanitarianism of the Mormon people leads me to think that if the question could be openly discussed they would line up on the side of justice.
"Such open discussion, especially in print, however, is a perilous undertaking for any member. It automatically leaves him open to the charge of 'disobedience to constituted authority' qhich may lead to his being excommunicated. The upshot is that discussions by interested persons are largely sub-rosa. So widespread are such discussion groups that they might be said to constitute a 'Mormon underground.' The participants are not disloyal church members; rather they are generally active in the church and rationalize their conduct by weighing the many admirable features of their religion against the features with which they disagree.
"In writing this article for publication the author does so in a spirit of constructive criticism and in the conviction that his church, with so many admirable qualities and achievements to its credit, is faced by a challenge to place itself alongside those other groups which are laboring against racial bigotry.
"LOWRY NELSON
[The writer is a lifelong member of the Mormon Church.]
"I was disgusted and sat down and wrote an article entitled “Mormons and the Negro” and sent it to the Nation magazine. It was published in May 1952. For the first time, this policy was out in cold print for the world to see. The Negro press was alerted and the story was widely published. Some of my friends were rather shocked, even disappointed, that I had published it. Their reasoning was typical of Mormon liberals who always try to get things changed from within. But this had never worked out. Only when polygamy became a serious embarrassment to the church did it finally agree to stop the practice. The Church at that time was suffering from what today would be called a tarnished image. It was unable to obtain statehood for Utah because of the practice, although Utah had long since met the usual requirements for this. I figured there would never be any change in the Negro policy until the facts were widely known and pressure could be brought to bear from without as well as within."
He first notified President McKay, and recieved a response from secretary Joseph Anderson on May 23: "Dear Brother Nelson:
"Your letter without date, addressed to President McKay, was duly received, with which you transmitted an article which you say you intend to publish.
"President McKay wishes me to say that obviously you are entirely within your rights to publish any article you wish.
"I should like to add on my own account, however, that when a member of the church sets himself up against doctrines preached by the Prophet Joseph Smith and by those who have succeeded him in the high office which he held, he is moving into a very dangerous position for himself personally.
"Sincerely yours,
Joseph Anderson
Secretary to the First Presidency"
The article, published that month, read as follows: "According to Mormon theology the status of the Negro on earth was determined in the 'pre-existent' state, specifically in the War in Heaven (Revelation 12:4, 7). As everyone knows, Lucifer rebelled and was 'cast down,' taking with him one-third of the hosts of Heaven. These are the sons of perdition. Michael clearly had a majority with him, some more active supporters than others. Although I can find no Scriptural basis for it, I have heard it said that the active pro-Michael group was no more than one-third. The other third 'sat on the fence,' refusing to take sides. The latter, in the Mormon lore of my boyhood days, was identified as the Negro. This places him in a sort of never-never land, a twilight zone between the Satanic hosts and those who were ready to be counted on the side of Michael. Thus the blessings of the Mormon Church cannot be extended to anyone with Negro 'blood.'
"This unfortunate policy of the church is a source of embarrassment and humiliation to thousands of its members (the writer among them) who find no basis for it in the teachings of Jesus, whom all Mormons accept as the Saviour. The issue has become increasingly important as members of the church outside of Utah and adjacent states have increased rapidly in recent years and are brought into direct contact with Negroes, and who see their fellow-Christians engaged in programs to reduce racial prejudice – programs in which they cannot fully participate. Such persons would like to see the policy altered in the interest of peace and simple humanitarianism.
"The doctrine of white-race superiority, so much the vogue in the early nineteenth century when Mormonism had its beginning, has been so thorougly debunked as to catalogue its adherents today as either grossly uninformed or victims of traditional irrational prejudices, or both. Mormons as a group are not ignorant people; they rank high in formal schooling, with an extraordinarily high proportion of college graduates. Many of them naturally find it difficult to reconcile what they learn in college about racial differences and equalities with the stand taken by their church. Curiously the position of the church on the Negro does not carry over to other racial groups. Natives of the South Seas, Mongolians, and American Indians are given a clean bill of health. And Mormons, according to their theology, regard the Jews as their own kin! The docrine, however, does not mean there is no anti-Semitism among Mormons, but that is another problem.
"The basic question remains as to whether the church will modify its present stand on this matter. Perhaps a more important question is, can it change? Theoretically the church has a means by which its doctrines may be modified. It was founded upon the idea of 'progressive revelation,' that as God spoke to the people in Bible days, so He continues to do today through the head of the church. An announcement ex cathedra on this question would be accepted by the body of the church; joyfully by some although, no doubt, reluctantly by others. It is recognized, of course, that it is very difficult for a religion based upon revelation to modify its doctrines, but few other denominations have the procedures for change that the Mormon church has. The leaders of this church are men of good will. It is difficult to believe that deep in their own hearts they are not troubled by the ethical problem which this bit of dogma presents.
