Main Page: Latter-day Saint Racial History
Previous: The Church of Jesus Christ and Black People 1965
Previous: The Church of Jesus Christ and Black People 1965
The Church of Jesus Christ and Black People 1966
The Nigerian Civil War
On January 15, 1966, less than three weeks after LaMar Williams was withdrawn from Nigeria, Major Kaduna Nzeogwu and other junior Nigerian Army officers attempted a coup d'etat, sparking nearly a decade of violence that included executions, a counter-coup, several ethnic massacres, and the two-and-a-half-year Nigerian Civil War. Economic, ethnic, cultural, and religious tensions among the peoples of Nigeria perpetuated the violence. Much of the fighting was in the areas with unbaptized Latter-day Saint congregations, particularly as the southeastern provinces attempted to secede as the Republic of Biafra, and two ambassadors were killed on the steps of the same embassy where Elder Williams had been seeking visas.
He later recalled, "The war was in the very area that I had been doing missionary work or trying to establish the Church. I would have been right in the center of that conflict had I remained. It wasn't until then that I felt the Lord had something to do with getting me out of Nigeria. It wasn't the time for the Church to be established. I was on a plane traveling with President Lee from Los Angeles when he made this statement, 'LaMar, it's just a matter of time in establishing the Church.' And he was right. The time was not right."
President Hugh B. Brown wrote in a letter to John W. Fitzgerald on February 10, "I understand your anxiety in these matters, sympathize with your view point, but can only say that the discussions had by the General Authorities of the Church have not yet brought a satisfactory answer to the vexing problems to which you refer... The specific question to which you refer, having to do with the giving the priesthood to the Negro, is one which must be resolved by the spirit of revelation, and I am convinced that that will come in the own due time of the Lord... Postponing of the granting of the priesthood to the Negro while here on earth may seem to be unjust, but there are problems involved affecting many nations which, if we let down the bars now, might involve us in international complications which we would not be able to handle...
"We, of course, must not attempt to regulate His time piece by ours, and though we become impatient at His reticence, we must continue to believe that He is all-powerful, all-wise and is the Father of all mankind. We are just now wrestling with the problems in Nigeria, where some five thousand people have applied for baptism unto the Church but where the government officials are opposing us and where, if we should baptize them, we would involve ourselves in financial problems which could very well bankrupt the Church... Conditions in the Southern part of the United States, in fact, all over the United States, affecting the Negro are such that for us to take positive action might involve us in controversies to which as yet there seems to be no definite inspired answer."
In June 1966 Elder Williams gave the names and addresses of 15,000 unbaptized Nigerian converts to Elders Spencer W. Kimball and Gordon B. Hinckley of the Church Missionary Committee.
Wallace Turner wrote of this episode, not mentioning the fortuitousness of the withdrawal: "The Nigerian government simply will not give resident visas to Mormon missionaries and that's all there is to it. Meanwhile, the religious group formed by Anie Dick Obot is spreading among the Nigerians and Obot is its leader. He has not the slightest desire to be allied with the Salt Lake City organization, events have shown.
"The ultimate irony would be the growth of a powerful, Nigerian-dominated Book of Mormon religious organization that would work among the Negroes of the world. Can you imagine? Nigerian missionaries working among the Negroes of Salt Lake City and Ogden!"
He later recalled, "The war was in the very area that I had been doing missionary work or trying to establish the Church. I would have been right in the center of that conflict had I remained. It wasn't until then that I felt the Lord had something to do with getting me out of Nigeria. It wasn't the time for the Church to be established. I was on a plane traveling with President Lee from Los Angeles when he made this statement, 'LaMar, it's just a matter of time in establishing the Church.' And he was right. The time was not right."
President Hugh B. Brown wrote in a letter to John W. Fitzgerald on February 10, "I understand your anxiety in these matters, sympathize with your view point, but can only say that the discussions had by the General Authorities of the Church have not yet brought a satisfactory answer to the vexing problems to which you refer... The specific question to which you refer, having to do with the giving the priesthood to the Negro, is one which must be resolved by the spirit of revelation, and I am convinced that that will come in the own due time of the Lord... Postponing of the granting of the priesthood to the Negro while here on earth may seem to be unjust, but there are problems involved affecting many nations which, if we let down the bars now, might involve us in international complications which we would not be able to handle...
"We, of course, must not attempt to regulate His time piece by ours, and though we become impatient at His reticence, we must continue to believe that He is all-powerful, all-wise and is the Father of all mankind. We are just now wrestling with the problems in Nigeria, where some five thousand people have applied for baptism unto the Church but where the government officials are opposing us and where, if we should baptize them, we would involve ourselves in financial problems which could very well bankrupt the Church... Conditions in the Southern part of the United States, in fact, all over the United States, affecting the Negro are such that for us to take positive action might involve us in controversies to which as yet there seems to be no definite inspired answer."