"A very real difficulty is the fact that those who disapprove the church's attitude have no way of expressing their point of view. It is safe to say that most of the one million members give passive assent to the present policy. For most of those living in Utah and adjacent states the Negro question is academic; they hardly ever see Negroes, much less live in the same community with them. In any case, they would find comfortable agreement with the white-supremacy idea because of latent historical prejudices which they share with so many other white people. However, my knowledge of the deep humanitarianism of the Mormon people leads me to think that if the question could be openly discussed they would line up on the side of justice.
"Such open discussion, especially in print, however, is a perilous undertaking for any member. It automatically leaves him open to the charge of 'disobedience to constituted authority' qhich may lead to his being excommunicated. The upshot is that discussions by interested persons are largely sub-rosa. So widespread are such discussion groups that they might be said to constitute a 'Mormon underground.' The participants are not disloyal church members; rather they are generally active in the church and rationalize their conduct by weighing the many admirable features of their religion against the features with which they disagree.
"In writing this article for publication the author does so in a spirit of constructive criticism and in the conviction that his church, with so many admirable qualities and achievements to its credit, is faced by a challenge to place itself alongside those other groups which are laboring against racial bigotry.
"LOWRY NELSON
[The writer is a lifelong member of the Mormon Church.]
David O. McKay Visits South Africa
The South African Mission was the only one in the Church to have never been visited by a General Authority, and President Wright pleaded many times for one to be sent. In 1953 Monroe McKay, President McKay's cousin, made a similar plea in person after returning from a mission there. He recalled, "As I walked across the lawn, he stopped the horses. The iron seat on those old mowers had three bolts, and two were missing, as was typical of the old machinery in those days. And he turned that seat around to face me as we started to talk. I gave him this account. He had big hands, and he wrapped them around his knee, and threw back his head and laughed with a nice, pleasant laugh. He said, 'I'm going to tell you something, Monroe, that I haven't even told my counselors. I've already decided to go!' So I knew it before anybody else, except him."
In January 1954, David O. McKay became the first Church President to visit to the South African Mission during a tour of Europe, Africa, and South America. In a meeting with missionaries and the new mission president on January 17, he said, "To observe conditions as they are was one of the reasons that I wished to take this trip. For several years the Coloured question in South Africa has been called to the attention of the First Presidency. We have manuscripts, page after page, written on it. Now I think there is an explanation for this racial discrimination, dating back to the pre-existent state... until the Lord gives us another revelation changing this practice... the Church will observe the policy of withholding the Priesthood from men of Negro ancestry.
"Now I am impressed that there are worthy men in the South African Mission who are being deprived of the Priesthood simply because they are unable to trace their genealogy out of this country. I am impressed that an injustice is being done to them. Why should every man be required to prove that his lineage is free from Negro strain especially when there is no evidence of his having Negro blood in his veins? I should rather, much rather, make a mistake in one case and if it be found out afterwards suspend his activity in the Priesthood than to deprive ten worthy men of the Priesthood... And so, if a man is worthy, is faithful in the Church and lives up to the principles of the Gospel, who has no outward evidence of a Negro strain, even though he might not be able to trace his genealogy out of the country, the President of the Mission is hereby authorized to confer upon him the Priesthood."
Two days later he informed his counselors of this change, writing, "After careful observation and sincere prayer, I felt impressed to modify the present policy." The effects were immediate. Shortly afterward the mission president wrote to him: "I wish you could have been with me in Johannesburg and Durban when I met with some of the Brethren and explained that it was possible for them to receive the Priesthood. Tears ran down their cheeks and they were so overcome they could hardly speak. The Brethren were very humble and they expressed their willingness to serve the Lord and magnify the Priesthood. I know that your short visit here was the greatest blessing that had come to the South African Mission."
In January 1954, David O. McKay became the first Church President to visit to the South African Mission during a tour of Europe, Africa, and South America. In a meeting with missionaries and the new mission president on January 17, he said, "To observe conditions as they are was one of the reasons that I wished to take this trip. For several years the Coloured question in South Africa has been called to the attention of the First Presidency. We have manuscripts, page after page, written on it. Now I think there is an explanation for this racial discrimination, dating back to the pre-existent state... until the Lord gives us another revelation changing this practice... the Church will observe the policy of withholding the Priesthood from men of Negro ancestry.
"Now I am impressed that there are worthy men in the South African Mission who are being deprived of the Priesthood simply because they are unable to trace their genealogy out of this country. I am impressed that an injustice is being done to them. Why should every man be required to prove that his lineage is free from Negro strain especially when there is no evidence of his having Negro blood in his veins? I should rather, much rather, make a mistake in one case and if it be found out afterwards suspend his activity in the Priesthood than to deprive ten worthy men of the Priesthood... And so, if a man is worthy, is faithful in the Church and lives up to the principles of the Gospel, who has no outward evidence of a Negro strain, even though he might not be able to trace his genealogy out of the country, the President of the Mission is hereby authorized to confer upon him the Priesthood."