In June 1966 Elder Williams gave the names and addresses of 15,000 unbaptized Nigerian converts to Elders Spencer W. Kimball and Gordon B. Hinckley of the Church Missionary Committee.
Wallace Turner wrote of this episode, not mentioning the fortuitousness of the withdrawal: "The Nigerian government simply will not give resident visas to Mormon missionaries and that's all there is to it. Meanwhile, the religious group formed by Anie Dick Obot is spreading among the Nigerians and Obot is its leader. He has not the slightest desire to be allied with the Salt Lake City organization, events have shown.
"The ultimate irony would be the growth of a powerful, Nigerian-dominated Book of Mormon religious organization that would work among the Negroes of the world. Can you imagine? Nigerian missionaries working among the Negroes of Salt Lake City and Ogden!"
Anthony Obinna Discovers the Church
A Nigerian Christian named Anthony Uzodimma Obinna recalled: "In November 1965, I was visited in a dream by a tall person carrying a walking stick in his right hand. He asked whether I had read about Christian and Christiana from A Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan. I told him that I had forgotten it and he told me to read it again. After a few months the same personage appeared to me again and took me to a most beautiful building and showed me everything in it. That personage appeared to me three times.
"During the Nigerian civil war, when we were confined to the house, I picked up an old copy of the Reader's Digest for September 1958. I opened it at page 34 and saw a picture of the same beautiful building I had been shown around in my dream, and immediately I recognized it. The heading was 'The March of the Mormons'. I had never before heard the word Mormons. I started to read the story because of the picture of the building I had seen in my dream. I discovered that it was all about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
"From the time I finished reading the story, I had no rest of mind any longer. My whole attention was focused on my new discovery. I rushed out immediately to tell my brothers, who were all amazed and astonished to hear the story. By that time there was a blockade all over Nigeria, so I could not write any letters to the headquarters of the Church."
"During the Nigerian civil war, when we were confined to the house, I picked up an old copy of the Reader's Digest for September 1958. I opened it at page 34 and saw a picture of the same beautiful building I had been shown around in my dream, and immediately I recognized it. The heading was 'The March of the Mormons'. I had never before heard the word Mormons. I started to read the story because of the picture of the building I had seen in my dream. I discovered that it was all about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
"From the time I finished reading the story, I had no rest of mind any longer. My whole attention was focused on my new discovery. I rushed out immediately to tell my brothers, who were all amazed and astonished to hear the story. By that time there was a blockade all over Nigeria, so I could not write any letters to the headquarters of the Church."
John Birch Society
On March 15, the First Presidency minutes record, "President McKay suggested that Elder Benson might not be assigned to stake conferences if he referred to the John Birch Society. The President then said that Elder Benson should be instructed not to discuss the Birch Society in any meeting, and that he should not advocate this group."
Accordingly, on March 26, in a Deseret News editorial called "Politics and Religion", Elder Mark E. Petersen counseled members to "avoid extremes and extremists". He said, "Some others have wondered if the Church is involved in such groups as the John Birch Society, but it is no more a part of that group than of any other political aggregation. The Church has nothing to do with Communists, nothing to do with racists, nothing to do with Birchers, nothing to do with any slanted group. But it does have everything to do with the eternal salvation of human souls. Furthermore, let it be remembered that it is a CHURCH, not a political organization. It takes no sides politically. It does stand for moral issues."
Accordingly, on March 26, in a Deseret News editorial called "Politics and Religion", Elder Mark E. Petersen counseled members to "avoid extremes and extremists". He said, "Some others have wondered if the Church is involved in such groups as the John Birch Society, but it is no more a part of that group than of any other political aggregation. The Church has nothing to do with Communists, nothing to do with racists, nothing to do with Birchers, nothing to do with any slanted group. But it does have everything to do with the eternal salvation of human souls. Furthermore, let it be remembered that it is a CHURCH, not a political organization. It takes no sides politically. It does stand for moral issues."
Dialogue
An independent publication called Dialogue: a Journal of Mormon Thought was launched with the Spring 1966 issue. G. Wesley Johnson wrote in the Editorial Preface, "A new generation of Mormons has arisen in this process of spreading about the land. Its members arf curious, well-trained, and in some cases affluent; they are reflective, energetic, and in most cases committed to Church activity. They form study groups and discussion clubs to examine their religion and its relevance for contemporary society and culture. They seek to relate religious ideals to issues of everyday secular life. They share the faith of their elders but also possess a restrained skepticism born of the university, the office, and the laboratory. They display an inquiring attitude which favors open discussion with members inside the Mormon community and plead for greater communication with those outside of it. They have talked of the possibility of a written dialogue, an independent journal of opinion, to capture some of this expression and concern."