Two days later he informed his counselors of this change, writing, "After careful observation and sincere prayer, I felt impressed to modify the present policy." The effects were immediate. Shortly afterward the mission president wrote to him: "I wish you could have been with me in Johannesburg and Durban when I met with some of the Brethren and explained that it was possible for them to receive the Priesthood. Tears ran down their cheeks and they were so overcome they could hardly speak. The Brethren were very humble and they expressed their willingness to serve the Lord and magnify the Priesthood. I know that your short visit here was the greatest blessing that had come to the South African Mission."
Practice, Not Doctrine
In March 1954 President McKay met with LDS philosophy professor Sterling McMurrin, whom Elders Harold B. Lee and Joseph Fielding Smith were pressing to have excommunicated for heretical beliefs. Professor McMurrin recalled, "At one point in the conversation I introduced the subject of the common belief among the church membership that Negroes are under a divine curse. I told him that I regarded this doctrine as both false and morally abhorrent and that some weeks earlier, in a class in my own Ward, I had made it clear that I did not accept the doctrine and that I wanted to be known as a dissenter to the class instructor's statements about 'our beliefs' in this matter.
"President McKay replied that he was 'glad' that I had taken this stand, as he also did not believe this teaching. He stated his position in this matter very forcefully and clearly said with considerable feeling that 'There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse.' He insisted that there is no doctrine of any kind pertaining to the negro. 'We believe,' he said, 'that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it.' He made it clear what scripture he had in mind by mentioning the well known passage in the Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:26-27. He made no reference to the Bible or the Cain and Abel story. I told President McKay that I thought his statement on the Negro issue was of major importance and that it should be made public both in print and in a Conference statement in order to clear up the confusion of thousands of people in the Church believing in the 'divine curse' teaching. To this he gave no reply except to reiterate his position, saying, 'There is no such doctrine and as far as I am concerned there never was.'"
This account may appear at odds with the assertion in the First Presidency statement, less than five years earlier, that the priesthood ban was "not a matter of the declaration of a policy". However, in context they were addressing different paradigms. President McKay was denying that church doctrine held an official explanation for the ban, clarifying that the reason was unknown and the practice would someday change. The statement, by contrast, had denied that church leadership could change the ban of their own accord, clarifying that it was of God and not of man, but still leaving open the possibility of future change by stating "at the present time".
President McKay probably was not more vocal about this opinion because he strove to avoid contention and knew that some of the Apostles would disagree. Nonetheless, Leonard J. Arrington, a professor at Utah State Agricultural College, recalled that around this same time, motivated by the visit to South Africa, "A special committee of the Twelve appointed by President McKay in 1954 to study the issue concluded that there was no sound scriptural basis for the policy but that the church membership was not ready for its reversal. Research by Lowry Nelson, Armand Mauss, Stephen Taggart, Newell Bringhurst, Naomi Woodbury, and others, however, had prompted some Latter-day Saints to feel that the church was indeed spiritually prepared for a change. Personally, I knew something about the apostolic study because I heard Adam S. Bennion, who was a member of the committee, refer to the work in an informal talk he made to the Mormon Seminar in Salt Lake City on May 13, 1954. McKay, Bennion said, had pled with the Lord without result and finally concluded that the time was not yet ripe."
Claim of Scripture
In 1954 Elder Joseph Fielding Smith visited BYU to speak and promote his book Man, His Origin and Destiny. President McKay was concerned about the creationist views in the book being interpreted by students as an official stance of the Church, and a few days later on July 7 President J. Reuben Clark was sent to BYU to give a talk called "When are the Writings and Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?" Though no mention was made of the racial folklore circulating to explain the priesthood ban, the guidelines set forth were equally applicable to it. The talk was printed in the Church News on July 31, republished as a pamphlet by the LDS Department of Seminaries and Institutes in 1966, included in the Melchizedek Priesthood lesson manual in 1969, and reprinted by both Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought and BYU in 1979.
President Clark said in part: "The very words of the revelation [D&C 68:2-4] recognize that the Brethren may speak when they are not 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost,' yet only when they do so speak, as so 'moved upon,' is what they say Scripture. No exceptions are given to this rule or principle. It is universal in its application. The question is, how shall we know when the things they have spoken were said as they were 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost?' I have given some thought to this question, and the answer thereto so far as I can determine, is: We can tell when the speakers are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost' only when we, ourselves, are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost.' In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak.
"We might here profitably repeat what Brother Brigham preached. He said: 'Were your faith concentrated upon the proper object, your confidence unshaken, your lives pure and holy, every one fulfilling the duties of his or her calling according to the Priesthood and capacity bestowed upon you, you would be filled with the Holy Ghost, and it would be as impossible for any man to deceive and lead you to destruction as for a feather to remain unconsumed in the midst of intense heat.' (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7 p. 277.) On another occasion he said: 'I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 150.)"