Inevitably, a topic that weighed heavily on the Dialogue team's minds and spawned several articles within the magazine's first few years was the conflict they felt between their religious obligation to the priesthood ban and their secular devotion to the ideals of the civil rights movement.
Inevitably, a topic that weighed heavily on the Dialogue team's minds and spawned several articles within the magazine's first few years was the conflict they felt between their religious obligation to the priesthood ban and their secular devotion to the ideals of the civil rights movement.
White House Conference on Civil Rights
Edwin B. Firmage recalled, "After graduation and the acquisition of a few graduate degrees, I taught for a year at the University of Missouri Law School and then went to work on the staff of [vice president] Hubert Humphrey in civil rights. The president had given Humphrey two big mandates: one over civil rights and the other was over relationships with the mayors and the governors. I ended up working with Roy Wilkins of the N.A.A.C.P., Whitney Young of the Urban league, and Martin Luther King, Jr., of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. And, particularly with Roy Wilkins of the N.A.A.C.P., I formed an intimate friendship. We often talked and he talked about the blacks and the Mormon priesthood and his sadness at that policy. He believed that both groups had much to give the other. He even offered to fly secretly into Salt Lake and meet with Grandfather [Hugh B. Brown] and church leaders about this topic and not make any public to-do about it, make it absolutely secret.
"So those things were festering in me: what about the blacks? What about the priesthood? What about the constant, reactionary drumbeat of Mormon ecclesiastical teaching as it interfaced with politics that I was by then deeply involved in at the White House. For example, I spent a good part of my time planning the White House Conference on Civil Rights. Tickets to it were like gold. University presidents were turned away, governors were turned away; there was very limited seating capacity for it, although hundreds and hundreds would be there - everybody wanted to come. There had been no invitations to Mormons sent. Now the president and the vice president have what you call 'night reading.' That is, they will read overnight some portions of the thousands of letters and memoranda that they didn’t write but bear their signature. Humphrey would take this correspondence home each night and glance through it.
"He saw a memo that I’d written to Clifford Alexander, who was the president’s man on civil rights (I played a similar role for Humphrey), saying, 'Look, there isn't a Mormon in this whole group. I admit that this group will not contribute to the cutting edge of debate on this topic - they're way behind. But part of governance is not simply getting the best and the brightest to create new law, but also to bring the country with you through dialogue with many groups as you move into a radically different time - so won't you invite two or three Mormons?' Humphrey happened to see this memo sent over his imprimatur - my name but on his stationery. He wrote back on it, 'Eddie, I will support you. Tell me who you want invitations to go to.' So I chose four youngish Mormon general authorities whom I thought were up-and-comers at the time. Tom Monson was one and two or three others. [Marion] Duff Hanks received an invitation. But the word came down from the top: no Mormon general authority would be allowed to go. I know that Hanks would've come. They sent Milan Smith who was, as I recall, stake president in the area of the Capitol. The other major religious traditions had national and international church functionaries attending. You could multiply that incident a hundred times and those were the things I was bumping into."
"So those things were festering in me: what about the blacks? What about the priesthood? What about the constant, reactionary drumbeat of Mormon ecclesiastical teaching as it interfaced with politics that I was by then deeply involved in at the White House. For example, I spent a good part of my time planning the White House Conference on Civil Rights. Tickets to it were like gold. University presidents were turned away, governors were turned away; there was very limited seating capacity for it, although hundreds and hundreds would be there - everybody wanted to come. There had been no invitations to Mormons sent. Now the president and the vice president have what you call 'night reading.' That is, they will read overnight some portions of the thousands of letters and memoranda that they didn’t write but bear their signature. Humphrey would take this correspondence home each night and glance through it.
"He saw a memo that I’d written to Clifford Alexander, who was the president’s man on civil rights (I played a similar role for Humphrey), saying, 'Look, there isn't a Mormon in this whole group. I admit that this group will not contribute to the cutting edge of debate on this topic - they're way behind. But part of governance is not simply getting the best and the brightest to create new law, but also to bring the country with you through dialogue with many groups as you move into a radically different time - so won't you invite two or three Mormons?' Humphrey happened to see this memo sent over his imprimatur - my name but on his stationery. He wrote back on it, 'Eddie, I will support you. Tell me who you want invitations to go to.' So I chose four youngish Mormon general authorities whom I thought were up-and-comers at the time. Tom Monson was one and two or three others. [Marion] Duff Hanks received an invitation. But the word came down from the top: no Mormon general authority would be allowed to go. I know that Hanks would've come. They sent Milan Smith who was, as I recall, stake president in the area of the Capitol. The other major religious traditions had national and international church functionaries attending. You could multiply that incident a hundred times and those were the things I was bumping into."
Latter-day Saint Attitudes on Black People
On September 30, 1966 Wallace Turner, the New York Times journalist who had interviewed President Hugh B. Brown about the possibility of changing the priesthood ban, published a book called The Mormon Establishment which was largely motivated by George Romney's anticipated Republican presidential bid. Though complimentary in some other aspects, with regard to the ban and associated folklore it insisted that "So long as the LDS Church clings to this racist practice, it is a political and social cancer" and "[A devout Mormon] never really leaves the feeling that black skin makes a man inferior. This means that the LDS Church actually is one of the most influential organs of racial bigotry in the United States."
Besides overviewing statements by Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith and the speech to BYU professors by Elder Mark E. Petersen, the book repeated the false claims that church leaders had opposed fair housing legislation in California and that many Southern converts were attracted to the Church precisely because of its racism. Turner wrote, "I will confess that to me this is a monstrous doctrine to impose on 2.5 million people. I feel it is a doctrine as far removed from the reality of life in our time as is polygamy or the Blood Atonement of Brigham Young's day. My study of Mormon works, my conversations with Mormon theologians, my observance of the aspects of Mormon life open to a non-Mormon - all of this has convinced me that the anti-Negro doctrine is worthless and useless and not founded properly on the works the Saints hold sacred. It is a cruel and inhuman doctrine. Candor compels me to make my position clear." This was partly based on his belief that the Book of Abraham had been proven a fraudulent translation.
Turner also predicted, "So what is certain to be the reaction of the Saints to suggestions that Negroes should be treated as equals? Obviously, the response will be that no Saint will feel any obligation to be more than kind to them with that supercilious sort of condescending kindness that chills the soul of the beneficiary. The Saint will know in his heart and believe that God has said Negroes are inferior. True enough, some basically kind and gentle Mormons will find doctrine to quote to show that their church requires them to help Negroes better themselves, and will genuinely feel an equality and brotherhood with them, which is what the American Negro seeks more than anything else.
"But the overwhelming Mormon response to the current drive by Negroes to better their condition in American life has been indifference, inattention, irritation and smug self-satisfaction that few Negroes live in the Mormon centers."
Latter-day Saint sociologist Armand Mauss, though correctly feeling that the burden of proof for such claims rested with the critics (who had offered none), did a survey of three wards in the East Bay area of California to determine Mormon attitudes towards black people and how they were affected by religious belief. It was modeled after the recent study Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism done by Charles Glock and Rodney Stark, and he was able to compare their data to his. The paper was published in the fall 1966 Pacific Sociological Review and concluded:
"...no systematic differences in secular race attitudes were to be seen either between Mormons and others, or between orthodox and unorthodox Mormons. In most of their responses, Mormons resembled the other 'moderate' denominations (such as Presbyterian, Congregational, Episcopalian), rather than the 'fundamentalists' or the sects. To be sure, Mormons did differ among themselves in the tendency to hold negative secular attitudes toward Negroes, but these differences were not so much between the orthodox and unorthodox, or the active and inactive, as they were between the educated and uneducated, the manual and the professional, the old and the young, or the rural and the urban (as in any denomination)... This accords with other studies which have found socio-economic status an important determinant of attitudes toward minorities."
Besides overviewing statements by Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith and the speech to BYU professors by Elder Mark E. Petersen, the book repeated the false claims that church leaders had opposed fair housing legislation in California and that many Southern converts were attracted to the Church precisely because of its racism. Turner wrote, "I will confess that to me this is a monstrous doctrine to impose on 2.5 million people. I feel it is a doctrine as far removed from the reality of life in our time as is polygamy or the Blood Atonement of Brigham Young's day. My study of Mormon works, my conversations with Mormon theologians, my observance of the aspects of Mormon life open to a non-Mormon - all of this has convinced me that the anti-Negro doctrine is worthless and useless and not founded properly on the works the Saints hold sacred. It is a cruel and inhuman doctrine. Candor compels me to make my position clear." This was partly based on his belief that the Book of Abraham had been proven a fraudulent translation.