"President McKay replied that he was 'glad' that I had taken this stand, as he also did not believe this teaching. He stated his position in this matter very forcefully and clearly said with considerable feeling that 'There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse.' He insisted that there is no doctrine of any kind pertaining to the negro. 'We believe,' he said, 'that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it.' He made it clear what scripture he had in mind by mentioning the well known passage in the Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:26-27. He made no reference to the Bible or the Cain and Abel story. I told President McKay that I thought his statement on the Negro issue was of major importance and that it should be made public both in print and in a Conference statement in order to clear up the confusion of thousands of people in the Church believing in the 'divine curse' teaching. To this he gave no reply except to reiterate his position, saying, 'There is no such doctrine and as far as I am concerned there never was.'"
This account may appear at odds with the assertion in the First Presidency statement, less than five years earlier, that the priesthood ban was "not a matter of the declaration of a policy". However, in context they were addressing different paradigms. President McKay was denying that church doctrine held an official explanation for the ban, clarifying that the reason was unknown and the practice would someday change. The statement, by contrast, had denied that church leadership could change the ban of their own accord, clarifying that it was of God and not of man, but still leaving open the possibility of future change by stating "at the present time".
President McKay probably was not more vocal about this opinion because he strove to avoid contention and knew that some of the Apostles would disagree. Nonetheless, Leonard J. Arrington, a professor at Utah State Agricultural College, recalled that around this same time, motivated by the visit to South Africa, "A special committee of the Twelve appointed by President McKay in 1954 to study the issue concluded that there was no sound scriptural basis for the policy but that the church membership was not ready for its reversal. Research by Lowry Nelson, Armand Mauss, Stephen Taggart, Newell Bringhurst, Naomi Woodbury, and others, however, had prompted some Latter-day Saints to feel that the church was indeed spiritually prepared for a change. Personally, I knew something about the apostolic study because I heard Adam S. Bennion, who was a member of the committee, refer to the work in an informal talk he made to the Mormon Seminar in Salt Lake City on May 13, 1954. McKay, Bennion said, had pled with the Lord without result and finally concluded that the time was not yet ripe."
Claim of Scripture
In 1954 Elder Joseph Fielding Smith visited BYU to speak and promote his book Man, His Origin and Destiny. President McKay was concerned about the creationist views in the book being interpreted by students as an official stance of the Church, and a few days later on July 7 President J. Reuben Clark was sent to BYU to give a talk called "When are the Writings and Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?" Though no mention was made of the racial folklore circulating to explain the priesthood ban, the guidelines set forth were equally applicable to it. The talk was printed in the Church News on July 31, republished as a pamphlet by the LDS Department of Seminaries and Institutes in 1966, included in the Melchizedek Priesthood lesson manual in 1969, and reprinted by both Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought and BYU in 1979.
President Clark said in part: "The very words of the revelation [D&C 68:2-4] recognize that the Brethren may speak when they are not 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost,' yet only when they do so speak, as so 'moved upon,' is what they say Scripture. No exceptions are given to this rule or principle. It is universal in its application. The question is, how shall we know when the things they have spoken were said as they were 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost?' I have given some thought to this question, and the answer thereto so far as I can determine, is: We can tell when the speakers are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost' only when we, ourselves, are 'moved upon by the Holy Ghost.' In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak.
"We might here profitably repeat what Brother Brigham preached. He said: 'Were your faith concentrated upon the proper object, your confidence unshaken, your lives pure and holy, every one fulfilling the duties of his or her calling according to the Priesthood and capacity bestowed upon you, you would be filled with the Holy Ghost, and it would be as impossible for any man to deceive and lead you to destruction as for a feather to remain unconsumed in the midst of intense heat.' (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7 p. 277.) On another occasion he said: 'I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 150.)"
Spencer W. Kimball's Open-Mindedness
In the April 1954 General Conference Elder Spencer W. Kimball said, "It pleases me greatly to notice that at each succeeding conference there is a larger sprinkling of Japanese and Chinese brothers and sisters; of Hawaiians and other islanders; of Indians, Mexicans, Spanish-Americans, and others. It makes me very happy indeed, and I wish to address my remarks this morning in behalf of those minorities... What a monster is prejudice! It means prejudging. How many of us are guilty of it? Often we think ourselves free of its destructive force, but we need only to test ourselves. Our expressions, our voice tones, our movements, our thoughts betray us. We are often so willing that others make the contacts, do the proselyting, have the associations. Until we project ourselves into the very situation, we little realize our bias and our prejudice."
Although Elder Kimball's talk mainly focused on Native Americans and did not even mention black people, whose presence in the Church was still virtually invisible, it exemplified an attitude of racial equality and open-mindedness that would be crucial in the future direction of the Church. Leonard J. Arrington recalled, "This powerful sermon inspired me to thank Kimball for such a strong endorsement of the need of sharing the love of Christ. I wrote him of how much the talk had meant to me personally, to my family, to my university colleagues, and to the church. Kimball replied with a friendly letter in which he reaffirmed that if we are to be true followers of Christ, we must cease to prejudge people because of race, religion, nationality, or previous beliefs and lifestyle. He concluded with typical humility, 'I pray the Lord will bless my remarks that they may be beneficial to the cause.' I was proud that he was serving on the Twelve."