Turner also predicted, "So what is certain to be the reaction of the Saints to suggestions that Negroes should be treated as equals? Obviously, the response will be that no Saint will feel any obligation to be more than kind to them with that supercilious sort of condescending kindness that chills the soul of the beneficiary. The Saint will know in his heart and believe that God has said Negroes are inferior. True enough, some basically kind and gentle Mormons will find doctrine to quote to show that their church requires them to help Negroes better themselves, and will genuinely feel an equality and brotherhood with them, which is what the American Negro seeks more than anything else.
"But the overwhelming Mormon response to the current drive by Negroes to better their condition in American life has been indifference, inattention, irritation and smug self-satisfaction that few Negroes live in the Mormon centers."
Latter-day Saint sociologist Armand Mauss, though correctly feeling that the burden of proof for such claims rested with the critics (who had offered none), did a survey of three wards in the East Bay area of California to determine Mormon attitudes towards black people and how they were affected by religious belief. It was modeled after the recent study Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism done by Charles Glock and Rodney Stark, and he was able to compare their data to his. The paper was published in the fall 1966 Pacific Sociological Review and concluded:
"...no systematic differences in secular race attitudes were to be seen either between Mormons and others, or between orthodox and unorthodox Mormons. In most of their responses, Mormons resembled the other 'moderate' denominations (such as Presbyterian, Congregational, Episcopalian), rather than the 'fundamentalists' or the sects. To be sure, Mormons did differ among themselves in the tendency to hold negative secular attitudes toward Negroes, but these differences were not so much between the orthodox and unorthodox, or the active and inactive, as they were between the educated and uneducated, the manual and the professional, the old and the young, or the rural and the urban (as in any denomination)... This accords with other studies which have found socio-economic status an important determinant of attitudes toward minorities."
Negro Ban Has Wide Effect
On November 22, Jim Todd wrote in the University of Utah newspaper Utah Daily Chronicle, "The status of Negroes in the LDS Church is a complex one. Much controversy has centered around the fact that they are not allowed to hold the LDS priesthood.
"The tragedy of this denial of the LDS priesthood is not that it is unfair to the handful of Negroes actually in the LDS Church. The odious part of this doctrine is that it serves to rationalize all other forms of temporal discrimination. Therefore, this denial indirectly affects all Negroes who come in contact with members of the LDS Church.
"People who have been taught since childhood that Negroes are 'cursed by God' and therefore cannot hold the priesthood, probably find it perfectly natrual to conclude that Negroes must be inferior - why else would God curse them? - and could not possibly make desirable neighbors, business associates, or sons-in-law.
"The indirect cost of this doctrine in human misery and wasted potential can only be guessed at. But while the Negro suffers serious effects from this practice, the individual LDS members can conveniently blame their racial prejudices upon God instead of themselves.
"Still, appearances can deceive, and the conclusion that the LDS church is guilty of discrimination should be approached cautiously because of the unusual type of issue involved. Actually, of course, there is no way to know. The answer lies both in the minds of high LDS officials, and in the actual reasons and origins for the practice. It is possible that even the LDS general authorities do not know the exact answer.
"Nevertheless, for practical purposes, if any changes whatsoever are desired (or are even possible), it seems that the issue hinges on whether the priesthood is withheld because of long-continued local and/or individual customs, or alternately, because the LDS general authorities have what they believe to be a divine revelation(s) which bars the Negro.
"It is extremely important to determine which is the case. If the practice is due mainly to old customs, then important changes can and probably will be made. If it is due to what the LDS church considers to be divine revelation, then the doctrine probably will never change.
"If the apparent discrimination by the LDS Church has no roots except in the 'folkways' of early church members, the situation is relatively simple. Then because, and only because, revealed doctrine would not be involved, it should be well within the discretionary powers of the First Presidency to initiate changes which could begin to remedy old abuses and deal fairly with the Negro.
"But what if it is not due to a simple retention of old customs now turned stale by the changing times? What if the denial of the LDS priesthood to Negroes is a matter of revealed doctrine? In that case, the situation is no longer simple. The prestige, reputation, and vitality of the LDS church itself would be perhaps irretrievably involved on the wrong end of a moral issue. (In order to maintain a claim to divine inspiration, a religion should not, or rather cannot, have its revelations found to be in error.)
"Unfortunately, any change in a revealed practice carries with it the inescapable suspicion that the practice was wrong to begin with and, therefore, was possibly not too inspired.
"As was mentioned before, since there exists no official explanation, what reasons can be put forth for this practice? Is there any scriptural explanation? David O. McKay, who is President of the Mormon Church, has made the following statement: 'I know of no scriptural basis for denying the priesthood to Negroes other than one verse in the Book of Abraham (1:26).' (Mormonism and the Negro, part 2, page 19)
"Unfortunately, the majority of the interesting and informative statements were made by men who were not in the first presidency of the Church. Such statements should therefore not be considered as binding on LDS doctrine.
"Of the few statements left, undoubtedly the most important is the terse statement of Brigham Young: 'Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot receive the priesthood.' Sweeping as this statement is, it can have no literal meaning without causing great, if not total reduction, in the numbers holding the LDS priesthood.
"Of course Brigham Young made his statement a long time ago, and did not have access to later scientific concepts. Nevertheless as his words stand, they comprise an absolute bar. Unfortunately for Pres. Young, absolutes do have a way of being quite impractical. This one is no exception.
"It has been claimed that probably no European is totally free of Negro genes. The reasons involve human genetics and the data go back to Roman and pre-Roman times. (The Roman empire extended far into Germany and Austria, as well as into Africa.) It is one thing to say that most Europeans have relatively few Negro genes. That fact is certainly true. But they do have some, certainly more than the 'one drop' mentioned by Brigham Young.
"Obviously, few if any Europeans are barred from the LDS priesthood. Yet do not Brigham Young's words require they should be so barred? Where, then, could the line be drawn?
"What possible method could be used to detect a person who had a single Negro ancestor as few as four generations ago? Furthermore, what if the colored ancestor was eight or ten generations back?
"As a matter of actual fact, even if possession of relatively large amounts of Negro genes did, in theory, bar such a person (who probably would not even know of his Negro ancestry), the fact could not be detected, and he would be routinely ordained to the priesthood along with all the other 12-year-old LDS males. Therefore, unless drastically modified, there is no way Brigham Young's statement can have any real meaning.
"Yet just what are the reasons that the Negro is denied the LDS priesthood? Are they only trivial and unimportant? An apparent injustice such as this which moves against the winds of change merits a reasonable and public explanation. Why is there at present no convincing, or even any official, explanation?
"Perhaps sooner rather than later, the LDS hierarchy will consider this an issue of the times, and either resolve it or clarify it."
Although treated as an authoritative concept during Council meetings in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, this "one drop" statement was a paraphrase taken from Wilford Woodruff's diary. It is not found in the official transcript of Brigham Young's speech.
The next day, Edgar Hodgson responded. (In the published newspaper version, two lines from different paragraphs are switched, creating incoherent sentences. I reinstated them in their proper places and indicated them in brackets.) He wrote, "Blessed are the poor in intellect, for they shall be as Jim Todd! I am amazed at the number of pseudo-intellects (evidently led by Brother Jim in hte Nov. 22 Chrony) who feel it their duty to make all of the things they don't understand (and therefore dislike) their own personal ax to grind. Sad to say, people like this are also foolish enough to believe that venting their ideas publicly will solve the wet-paperbag-like dilemma which they imagine themselves to be in.
"First let me comment on Theologian Jim's article and then try to explain the situation to him.
"Brother Jim doesn't seem to realize that the only persons preoccupying themselves with this question are those who dislike the Mormon Church and wish to harm it for some reason. These people only pick this subject if they are relatively uninformed. The Mormons and the Negroes in the Church understand the teaching of the Church and know that it truly is fair to all people. The rest of the world (excluding the two above-mentioned groups) couldn't care less about the whole thing - they don't believe that Mormonism will save their souls, anyway.
"The second paragraph of Mr. Todd's article mentions racial prejudice among the Latter Day Saints. If it is existent, he [certainly can't say that it is [t]aught and instigated by the] Church. It is the individual members who have developed it. Paragraph three states that the Mormons believe the Negros to be 'cursed by God.' This is not true, as I will later explain.
"Paragraph eleven states that Mormons have only one scripture upon which to base their doctrine. Brother Jim must remember that the laws of God are at least as binding as the laws of man. When men wrote the Constitution of the United States, did they deem it necessary to write it several times? No. Then how can we expect God to be more fallible than man! Anyway, in comparison to other modern churches, this ought to be sufficient; the Catholics have only one scripture (found in Matthew) from which to draw their entire claim to authority.
"The last half of the article was merely a wordy cacophony centered around a trite translation of the words of Brigham Young. We Mormons believe, as Paul teaches in the New Testament, that 'where there is no law, there is no sin.' Applied to the words of Brigham Young this means that where there is no suspicion or proof of Negro blood the person is still eligible to receive the Priesthood.
"There are cases on record of persons having had their Priesthood revoked because they were later found to have Negro ancestry. Pl[e]ase, Jim, let us study a little more before publishing our thoughts.