Abner Howell Moves to California
Abner Howell concluded his letter to Kate B. Carter: "My wife died in May 1954, and as I wanted to go to California, I went to visit my sister, who had been living there some 35 years. I placed my recommend in the Arlington Ward from where I acted as guide at the dedication of the Los Angeles Temple. I spoke to many firesides and seminaries and University of S. Cal. Institute. Pres. Paul Dunn said I could please his classes better than he could, sometimes, as they liked to see me come. I spoke to several of Brother Tingey's classes. I talked to a class of Brother William Heartman in Long Beach, that had no standing room, all wanting to know why I was a Mormon. Sincerely, Brother A.L. Howell."
Although Elder Kimball's talk mainly focused on Native Americans and did not even mention black people, whose presence in the Church was still virtually invisible, it exemplified an attitude of racial equality and open-mindedness that would be crucial in the future direction of the Church. Leonard J. Arrington recalled, "This powerful sermon inspired me to thank Kimball for such a strong endorsement of the need of sharing the love of Christ. I wrote him of how much the talk had meant to me personally, to my family, to my university colleagues, and to the church. Kimball replied with a friendly letter in which he reaffirmed that if we are to be true followers of Christ, we must cease to prejudge people because of race, religion, nationality, or previous beliefs and lifestyle. He concluded with typical humility, 'I pray the Lord will bless my remarks that they may be beneficial to the cause.' I was proud that he was serving on the Twelve."
Abner Howell Moves to California
Abner Howell concluded his letter to Kate B. Carter: "My wife died in May 1954, and as I wanted to go to California, I went to visit my sister, who had been living there some 35 years. I placed my recommend in the Arlington Ward from where I acted as guide at the dedication of the Los Angeles Temple. I spoke to many firesides and seminaries and University of S. Cal. Institute. Pres. Paul Dunn said I could please his classes better than he could, sometimes, as they liked to see me come. I spoke to several of Brother Tingey's classes. I talked to a class of Brother William Heartman in Long Beach, that had no standing room, all wanting to know why I was a Mormon. Sincerely, Brother A.L. Howell."
Mark E. Petersen Addresses BYU Teachers
On May 17, 1954, the Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka unanimously overturned the earlier decision of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, finding that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional because the concept of "separate but equal" facilities was unattainable in practice. This decision took the country by storm. Even those with enlightened views of racial equality often felt that separation was natural and/or the will of God. Integration met with some resistance - for example, within the next few years the governors of Arkansas and Alabama attempted to physically prevent the mandated school integration, while in Florida the legislature passed a resolution declaring the court case null and void.
Educators in Utah met the decision with enthusiasm. Allen Bateman, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, said "The decision is fundamentally right. If we [Americans] hope to maintain our position of leadership in the world today with the peoples of other races and nationalities, we must do everything possible to show that we are actually practicing equal treatment of all peoples within our country." Superintendents from the Salt Lake, Davis, Murray, and Granite school districts said that their districts already complied with the decision and they had no problem with it.
Educators in Utah met the decision with enthusiasm. Allen Bateman, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, said "The decision is fundamentally right. If we [Americans] hope to maintain our position of leadership in the world today with the peoples of other races and nationalities, we must do everything possible to show that we are actually practicing equal treatment of all peoples within our country." Superintendents from the Salt Lake, Davis, Murray, and Granite school districts said that their districts already complied with the decision and they had no problem with it.
|
On August 27, 1954, concerned about what he saw as the dangerous and unnatural consequences of integration, Apostle Mark E. Petersen gave a speech to Brigham Young University teachers entitled "Race Problems - As They Affect the Church". It has been excluded from the BYU Speeches website but is still available in the university library. This speech elaborated on the concept of black people being less valiant in the premortal existence, and extrapolated it to all the races of the world. Much of it takes the form of rhetorical questions and inferences rather than outright assertions. It was given behind closed doors to a small group, never meant for general church membership, and was circulated only because a copy of it somehow came into the hands of James D. Wardle, an RLDS barber in Salt Lake City who gave it to apostate Jerald Tanner, who copied and passed it around. Elder Petersen threatened a lawsuit but never followed through.
|
|
He said: "The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth. It is a good thing to understand exactly what the negro has in mind on this subject. I'll be talking about other races besides negroes, of course, but it is the negro question which pinpoints it, so I would like to talk first of all about the negro and his civil rights. We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject."
He then read extensively from a 1952 interview with prominent black leader and Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., and continued: "I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feeling to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace.'... What should be our attitude as Latter-day Saints toward Negro and other dark races? Does the Lord give us any guidance? Is there any Church policy in this matter? Is segregation in and of itself a wrong principle? Just where should we stand? Before going into this there are a few fundamentals that I would like to mention, on which of course we must all be agreed.