"In a few words, Mormons believe that they are in a trial period to see if they are worthy to enter God's presence. This trial period is broken down into three separate divisions: the pre-mortal, the mortal, and the post-mortal existence. After [the first two periods we are given a 'mid-term exam' which] determines our eligibility to participate in the next period. After the post-mortal existence the 'finals' will be given. The Mormons believe that the Negro placed low on the first mid-term and has therefore been suspended. This does not mean that he cannot 'graduate,' nor does it mean that he may not be able to hold the Priesthood during the last period, the post-mortal existence.
"This is God's organization and he may therefore dictate his own rules. Mr. Todd, if you want to organize your own church so that you may make up its rules, go ahead; but when you play with our ball, when you want to be accepted by our organization, you have to play by our rules.
"I suggest to Mr. Todd that he choose 'ignorance and prejudice' as his next ax to grind."
Next: The Church of Jesus Christ and Black People 1967
Main Page: Latter-day Saint Racial History
"The tragedy of this denial of the LDS priesthood is not that it is unfair to the handful of Negroes actually in the LDS Church. The odious part of this doctrine is that it serves to rationalize all other forms of temporal discrimination. Therefore, this denial indirectly affects all Negroes who come in contact with members of the LDS Church.
"People who have been taught since childhood that Negroes are 'cursed by God' and therefore cannot hold the priesthood, probably find it perfectly natrual to conclude that Negroes must be inferior - why else would God curse them? - and could not possibly make desirable neighbors, business associates, or sons-in-law.
"The indirect cost of this doctrine in human misery and wasted potential can only be guessed at. But while the Negro suffers serious effects from this practice, the individual LDS members can conveniently blame their racial prejudices upon God instead of themselves.
"Still, appearances can deceive, and the conclusion that the LDS church is guilty of discrimination should be approached cautiously because of the unusual type of issue involved. Actually, of course, there is no way to know. The answer lies both in the minds of high LDS officials, and in the actual reasons and origins for the practice. It is possible that even the LDS general authorities do not know the exact answer.
"Nevertheless, for practical purposes, if any changes whatsoever are desired (or are even possible), it seems that the issue hinges on whether the priesthood is withheld because of long-continued local and/or individual customs, or alternately, because the LDS general authorities have what they believe to be a divine revelation(s) which bars the Negro.
"It is extremely important to determine which is the case. If the practice is due mainly to old customs, then important changes can and probably will be made. If it is due to what the LDS church considers to be divine revelation, then the doctrine probably will never change.
"If the apparent discrimination by the LDS Church has no roots except in the 'folkways' of early church members, the situation is relatively simple. Then because, and only because, revealed doctrine would not be involved, it should be well within the discretionary powers of the First Presidency to initiate changes which could begin to remedy old abuses and deal fairly with the Negro.
"But what if it is not due to a simple retention of old customs now turned stale by the changing times? What if the denial of the LDS priesthood to Negroes is a matter of revealed doctrine? In that case, the situation is no longer simple. The prestige, reputation, and vitality of the LDS church itself would be perhaps irretrievably involved on the wrong end of a moral issue. (In order to maintain a claim to divine inspiration, a religion should not, or rather cannot, have its revelations found to be in error.)
"Unfortunately, any change in a revealed practice carries with it the inescapable suspicion that the practice was wrong to begin with and, therefore, was possibly not too inspired.
"As was mentioned before, since there exists no official explanation, what reasons can be put forth for this practice? Is there any scriptural explanation? David O. McKay, who is President of the Mormon Church, has made the following statement: 'I know of no scriptural basis for denying the priesthood to Negroes other than one verse in the Book of Abraham (1:26).' (Mormonism and the Negro, part 2, page 19)
"Unfortunately, the majority of the interesting and informative statements were made by men who were not in the first presidency of the Church. Such statements should therefore not be considered as binding on LDS doctrine.
"Of the few statements left, undoubtedly the most important is the terse statement of Brigham Young: 'Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot receive the priesthood.' Sweeping as this statement is, it can have no literal meaning without causing great, if not total reduction, in the numbers holding the LDS priesthood.
"Of course Brigham Young made his statement a long time ago, and did not have access to later scientific concepts. Nevertheless as his words stand, they comprise an absolute bar. Unfortunately for Pres. Young, absolutes do have a way of being quite impractical. This one is no exception.
"It has been claimed that probably no European is totally free of Negro genes. The reasons involve human genetics and the data go back to Roman and pre-Roman times. (The Roman empire extended far into Germany and Austria, as well as into Africa.) It is one thing to say that most Europeans have relatively few Negro genes. That fact is certainly true. But they do have some, certainly more than the 'one drop' mentioned by Brigham Young.