"1. God is the Creator. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. 2. The purpose of His creation of this earth was to provide a habitation for His children. 3. God is just. He is fair. He is no respecter of persons. 4. We must accept the fact of pre-existence, and that in our pre-existence we had free agency. We could be lazy there or we could be industrious. We could be obedient or careless. We could choose to follow Christ or to follow Lucifer. 5. The Gospel is eternal. It is as eternal as God and He is the same yesterday, today and forever. His course is one eternal round. 6. The Lord has a definite method of dealing with both sinners and saints, based on the way we personally live. We shall be judged in accordance with our own acts. We shall be punished for our sins and not for Adam's transgression, nor for anybody else's transgression." Elder Petersen then quoted at length Ezekiel 18:4-20 and Exodus 2-4.
"7. Since the gospel is eternal and God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and since He is dealing with the same group of spirits, meaning you and me and the rest of us on earth, both in the pre-existent state as well as here, is there any reason why the Lord's method of dealing with sinners and saints in the pre-existence should be different from His method of dealing with them here? 8. For sins we commit here we will be given places in the eternal world, in the Celestial, Terrestrial, and the Telestial kingdoms, and as one star differeth from another in glory, so also is the resurrection of the dead. There will be wide variations of classifications in the hereafter, all based on our performance here in this life. 9. Is there any reason to think that the same principles of rewards and punishments did not apply to us and our deeds in the pre-existent world as will apply hereafter? Is there reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not a reflection of our worthiness or lack of it in the pre-existent life? We must accept the justice of God. He is fair to all. His is not a respector of persons. He will mete to us according to what we deserve.
"With that in mind, can we account in any other of way for the birth of some of the children of God in darkest Africa, or in flood-ridden China, or among the starving hordes of India, while some of the rest of us are born here in the United States? We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Indians, some as Negroes, some as Americans, some as Latter-day Saints. These are rewards and punishments, fully in harmony with His established policy in dealing with sinners and saints, rewarding all according to their deeds." He then read excerpts and scripture quotes from the chapters "Pre-assignment to nation or tribe" and "Traits developed in the world of spirits" in Elder Joseph Fielding Smith's book The Way to Perfection.
"Now let's talk segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation. When he permitted the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael again He indulged in segregation. In the case of Jacob and Esau, He engaged in segregation. When He preserved His people Israel in Egypt for 400 years, He engaged in an act of segregation, and when He brought them up out of Egypt and gave them their own land He engaged in an act of segregation. We speak of the miracle of the preservation of the Jews as a separate people over all these years. It was nothing more nor less than an act of segregation. I'm sure the Lord had His hand in it because the Jews still have a great mission to perform.
"In placing a curse on Laman and Lemuel, He engaged in segregation. When He placed the mark upon Cain, He engaged in segregation. When he told Enoch not to preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation. When He forbade inter-marriages as He does in Deuteronomy 7th chapter He established segregation. You remember when the Israelites were about to come into Palestine and there were evil nations there, the Lord was anxious to preserve His own people by an act of segregation. He commanded His people Israel: 'Neither shalt thou make marriages with them. Thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto they son.' It was a law for the preservation of Israel and it certainly was an act of segregation.
"Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them. Who placed the Chinese in China? The Lord did. It was an act of segregation. When He placed only some of His chosen people in the tribe of Judah, the royal tribe, wasn't that an act of segregation? And when He gave the birthright only to Ephraim, wasn't that an act of segregation? The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negroes we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that He placed a dark skin upon them as a curse - as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. (2 Nephi 5:21) And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there...
"Let us consider the great mercy of God for a moment. A Chinese, born in China with a dark skin, and with all the handicaps of that race seems to have little opportunity. But think of the mercy of God to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. In spite of whatever they might have done in the pre-existence to justify being born over there as Chinamen, if they now, in this life, accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. Isn't the mercy of God marvelous?
"Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood. Are we prejudiced against him? Unjustly, sometimes we are accused of having such a prejudice. But what does the mercy of God have for him? This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the lord in sending him to earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa - if that negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the Celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory. He will not go then even with the honorable men of the earth to the Terrestrial glory, nor with the ones spoken of as being without law."
(It is true that without ordinances such as the endowment and eternal marriage one cannot have a fulness of glory in the Celestial kingdom, and obviously at this time black people could not receive them. However, that is not to say that they would not if given the chance, and vicarious ordinances for them after the lifting of the ban would be sufficient to raise them from servant status.) Elder Petersen continued: "In the great mercy of God, He allows all men to rise above themselves. Isn't this a great testimony to the principle of repentance, that if a man does the best he can to rise above conditions and if he is faithful and devoted, the Lord recognizes him and lifts him up? I think that is one of the great evidences of the mercy of God." He then recalled the faithfulness of the Hope family in Cincinatti, and his arrangement for their ancestors to be vicariously baptized, already quoted.