"Obviously, few if any Europeans are barred from the LDS priesthood. Yet do not Brigham Young's words require they should be so barred? Where, then, could the line be drawn?
"What possible method could be used to detect a person who had a single Negro ancestor as few as four generations ago? Furthermore, what if the colored ancestor was eight or ten generations back?
"As a matter of actual fact, even if possession of relatively large amounts of Negro genes did, in theory, bar such a person (who probably would not even know of his Negro ancestry), the fact could not be detected, and he would be routinely ordained to the priesthood along with all the other 12-year-old LDS males. Therefore, unless drastically modified, there is no way Brigham Young's statement can have any real meaning.
"Yet just what are the reasons that the Negro is denied the LDS priesthood? Are they only trivial and unimportant? An apparent injustice such as this which moves against the winds of change merits a reasonable and public explanation. Why is there at present no convincing, or even any official, explanation?
"Perhaps sooner rather than later, the LDS hierarchy will consider this an issue of the times, and either resolve it or clarify it."
Although treated as an authoritative concept during Council meetings in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, this "one drop" statement was a paraphrase taken from Wilford Woodruff's diary. It is not found in the official transcript of Brigham Young's speech.
The next day, Edgar Hodgson responded. (In the published newspaper version, two lines from different paragraphs are switched, creating incoherent sentences. I reinstated them in their proper places and indicated them in brackets.) He wrote, "Blessed are the poor in intellect, for they shall be as Jim Todd! I am amazed at the number of pseudo-intellects (evidently led by Brother Jim in hte Nov. 22 Chrony) who feel it their duty to make all of the things they don't understand (and therefore dislike) their own personal ax to grind. Sad to say, people like this are also foolish enough to believe that venting their ideas publicly will solve the wet-paperbag-like dilemma which they imagine themselves to be in.
"First let me comment on Theologian Jim's article and then try to explain the situation to him.
"Brother Jim doesn't seem to realize that the only persons preoccupying themselves with this question are those who dislike the Mormon Church and wish to harm it for some reason. These people only pick this subject if they are relatively uninformed. The Mormons and the Negroes in the Church understand the teaching of the Church and know that it truly is fair to all people. The rest of the world (excluding the two above-mentioned groups) couldn't care less about the whole thing - they don't believe that Mormonism will save their souls, anyway.
"The second paragraph of Mr. Todd's article mentions racial prejudice among the Latter Day Saints. If it is existent, he [certainly can't say that it is [t]aught and instigated by the] Church. It is the individual members who have developed it. Paragraph three states that the Mormons believe the Negros to be 'cursed by God.' This is not true, as I will later explain.
"Paragraph eleven states that Mormons have only one scripture upon which to base their doctrine. Brother Jim must remember that the laws of God are at least as binding as the laws of man. When men wrote the Constitution of the United States, did they deem it necessary to write it several times? No. Then how can we expect God to be more fallible than man! Anyway, in comparison to other modern churches, this ought to be sufficient; the Catholics have only one scripture (found in Matthew) from which to draw their entire claim to authority.
"The last half of the article was merely a wordy cacophony centered around a trite translation of the words of Brigham Young. We Mormons believe, as Paul teaches in the New Testament, that 'where there is no law, there is no sin.' Applied to the words of Brigham Young this means that where there is no suspicion or proof of Negro blood the person is still eligible to receive the Priesthood.
"There are cases on record of persons having had their Priesthood revoked because they were later found to have Negro ancestry. Pl[e]ase, Jim, let us study a little more before publishing our thoughts.
"In a few words, Mormons believe that they are in a trial period to see if they are worthy to enter God's presence. This trial period is broken down into three separate divisions: the pre-mortal, the mortal, and the post-mortal existence. After [the first two periods we are given a 'mid-term exam' which] determines our eligibility to participate in the next period. After the post-mortal existence the 'finals' will be given. The Mormons believe that the Negro placed low on the first mid-term and has therefore been suspended. This does not mean that he cannot 'graduate,' nor does it mean that he may not be able to hold the Priesthood during the last period, the post-mortal existence.
"This is God's organization and he may therefore dictate his own rules. Mr. Todd, if you want to organize your own church so that you may make up its rules, go ahead; but when you play with our ball, when you want to be accepted by our organization, you have to play by our rules.
"I suggest to Mr. Todd that he choose 'ignorance and prejudice' as his next ax to grind."
Next: The Church of Jesus Christ and Black People 1967
Main Page: Latter-day Saint Racial History