"Well, what about the removal of the curse? We know what the Lord has said in the Book of Mormon in regard to the Lamanites - they shall become a White and a delightsome people. I know of no scripture having to do with the removal of the curse from the Negro. I think that we should not speculate too much about that. As long as the scriptures are silent on the subject, we should not try to determine on our own what the ultimate end of the Negro is going to be. I don't think we have a right to do that, do you? It is speculation. We do have a few suggestions from the early brethren as to their own views, but I assume that these are their own private ideas - I don't know whether I am wrong in that, President Smith, but that has been my assumption - that when the brethren spoke about the removal of the curse from the Negro, they were expressing their own views. But there is no scripture on it, and therefore, I don't think any of us, as teachers of the gospel, should speculate on it." He quoted from Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff speaking on the curse of Cain, both mentioning that someday the black race would receive the priesthood, and said "I couldn't add to that because I don't know anything more than that, and I will leave it there. We should not go into the mysteries of what is going to happen to the Negro in the eternities far off, because the Lord has been silent on that subject.
"Now what is our policy in regard to inter-marriage? As to the Negro, of course, there is only one possible answer. We must not intermarry with the Negro. Why? If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would all be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn't any argument, therefore, as to inter-marriage with the Negro, is there? There are 50 million Negroes in the United States. If they were to achieve complete absorption with the white race, think what that would do. With 50 million negroes inter-married with us, where would the priesthood be? Who could hold it, in all America? Think what that would do to the work of the Church! Now we are generous with the negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves, I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, 'what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.' Only here we have the reverse of the thing - what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.
"What is our advice with respect to intermarriage with Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiians and so on? I will tell you what advice I give personally. If a boy or girl comes to me claiming to be in love with a Chinese or Japanese or a Hawaiian or a person of any other dark race, I do my best to talk them out of it. I tell them that I think that Hawaiians should marry Hawaiians, the Japanese ought to marry the Japanese, and the Chinese ought to marry Chinese, and the Caucasians should marry Caucasians, just exactly as I tell them that Latter-day Saints ought to marry Latter-day Saints. And I'm glad to quote the 7th chapter of Deuteronomy to them on that. I teach against inter-marriage of all kinds."
Next: The Church of Jesus Christ and Black People 1955-1959
He then read extensively from a 1952 interview with prominent black leader and Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., and continued: "I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feeling to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace.'... What should be our attitude as Latter-day Saints toward Negro and other dark races? Does the Lord give us any guidance? Is there any Church policy in this matter? Is segregation in and of itself a wrong principle? Just where should we stand? Before going into this there are a few fundamentals that I would like to mention, on which of course we must all be agreed.
"1. God is the Creator. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. 2. The purpose of His creation of this earth was to provide a habitation for His children. 3. God is just. He is fair. He is no respecter of persons. 4. We must accept the fact of pre-existence, and that in our pre-existence we had free agency. We could be lazy there or we could be industrious. We could be obedient or careless. We could choose to follow Christ or to follow Lucifer. 5. The Gospel is eternal. It is as eternal as God and He is the same yesterday, today and forever. His course is one eternal round. 6. The Lord has a definite method of dealing with both sinners and saints, based on the way we personally live. We shall be judged in accordance with our own acts. We shall be punished for our sins and not for Adam's transgression, nor for anybody else's transgression." Elder Petersen then quoted at length Ezekiel 18:4-20 and Exodus 2-4.
"7. Since the gospel is eternal and God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and since He is dealing with the same group of spirits, meaning you and me and the rest of us on earth, both in the pre-existent state as well as here, is there any reason why the Lord's method of dealing with sinners and saints in the pre-existence should be different from His method of dealing with them here? 8. For sins we commit here we will be given places in the eternal world, in the Celestial, Terrestrial, and the Telestial kingdoms, and as one star differeth from another in glory, so also is the resurrection of the dead. There will be wide variations of classifications in the hereafter, all based on our performance here in this life. 9. Is there any reason to think that the same principles of rewards and punishments did not apply to us and our deeds in the pre-existent world as will apply hereafter? Is there reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not a reflection of our worthiness or lack of it in the pre-existent life? We must accept the justice of God. He is fair to all. His is not a respector of persons. He will mete to us according to what we deserve.
"With that in mind, can we account in any other of way for the birth of some of the children of God in darkest Africa, or in flood-ridden China, or among the starving hordes of India, while some of the rest of us are born here in the United States? We cannot escape the conclusion that because of performance in our pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as Japanese, some as Indians, some as Negroes, some as Americans, some as Latter-day Saints. These are rewards and punishments, fully in harmony with His established policy in dealing with sinners and saints, rewarding all according to their deeds." He then read excerpts and scripture quotes from the chapters "Pre-assignment to nation or tribe" and "Traits developed in the world of spirits" in Elder Joseph Fielding Smith's book The Way to Perfection.
"Now let's talk segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation. When he permitted the banishment of Hagar and Ishmael again He indulged in segregation. In the case of Jacob and Esau, He engaged in segregation. When He preserved His people Israel in Egypt for 400 years, He engaged in an act of segregation, and when He brought them up out of Egypt and gave them their own land He engaged in an act of segregation. We speak of the miracle of the preservation of the Jews as a separate people over all these years. It was nothing more nor less than an act of segregation. I'm sure the Lord had His hand in it because the Jews still have a great mission to perform.
"In placing a curse on Laman and Lemuel, He engaged in segregation. When He placed the mark upon Cain, He engaged in segregation. When he told Enoch not to preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation. When He forbade inter-marriages as He does in Deuteronomy 7th chapter He established segregation. You remember when the Israelites were about to come into Palestine and there were evil nations there, the Lord was anxious to preserve His own people by an act of segregation. He commanded His people Israel: 'Neither shalt thou make marriages with them. Thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto they son.' It was a law for the preservation of Israel and it certainly was an act of segregation.
"Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them. Who placed the Chinese in China? The Lord did. It was an act of segregation. When He placed only some of His chosen people in the tribe of Judah, the royal tribe, wasn't that an act of segregation? And when He gave the birthright only to Ephraim, wasn't that an act of segregation? The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negroes we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that He placed a dark skin upon them as a curse - as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. (2 Nephi 5:21) And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there...
"Let us consider the great mercy of God for a moment. A Chinese, born in China with a dark skin, and with all the handicaps of that race seems to have little opportunity. But think of the mercy of God to Chinese people who are willing to accept the gospel. In spite of whatever they might have done in the pre-existence to justify being born over there as Chinamen, if they now, in this life, accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and that means they can have exaltation. Isn't the mercy of God marvelous?
"Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood. Are we prejudiced against him? Unjustly, sometimes we are accused of having such a prejudice. But what does the mercy of God have for him? This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the lord in sending him to earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa - if that negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the Celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory. He will not go then even with the honorable men of the earth to the Terrestrial glory, nor with the ones spoken of as being without law."
(It is true that without ordinances such as the endowment and eternal marriage one cannot have a fulness of glory in the Celestial kingdom, and obviously at this time black people could not receive them. However, that is not to say that they would not if given the chance, and vicarious ordinances for them after the lifting of the ban would be sufficient to raise them from servant status.) Elder Petersen continued: "In the great mercy of God, He allows all men to rise above themselves. Isn't this a great testimony to the principle of repentance, that if a man does the best he can to rise above conditions and if he is faithful and devoted, the Lord recognizes him and lifts him up? I think that is one of the great evidences of the mercy of God." He then recalled the faithfulness of the Hope family in Cincinatti, and his arrangement for their ancestors to be vicariously baptized, already quoted.
"Well, what about the removal of the curse? We know what the Lord has said in the Book of Mormon in regard to the Lamanites - they shall become a White and a delightsome people. I know of no scripture having to do with the removal of the curse from the Negro. I think that we should not speculate too much about that. As long as the scriptures are silent on the subject, we should not try to determine on our own what the ultimate end of the Negro is going to be. I don't think we have a right to do that, do you? It is speculation. We do have a few suggestions from the early brethren as to their own views, but I assume that these are their own private ideas - I don't know whether I am wrong in that, President Smith, but that has been my assumption - that when the brethren spoke about the removal of the curse from the Negro, they were expressing their own views. But there is no scripture on it, and therefore, I don't think any of us, as teachers of the gospel, should speculate on it." He quoted from Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff speaking on the curse of Cain, both mentioning that someday the black race would receive the priesthood, and said "I couldn't add to that because I don't know anything more than that, and I will leave it there. We should not go into the mysteries of what is going to happen to the Negro in the eternities far off, because the Lord has been silent on that subject.
"Now what is our policy in regard to inter-marriage? As to the Negro, of course, there is only one possible answer. We must not intermarry with the Negro. Why? If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would all be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn't any argument, therefore, as to inter-marriage with the Negro, is there? There are 50 million Negroes in the United States. If they were to achieve complete absorption with the white race, think what that would do. With 50 million negroes inter-married with us, where would the priesthood be? Who could hold it, in all America? Think what that would do to the work of the Church! Now we are generous with the negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves, I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, 'what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.' Only here we have the reverse of the thing - what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.
"What is our advice with respect to intermarriage with Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiians and so on? I will tell you what advice I give personally. If a boy or girl comes to me claiming to be in love with a Chinese or Japanese or a Hawaiian or a person of any other dark race, I do my best to talk them out of it. I tell them that I think that Hawaiians should marry Hawaiians, the Japanese ought to marry the Japanese, and the Chinese ought to marry Chinese, and the Caucasians should marry Caucasians, just exactly as I tell them that Latter-day Saints ought to marry Latter-day Saints. And I'm glad to quote the 7th chapter of Deuteronomy to them on that. I teach against inter-marriage of all kinds."
Next: The Church of Jesus Christ and Black People 1955-1959
